Presentation of Idaho Reports on Idaho Public Television is made possible through the generous support of the Laura Moore Cunningham Foundation, committed to fulfilling the Moore and Bettis family legacy of building the great state of Idaho.

By the Friends of Idaho Public Television and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

For the first time in ten years, Idaho has a new Speaker of the House.

This week we sit down with Speaker Mike Moyle to talk about his vision for the legislature and the state.

I'm Melissa Davlin.

Idaho Reports starts now.

Hello and welcome to Idaho Reports.

This week we sit down with Idaho's new Speaker of the House, Mike Moyle, for a wide ranging interview on property taxes, budgets, Medicaid and more.

But first, let's get you caught up on the week.

On Wednesday, the Senate State Affairs Committee heard nearly 3 hours of testimony on a resolution from Senator Doug Okuniewicz, which that would ask voters to amend the Idaho Constitution and make it more challenging to get a citizens initiative on the ballot.

Current Idaho law requires signatures from 6% of registered voters in 18 legislative districts.

But this change would require signatures from all 35 legislative districts.

The proposal comes after an Idaho Supreme Court decision that overturned an identical 2021 change to Idaho code.

The difference here is this proposal would change the Constitution, not statute.

Aren't you asking the people of Idaho to put in the Constitution language which the Supreme Court deemed in statute was so restrictive that it rendered the initiative process useless?

Senator Okuniewicz.

Chairman, excuse me.

Chairman Guthrie.

Senator Ruchti, I would disagree with that characterization.

I think it is as simple as the mechanism.

The mechanism was not allowed by the Supreme Court.

I'm going to read you one word, one sentence.

All political power is inherent in the people.

I'm going to repeat that.

All political power is inherent in the people.

That's Idaho Constitution, Article one, Section two.

That is a direct contradiction to what we're seeing in SRJ 101.

Why?

Because what you're doing is you're usurping the power of the people by putting it in the Constitution.

So you've got two conflicting statements.

Is it really with the people or are we going to put something in the Constitution that makes it absolutely and virtually impossible to put a ballot initiative on the ballot?

It would really be more straightforward to just say we are amending the Idaho Constitution.

The initiative process will die henceforth.

So this is a do over and it permanently puts it into our Constitution.

Ultimately, the committee sent the resolution for amendments.

We don't yet know what those possible amendments might be.

If the resolution passes the legislature, the question would be on the November 2024 ballot.

On Thursday, Representative Joe Alfieri of Court Lane introduced a bill that would limit who is eligible to vote absentee in Idaho.

Voters would not be able to request an absentee ballot unless they meet specific requirements, including being disabled or hospitalized, unable to vote in person because of work or being out of town for university or military service.

Being on vacation would not qualify.

Absentee ballots, of course, are a very important part of the voting process in this republic, and it allows for the participation of those who are unable to attend for one reason or another, voting on Election Day.

But the recent spread of absentee ballots to include no excuse absentee ballots is actually detrimental to the process, because what it does is it cheapens the voting process and makes it the equivalent of nothing more than filling out a warranty card for the latest microwave or television that you bought.

The sponsors said there's no evidence of voter fraud as a result of using the absentee ballot procedure here in Idaho.

This looks like a bill that will encourage people not to vote.

It is voter suppression without a real necessity to do so if there's not a problem.

We certainly have to balance the importance of voter integrity, of election integrity with the ability for some to be able to get to the polls.

And it's probably better to err in terms of making sure that the vote count is accurate and appropriate and leaves as little room for potential fraud as possible.

So I think that this bill does make a good balance of that, and I will support the motion.

I have yet to hear of any voter fraud necessarily in the state of Idaho pertaining to absentee ballots.

Well, there's discussion and commentary about it being outside of Idaho.

We have a very fair election process here.

And quite frankly, I think to the good representative's comment, you know, with being the goal is to reduce absentee ballots.

That's a reduction in people's ability to vote.

And I think that's incredibly important and something very special and that we need to ensure that these folks have an opportunity, whether it be in-person or via absentee ballots.

No goal should be to reduce a number of absentee ballots because that is a vote of being unable to vote.

Also this week, Senator Tammy Nichols introduced a bill to establish a universal education savings account program.

