CITIZen Action

LEGISLATIVE SPOTLIGHT:

IDAHO ADVANCES ARTICLE V CONVENTION HEADS TO THE SENATE FLOOR

SCR112

ARTICLE V CONVENTION – States findings of the Legislature and makes a formal application to Congress to call for a convention of the states under Article V of the Constitution of the United States. The bill advanced out of the Judiciary & Rules committee to the Senate Floor with a “do pass” recommendation.

As an organization steadfast in its dedication to safeguarding our constitutional democracy, we feel an urgent need to address the concerning implications of the proposed Convention of States as per Article V of the U.S. Constitution. Based on principles of predictability, historical precedent, political stability, constitutional integrity, and democratic processes, we are urging everyone to contact their state Senate and House representatives and voice strong opposition to this bill. Contact your State Senator Here

It’s imperative to recognize that the momentum behind this convention is not driven by a collective public will but is orchestrated by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC's predominant alignment with corporate interests raises serious questions about the underlying motives of the convention. Our organization believes in a democratic process that reflects the will of the people, not the agendas of influential corporate entities.

Moreover, ALEC's historical advocacy paints a troubling picture. Their support for policies that have been criticized for being anti-consumer, anti-environmental, and restrictive towards voting rights suggests a potential convention could propagate similar controversial ideologies. We stand firmly against any legislative process that compromises public welfare and democratic freedoms for corporate gain.

The growing influence of special interest groups and powerful entities in Idaho are alarming. The possibility of these groups swaying the proceedings to serve their interests undermines the democratic principle of a convention representing the will of the people.

The United States has not convened a constitutional convention since the original in 1787. Historically, the U.S. Constitution has been amended through a careful, thoughtful process designed to ensure stability and prevent abrupt ideological shifts. This proposed convention, by contrast, threatens to destabilize this established order, potentially leading to unforeseen and irreversible consequences. Additionally, the lack of explicit guidelines in the Constitution about the operational aspects of a convention – including delegate selection, voting mechanisms, and procedural rules – raises profound questions. This absence of clarity could lead to procedural disputes and further complicate an already complex process.

The unpredictable nature of such a convention is cause for grave concern. Once initiated, there is no mechanism to limit its scope, allowing delegates to potentially revise a wide array of constitutional elements beyond the originally intended issues. This unpredictability is a significant risk, opening the door to extensive and unforeseen changes.

The broad and ambiguous objectives set forth for this convention – are alarmingly open-ended. This vagueness is not just a matter of concern; it is a red flag signaling the possibility of sweeping, unpredictable alterations to the very fabric of our Constitution.

In the current political climate, marked by heightened polarization, there's a legitimate concern that a convention could become a battleground for extreme ideologies. This polarization raises doubts about the ability to reach a consensus on any proposed amendments, potentially leading to further division and instability.

Moreover, there is a real fear that a convention could propose amendments threatening established constitutional rights and protections. Our organization is committed to defending these rights and views any threat to them with the utmost seriousness.

In conclusion, our organization stands firmly against the proposed Convention of States. The combination of its unpredictable nature, lack of modern precedent, potential for extreme polarization, risk to constitutional rights, susceptibility to special interest influence, and procedural ambiguities makes it a venture fraught with risks. We believe that any amendment to our Constitution should be approached with the utmost caution, deliberation, and respect for democratic principles. The proposed convention, as it stands, fails to meet these essential criteria, posing a significant threat to the stability and integrity of our constitutional framework.

LEGISLATIVE WATCH

Senate Commerce and Human Resources Committee

Tuesday, March 19th at 1:00 pm in WW54. (Agenda)

House Bill 545

The Senate Commerce and Human Resources Committee will consider House Bill 545, which the IABN opposes. House Bill 545 would prevent local governments from enacting any local ordinances that require landlords to accept housing choice vouchers or from enacting local renter protections.  

TAKE ACTION: Sign up to testify or submit written testimony here

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­__________________________________________________

House Judiciary and Rules Committee

Tuesday, March 19th at 1:30 pm (or upon adjournment of the House) in EW 42. (Agenda)

The House Judiciary and Rules Committee will consider Senate Bill 1327 and Senate Bill 1328aa, two bills that deserve your support.

Senate Bill 1327

Senate Bill 1327 will allow eviction filings to be shielded from public viewing after three years as long as no appeal is pending. Eviction filings – even with no formal eviction judgement – can have devastating consequences for families, and this bill will help families remain stably and safely housed.

Senate Bill 1328aa

Senate Bill 1328aa will protect youth shelters from criminal liability for sheltering youth without parental consent as long as (1) the youth consents to care, (2) the shelter is unable to contact the parents, and (3) the shelter notifies local enforcement. This legislation will ensure children in crisis have a safe place to go and shelters are not held criminally liable for providing shelter and care.

