Tammy Nichols — Followed up by asking whether striking the line creates conflict in current law.
Tammy Nichols — Asked whether the current law contains a loophole and whether the age-appropriate language creates conflict or allows prohibited instruction.
Tammy Nichols — Referenced as having pointed out that the bill's issue is clear and that it calls for a prohibition.
Tammy Nichols — Moved that House Bill 516 be sent to the floor with a due pass recommendation and briefly explained the clarification issue.
Tammy Nichols — Referenced as having said the bill's issue is clear and that it calls for a prohibition.
Tammy Nichols — Made the motion to send House Bill 516 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Tammy Nichols — Spoke on the motion, explaining that the bill's language about sexual orientation and gender identity creates problematic conflict with the bill's intent.
Tammy Nichols — Explained that removing the disputed wording would clarify the bill's intent and avoid the appearance of exceptions.
Victoria Young — Victoria Young’s testimony is consolidated as one continuous statement opposing Senate Bill 1339. She introduces herself as a public school parent speaking on her own behalf, asks the committee not to pass the bill out of committee, and urges members to think critically about the materials she submitted. She emphasizes the importance of accountability, collaboration, and ensuring adequate time, personnel, and funding to support effective outcomes.
Quinn Perry — Quinn Perry, Deputy Director of the Idaho School Boards Association, testified in support of Senate Bill 1339. She explained that the association supports moving away from compliance-style reporting toward a more meaningful accountability system focused on local priorities, boardroom review of student data, and locally adopted goals. She also raised a small concern that the bill’s intervention strategies could limit local board authority over decisions such as calendars and budgets, which she said should remain with locally elected boards. She closed by reaffirming support for the bill and offering to answer questions.
Quinn Perry — Is invited to introduce himself on behalf of the Idaho School Board Association.
Ms. Young — Committee thanked Ms. Young for her testimony and indicated no questions.
Janie Ward-Engelking — Made the motion to send Senate Bill 1339 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Janie Ward-Engelking — Janie Ward-Engelking argued that the bill’s current age-appropriate sentence is important because it allows middle school and junior high students to learn about topics such as puberty, women’s suffrage, and Supreme Court cases. She said removing that sentence would be problematic, especially given the private cause of action, and noted that members were aware the language was included and provided needed leeway for teaching history.
Van Burtenshaw — Identified as the senator who seconded the motion.
Van Burtenshaw — Van Burtenshaw said the issue was confusing and needed more discussion, then made an alternate motion to keep the legislation in committee subject to the call of the chair. The motion was carried, resulting in the bill being held at the call of the chair.
Christy Zito — Likely the 'Chairman Hawkins' reference is actually Representative Hawkins; context indicates the speaker is Dale Hawkins, not a listed member.
Christy Zito — Representative Hawkins responds to questions from Senator Woodward and Senator Cook about the bill, saying he does not believe the section contradicts existing law. After being thanked for his explanation, he continues addressing Senator Cook’s concerns, explaining that the bill is not about basic biology lessons and that sexual orientation and gender identity are not what the bill is addressing. He then disagrees with Senator Cook’s interpretation, arguing that removing the language would create a clear path for school policy and referencing prior debate on House Bill 352.
Doug Taylor — Doug Taylor testified about House Bill 516 as a cleanup measure for prior legislation he worked on with Representative Hawkins. He explained that the bill was intended to correct and clarify earlier language, including expanding the scope from K-3 to K-12 and referencing House Bill 352 as the codifying legislation. He also noted that when the language was changed, the original age-appropriate wording was not removed, which later created confusion and, in his view, should have been taken out.
Cindy Carlson — Named as one of the sponsors involved in the original legislation.
Mr. Taylor — Mr. Taylor offers to answer questions and notes that Chairman Hawkins may have additional comments. He then clarifies that language likely should have been removed earlier, explains that the age-appropriate qualifier is unnecessary in a K-12 setting because the standard is absolute, and emphasizes that there is a meaningful difference between what should be taught to a kindergartner versus a 12th grader.
James Woodward — Raises a concern that the bill language conflicts with existing law in Idaho Code 33-1608.
James Woodward — Continues citing Idaho Code 33-1608 as the basis for his concern.
James Woodward — Quotes Idaho Code language emphasizing local school board authority over family life and sex education programs.
