Jim Guthrie — Addressed by the speaker in the course of questioning.
Jim Guthrie — Closed in-person testimony and announced the move to virtual testimony.
Jim Guthrie — Announced the move to virtual testimony after Carissa Folks.
Jim Guthrie — Addressed by Carissa Folks in her response.
Jim Guthrie — Votes no on the substitute motion.
Blaine Kanzati — Blaine Kanzati is introduced and invited to respond, then identifies himself as president of the Idaho Family Policy Center and offers support for the legislation.
Blaine Kanzati — Concludes his testimony by asking for a due pass recommendation and answering questions.
Kelly Anthon — Cited as having said the legislation is supported by more than 77% of likely Idaho voters.
Kelly Anthon — Representative Alfieri continued questioning the witness about the bill’s liability and exemption provisions, focusing on whether posting male/female signage or providing single-occupancy restrooms or changing facilities would satisfy the bill’s requirements and address concerns about breaches of duty.
Kelly Anthon — Representative Alfieri is mentioned in a brief exchange that begins with a reference to his role on JFAC during a budget discussion, then shifts into a question about whether the Democratic chairwoman was consulted about moving the presidential primary. The mentions are part of the same continuous conversation and can be combined into one moment.
Nickson Matthews — Introduced as the first public testifier.
Nixon Matthews — Nixon Matthews, a Boise resident and proud trans-Idahoan, testified in opposition to the bill. He argued that it is anti-safety, anti-privacy, and anti-business, and that it does not require any wrongdoing. The segment concludes with the chair thanking him for his testimony.
Kathy Sherman — Kathy Sherman testified about intersex issues, arguing that any rigid definition of sex for restroom policy is problematic because intersex people exist and cannot be neatly categorized. She questioned how sex would be determined under the bill, including whether DNA testing would be required, and used the prevalence of intersex people as a comparison to emphasize that they should not be singled out or forced to make restroom decisions based on chromosomes. Her testimony then concluded with no questions from the committee.
Rachel Ann Pierce — Rachel Ann Pierce, a District 19 constituent, Idaho business owner, Conservative Conservation Voters of Idaho fellow, and Boise State student, testified that she has already been affected by House Bill 264 and that the current bill has disrupted her daily life at school. She described being stopped, questioned, harassed, and humiliated while trying to use the restroom, saying the experience has violated her privacy and caused emotional injury. She argued that the bill has not improved safety, privacy, or dignity in schools and state buildings and warned it would create similar problems in public businesses. She concluded by asking the committee not to pass the bill.
Carolyn Blackhurst — Carolyn Blackhurst testified in opposition to HB 607, identifying herself as a woman of faith and urging the committee to vote no. She described transgender youth as bullied, unsafe, and in need of dignity and respect, shared an experience from the 2018 Meridian City Council non-discrimination ordinance where a transgender friend was targeted outside a bathroom, and argued that HB 607 is unnecessary. She concluded by saying Idaho needs protections for transgender people and that opposing the bill would send a message of inclusivity and tolerance.
Zoe Wagner — Zoe Wagner testified against bill 607, arguing that it would increase scrutiny and unequal treatment of women based on appearance and community perceptions. She said the bill does nothing to prevent sexual harassment or assault, which are already illegal, and that it distracts from holding actual offenders accountable. She concluded by urging the committee to vote no on the bill.
Reverend Dr. Andrew Kukla — Reverend Dr. Andrew Kukla, pastor of First Presbyterian Church in downtown Boise and a member of multiple community boards, testified in opposition to House Bill 607, urging the committee not to act out of fear and control.
Treg Bernt — The chair referenced the vice chair for help with pronunciation.
Treg Bernt — Votes no on the substitute motion.
Andrew Kukla — Andrew Kukla continues his testimony by urging the committee not to pass the bill, saying it is driven by fear and control. He shares personal reflections about being an introvert and learning that the world is not binary, emphasizing that diversity brings beauty and strength. He calls on lawmakers to choose trust, love, and vulnerability over fear, and closes by asking them not to pass the bill while offering to answer questions.
Sarah LaWall — Introduced as the next witness after Andrew Kukla's testimony.
Reverend Sarah Lawhal — Reverend Sarah Lawhal testifies in opposition to the bill as the minister of the Boise Unitarian Universalist Fellowship and the mother of a trans daughter. She uses her daughter as a personal example of someone who would be harmed by the legislation, saying it would effectively bar her from using the women’s bathroom and force her into a situation she fears for her safety. She argues that fear has been stoked around transgender people, urges lawmakers to remember they are discussing human beings, and concludes by asking the committee not to pass the bill, emphasizing that transgender people deserve the same rights and dignity as everyone else.
Misty Tolman — Introduced as the next witness after Sarah's testimony.
Misty Deli-Carpany-Tolman — Misty Deli-Carpany-Tolman, the regional political and Idaho state director for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, testifies in strong opposition to HB 607. She argues the bill creates a $10,000 civil penalty that effectively punishes people for encountering a transgender person in a restroom, forces businesses to police restroom use without clearly defining what reasonable steps are, and codifies harmful stigma by equating transgender identity with restroom sharing. She says the bill does nothing to prevent crime, instead increasing stigma, psychological harm, and legal and financial risk for businesses, local governments, and taxpayers, and she closes by urging a no vote.