The proposal would allow parents to access state education funding if they withdrew their students from the public school system and use that funding for private or homeschool.

An education revolution has been ignited and parents and children are the ones who will end up winning universal ESAs allow parents to choose from a variety of educational options, from traditional public schools to private institutions, tutoring uniforms, computers, educational programs and more, giving them the ability to truly tailor the learning environment to their children's individual needs.

This is a good thing for families because it allows them to customize their children's education according to their needs and preferences, making it easier for them to explore different educational options that may not have been available to them otherwise.

The common principle here for state money to follow the child and not the school system.

The goal is that through an ESA parents will be the ones we empower rather than the unions and education bureaucracies that have dominated school governance and prevented the learning improvement and higher standards that Idaho students desperately need.

Starting this week, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare is sending out letters to about 150,000 Medicaid recipients, asking them to show that they're still eligible for the program.

This comes after Congress changed a rule that didn't allow states to kick anyone off the Medicaid program during the COVID 19 public health emergency, even if they were no longer eligible under income or other requirements.

Of the 450,000 Idahoans currently on Medicaid, the department has already made contact with about 300,000 of them and knows that they're still eligible.

The rest have 60 days from receiving the letter to contact the department.

The department will refer those who are no longer eligible to the Idaho State Insurance Exchange.

Your Health Idaho.

This comes the same week as both the Senate and House Health and Welfare Committees recommended Idaho keep Medicaid expansion in place and asked IDHW to prioritize cost cutting measures.

After serving as the House majority leader for 16 years, Mike Moyle became Speaker of the House in December and already he's trying to make some big changes both in public policy and in how the legislature runs.

I sat down with him on Thursday to talk taxes, Medicaid expansion, public education and more.

You know, in front of the legislature, one of the major issues this year is going to be property taxes and.

You think?

A little bit.

On Thursday, we saw three proposals in front of the House Tax Committee.

Can you give us a brief rundown on what those proposals would do and how they work together?

Kay, the first one was by Senator Grow, and his bill takes the $120 million that the governor's offered is, which is four and a half percent sales tax.

And he distributed that back to homeowners.

So people have homeowner's exemptions would get the money.

The second bill was by Representative Skaug and his just increases the homeowner's exemption, runs it up an index that so it gets an index on it.

And then the third one was one that kind of a combination of all of them and it had and Senator Ricks is on it and Monks and myself, many others.

And and what it does is it increases the homeowners exemption a little bit.

It provides tax relief by taking the money the governor offers and and putting in some other funds to make it a $300 million pot of money.

And then that pot of money distributed back to the school districts based on ADA.

It's a little more complicated than the other two.

And then.

ADA meaning Average Daily Attendence.

Yeah Average Daily Attendence to the schools.

So the school, the brick and mortar buildings with children would get whatever.

How many ADA we have we’ll divide it by that $300 million bucks and then send it back to each student their proportionate share.

And the districts then have to use it for a limited amount of things, limited items.

One, they can use it to pay off their school bonds if they have a bond payment.

So the property taxpayers that given year this would help lower that payment if there's money after making those bond payments.

Then they have to use it to lower the supplementals.

So if they have supplemental payments, they have to use that money for that.

Again, property tax relief on both.

And then thirdly, if they don't have any bonds or supplementals, they can use it for health and safety issues in a school or they can put in a bank account and save it for future school needs.

Building a building or a new roof or something else.

So it kind of flows through the idea being that we know that we have an issue with our school facilities across the state, and this provides property tax while providing general fund money and and and property tax relief, but general fund money to help with the school issues.

It has other things in it, though.

Like I said, it increases the homeowner's exemption.

It takes away the two dates that bonds are passed right now.

Two of the four.

Right now, bonds can be passed in supplementals in March, May, August and November.

And it consolidates those two May and November.

There's been a lot of concern with the taxpayers that sometimes the end of August is not the best time to have an election and they're not there.

So it does away with those two dates.

It also fixes some of the issues with the circuit breaker increases that so our friends can get that were pushed off by the last bill can get back on the circuit breaker to help our low income elderly.

And then like I said, it does increase the homeowner's exemption a little bit.

