Tony Vishnevsky — Introduced himself as representing District 5 in Kootenai County and presented RS 33144.
Mark Harris — Questions why the legislation does not address existing large-load customers.
Mark Harris — Explains that the bill applies only to new large loads over 50 megawatts and not existing loads like Micron.
Mark Harris — Explains the bill is intended to ensure new large loads pay their own costs and not shift them to other ratepayer classes.
Mark Harris — Asks whether utilities helped develop the bill language.
Mark Harris — Says utilities were contacted, a meeting is scheduled, and they had not been responsive over the summer.
Mark Harris — Says she will bring back data and wants best practices to prevent future cost shifting.
Mark Harris — Representative Haas is identified as wanting to be recorded as voting no; likely a transcription error for Representative Harris, but the text says Haas.
Mark Harris — Representative Bingham asks how the proposed amendment would affect logging, noting that the amendment prioritizes revenue-generating activities that would include logging. He then follows up by asking what percentage of revenue-generating activities on state lands comes from logging.
Mark Harris — Asked Brenda Richards whether she preferred federal or state land for grazing.
Mark Harris — A legislator asks whether the witness has been in litigation for 30 years and reacts to the answer.
Mark Harris — Representative Raibold is referenced throughout a continuous discussion of the Admissions Act and the legal framework surrounding it. The speaker notes Raibold’s earlier remarks, says Raibold made the relevant legal point clear, and emphasizes Raibold’s clarification that the fiduciary obligations arise from the trust rather than the constitutions. The discussion then refers to Raibold’s presentation of the cases being discussed.
Kelly Anthon — Representative Haas asked for updated statistics from 2006.
Kelly Anthon — Kelly Anthon argues against the legislation on federalism grounds, saying Idaho should not urge the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit settled marriage law. He notes that the current Court has recognized significant reliance interests in marriage decisions and expresses concern about the consequences if marriage remains unchallenged. He concludes that marriage provides important practical rights, such as hospital decision-making and other protections for loved ones, and says those rights should be preserved regardless of a partner’s sex, opposing the motion.
James Ruchti — The discussion centers on same-sex marriage and the legal status of Idaho’s 2006 constitutional amendment after Obergefell. Members ask for updated Idaho statistics and reference the earlier vote on defining marriage, then debate whether the federal decision invalidated the state amendment. The conversation shifts into a broader legal argument about the meaning of Anglo-American legal tradition, with one side criticizing the term as historically tied to women’s lack of rights and slavery, while the other argues that same-sex marriage is a recent invention and that traditional marriage has long meant one man and one woman. The discussion then turns to Obergefell itself, including concerns about judicial impartiality and the claim that recusals by two justices could have changed the outcome. Finally, the speaker argues that the case was fundamentally about due process and equal protection, especially tax, inheritance, hospital visitation, adoption, and other legal benefits, and suggests those protections could be provided through partnership arrangements without redefining marriage.
James Ruchti — Says he supports moving the bill to a hearing and asks for data showing large loads increase costs for other energy consumers.
James Ruchti — Representative Church is noted as wanting to be recorded as voting no on RS 33-144.
James Ruchti — Raises a question about possible negative consequences of opening the Constitution to additional language for the land board.
James Ruchti — Asks what harmful or non-Idaho consequences could result from opening the Constitution to additional language for the land board.
James Ruchti — Follows up by asking whether the same argument would apply if timber land were sold rather than grazing land.
James Ruchti — Asked whether the same argument would apply if the land value were not as great as an individual buyer's offer.
James Ruchti — Jones thanked her for efforts to adjust the language in prior drafts of the joint resolution.
James Ruchti — Brenda said she appreciated Raebel bringing the issue forward and understood concerns about a grazing lease sale.
James Ruchti — Referenced in the phrase 'Representative Boyle' as part of a comparison to federal land issues; likely a transcription error for another member, but kept as spoken.
James Ruchti — Representative Boyle is identified as having questions for legal counsel regarding the Admissions Act, is asked to bring counsel forward, then engages Mr. Richards for his view on the issue. He follows up by asking whether changing the Admissions Act would require Congress to amend it.
James Ruchti — Argued that current constitutional language favors direct revenue and puts traditional uses like grazing at risk.
James Ruchti — Asked the committee to give comparable protection to timber, mining, and grazing while preserving endowment revenues for future generations.
James Ruchti — Concluded remarks and offered to answer questions; the chair then noted H.J.R. 10 was before the committee.
James Ruchti — Spoke in support of the motion and referenced family ties to timber, mining, and ranching in Idaho.
James Ruchti — Continued remarks criticizing the argument that Idaho's people being beneficiaries is a problem.
James Ruchti — Argued that Idaho taxpayers should not be treated as a problem for benefiting from public lands.
James Ruchti — Noted recreation as a major revenue source while acknowledging family ties to mining, timber, grazing, and ranching.
James Ruchti — Balanced family legacy industries against future revenue from recreation and tax revenue.
James Ruchti — Announced support for the motion and argued Idaho's people should be beneficiaries of state public lands.
James Ruchti — Acknowledged by the chair after the motion discussion.
James Ruchti — Spoke in favor of public lands remaining in public hands and supporting endowment revenue.
James Ruchti — Argued for keeping public lands in public hands and prioritizing revenue generation for endowment funds.
James Ruchti — Made a substitute motion to hold H.J.R. 10 in committee instead of sending it to second reading.
James Ruchti — Explained his substitute motion using a map showing federal lands and arguing state endowment lands are not public lands.
James Ruchti — Argued that endowment funds were built by timber, grazing, and mining activities and benefit taxpayers through lower property taxes.
James Ruchti — Said all new money comes from the land and that recreation is secondary.
James Ruchti — Argued recreation does not create new money and that timber and mining are major endowment revenue sources.
James Ruchti — Requested a roll call vote on the substitute motion.
James Ruchti — Requested the roll call vote.
Brandon Shippy — Representative Skog moved to introduce RS 33444.
Brandon Shippy — Brandon Shippy makes a substitute motion to introduce RS-33-144 with proposed changes to the language, continuing the procedural motion to amend the RS.
Brandon Shippy — Representative Dygert was involved in the vote on H.J.R. 10: he voted no on the substitute motion, was identified as making the original motion to send H.J.R. 10 to the floor with a due pass recommendation, voted yes on that original motion, and the motion ultimately failed on a 7-7 tie.
Treg Bernt — A speaker identified as 'Representative Valferi' is likely a mis-transcription of a committee member; no confident match.
Jim Guthrie — Jim Guthrie, acting as chair, manages debate on the motion and substitute motion by recognizing debate in favor, asking whether anyone wants to respond, restating the substitute motion to introduce RS 33144, inviting discussion on the motion or amended substitute motion, allowing a response to his comments, and then asking whether there are any further comments on the substitute motion.
Jim Guthrie — Addressed as chairman in the exchange before Brenda continued her explanation.