Amends and adds to existing law to remove a provision regarding violations of the open meetings law by county officers, to authorize investigations and actions against city officers by the attorney general, and to provide for duties of the attorney general.
Summary
House Bill 6 revises Idaho law governing investigations of alleged criminal conduct by elected county and city officers acting in their official capacity. It removes a prior statutory provision that specifically addressed open meetings law violations by county officers, and it creates a new section authorizing the attorney general to investigate allegations of state criminal law violations by elected city officers, in addition to the existing authority over county officers. Under the bill, after an investigation the attorney general must either close the matter, recommend training or other nonjudicial remedies, or continue as special prosecutor if further investigation or prosecution is warranted.
The bill also gives the attorney general subpoena power for documents or tangible things relevant to these investigations and clarifies that the attorney general’s authority is not exclusive. County prosecuting attorneys may still investigate and prosecute these matters, or refer them to another county. The bill amends the attorney general’s general duties section to reflect this expanded role for responding to allegations involving elected county and city officials, and it takes effect July 1, 2025, under an emergency clause.
Impact
HB 6 changes Idaho Code sections 31-2002, 50-238, and 67-1401 by expanding and clarifying the attorney general’s investigative and prosecutorial authority over alleged state criminal law violations by elected local officials. It adds a new statutory framework for city officers, preserves parallel authority for county prosecutors, and removes an express reference to open meetings law violations from the county-officer provision. The bill affects elected county and city officers, county prosecuting attorneys, and the attorney general’s office by formalizing procedures for investigations, findings, referrals, and special-prosecutor actions.
Sentiment
The voting history suggests the bill had generally favorable support in both chambers, passing the House 56-11, the Senate 28-5, and the House again 58-8 after Senate amendments. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the broad margins indicate the measure was not highly controversial overall. The repeated passage also suggests lawmakers accepted the need to clarify and expand the attorney general’s role in local-official misconduct cases.
Contention
The main points of contention likely centered on the scope of state-level oversight of local elected officials and whether the attorney general should have expanded authority to investigate city officers. Another likely issue was the relationship between the attorney general and county prosecutors, since the bill explicitly preserves local prosecutorial authority and rejects exclusive jurisdiction for the attorney general. The removal of the open meetings law reference from the county-officer provision may also have been a point of concern for those focused on transparency enforcement and the proper venue for such violations.
Urging The House Of Representatives To Establish An Investigative Committee Pursuant To Chapter 21, Hawaii Revised Statutes, To Investigate Allegations Of A January 20, 2022 Payment From An Unknown Individual To An influential State Legislator For The Purported Use In An Existing Campaign At The Time, And To Examine Possible Violations Of State Law, The State Ethics Code, And Campaign Finance Provisions.