So it's got a lot of stuff in it, kind of a combination of the others, plus.

There was a concern a couple of years ago that House Bill 389 combined too many topics in one bill.

Are you going to run to that same issue this year with this proposal?

I hope not.

When you're talking about property taxes or any bill, you know, when you keep it single subject, that works for some and not others.

we're trying to find a bill like with 389 that had something for everybody to love and something for everybody to hate.

And it's the same with this.

Everybody loves the idea of helping pay down your property taxes, helping pay off school building.

Everybody likes the idea.

A lot of people like the idea of the homeowner's exemption goes up, they get some they don't.

And same with the circuit breaker.

Some don't want that to go back on, some don't.

So when you can get more subjects in the in a bill, I believe and you have and I know that Monks has had several meetings and brought people in to talk about it to get their support before he did it.

And I'm sure that some don't support or wait to see what happens.

when you get more like they have more love and hate, you end up with a better bill, in my opinion, and you get more support because, you know, you weigh it out and it overwhelmingly weighs favorable to the taxpayer.

And I and I think it's a good bill.

In past sessions, you've been very involved in tax policy debates, and some of those debates have been pretty heated.

Oh come on, they're all fun.

Fun, heated.

They're not mutually exclusive.

Eh, they’re good, you're right.

Now that you're speaker, are you going to play the same role in these debates?

No.

I was surprised when in Representative Monks asked me to introduce that today.

So it was kind of fun to go back to committee and talk.

You know, we've got a lot of new people here and there's a learning curve.

It takes a long time you know, property taxes aren't simple, you know, income tax and none of this tax stuff or education stuff or health and welfare and none of these issues are simple.

And so you'll you'll see me do once in a while Like you saw today introduce a bill.

And very seldom I may come out of the chair to talk about bills, probably not very often, but for the most part it's been interesting to stand back and watch.

If there's issues.

I'll go try to help if I think I can help.

But again, you know, everybody's got their own idea of how things are do.

And this learning curve sometimes, you know, it's like the child touching the stove.

Some some people just have to learn by experience.

And touch the stove.

It sounds like you're speaking from experience.

Absolutely.

I've touched the stove more than once.

That's the problem.

I want to ask about the Joint Budget Committee.

You know, usually by week four of the legislative session, the Joint Budget Committee has passed 10, 15, 20 supplementals At this point, things like fire suppression.

Lately, emergency rental assistance.

This year, not a single one has come out.

Why is that?

Well, it's a combination of things.

One, the Constitution says they have to be an emergency.

And we've kind of been lax on that with supplementals.

It's been a way to shove money into the back of the previous year's budget.

And so we've asked least I've asked to have a list of the ones that are that are really needed to be done and soon.

And I'm told they're going to hear some of them next week.

And then to take the other ones that aren't emergencies, that we've played this game by using supplementals as an excuse to do things and shove them to the back of your budget and pull them aside and look at them a little separately or put them in this year's budget.

One of the concerns with doing that, though, is that it'll make this year's budget look higher than than some may want it to see.

But the actuality is we're spending the money do we hide it last year or do we do the right thing going forward and be full disclosure and honest about what we're doing.

So there's that debate.

The ones that need to be done, though, will happen soon.

You've also got another interesting dilemma.

You've got a committee on both sides that are mostly new, especially in the House.

We've got new chairmen, a lot of new committee members that are going through that learning process.

And there's still a debate on whether we combine the House vote with the Senate to pass bills or if we handle it a different way so that debates going on.

And and I think we're close to having a resolution there.

So there's been a combination of stuff there.

That debate on combining the House and Senate votes.

That's how JFAC has operated for decades now.

Why the change?

Why the change now?

It makes it tough.

Imagine if you're a senator, we'll use the Senate side and the House passes a budget.

And you had one senator that voted with the House members to send that budget to the floor and you got to carry it on the floor.

That's that's a that's a tough row to hoe because you're a whole committee.

But one member said this isn't what we want to do.

And you saw it about, I think, three times last year.

It's not it doesn't happen very often.

But my concern is when those bills come out of that committee, if you saw last year in the House, we had some problems, killed some bills, there were some issues.

