Daniel Foreman — Answered questions and then was thanked as the sponsor of House Bill 556.
Daniel Foreman — Referenced as having explained the county subsidy issue.
Daniel Foreman — Referenced as having presented the bill's main points.
Daniel Foreman — Credited with carrying the 2018 bill that created the two-tiered reimbursement system.
Daniel Foreman — Referenced as having previously discussed the issue.
Daniel Foreman — Referenced as having previously discussed the issue.
James Woodward — Senator Woodward is present to comment on the request to print the RS. The first name is not stated, so the identification is uncertain.
Daniel Foreman — Senator Foreman moved that RS 33676 be sent to print, and the chair identified the motion as coming from him.
Daniel Foreman — Closes testimony and thanks the committee for its consideration.
Daniel Foreman — Previously concluded testimony before the motion on HB 556.
Daniel Foreman — Argued that higher incarceration rates and longer sentences may not be bad and praised Idaho’s safety compared with other states.
Daniel Foreman — Senator Foreman is recognized, moves that House Bill 540 be sent to the Senate floor with a due pass recommendation, and then speaks in support of the bill while asking whether a vehicle owner who knows an airbag is faulty may still legally sell the vehicle if the buyer is informed of the defect.
Daniel Foreman — Senator Foreman said he supports the bill but raised concern about the wording on page one regarding vehicles with non-functional airbags. He suggested the bill should allow a seller to disclose the defect to the buyer, and indicated he could support either approach as long as the language permits that disclosure.
Daniel Foreman — Moved to send House Bill 688 to the floor of the Senate with a due pass.
Jim Guthrie — Seconded the motion to send RS 33676 to print.
Jim Guthrie — Referenced again as the second on the motion.
Jim Guthrie — Introduced as the sponsor/presenter for Senate Concurrent Resolution 114.
Jim Guthrie — Identifies himself as Jim Guthrie, State Senate District 28, and presents SCR 114.
Jim Guthrie — Presents SCR 114 and answers questions.
Jim Guthrie — Responds that he did not hear part of the question and asks for clarification.
Jim Guthrie — Continues explaining that high volume can impede due consideration of legislation.
Jim Guthrie — Introduces the next question/comment.
Jim Guthrie — Asks how the proposed limit would be tracked and how the process would work.
Jim Guthrie — Responds that LSO would likely be able to track the bill and RS draft counts.
Jim Guthrie — Raises the concern about putting legislation in another legislator's name to game the system.
Jim Guthrie — Responds that sharing or carrying legislation for another member happens often and can be a positive form of workload sharing.
Jim Guthrie — Says sharing workload by having another senator carry a bill is often appropriate and beneficial.
Jim Guthrie — Concludes that sharing legislation is generally appropriate and then is invited to comment further.
Jim Guthrie — His proposal is being questioned about why the draft limit was set at 10 and whether it is too restrictive.
Jim Guthrie — Explains that the draft limit is intended to prioritize the most important work, especially the constitutional duty to pass a budget.
Jim Guthrie — Says 50 or 60 drafts in the summer is too much and notes that exceptions can be granted by the Speaker or pro tem.
Jim Guthrie — Continues defending the proposal, saying the drafting staff is under pressure and that the exceptions make the limit fair.
Jim Guthrie — Says the number 10 was not a magic number and was discussed with other senators and others; notes some states use lower limits.
Jim Guthrie — The chair thanks him and indicates there are no further questions before moving to testimony.
Jim Guthrie — The chair tells him he will be called back for closing comments after witness testimony.
Jim Guthrie — The chair returns to Senator Guthrie for closing comments after testimony concludes.
Jim Guthrie — Gives closing remarks in support of the proposal, arguing that limiting quantity can improve quality.
Jim Guthrie — The motion concerns his resolution, SCR 114.
Jim Guthrie — Thanked after the motion carried on his resolution.
Jim Guthrie — The committee closed questions on Senate Bill 1330, with Senator Galloway explaining that the bill is a simple change meant to help constituents seek redress in court, even though some court adjustments may be needed. Senator Ricks then moved to send the bill to the 14th order for possible amendment, the chair noted the motion and second from Senator Shippey, and the motion was carried.
Jim Guthrie — Senator Lent raised concern that Idaho has more incarcerated people than expected for its population and suggested the state needs to examine what is going wrong in the system and consider alternatives. A subsequent speaker echoed that concern, specifically agreeing with Senator Lent about the high incarceration rate, especially among women in the state.
Dave Lent — Senator Lent questioned why no testimony was being taken on the request to print, and shortly afterward was asked whether he wanted to be recorded after the vote as part of the same procedural exchange.
Dave Lent — Says he will support the motion but wants more discussion about incarceration rates and compares Idaho with Utah.
Dave Lent — Asked whether product liability issues would also apply on top of the bill’s criminal provisions.
James Ruchti — Senator Ruchti asks Senator Guthrie and Senator Lakey whether the volume of legislation makes it harder for a committee chair to do the work needed, and if so, how.
Todd Lakey — Senator Lakey is mentioned in a discussion about how the volume of legislation affects committee work and how privileged committees, including Senator Lakey’s, handle items that come through after the printing deadline.
Todd Lakey — Addressed as Chair Lakey by the witness.
Todd Lakey — Chairman/Senator Todd Lakey is repeatedly referenced during the discussion of a small amendment and related questions about the court’s small claims rules and whether those rules might need modification. He is mentioned as having worked with others on the amendment and is then addressed several times during the ensuing question-and-answer exchange about the current rule framework and court procedures.
Todd Lakey — Referenced as having asked a similar question.
Dr. Jean Hinshide — Identified as the only person signed in who wished to testify.