Heather Scott — Introduced RS 33112 and explained that it would prohibit state agencies from using logos, mottos, or slogans of elected officials on official materials.
Heather Scott — Responded to Representative Boyle and gave examples such as 'Leading Idaho.'
Heather Scott — Said she wanted the bill returned to her so she could rework it.
Heather Scott — Asked whether she intended to make changes and bring the bill back.
Heather Scott — Explained that House Bill 112 was more specific and that broadening the language could have unintended consequences.
Heather Scott — Said she would have the bill returned to her and acknowledged the governor's role in the budget language.
Heather Scott — Introduced RS 33140 and explained that it would require civil asset forfeiture reports to be shared with the State Controller's Office.
Judy Boyle — Asked Representative Scott for an example of the conduct the bill would prohibit.
Judy Boyle — Representative Scott is referenced as having been involved in prior questions on the RS.
Bruce Skaug — Raised a drafting question about punctuation and clarity in line 13 of the bill text.
Joe Alfieri — Made a motion to return RS 33112 to the sponsor.
Joe Alfieri — Joe Alfieri presents House Bill 504, a lottery bill aimed at preventing bulk ticket buying by out-of-state syndicates. He explains that the bill is intended to stop large-scale syndicate purchases that divert lottery winnings away from Idahoans, citing examples of substantial payouts to out-of-state groups. He describes the enforcement approach, which would allow the lottery commission to investigate bulk purchases and deny winnings when appropriate, and asks for a due pass recommendation. In response to questions, he notes that several other states have similar or pending legislation, clarifies that the bill is not meant to stop ordinary groups such as coworkers from buying tickets together, and says decisions in borderline cases would likely be left to lottery investigators’ discretion.
James Ruchti — Representative Scott explained and defended the reporting proposal, saying the filing date should be moved from February to April to match current reporting to prosecuting attorneys and allow local governments to submit to the state at the same time. She clarified that the reporting covers more than cash, including vehicles, TVs, and other property, and that the reports go to the State Controller’s Office using a simple, standardized form. She emphasized that the bill only changes data reporting, not existing processes or standards, and said she has worked with the State Controller on the measure. Scott argued the proposal can be implemented at no cost using the Controller’s current website, with any mailing expense being minimal, and compared it to prior legislation where the state later worked out the process. She also clarified that the bill applies to those reporting under 37-27-44, mostly law enforcement, and not to other forfeiture categories such as water rights or bail bond forfeitures. She introduced RS 33141 as a transparency and accountability measure tied to State Controller duties and prior reporting laws, noting the Controller’s site already lists contracts and related agreements.
James Ruchti — Representative Scott’s bill is discussed in a sustained exchange about how it should work and how strongly it should be enforced. The discussion covers possible language changes, the meaning of terms like 'knowingly' and 'willful,' the bill’s application to state agencies, and the fact that enforcement is intended to be discretionary and light-touch rather than punitive. Scott explains that agencies would be in violation of the section if they fail to report, but the legislature would retain discretion over any response, including possible legislative action such as affecting appropriations. Representative Church then raises concerns that withholding appropriated money from an entire department would be a heavy penalty for unreported contracts and asks for concrete examples of missing contracts, including whether Common Core involved an unreported MOU or MOA.
James Ruchti — The transcript appears to misread Representative Church; the question is about other states' laws on bulk ticket buying.
Jaron Crane — Representative Crane said he would support the motion and then asked a series of related questions about the scope of asset reporting and handling of seized property. He wanted to know whether the reporting would include assets beyond cash, such as vehicles and property, and whether the bill would require a physical storage location or secured parking area for seized vehicles and other property, or whether those items would remain with law enforcement.
Stephanie Mickelsen — Representative Mickelson questioned the fiscal and administrative burden of the reporting requirement, noting that reporting mandates cost money, time, and staff at both state and local levels. She then asked whether counties, cities, or police departments would use a single state reporting form or have to enter the same information separately into different systems. The response explained that the reporting form is already defined under civil asset forfeiture reporting and can be used consistently.
Stephanie Mickelsen — Representative Mickelsen asks for clarification on the scope of the term 'agency,' specifically whether quasi-government entities such as groundwater districts, irrigation districts, and commissions are included.
Stephanie Mickelsen — Stephanie Mickelsen repeatedly questions whether an Idaho LLC formed or used by out-of-state people would still be treated as out-of-state under the bill, and whether such a purchase or entity would be disqualified. She presses for clarification after not receiving a direct answer and notes that the bill does not clearly state that it targets out-of-state actors.
Brandon Shippy — Addressed by the sponsor in response to his question about asset forfeitures.
Brandon Shippy — The motion to return RS 33-141 to sponsor is attributed in the prior context to Representative Dygert; this section continues the procedural action and then transitions to HB 504.
