‘Tool of weaponization’ rejected by Senate

BOISE — The Senate resoundingly rejected legislation Thursday that would have greatly expanded the powers of the Idaho Attorney General to pursue legal action to remove public officials and employees across state and local government. 

House Bill 896 was initially brought forward by House Speaker Mike Moyle and allows the attorney general to serve as a legal backstop in case a public official, public employee or government entity violates law without enforcement mechanisms.

This situation arose when Boise Mayor McLean and Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador exchanged public letters over the city continuing to fly the LGBTQ+ Pride flag after being prohibited under a 2025 law that lacked an enforcement mechanism. Though the lack of enforcement was highlighted by McLean at the time, the omission was addressed in this year’s flag law.

In the event similar situations were to arise in the future, House Bill 896 stipulated any instance where a public official were to act in contradiction to Idaho prohibitions, the president pro tempore of the Senate, the speaker of the House of Representatives and the chair of a board of county commissioners can make referrals to the attorney general’s office regarding potential prohibition violations.

If the attorney general believes a violation is occurring, they are required to provide the potentially violating party with 14 days notice to state intent to correct a violation or deny the violation was taking place. If the violation is not corrected, the attorney general can take the issue to court to for a decision on whether truly unlawful action is taking place. 

In addition to turning to the court to seek compliance, the attorney general would have also been allowed to seek to disqualify individuals from public office or public employment if proving someone “willfully” violated state prohibitions. If this were the case, the court would have been able to bar someone from seeking public office or employment in the state for up to five years.

In an 8-27 vote, the Senate placed a definite stamp of disapproval for this course of action being made available.

Outside of Sen. Todd Lakey, R-Nampa, who served as the floor sponsor for the bill, debate from legislators from across the political spectrum was entirely negative. Members of both parties raised concerns the legislation would consolidate power in the state, lead to paranoia amongst public officials and employees and present a fundamentally unnecessary solution in the face of existing oversight mechanisms. 

Sen. Treg Bernt, R-Meridian, said the bill would allow the state to “supersede local decision making” by “stripping communities" of their ability to manage local issues. In addition to intruding on the relationship between state and local government, Bernt said the bill would bring “unprecedented authority” and investigatory power into the attorney general’s office.

“This consolidation places critical decisions affecting freedom and democracy in the hands of a selected few, rather than dispersing power as intended in a representative government,” Bernt said. “This ship fundamentally alters the balance of power in the state of Idaho — I have grave concerns over this.”

Sen. Ali Rabe, D-Boise, questioned why the legislation was necessary with the safeguards already in place. Even in bills that lack enforcement mechanisms, Rabe underlined there are mechanisms in place to “keep our elected officials” in check including the Idaho Bribery and Corrupt Influences Act and the Idaho Ethics in Government Act, both of which govern the conduct of public officials.

“I worry also it could put us at odds with each other and make us kind of paranoid against each other,” Rabe said. “It seems pretty easy in here to just send a referral from one elected official to another about anyone over anything … I believe that it could potentially be abused in a lot of ways.”

Pointing to the provision of the legislation that could bar people from public office for up to five years, Sen. Josh Kohl, R-Twin Falls, said blocking individuals from seeking office puts the state on “thin ice” in maintaining constitutional protections.  

“It’s just a tool of potential weaponization, and people could use this to target people they just don't like or are feuding with … you could imagine 1,000 scenarios where people could use this to target someone,” Sen. Brian Lenney, R-Nampa, said.