BOISE — While one North Idaho lawmaker questioned why it shouldn’t receive a public hearing, four legislators from the region voted on Monday in favor of legislation to create an Idaho constitutional amendment to solidify the Legislature’s oversight of state agency rules.

While saying he supports the idea of the legislation to put on the general election ballot the question of the Legislature’s authority to review and reject rules, Rep. Eric Anderson, R-Priest Lake, also said he had been hopeful the legislation would receive a full committee hearing.

Instead the joint resolution was unanimously fast-tracked from the House State Affairs Committee to the House floor for debate.

Rep. John Gannon, D-Boise, made a statement and voice vote against the legislation, but didn’t have it recorded as such.

Anderson and Gannon were the only two House State Affairs Committee members to speak up about the hearing issue.

“I think we both agreed that there’s nothing wrong with having a hearing on it,” Anderson said. “No problem with voting to print, you know? But let’s have a discussion.”    

The measure, brought to the House State Affairs Committee by chairman Tom Loertscher, R-Iona, seeks to fortify what Loertscher said is a tenuous grip for the Legislature on its legal authority to comprehensively review state agency rules during annual legislative sessions.

“We’re gonna enshrine it in the Constitution so that it will be absolutely clear,” that the Legislature has the authority to review state agency rules, Loertscher said last week.

Loertscher said measure should to be expedited through to the House floor.

“I think it’s important that we get this moving forward as quickly as possibly now,” Loertscher said. “We are under some deadline as to getting this completed so that it can appear on the (November general election) ballot.”

“It wasn’t gonna get a hearing on it anyway,” Anderson said of his vote in favor of it, despite wanting a hearing.  “You pick your battles.”

In addition to Anderson, Reps. Vito Barbieri, R-Dalton Gardens; Kathleen Sims, R-Coeur d’Alene; and Shannon McMillan, R-Silverton, were among the committee consensus to vote in favor of the measure.

“If the chairman would prefer to have a brief hearing, the public could be informed,” Anderson said during the House State Affairs Committee meeting. “I mean, I’m not sure if that’s his desire, but I would like, maybe, perhaps, this to be broadcast as to what the intent is.”

Although some people regard Idaho as having the tightest rein on state agency rules of any U.S. state, Loertscher pointed to an earlier 3-2 Idaho Supreme Court decision that upheld the Legislature’s legal authority to conduct agency rules reviews as the reason he thinks the question of whether that authority should be included in the Idaho Constitution should appear on November’s general election ballot.

Loertscher and Barbieri said the potential constitutional amendment could prove to be an influence on other states and the U.S. Congress — which has rules review authority through individual lawmakers, but doesn’t review all rules like Idaho.

“I think it’s important not only to fortify it (rules review authority) within the Constitution, but for other states to recognize that the legislative power is there if they choose to do the same thing,” Barbieri said. “And, so, I think it’s a very good way to lead with other states.”

Barbieri said that he and Rep. Lynn Luker, R-Boise, pushed to have included in the legislation language that stated the Legislature could reject rules “in whole or in part.”

Putting the Legislature’s authority to review rules into the state constitution would take a two-thirds majority vote of both houses of the Legislature and a two-thirds approval vote from Idaho voters.

The Monday-introduced legislation replaced with minor wording changes House Joint Resolution 1 — legislation introduced earlier in the session.

“Long term it would be my hope that Congress would see that the states are doing this,” Loertscher said of the rules reviews, “and, actually Congress, frankly, should have been doing this all along — making sure that the separation of powers is not violated, and that you don’t have the executive branch making law.”

a hearing later this week, or something, just so that we do have time to study this, and make sure that the public does have input if they so desire,” Gannon said.