And I would rather have that debate as speaker, have that debate happen in that committee than than on the floor.

The other thing you've got to remember is it's there's we call it JFAC but it's the Finance Committee and the Appropriations Committee.

The finance is the Senate, the appropriation is the House.

They’re two separate committees.

And I hate the thought that we would give one the advantage over the other.

That's a concern and it's a big concern with my chairman.

So chairwoman.

So, you know, Wendy and I have talked and and we've talked with the Senate and I just came from meeting with them here a little while ago, we're trying to find a path forward and we'll find a path forward.

You know, it's one of those issues that, you know, you go back and forth and we'll find a solution.

I don't know what it is yet.

I thought we were close and today we had a little hiccup.

But we'll get there.

We'll figure out a path and we'll get it done.

But when it comes to supplementals, I again want to remind people that, you know, they're supposed to be in emergencies, and I don't like that sometimes we in the legislature play games with supplementals and transfers.

o not.

I'd rather be more open and transparent.

And I don't want to play the games.

I want to be honest so the taxpayers can see what's going on.

Can you give me an example of supplementals that you don't think are emergencies?

I can once I get the list.

They told me that earlier today.

There's about eight of them that needed to happen soon.

The rest were okay to be put in the budgets for happen later.

So I wish I had the list and I could do that.

But I apologize.

I don't have that list.

There is a proposal in front of the House State Affairs Committee right now.

Let me back up.

I can give you one that comes to mind.

And you brought it up when you talked about fire suppression.

The money's there for fire suppressant for what's happened.

Remember, those bills come a year later.

So to have a supplemental to hurry and shove money in a fire account, it doesn't have to happen now.

It can happen at the end of the year.

It's not going to affect anything.

I apologize trying to think of one when you're talking.

Let's go ahead.

Idaho's constitutionally required to pay its bills.

Is there a concern that that's not going to happen if?

Ah nah, we’ll get it done.

There's no way.

The one thing the legislature has to do is pass the budgets and nothing else.

You know, we can go home without doing anything else.

We have to pass the budgets and we all understand that.

The debate, though, becomes getting the right numbers and the right things in the right place to get them through.

And you know, how they play around with intent language.

And you see the games we're playing right now with supplementals and transfers.

And, you know, let's be honest with the taxpayers.

Let's show them what's really going on.

Let's be transparent we’ll all be better off for it.

And that's kind of the process you're seeing going on.

There's a proposal in front of the State Affairs Committee to do away with the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee and put the Office of Performance Evaluations directly under the Legislative Council.

This OPE has operated under JLOC for 30 years now.

A long time.

Why?

Why this proposal now?

I think there's been a concern of the process.

You've got a lot of members that would like to have their ideas heard and they don't get heard.

And you got to go to the process of lobbying the committee and trying to get the support to get your idea heard.

And we've almost weaponized OPE and JLOC.

The proposal that you see there doesn't end OPE.

It just says JLOC’s not going to choose that Legislative Council, which is a mostly split committee anyways.

It's pretty close to the same.

And I think the reason that that Representative Blanksma is going down the road is to try to un-weaponize it.

It's kind of been used as a weapon in the past and that's not the intent.

How?

Well, I'll give you example.

If somebody passes the bill and somebody doesn't like it, they'll go out and get OPE to do a study that says they did this, that or that wrong.

There's been real concern with some of the members too, that the committee reports have not been totally neutral, that almost some of them, they're almost like they're bias.

I've had members come in with concerns about that.

So I think it's a way to make it more open process, but to also make sure that OPE is doing what it's supposed to be doing and that is, you know, finding out answers and solutions to problems and not being used as a weapon by one party in order to come up with some excuse to do this, that or the other.

So it'll work out.

I think that we'll see how that bill goes.

I don't know where the Senate's at on that.

I think it's got support in the House because there's a lot of House members that have had ideas that never got raised to the pile on the top of the pile.

So we'll see what happens.

The Senate has filled its two joint legislative oversight committee openings.

House hasn't yet, and JLOC can't hear one of the OPE reports on skill providers.

They tell me about it often.

So so are you going to fill those two vacancies while this bill is pending?

Well, I'm going to wait to see what happens with the bill, but it's not a hurry.

