John Gannon — Representative Gannon is recognized by the chair and begins speaking, thanking the chairman and raising a question about why the resolution was not accompanied by a bill outlining delegate selection.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon raised concerns about the lack of clear delegate-selection rules for a constitutional convention, questioning whether Idaho delegates would be elected and arguing that the method of selecting delegates should be settled before moving forward, since unsatisfactory selection procedures would reduce interest in the convention.
John Gannon — Voted yes on the substitute motion.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon questioned whether the bill would prevent an individual who is here illegally and has been ripped off from obtaining legal representation, then reiterated his concern that the bill appears to bar such representation.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon asked a hypothetical about an undocumented worker who performed a month of work but was not paid, probing whether a lawyer could help recover wages or file a claim with the Department of Labor. The response raised concern that attorneys would need to determine a person's legal status before agreeing to represent them.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon engaged the presenters with questions, including a specific inquiry about the bill’s immigration interdiction provisions and related fiscal impact. When told it was not the time for questions, he was still addressed in the exchange and indicated he was willing to clarify his point.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon was called on and then argued that the legislation should protect people's rights and prevent fraud or wage theft, saying the bill does not protect people who may be here illegally from those harms.
John Gannon — Voted yes.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Hostetler is acknowledged for his patience and then directly addressed as part of the same exchange, where questions are raised to him.
Clint Hostetler — Voted yes on the substitute motion.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Clint Hostetler was called on after being missed earlier, then questioned Mr. Johnson about the bill’s impact on obtaining legal counsel and argued the bill did not prevent legal representation in civil disputes. The response focused on the language of Section 4 and the concern over broad references to legal assistance. The exchange then concluded as the committee moved on to the next witness.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Hostetler is briefly addressed in a garbled callout, and shortly afterward his vote is recorded as 'no.'
Mike Pohanka — Addressed as 'Representative Pahanka'; likely a mis-transcription of Representative Mike Pohanka.
Mike Pohanka — Representative Pohanka was called during roll call and then recorded a no vote on the substitute motion.
Ilana Rubel — Is addressed by name and then makes a substitute motion to hold the matter in committee.
Ilana Rubel — The transcript appears to indicate a pass/abstention; the final words are garbled.
Ilana Rubel — Mentioned in a compliment about being fast.
Ilana Rubel — Voted yes.
Dale Hawkins — During the roll call vote on the substitute motion, Chairman Skog voted no and Representative Hawkins voted yes.
Dale Hawkins — Representative Dale Hawkins is introduced and identifies himself and his district while presenting the bill. He then indicates that his associate will explain the legal details, and the discussion continues with the bill being handled and questions taken on his behalf.
Dale Hawkins — Was addressed by Representative Gannon regarding the fiscal note and possible costs.
Dale Hawkins — Representative Hawkins was mentioned as having offered changes to address concerns and as someone who might work with others to resolve the language issues.
Dale Hawkins — Referenced as having pointed out that Idaho is not sending people back and is not getting into that business.
Dale Hawkins — Voted no.
Dan Garner — Voted no on the substitute motion.
Dan Garner — Representative Garner offered a substitute motion to hold House Bill 764 in committee.
Dan Garner — Voted yes.
Clay Handy — Voted no on the substitute motion.
Clay Handy — Said he has difficulty tightening immigration enforcement while the border has been wide open, and urged giving people more time to find a legal path forward.
Clay Handy — Voted yes.
Edward Hill — Name was called during roll call, but the vote is unclear in the transcript.
Edward Hill — Likely a mis-transcription of a member name; voted yes on the substitute motion.
Chris Mathias — Name was called during roll call, but the vote is unclear in the transcript.
Chris Mathias — Representative Matthias/Chris Mathias questioned the bill’s use of the term 'illegal alien,' saying he could not understand how it differed from the definition of 'alien' as any person not a citizen. Mr. Johnson addressed him in response and said he did not know.
Chris Mathias — Representative Gannon raises concerns about the bill’s cost and whether it would actually be enforced, comparing it to Texas-style enforcement efforts and pressing for clarification. The exchange continues with responses emphasizing prosecutorial discretion and clarifying the bill’s exemptions, including how they apply to law enforcement and first responders, while Gannon references his sheriff’s concerns and specific bill language.
