An early start of the statehouse
this morning at 8:00 AM the House
Education Committee was off and
running and settling into well
beginning to listen to testimony
for two different library bills.
After three hours of that,
they ended up with two no decisions.
So let's get over to Joe first.
What is the difference between these
two competing library bills? And now
what? Well, now what?
It's wait and see.
But really the difference between the
two library bills is one was pretty
specific and went into a lot more detail,
the other one a little more broad.
But we'll get into this.
It really is though. Wait and see.
House Education Committee held an
idea in committee and essentially
they let another idea go,
ending the meeting this morning,
early this morning with no vote.
Now, both pieces of legislation we're
talking about here would have required
Idaho public schools and community
libraries to take steps to restrict
a child's access to material deemed,
quote, obscene or harmful to minors.
Now, each legislation went into
definitions on what these things are,
sexual conduct, obscenity,
nudity, things of that nature.
The first bill that lawmakers
heard this morning, House Bill 139.
It went into great detail,
and for two hours there was
debate and testimony on the bill,
which included a mechanism for families
to bring civil actions against the
school or library with the penalty
of $10,000 for each instance,
a miner got access to harmful material.
Some lawmakers expressed concerns
about the idea going too far,
infringing on free speech.
Hours of public testimony both
for and against,
ended with lawmakers voting down the idea.
Some members of the public and the
committee had an issue with the
$10,000 penalty being too much.
Now,
the second piece of legislation was
a more broad proposal that put a
lot of control locally on what to do
with libraries in schools and communities.
And some lawmakers said they
didn't think that the idea went
far enough because in part,
legislation #2 does not have
any civil penalties included.
So kind of an odd way to end the meeting.
As lawmakers were getting ready to vote
on the second piece of legislation,
a motion to end the meeting was made.
So yeah, the the meeting just ended,
it passed,
and the committee could likely
see the legislation again soon.
It is wait and see, but for now,
the conversation.
Is in a lull also in committee for
you on this Wednesday a proposal
to add firing squads as a backup
alternative method of execution in Idaho.
So the default right now the gem
state is lethal injection in Idaho,
and many other states are having
a hard time getting the drugs
for lethal injection.
Long story short,
many manufacturers of the chemicals
are no longer willing to sell
for the purpose of their product
being used for lethal injection.
So Idaho has death row inmates,
but no way to carry out the
sentence of the death penalty.
So this legislation.
We're talking about right now gives
another way in Idaho the firing squad.
Some lawmakers debated,
though,
that this legislation may be
a quick reaction to an issue
that just needs more time.
One way we we could do this is to
wait and see if this problem that we
have in terms of obtaining the drug
corrects itself and maybe a supply
for the drug becomes available.
So I don't think to me that it's
necessary to react in a knee jerk
way and maybe we can look at that.
Advocates for the idea say there
needs to be a replacement idea for
lethal injection or else Idaho fails
to carry out death sentences that
were ruled through due and complete.
Process lawyer on the Idaho
Attorney General staff joined
testimony with legal insight,
and he answered a major question from
the committee and the public what
about using new or other drugs than the
ones difficult to get right now? We
are unaware of of the
availability of any other drug.
That would allow us to complete.
An execution.
This is our best chance to carry out
what the law tells us we must do.
Are in part of the sentencing,
a judge told us just the other night,
some of us here, that retribution
is 1 consideration that a judge must
consider when doing any sentencing.
That's punishment.
This is the just punishment
under our laws of our state.
After debate and public testimony
for a while this afternoon,
the proposal passed.
It now heads to the full
Idaho House for consideration.
In committee, though,
there was questions about how the
firing squad will work and what
process they would go through,
and representative Scott was very clear.
This legislation does not dictate that,
per Idaho law,
the Department of Corrections would need
to be in charge of creating that process.
Of note, though,
the bill does include a fiscal line
that says there's an estimated $750,000
one time cost for the Department of
Correction to refurbish its facility
and meet safety and execution
requirements to allow a firing squad.
All right,
let's pop up to the Senate floor.
Idaho lawmakers debated something
Idahoans have asked for for you.
Yes, you at home included,
an official state voter guide sent out.
The Secretary of State's office,
now Secretary of State Phil Mcgrane,
is pushing for the idea and he tells me
it's about educating voters and getting
voters the info that they continue to ask.
For.
Some senators though,
they saw issues with the
idea on a few fronts,
including the existence
of other voter guides,
cost to taxpayers,
and state involvement in the
party primary system.
I believe that this is not the
proper role of government and
if we have $750,000 a year to be
able to spend to send out these,
then we should definitely
have at least 750,000.
Dollars or more just to give
back to the taxpayers of
Idaho. Thank you.
Because the fiscal note and the
legislation said it would cost $750,000
a year to send everybody at home
the information before the election.
Now other senators pushed back,
saying that the voter guide
it's about transparency,
trust and voter education.
You've got all sorts of voter
guides out there that are unofficial
guides that represent the bias
of that particular organization.
I really think this is a way to just
get out basic information to the voter,
help them be better prepared when they vote.
And I don't want to see us get to the
point where our party primaries are so
private and so controlled that we no
longer publicly fund those elections. Thank.
So that proposal passed
the full Idaho Senate.
It now heads to the House for consideration.
So good news for those of you that are
asking for the service finally for
you today on the House floor debate
on displaying the national motto.
In Idaho educational institutions,
the national motto is in God we trust.
And the legislation says if and only
if a private donation is made to an
educational institution for the specific
purpose of having a poster or a framed
image of the phrase in God we trust,
then a school must put that up.
Now, the bill sponsor said if a donation,
the money needed to put up the motto,
if that isn't made to an institution,
if it's not there, he says,
no worries about putting that motto up,
but this is strictly paid
for by private donations.
But Minority Leader, Democrat,
Atlanta.
Label questioned if the motto sends
a message to families that practice
religion or black thereof differently.
I know in my district I have a
lot of people who are not part of
a monotheistic tradition who are
Hindus or Buddhists or atheists
or any number of other things.
They're working very hard,
they're paying taxes,
and I think they should be able to
send their kid to a public school
without having it rubbed in the kids
faces that they're different and
that they're religiously, you know,
unlike the the the majority of kids there.
So that proposal passed the Idaho House
and now heads to the full Senate.
There was basically
overwhelming support for that.
So pretty good chance that would
end up on the governor's desk, even
though there's some confusion as
to whether it has to be donated
or the school has to purchase it.
There was a argument or discussion
about the word must in this bill.
There's still, I mean,
it's still a lot of hanging chads.
If it were about this bill.
Yeah. And representative Birch,
he said, you know, instead of saying,
you know, schools must do this,
he was arguing it should say
they may do this. But again,
it comes down to private donations.
This wouldn't be public schools going out
and buying these signs for themselves.