James Woodward — Questions how the new requirement to adopt a policy can be balanced with long-standing local control law.
James Woodward — Addressed directly in response to his question about balancing the laws.
James Woodward — Asked whether the section of code contradicts existing Idaho Code 33-1608.
James Woodward — Senator Woodward questions the witness about Idaho Code 33-1608 and how school districts should handle potentially conflicting legal provisions. He asks which policy districts should follow when two code sections appear to conflict, whether legislation should be drafted to avoid such conflicts, and what the term 'repealed by implication' means. Later references to Woodward simply point back to this same discussion about conflicting code sections.
James Woodward — James Woodward delivered extended closing remarks in support of the bill. He said the original intent was K through 3, argued that the struck language had been left in inadvertently, and asked the committee to send the bill to the floor with a due pass recommendation. He also responded to concerns about classroom instruction, saying the bill was not meant to prevent teaching about court cases, history, or other people’s stories, and that topics like sexual orientation and gender identity belong in the home. He emphasized that teachers should focus on core subjects, that the bill would not interfere with biology instruction or teaching where babies come from, and that requiring school boards to adopt policies is consistent with prior legislative practice.
Representative Hawkins — Explains the bill was redone after parent concerns and confusion about grade-level application.
Kevin Cook — Senator Cook responds to the bill by saying he understands and supports the overall goal, but he is worried about the legal effect of the wording. He recalls a fifth-grade instructional movie and says the bill could prevent similar age-appropriate teaching, including lessons about heterosexuality. He remains uncomfortable with removing the language, explaining that he has children and grandchildren at different grade levels and does not want the same material taught to both kindergarten and sixth-grade students. The exchange continues with him being directly addressed before the discussion transitions toward public testimony.
Kevin Cook — Cited as having pointed out that sexual orientation is not defined.
Mary Brown — Mary Brown, speaking as an Idaho resident, constituent, and mother, testifies against removing the age-appropriate standard. She says the language is not confusing or redundant and argues that the standard gives educators needed flexibility to respond to students’ developmental stages. She warns that replacing it with a blanket prohibition would eliminate parental choice and prevent parents from allowing participation in material they consider age-appropriate and educationally relevant, with potential negative effects on students. She concludes by urging a no vote.
Jean Hinchide — Begins testimony in opposition to House Bill 516 and identifies herself as president of the League of Women Voters of Idaho, speaking for herself.
Jean Hinchide / Scarulian (uncertain) — A witness speaking in opposition, discussing first-year post-secondary students and arguing against HB 516.
Scarulian (uncertain) — The chair announces the next video witness, whose name is unclear in the transcript.
Nisa Nagel — The chair announces Nisa Nagel as the next in-person witness.
Scaruleen (uncertain) — A video witness from Twin Falls testifies in opposition to HB 516 and describes being LGBT and educated in Idaho public schools.
Nissa Nagel — The chair appears to transition to the next witness after this testimony.
Nissa Nagle — A parent of a teenager testifies against HB 516 and argues classrooms include a range of human biology and identities.
Jeff Watkins / Jeffrey Watkins — The chair announces the next video witness, with two versions of the name appearing in the transcript.
Jeffrey Watkins — A video witness from District 16 testifies against HB 516 and references prior testimony on HB 352.
Grace Howitt — Grace Howitt, a policy analyst with the Idaho Family Policy Center, testifies in support of House Bill 516 and responds to questions about how the bill interacts with existing law. She says the legislature can change the policy at any time, notes she cannot fully analyze a statute she does not have in front of her, and explains that if she were drafting the bill she would likely include a notwithstanding clause to avoid conflicts. She adds that conflicts between statutes are undesirable and explains that courts may sometimes find a later law repeals an earlier one by implication.
Carrie Semmelroth — Asks for a statewide perspective on the reported noncompliant districts.
Carrie Semmelroth — Addressed by Quinn Perry in response to the question.
Carrie Semmelroth — Asked a follow-up question about how a current law and the new bill interact.
Ms. Perry — Testified that point-in-time compliance checks may not be a good measure because school boards had only a couple of months of readings to adopt policies.
Ms. Perry — Responding to questions about clarification and possible conflict between laws.
Ms. Perry — Said she had been struggling with the bill and raised concerns about how it could conflict with existing laws and definitions.
Ms. Perry — Explained that the bill could create conflicts with existing code and with last year's human sexuality law.