Lori Hartog — Heather Scott explained that prior legislation clarified reporting requirements and that this bill would add a penalty for agencies that enter agreements on the state’s behalf without properly recording them. She noted that some agencies are still not complying, referenced the State Controller’s concerns, and argued that enforcement would likely come through legislative appropriations pressure—especially via JFAC and the ability to withhold funding or publicly call out noncompliant agencies. She also discussed how agency directors would likely ensure compliance to avoid consequences, gave a hypothetical involving an MOU with the federal government, and responded to a proposed amendment suggesting agencies be given 15 or 30 days to cure after notice by providing the missing executed agreement or amendment.
Anne Haws — Representative Haws repeatedly questions the bill’s reporting and penalty mechanism, asking for examples of noncompliance, who would enforce the law, whether the contracts involve already appropriated funds, and how penalties would work if no appropriation is involved. The discussion then shifts into amendment drafting, with Haws moving to amend the language and others debating wording such as notice timing and whether to include willfulness. Later, Haws raises legal concerns about removing an entire agency’s appropriation or eliminating an agency for a single sub-agreement failure, and clarifies that a contract already underway could expose the state to contractor liability if procedures are not properly in place and funding is later removed.
Erin Bingham — Representative Bingham is referenced as having made a follow-up question in the discussion.
Erin Bingham — Representative Bingham asks for clarification about notification and enforcement.
Erin Bingham — Representative Bingham follows up to restate the notice-and-cure language.
Erin Bingham — Representative Bingham's question about what happens after noncompliance is being answered.
Erin Bingham — Representative Bingham is the member asking for clarification on the consequences.
Erin Bingham — Representative Bingham is referenced as part of the discussion about the severity of penalties.
Erin Bingham — Representative Church references Representative Bingham's point about the penalty being a heavy touch.
Erin Bingham — Representative Haws addresses Representative Mickelsen's concern about legal exposure from taking away funding after a contract has begun.
Brent Crane — Chairman Crane is addressed in the discussion of whether to include 'willfully' in the amendment.
Brent Crane — Representative Brent Crane asks whether the bill is intended to target out-of-state groups or whether it would also affect Idaho co-workers or local groups buying tickets together.
Monica Church — Representative Scott discusses the proposed penalty language, explaining that it is intended to target the specific MOU, MOA, or contract involved—using Common Core as an example of an executive-level agreement that later became implemented without prior statutory tracking. He clarifies that the new code would allow the state controller to keep a list of contracts and that the penalty would be tied directly to the offending agreement. Committee members respond by asking for concrete examples and raising concerns about whether withholding funding after a contract is already in place could expose the state to legal or financial problems.
James Holtzclaw — Representative Crane asks whether replacing 'such' with 'said' on line 33 would clarify an ambiguity, and the response is that it would not.
James Holtzclaw — Representative Holtzclaw first acknowledged the response, then asked who would enforce the $5,000 purchase limit at the counter, including concerns about people taking turns buying tickets. The witness then addressed him during the enforcement explanation, and Holtzclaw followed up by asking how the limit would be enforced if the same person returned later in the day to spend another $5,000 at the same store.
Shawn Dygert — Representative Dygert is recognized by the chair, then comments that the committee seems to want the sponsor to work on the bill’s language so it can better address accountability and reporting concerns. After the chair clarifies that a motion is needed, Dygert formally moves to return RS 33141 to the sponsor to be reworked and brought back.
Shawn Dygert — Asked whether the lottery could deny payment of winnings from prohibited bulk purchase transactions and keep the money.
Andrew Rulandum — Identifies himself as being with the Lottery Commission and the Idaho State Liquor Division and answers the question about the $5,000 limit.
Tony Pitts — Tony Pitts, the Idaho Lottery’s director of security, explains the enforcement focus behind the bill and the rationale for the $5,000 spending limit. He says the concern is with people who have turned lottery play into a business, notes that many Utah residents come to play, and explains that the $5,000 threshold was set after consulting major retail locations and reflects a level of spending that is uncommon. He also clarifies that the bill is not aimed at out-of-state people specifically, but instead imposes a general $5,000-per-24-hour limit.
Joe Palmer — Representative Joe Palmer asks follow-up questions about how the lottery system works and whether groups are monitoring remaining tickets and prizes to identify likely wins. The response explains that the lottery posts ticket and top-prize availability on its website and that out-of-state groups hire people to buy tickets in bulk. Palmer then suggests it may be easier to stop publishing sales totals rather than pass legislation. Later, during discussion of the motion to send HB 504 to the floor with a due pass recommendation, he raises concern that the bill may not actually stop syndicates from using multiple people to spend $5,000 each at different locations.
Tony Pitts / Lottery representative — Confirms that groups are watching remaining tickets and prizes and says the lottery posts the information online.
Kelly Anthon — The chair addressed Representative Alfieri before closing testimony.
Kelly Anthon — Moved to send House Bill 504 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.