Amends existing law to provide that the governor may veto certain initiative petitions approved by the voters and for voters to override a governor's veto.
Summary
House Bill 85 revises Idaho’s election laws governing initiative and referendum measures. The bill amends the procedures for counting and canvassing votes on ballot measures and clarifies how conflicting measures are treated when more than one measure passes at the same election. It also updates language in the code for technical consistency and removes obsolete wording.
The central policy change is in the initiative process. Under the bill, an initiative approved by at least two-thirds of voters would become law without any gubernatorial action. If an initiative receives a simple majority but less than two-thirds support, the governor would have five days after the statewide canvass to approve or veto it. A veto would send the initiative back to the voters at the next general election, where a two-thirds vote would override the veto and enact the measure. If the governor takes no action within five days, the initiative is deemed approved. The bill also states that referendum measures approved by voters become effective upon the governor’s proclamation, and it sets or clarifies effective-date rules for statewide, city, and county initiatives.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant because it changes the post-election approval process for citizen initiatives in Idaho. It would create a new gubernatorial review step for initiatives that pass by majority but not supermajority support, while preserving direct enactment for initiatives with at least two-thirds approval. It also adjusts effective-date provisions and the handling of conflicting measures, affecting the Secretary of State, the governor, county auditors, and local election officials responsible for canvassing and proclamation duties.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text and available context appears to be procedural and reform-oriented, with the measure framed as a clarification and restructuring of initiative law rather than a policy change on a substantive issue. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in the available materials. The bill’s emergency clause suggests an intent for immediate implementation if enacted.
The main point of contention is likely the expanded role of the governor in the initiative process. Supporters may view the bill as adding a check on voter-approved initiatives and creating a higher threshold for immediate enactment, while critics may see it as weakening direct democracy by allowing gubernatorial vetoes of measures already approved by voters. The two-thirds override mechanism is also likely to be debated, since it raises the bar for final enactment after a veto and could make it harder for citizen initiatives to become law.
Impact
HB 85 would amend Idaho Code sections 34-1811 and 34-1813, changing the legal process for initiative and referendum measures. It would establish a new framework in which voter-approved initiatives can be subject to gubernatorial approval or veto unless they receive at least two-thirds support, and it would authorize a voter override of a gubernatorial veto at the next general election. The bill also updates effective-date rules for statewide, city, and county initiatives and clarifies canvassing and proclamation procedures for election officials.
Sentiment
The available materials suggest a neutral-to-supportive procedural posture, with the bill presented as a technical and structural update to election law rather than a partisan policy measure. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate broader legislative sentiment. The emergency clause indicates the sponsor and committee viewed the changes as important enough to take effect immediately upon enactment.
Contention
The primary controversy is the bill’s expansion of gubernatorial authority over initiatives that have already won voter approval. Opponents would likely argue that allowing a governor to veto a majority-approved initiative undermines direct democracy and the initiative power reserved to voters, while supporters would likely contend that the governor should have a limited review role unless the measure achieves supermajority support. A secondary point of contention is the two-thirds voter override requirement, which could be seen as either a safeguard against unpopular measures or an additional hurdle that makes citizen lawmaking more difficult.