Chris Mathias — Representative Matthias said he would support the substitute motion and generally supports immigration-related legislation, but emphasized that the bill is too broad and must be drafted carefully because wording matters and poorly drafted legislation could be vulnerable in federal court.
Chris Mathias — Voted yes.
Theo Wald — Theo Wald introduces himself as a Boise resident speaking in his personal capacity in support of the bill.
Mr. Wold — Mr. Wold explains why Idaho should replicate the federal harboring statute in state law, emphasizing dual sovereignty and the need to preserve Idaho’s authority if federal law changes. He says aligning definitions with federal law does not give the federal government interpretive control and notes there is no circuit split over the harboring definition under 8 U.S.C. 1324. In response to concerns about nonprofits, he says charitable and philanthropic activities can continue, and that organizations would only run afoul of the statute if they knowingly transport, harbor, or otherwise provide prohibited assistance to illegal aliens.
Charlie Shepherd — Representative Charlie Shepherd raises concerns about the bill’s legal clarity and scope, first asking how 'harboring' should be defined since it is not specified in the bill, and then continuing to question whether federal law would supersede or control state law.
Charlie Shepherd — Chairman Scott was addressed as presiding over the committee's deliberation.
Randy Ford — Randy Ford, president and CEO of the Idaho Food Bank, testifies on behalf of the organization and its nonprofit partners. He explains the food bank’s mission and how it distributes donated food without checking immigration status, then argues the bill would harm charitable organizations by exposing volunteers and nonprofits to misdemeanor or felony liability, license revocation, and fear of volunteering. He warns the law could encourage profiling based on language or perceived national origin and says the vague terms around financial assistance and reckless disregard make the bill especially problematic.
Anthony Paz — Anthony Paz was introduced as the next witness and then testified on his own behalf, saying he lives in Boise and that H 764 would impede Catholic religious freedom. He argued that Catholic teaching requires aiding migrants and neighbors regardless of legal status, including providing shelter, food, and sometimes legal assistance, and cited John Paul II as support. He distinguished the state’s authority to make immigration laws from the church’s moral obligations, saying Catholics are bound to help strangers under the teachings of Jesus Christ. He concluded that the bill would force Catholics to choose between civil law and religious duty and asked the committee to vote no on H 764, noting that Catholic charities such as St. Vincent de Paul already provide such assistance.
Mr. Ford — Mr. Ford is asked to identify the specific language in the bill that concerns him and explain where he believes the bill would criminalize him or his organization.
Neil Doherty — Neil Doherty, a Boise immigration attorney speaking on his own behalf, explained that he helps non-citizens obtain legal status and defend their rights. He argued that the bill’s exceptions for legal assistance would still expose him to felony liability because he is not court staff or a public official, and therefore would not be protected. He cited the statutory and constitutional right to counsel in removal proceedings, said lawyers like him help the immigration system function more efficiently, and warned that the bill would even prevent him from advising clients to turn themselves in to ICE without risking criminal charges.
Lydia Strong — Lydia Strong is announced as an upcoming witness, with the chair noting her as next in line after Neil Doherty and again later as next up before Anthony Johnson.
Anthony Johnson — Announced as the witness after Lydia Strong.
Lidie Strong / Lidjie Strong — Lidie Strong testified in support of H.B. 764, explaining that she immigrated to the United States legally from Brazil and became a citizen by following the law. She compared U.S. immigration enforcement to Brazil’s strict visa rules, noting that her husband had to leave before his 90-day visa expired or face deportation, and argued that such enforcement is normal, sovereign, and not discriminatory. She concluded by saying that respecting and enforcing immigration law is common sense, asked the committee to support H.B. 764, and offered to answer questions.
Tony Johnson / Anthony Johnson — Tony Johnson, chief operations officer and programs director for Carehouse Partnerships in Nampa, testified in opposition to House Bill 764. He warned that the bill could be read to criminalize services his organization provides, including food, health care, and legal assistance to immigrants and refugees. He also gave examples of situations where staff might need to speak with undocumented individuals about possible legal or humanitarian pathways, such as trafficking, sexual assault, violent crime, confiscated work visas or passports, or marriage-related issues.