Jason Monks — Representative Jason Monks was called to present RS-331-26C1, briefly introduced the bill, explained that it updates outdated language in the justifiable homicide statute by replacing it with broader wording, and then the motion was made to introduce the bill.
Edward Hill — Representative Hill was called on and made a motion.
Edward Hill — Called on after the committee asked for public testimony.
Edward Hill — Moved to send the bill to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Edward Hill — Supports the substitute motion while saying the exemption from judicial review should be codified.
Edward Hill — Says the bill's use of 'procedures' lacks context and should be clarified.
Edward Hill — Continues urging clearer drafting of the bill.
John Shirts — Representative John Shirts introduced himself and his district, then presented a short bill to the committee, explaining it as part of a review to repeal outdated laws. He concluded by offering to answer questions and asking the committee to introduce the RS.
Barbara Ehardt — Representative Barbara Ehardt was recognized and then asked Mr. Schurz whether the identified provisions were all that had been found.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Hostetler commented that he feels old remembering when this was a real problem.
Heather Scott — Representative Heather Scott moved to introduce RS 33036 and explained that the proposal is intended to restore clarity to separation of powers already established in Idaho law. She then asked that the RS be introduced, responded to a question about the authority and process for doing so, noted that the approach is uncommon and has rarely been done, and the request to introduce RS 33036 was ultimately moved forward.
Chris Mathias — Representative Matthias asked whether the legislature can already advise the Supreme Court through a resolution.
Chris Mathias — Representative Matthias is called on and then asks for confirmation that the language under discussion applies only to the development of the procedures, seeking to distill the line of inquiry correctly.
Idaho Department of Corrections director — The sponsor notes the director and staff are present to answer questions.
Ilana Rubel — Representative Rubel repeatedly questions the bill’s broad exemption language, arguing that it could shield the process from legislative oversight, judicial review, discovery, and public access at every stage. She says the explanation offered does not resolve her concern, warns that the bill could prevent anyone from knowing whether the procedures comply with constitutional requirements, and argues that greater transparency is needed when the state is taking a person’s life. She then offers a substitute motion to hold the bill in committee, saying the bill should be clarified if it is only meant to address how procedures are developed rather than to block oversight.
Breed Eric — Identifies himself as the director of the Idaho Department of Correction and asks for the question to be restated.
Director of the Idaho Department of Correction — The Director of the Idaho Department of Correction explains that, historically, execution procedures have not been subject to review. He clarifies that once the procedures are created, they are public, and that the bill’s exemption is intended to apply only to the development process for those procedures—not to the procedures themselves.
John Gannon — Is recognized next for questions.
Mark Harris — Representative Gannon participates in a continuous discussion about procedural language and the handling of House Bill 525. He first asks whether newly public procedures can be challenged or evaluated, then indicates support for sending the bill to general orders and suggests clarifying the language around development of procedures. He later states he will support the motion, formally moves to send House Bill 525 to general orders, and the motion carries.
Dori Healey — Representative Ehart is recognized and makes an amended substitute motion to hold House Bill 525 until no later than February 11, explaining that he wants a time-certain hold rather than an indefinite one. The sponsor responds favorably to Ehart’s motion and suggests that Representative Gannon’s language may be the better fix, after which the discussion moves toward withdrawing the motion.