Don't have to hurry.

We've got to we're going to be here another month or two.

So I'm taking my time to make sure I don't mess something up.

And we'll see what happens with that bill and what my other leadership members think and how we proceed.

But right now nah we’ll wait a while.

We got time.

So it’s got plenty of time.

How much time do you think you have on this?

I think we have till the end of March and hopefully we're out of here on the 24th.

My biggest concern, though, is the budgets we've got to pass the budgets.

The rest of it we can control to get out of here.

It's the budgets that worry me.

One of the things that your caucus and the Senate caucus, a lot of members really want to see legislation either on education savings accounts or similar proposals, voucher like proposals.

Where are you on those proposals?

Oh, I'm okay with the money following the student, always have.

The problem is the devil in the details.

And there's a lot of bills out there.

And I've actually visited with our chairman this week and we need to get those introduced so that people can start talking about them and try to find a solution.

When you've got that many bills out there, the best thing is to get all the ideas on the table and everybody can sit down and find out what works best.

And that's the issue you have, is that those bills haven't been introduced.

They're still in the works and we need them where the public can see them and other legislators.

And I think once that happens, it should move faster.

Once people can see what everybody's ideas are, because there's a lot of different ideas.

There's several bills out there on that issue.

And you you've said a few times now that the only thing that you have to do is pass the budgets and get home.

But there are a lot of concerns.

Property taxes, obviously a big one for you and a ton of constituents, education, transportation.

We haven't even touched.

Are there any issues that are must get done bills?

For me?

For you.

A couple of them.

You've got to figure out what to do on the water issue and the eastern snake plain.

And I hate to say that everything I sound like, you know, anyways, that we wouldn't have a session without water and I do not want us to shut down hundreds of thousands of farm acres in the eastern snake plain.

But that water issue comes to the Treasure Valley too, and in northern Idaho.

And so I hope that as we address that issue, we figure out a path that everybody's happy with.

The Medicaid stuff I'm still concerned about.

We really haven't done anything but sent a letter that said we got to keep it, but there's a problem.

We've got to figure it out.

I mean, we need to find some kind of solutions there.

I don't know what those solutions are, but something has to happen there.

One issue that really is dear to my heart is the bill that the governor vetoed last year in regards to judges.

Our founding fathers debated on whether judges should be appointed by the governor and and then confirmed by the Senate or whether they should be elected.

And they overwhelmingly said we want them to be elected.

And we've kind of gone away from that with the Judicial Council.

We have a judicial council that's controlled by the chief justice of the court.

They choose who the governor gets to look at.

They can send me 2 to 4 names.

He has no choice, in my opinion, that that part where he has to choose is unconstitutional.

So I hope that we can find a solution to that.

We've been working with Senator Abby Lee and others and with the courts and others to try to find a solution.

There was a task force and they've got an idea out there.

I'm not totally happy with it, but somehow we've got to get a resolution to that.

The judges are the third branch of government and we need to make sure that those judges go before the electorate, that everybody is up, up and up straight and knows who they are and quit playing this game of retiring early so that the Judicial Council can pick their hand-picked person to be in the judiciary.

I just I just have a problem with that, knowing the history in our state.

And so we'll see how that goes.

But that's one that Mike Moyle would really like to see get fixed before the end of the session.

And another one which you didn't bring up that, you know, is one of my favorites, is the rules.

In the state of Idaho the executive branch makes rules that have the effect of law.

And if you've watched what's going on nationally, that's how the presidents and the executive branch get around the legislative branch back east in DC.

They create rules and they have the effect of law.

And nobody has a say in Idaho other than fee rules.

Only one body has to approve those rules and they become the law of the land and they have an effect on you.

of can they can they can throw you in jail over them.

The rules are very important and I would like us to get back to where they should be, where the rules are, have said they have the effect of law are approved by both bodie and I've got a bill to do that.

And that's that's one of the things that Mike Moyle really wants to see get done.

need to fix that.

I think it's beneficial for our citizens and for the process as a whole.

Keep the keep the powers of the of the executive branch and the legislative, judicial separate.

But make sure that when we're passing rules that have the effect of law that both bodies approve them.