TAKE ACTION: Sign up to testify or submit written testimony here

"Questioning the Future of Our Libraries" -HB384

This bill introduces a concerning power dynamic that could reshape our libraries in unforeseen ways. It proposes granting any individual the authority to challenge and potentially censor library content based on personal beliefs, a move that raises serious questions about the implications for freedom of information. Imagine a scenario where just one person's complaint could relegate books to a restricted section – isn't this a step towards unwarranted censorship? Moreover, the bill opens the door to legal battles, allowing individuals to sue libraries. This could not only strain our public resources with legal fees and litigation costs but also create a chilling effect on the availability of diverse literature, particularly affecting LGBTQ themes and narratives.

What might the long-term impact be on our community's access to a broad spectrum of ideas and stories? Could this bill inadvertently lead to a culture where libraries, the very bastions of free thought and learning, become arenas of ideological conflict and suppression? These are critical questions we must consider as we reflect on the potential ramifications of this legislation on our libraries and, by extension, our society.

"Reassessing the School Library Material Care Act" - SB1221

This bill proposes to introduce a new layer of oversight in public school libraries, aligning with the “Harmful Materials” bill targeting community public libraries. It's crucial to examine what this means for our educational system. Public school libraries are already governed by standards and practices under the supervision of school district boards and qualified librarians. Why, then, does this bill seek to establish an additional statutory review process? It aims to filter out literature considered harmful or “pornographic,” but isn't there a risk of overreaching? Could this lead to subjective and inconsistent standards across districts?

One of the more subtle yet significant aspects of this bill is its potential to intensify scrutiny over contemporary themes, especially those concerning sexual orientation and gender identity. While the review committees, comprising parents, teachers, and administrators, are meant to represent community interests, how might this representation impact the diversity of literature available to students? Could this form of state-mandated censorship inadvertently limit students' exposure to a wide range of perspectives and narratives, essential for a well-rounded education?

Given that school libraries are fundamental in fostering critical thinking and open-mindedness among students, it's imperative to consider: Could the implementation of this bill unintentionally stifle these educational objectives? This act, raises important questions about the balance between protecting minors and restricting their access to a diverse and enriching literary world.

Given that school libraries are fundamental in fostering critical thinking and open-mindedness among students, it's imperative to consider: Could the implementation of this bill unintentionally stifle these educational objectives? This act, though possibly well-intentioned, raises important questions about the balance between protecting minors and restricting their access to a diverse and enriching literary world.

"Re-evaluating Women’s Health and Autonomy in Idaho" - SB1229

In Idaho, the conversation around abortion rights is at a crucial juncture, especially with three abortion bans already in place and the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Among these laws, the debate on available exceptions, particularly in cases of rape and incest, remains a contentious issue. How do these discussions reflect on our state's commitment to women’s health and family planning?

SB1229, titled 'Eliminating Abortion Exceptions,' is a bill of significant concern. It proposes to remove the already limited exceptions for rape and incest from the existing abortion ban. Introduced by a senator known for extreme right-wing views, this bill raises serious questions about the direction of reproductive rights in Idaho. The fact that it was introduced as a personal bill, bypassing broader legislative support, suggests it may not gain much ground this session. However, it symbolizes a deeper, more alarming intent of the Idaho Freedom Caucus: the aspiration to establish Idaho as a forced birth state.

What does this mean for the concept of bodily autonomy and the rights of women and families in Idaho? If such a bill were to pass, how would it affect the lives of those faced with the difficult circumstances of rape or incest? The removal of these exceptions can be seen as a direct challenge to the fundamental rights of women to make informed decisions about their own bodies and futures.

We must ask: Is this the trajectory we want for our state's approach to women's health and family planning? How does this align with our values of compassion, autonomy, and individual freedom? This bill not only has the potential to drastically limit reproductive rights but also sets a precedent that could further erode personal liberties and healthcare choices in Idaho.

"Upholding the Right to Healthcare in Idaho" - HB398

As Idahoans, we've clearly voiced our support for Medicaid Expansion, affirming our collective belief that healthcare is not a privilege but a fundamental human right. Despite this, it's alarming to see continuous efforts by some lawmakers, driven by outside influences and a disdain for federal involvement, to undermine this vital program. Accessible and affordable healthcare is a right every Idahoan deserves – it's a matter of life and dignity, not just policy.

House Bill 398, titled 'Legislative Oversight of Medicaid,' proposes a concerning shift in control over Medicaid. This bill seeks to grant significant power to the legislature, a move that could profoundly impact the availability of essential healthcare services. The areas of contraception, reproductive health care, and gender affirming care are particularly at risk of being subjected to restrictive and religiously-intolerant scrutiny. Given that this bill is sponsored by a known opponent of both Medicaid and the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, it raises critical questions about the future of unbiased and comprehensive healthcare provision in our state.

What are the implications of politicizing healthcare decisions that should fundamentally be about medical need and personal choice? How might this shift in oversight affect the most vulnerable among us, especially when it comes to sensitive and essential health services? It's essential to recognize that healthcare decisions should be based on medical expertise and individual needs, not political or religious agendas.

In light of these concerns, we must consider the impact of HB398 on our fundamental rights to healthcare. It's crucial to safeguard the integrity of Medicaid and ensure it remains a resource that upholds the dignity and health of all Idahoans, free from unwarranted political interference.