House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee
Key Moments
Chris Mathias — Asked whether the bill should more clearly distinguish lawful face coverings from obstructive use.
Chris Mathias — Chris Mathias questioned Representative Hall about whether the bill should explicitly require intent to avoid detection or conceal identity when covering one's face during a crime. He argued that the statute should distinguish criminal masking from ordinary mask use and warned that vague language could disproportionately affect people with less power.
Chris Mathias — Representative Chris Mathias participated in the vote sequence, voting yes on one motion and no on the original motion.
Chris Mathias — Voted yes on the motion.
Chris Mathias — Chris Mathias supported the motion, explaining that the bill protects 18- and 19-year-olds while leaving the second-conviction felony language unchanged, and that the conduct at issue is exploitative and wrong. He then was recorded as voting yes during the roll call.
Joe Alfieri — The chair says he will hand the gavel over to the vice chair for the first item.
Joe Alfieri — Asked for more explanation about the trauma caused by masking during a crime.
Chris Mathias — Moved to approve the minutes of Monday, January 19, 2026.
Chris Mathias — Confirmed the bill is permissive and the Attorney General may accept or decline the referral.
Don Hall — Testifies that House Bill 489 addresses premeditation and masking during crimes.
Don Hall — Addressed by Representative Scott in questioning about the bill's scope.
Don Hall — Addressed in the follow-up question about penalties.
Don Hall — Addressed in the question about the bill's classification.
Don Hall — Responded that the concern was valid and said law enforcement professionals raised the same issue.
Don Hall — Said the enhancement should be used only in specific cases and acknowledged concerns about unintended consequences.
Don Hall — Said law enforcement officers acting within their duties should be fine, but the enhancement could apply if they are truly committing a crime.
Don Hall — Noted that he did not hear a question and invited Hawkins to respond if he wished.
Don Hall — Explained that the enhancement applies only after conviction, not merely accusation, and acknowledged broader concerns about society and law.
Don Hall — Said the bill could deter masked crimes and referenced groups like Antifa as an example.
Don Hall — Responded that the deterrent effect comes from the possibility of additional fines or imprisonment and asked for clarification.
Don Hall — Said the bill's prevention value comes from the seriousness of the enhancement, fines, and imprisonment after apprehension and conviction.
Don Hall — Closed member questions and moved the committee to witness testimony.
Don Hall — Gave instructions to witnesses, said nine people were signed up, and called Jason Kimball first.
Don Hall — The chair asks Representative Hall to return to the center for questions and discussion.
Don Hall — Representative Don Hall was recorded as voting no on one motion and yes on the original motion.
Don Hall — Voted yes on the motion.
Don Hall — Recorded voting yes.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Clint Hostetler raises concerns about the bill, warning about unintended consequences and citing January 6th as an example. The sponsor then responds to address his concern.
Clint Hostetler — Asked about the growing need for surveillance capacities or abilities.
Clint Hostetler — Clint Hostetler questioned whether the bill explicitly includes the words 'intent' or 'intentionally,' asking where that concept appears in the text. Later, after being called on, he commented that the bill is difficult and not black-and-white, with arguments on both sides.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Hostetler is referenced during the proceedings and then called on to respond during a roll-call vote. He is recorded as voting yes on one motion and later no on the original motion, with repeated transcript entries reflecting the same voting sequence.
Clint Hostetler — Voted yes on the motion.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Hostetler asks for arrest numbers related to solicitation, specifically requesting figures for the last year or the last five years, and that question is then referenced in the follow-up response.
Clint Hostetler — Clint Hostetler questioned the fairness and consistency of the enforcement approach being discussed. He asked for clarification on why enforcement would not focus more on the seller, compared the issue to other criminal contexts, and followed up by asking about differences in repercussions for female versus male participants and how the breakdown of responsibility should be understood.
Clint Hostetler — Recorded voting no.
John Gannon — John Gannon questioned the bill’s enhancement provision, asking whether it would create a misdemeanor or felony offense and whether the enhancement could apply broadly, including to minor theft. Later references reiterated that he had asked what was meant by enhancement.
John Gannon — John Gannon questioned whether the bill should be limited to felony convictions instead of covering lower-level offenses such as disturbing the peace, loud noise, or trespassing, noting that testimony about arson and violent assaults by masked criminals suggested the bill’s focus should be narrowed to address speech and conduct concerns.
John Gannon — Questioned whether an extra year is enough for a felony assault on a police officer when a mask is involved.
John Gannon — Said the discussion has focused on serious violent offenses and stated support for the amendment and sending the bill to general orders.
John Gannon — Voted yes on the motion.
John Gannon — Voted no on the original motion.
John Gannon — John Gannon is called on and asks Representative Erickson what kind of medical or psychological aid would be rendered and whether the person providing such aid would need any qualifications. Representative Erickson responds that in some cases no formal qualifications would be required.
John Gannon — Voted yes on the motion.
John Gannon — Called during roll call; vote not clearly captured in the transcript segment.
Dale Hawkins — Representative Hawkins repeatedly expressed concern that the bill could have unintended consequences for law enforcement and ICE personnel. He warned it might be used against officers in the future, noted that federal law enforcement can be accused of crimes even when not committing one, and said he was worried similar problems seen in other cities could emerge in Idaho and the current city. The exchange ended with a brief acknowledgment of the response about accusations versus convictions.
Dale Hawkins — His questions were referenced while the speaker explained why offenders wear masks to hide identity.
Dale Hawkins — Representative Dale Hawkins first asked for clarification about whether the committee was discussing the substitute motion or the bill itself. He then argued that he saw no connection between the bill and claims that it would protect police officers or relate to a religious sect, calling those connections ridiculous. He further warned that the bill could have unintended consequences and be used in the future against people trying to protect and serve the public, concluding that he strongly struggled with the bill.
Dale Hawkins — Representative Dale Hawkins was recorded in consecutive roll-call votes, first voting yes on the motion and then voting no on the original motion.
Dale Hawkins — Representative Dale Hawkins is called on and asks whether anyone in Idaho has been sued for rendering simple help or just trying to be there. Representative Erickson responds to Hawkins’s question about lawsuits, continuing the same discussion.