You've brought up a lot of things that I want to touch on.

Yeah, starting with Medicaid, you know, both the Senate and the House committees have sent letters saying we think Medicaid expansion should stay in place with some caveats.

We we know that the Department of Health and Welfare is looking at cost containment measures.

Are those proposals enough for you?

Listen, I'm really concerned and I'll and I'll give you where Mike Moyle is coming from.

And this is just me personally.

If you look nationally, the federal government is spending money they don't have.

They’re printing money right and left.

Inflation is going through the roof.

We're all feeling the pain.

When when we have these Medicaid programs, the federal government picks up from 70 to 90% depending on what the program is.

If the day comes, the federal government realizes that they're going to have to have money from somewhere.

They're going to change what's called the FMAP rate.

And that FMAP rate determines what Idaho has to pay, whether it's 70/30, 90/10, whatever that rate is.

My concern is if we don't get that under control, if the federal government keeps spending, they're going to have to get money somewhere and that's where they're going to go.

They're going to change that FMAP rate.

And a small movement in that FMAP rate is tens of million dollars to the state of Idaho.

I do not want to have us in a situation where we're spending money on Medicaid and leaving our children out to dry.

Those FMAP rates are.

School to me, they're more important than that.

So we've got to get the spending on Medicaid under control.

FMAP rates are in code and they are very, very difficult to change, especially with a split Congress like we have now.

Some of them are in code and I'm told some aren’t.

I don't know what they're all different.

If you notice right now, too, they're they're going down during COVID they went up on and almost now they stepped down this year.

Back to where they were, the 90/10 under expansion.

90/10 and 70/30, I think on the other, so.

So that process is going on.

And if you notice what the committees were talking about, one of the things they're talking about is trying to make sure those that are on there now that aren't supposed to be there.

I think it's as of April 1st, they can remove those folks that aren't supposed to be on there.

Problem is, there's so many.

And to get letters through they're saying I'll take them months to do, hopefully they can expedite that, get that done sooner and that will help save some money.

But we've got somebody has got to delve into this this animal of Medicaid and figure out how we can control it so that it doesn't eat us alive.

It's you know, that budget is blowing up and it's going to be a problem because, like I said, eventually, if that doesn't get under control, it's going to have effect on everything else.

I also wanted to ask you about what you said about the judicial counsel.

And full disclosure, my husband works for the courts, but you mentioned.

Good for him.

That's a good job I’ll bet.

He does a good job.

Again, biased here, but I but but you mentioned the concern about appointments, the Judicial Council does a lot of other things, too, including fielding complaints about judges and when necessary, disciplining judges.

Is that still a function that you see the council?

I don't have a problem with that function on that side.

My concern is where we pick the judges.

It's just it doesn't make sense to me that you can run to be a judge and you've got to go to a group of judges and attorneys.

There's a couple of laypeople in there and ask their permission to be on the list to go to the governor.

Other people can send in nasty grams about how terrible you are or anything else.

You don't get to know who they are.

The only only what they get to say everybody else gets to read them, but you don't.

And then this group sits in council and decides to send the governor 2 to 4 names and he only gets to choose from them.

Our founding fathers never would have gone there and they wouldn't appreciate that.

They debated this very issue.

They wanted them elected.

And by retiring early, they play a game and they get to have judicial counsel pick the judge and they don't go before the electorate.

I want them to go before the electorate.

I want them to go back where the original intention of our founding fathers was.

So there's there's a debate there, and I understand why it's easier for you to retire and me to pick your replacement, not have the voters that I have to go before pick them.

I get that.

But but that game, it in my opinion, it's not constitutional and it's not right.

Voters ought to have a say.

We have so much more online, including this week's Idaho Reports podcast interview with Idaho Division of Veterans Services Director Mark Tschampl on staffing challenges and resource needs.

You can find links to all of our online coverage at blog.IdahoReports.IdahoPTV.org Thanks so much for watching and we'll see you next week.

Presentation of Idaho Reports on Idaho Public Television is made possible through the generous support of the Laura Moore Cunningham Foundation, committed to fulfilling the Moore and Bettis family legacy of building the great state of Idaho.

By the Friends of Idaho Public Television and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.