Judy Boyle — Mentioned as representing the district and as a seatmate.
Judy Boyle — Representative Judy Boyle opposes the measure on fiscal grounds, saying she worries about debt and that the legislature should avoid federal money. She moves to return the bill to the sender/sponsor, continues criticizing the proposal and the 17th Amendment, and then her motion is clarified as a motion to return to sponsor. In the subsequent vote, she votes yes on the substitute motion and no on the original motion.
Lauren Enz — Identified herself as representing Balance Budget Now and testified in support of HCR 25.
Mr. Enz — Mr. Enz explains that the convention threat is intended to pressure Congress into proposing a balanced budget amendment, arguing that Idaho is not needed to reach the threshold and that the threat must be credible even if a convention never occurs. He cites historical precedent showing many state convention calls without an actual convention, says federalism gives states the responsibility to push back when the federal government exceeds its authority, and argues that state pressure is necessary to rein in the federal budget. He then describes the proposed amendment as a 10-year debt break that would phase in balance gradually, avoiding sudden tax increases or severe cuts, and notes that post-World War II debt reduction came through economic growth rather than direct repayment.
Heather Scott — Says the witness's explanation sounds like 'double talk' because the resolution calls for a convention of states while claiming there is no desire to hold one.
Heather Scott — Representative Heather Scott participates in the roll-call vote sequence, first voting yes on the substitute motion and then voting no on the original motion.
Mr. Scherz — Mr. Scherz is referenced in a discussion about the strategy of threatening a constitutional convention as a way to pressure elected leaders, with the speaker questioning and characterizing that approach.
Mr. Hens — Responds that the key issue is the amount of debt accumulated versus annual deficits.
Bruce Skaug — Representative Bruce Skaug questioned the proposal, saying he was struggling with it because he understood the national GOP to oppose this type of measure. He followed up by asking for clarification on where the GOP platform stands in Idaho and nationally.
Lori Hartog — The transcript appears to misrecognize the speaker; this appears to be Representative Scott asking about the written amendment and whether it has been shared with Congress and the states.
David Leroy — Introduced as the first public witness for testimony.
Dave Leroy — Dave Leroy testified in support of the measure, identifying himself and recalling his long-standing concern about reckless federal spending and the national debt from his time as Idaho Attorney General. He explained that although he had long shared concerns about the risks of calling a convention, he now believes that post-COVID the state has no choice but to engage with the issue. He closed by urging a yes vote.
Gene Mellencamp Moore / Gene Mullenkoff Moore — Introduced as the next public witness; the name is unclear in the transcript, but the witness identifies as representing herself and as one of Idaho's electoral college votes.
Evelyn Whiting — Evelyn Whiting testified in support of fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget amendment, arguing that her generation is inheriting the burden of federal debt and normalized borrowing. She said the government is doing what families are warned not to do—spend without limits, borrow without a plan, and pass the bill to future generations. Whiting added that the founders anticipated this risk by giving states power under Article 5, and she emphasized that fiscal responsibility should not depend on which party or generation is in office. She concluded that the amendment is not about punishing anyone, but about confronting debt now rather than leaving the problem to children.
Cordell Rich — Cordell Rich testified in support of HCR 25, explaining that it is not a call for a constitutional convention but a proposal to amend the Constitution. He argued that states can control delegates or electors, rejected concerns about a runaway convention by saying none has ever occurred, and concluded by emphasizing that legislators have the power to represent constituents to Congress and thanking the committee.
Brian Garrett — Brian Garrett, a longtime banker, testified that his 45 years in banking gave him firsthand experience with the effects of high interest rates. He argued that federal borrowing pushes interest rates higher nationwide, which can contribute to recession and business failures. He also criticized federal support for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying they were distributing money without sufficient concern for the economic consequences.
Tom Luna — Tom Luna testified in support of the resolution and balanced budget amendment, introducing himself as speaking for his own family and his 19 grandchildren in Idaho. He then explained that he became a fiscal conservative years ago and referenced Ronald Reagan’s support for a balanced budget amendment as part of his broader argument.
Mr. Luna — The chair thanks Mr. Luna after his testimony.
Dorothy Moon — Dorothy Moon, chairwoman of the Idaho Republican Party, testified against the resolution, saying she has long been concerned about the issue. She added that she and others are tired of repeatedly fighting against paid lobbyists who are driving the effort and wasting energy on the dispute.
Larry Craig — Larry Craig is introduced as the next witness and then identifies himself as being from District 14, beginning his testimony in support of using Article 5 to pressure Congress.
Joe Palmer — Larry Craig argued that H.C.R. 25 tells Congress that enough is enough and should respond to the will of the people. He then explained that the underlying issue has been considered, but it is difficult to determine how to challenge it because congressional funding is highly fragmented. Craig noted that Congress has exclusive authority over revenue and budgets, and said the matter has not really been viewed or tested as a whole in court.
Joe Palmer — Representative Joe Palmer participates in the vote sequence, voting no on the substitute motion and then yes on the original motion.
Liz — A remote witness who was being brought in but did not connect.
Ms. Evelyn — Referenced as being behind the speaker while he observed the committee's reaction.
Monica Church — Commented on safeguards and noted the 19th and 21st Amendments as examples of alternative constitutional processes.
Monica Church — Pointed to the 1933 ratification conventions in Utah and Idaho as precedent for alternative constitutional processes.
Monica Church — Was referenced as the 'good chairwoman' whose point was being affirmed.
Monica Church — Votes yes on the substitute motion.
Monica Church — Votes no on the original motion.
Mike Pohanka — Mike Pohanka first comments on his experience teaching economics at the College of Southern Idaho beginning in 1999, using that context to discuss government finances and the national debt with his students. Shortly afterward, he participates in roll-call voting, voting no on the substitute motion and yes on the original motion.
Ms. Wright — Referenced as having made a prior point about the debt figures being discussed.
Brent Crane — Representative Brent Crane moves to send HCR 25 to the floor with a due pass recommendation, is later called during the roll call vote on the substitute motion, and ultimately votes yes on the original motion.
Erin Bingham — Representative Erin Bingham briefly supports the motion by framing it as consistent with grassroots, bottom-up government and Article V principles, then later records a no vote on the substitute motion and a yes vote on the original motion.
James Holtzclaw — Representative James Holtzclaw is called during roll call and then records a 'Yes' vote on the original motion.
Shawn Dygert — Representative Shawn Dygert participates in the vote sequence, first voting no on the substitute motion and then voting yes on the original motion.
Stephanie Mickelsen — Stephanie Mickelsen is recorded in the roll-call vote sequence, first voting no on the substitute motion and then voting yes on the original motion (with the yes vote repeated in the subsequent roll call entry).
Anne Haws — Representative Anne Haws participates in consecutive roll-call votes, voting yes on the substitute motion and then no on the original motion.
Joe Alfieri — Named during roll call on the original motion; vote not captured in this excerpt.