Pam Eaton — Pam Eaton testified that the association opposes the bill because of liability concerns for public entities and businesses with public accommodations. She argued that businesses should not have to police restroom use or station employees to monitor restrooms, and said that liability exposure could push businesses to restrict access, post more signage, or make restrooms unavailable to the public. She noted that some businesses already have labeled unisex restrooms and that the bill could create uncertainty for businesses that label restrooms male/female and expect to be held harmless. In response to questions, she said the association has a mixed statewide membership, including many Idaho-based independent retailers, and that smaller businesses are especially concerned because they have fewer employees available to monitor restrooms and greater liability exposure. She also stated that the public-accommodation language appears to cover every type of private business and defined 'prohibit' as 'to stop.'
Ms. Eaton — Ms. Eaton explained that the association believes private businesses should be able to operate as they see fit and is not disputing the rest of the bill, but remains concerned about liability if someone enters a restroom that others believe they should not use. She clarified that the concern is specifically about small businesses facing substantial costs and liability, and said the current exemption language does not resolve the issue because it refers to single-occupancy restrooms with a lockable door rather than multi-stall facilities. She added that if the definition were expanded to include women’s, men’s, or family labeling, the association would support that change. She also confirmed that members comply with ADA and life-safety requirements such as exit signs, fire alarms, sprinklers, and extinguishers.
Eric Geronda — Eric Geronda testified after being introduced, identifying himself as a Boise resident and born-again evangelical Christian. He said he opposed the bill because it did not go far enough, then made racially charged and derogatory remarks while arguing for a more specific approach to protecting children. He referenced scripture, read from Matthew 19:12, and claimed the Bible supported his view, expressing frustration about references to eunuchs and transgender people. He concluded by saying he stood for questions.
Christian Welp — Christian Welp was called to testify and introduced himself on behalf of the Calic Church in Idaho. He emphasized that safety in vulnerable places, especially bathrooms, is important and argued that House Bill 607 would help provide peace of mind as a simple safety measure. He concluded by asking the committee to pass the bill with a due pass recommendation and stood for questions.
James Ruchti — Asked whether businesses would be comfortable with cameras outside bathrooms as a way to protect themselves from liability.
James Ruchti — Representative Dygart asked why the bill relies on civil penalties and business financial liability instead of pursuing a criminal approach for an individual’s misconduct, and the later reference to him indicates the discussion was continuing in response to that earlier question.
James Ruchti — Asked for clarification on what prohibiting would look like in a government building and what the fiscal impact would be.
James Ruchti — Continued asking what enforcement/prohibiting would look like in government buildings and what it would cost.
James Ruchti — Mr. Gonzalez addressed Representative Church's question about government-building enforcement.
James Ruchti — The witness answered Representative Church's question by explaining the policy requirement for government buildings.
James Ruchti — Followed up on enforcement and liability, saying he would rather sue a government than an individual.
James Ruchti — Questioned the cost and enforcement implications of a private right of action against a government entity.
James Ruchti — Continued pressing on the practical meaning of reasonable steps and liability.
James Ruchti — Argued that businesses and governments would try to avoid repeated liability and could face burdensome enforcement measures.
James Ruchti — His concern was that liability would lead to guards, cameras, and burdensome policies.
James Ruchti — Was recognized after the witness explained that reasonable steps do not require burdensome retrofits.
James Ruchti — Asked about a pending lawsuit, West Ada, and the year the underlying legislation was passed.
James Ruchti — Argued that because the lawsuit has not been decided, the liability consequences are still unknown.
James Ruchti — He is asked if he has further response to the motion.
James Ruchti — Explains that March is intended to ensure Idaho is represented on the federal stage and says the GOP supports keeping the primary in March.
James Ruchti — Says the fiscal note may be closer to $1.5 million and argues the state should hold elections and allow people to vote.
James Ruchti — Confirms the primary is open to any entity that wants to put up a candidate.
James Ruchti — Says he did not speak with the Democratic chairwoman.
James Ruchti — Votes no on the substitute motion.
Mr. Walt — Mr. Walt deferred questions about the legality and exact wording of the proposed law to lawyers, and added that he personally would not feel comfortable with video cameras in bathrooms.
Carissa Folks — Carissa Folks, a District 18 resident and nursing mother of two toddlers, testified in support of the bill. She explained that mothers with small children face practical and safety challenges in public restrooms, especially when stalls are too small to manage toddlers safely or when they do not feel secure using restrooms in public businesses. She argued that businesses should provide reasonable accommodations for breastfeeding mothers and young children, and urged a yes vote on the bill. During questions, she reiterated that public restroom use is already burdensome and that safety concerns influence where she will use a restroom, noting that accommodations are already made in many buildings for breastfeeding mothers and should likewise account for mothers and children.