Proposes a state constitutional amendment to require any referendum petition or initiative petition to be signed by at least 6% of legal voters at the last general election in each legislative district.
Summary
SJR101 is a proposed constitutional amendment to Idaho’s Article III, Section 1, governing the initiative and referendum process. Under the proposal, any referendum petition or initiative petition would have to include signatures from legal voters in each legislative district equal to at least 6% of the voters in that district at the last general election before the measure could be submitted to the people.
The resolution also sets out the ballot question to be presented to Idaho voters at the next general election, and it directs the Legislative Council and Secretary of State to prepare and publish the required explanatory statements and arguments. Because it is a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment, it does not itself change statutory law directly; instead, it would amend the state constitution if approved by voters, and then affect the legal requirements for citizen-initiated measures and referenda going forward.
Impact
If approved, the amendment would impose a new geographic signature-distribution requirement on initiative and referendum petitions, making it harder to qualify statewide ballot measures unless supporters can gather sufficient signatures in every legislative district. This would alter the constitutional rules for direct democracy in Idaho and could affect citizen groups, advocacy organizations, and ballot measure campaigns by requiring broader statewide support rather than concentrated signature collection in a few areas.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or recorded vote information was provided, so the available context does not show detailed debate or formal support/opposition. Based on the text alone, the resolution reflects a legislative effort to tighten ballot access requirements for initiatives and referenda, which typically draws support from those favoring a more geographically balanced petition process and criticism from those who view it as a restriction on the people’s constitutional lawmaking power.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the added burden on initiative and referendum sponsors. Supporters would likely argue that requiring signatures from each legislative district ensures statewide legitimacy and prevents petitions from being driven by a small number of populous or urban districts. Opponents would likely contend that the requirement makes it more difficult to use the initiative and referendum powers reserved to the people, potentially reducing access to the ballot and making citizen-led reform harder to achieve.