Brent Crane — Chairman Brent Crane is repeatedly addressed throughout a continuous exchange in which the committee discusses enforcement issues, proof of biological sex, possible enforcement scenarios, and the bill’s cause of action. He is also referenced in the speaking order and in follow-up comments as the discussion continues.
Brent Crane — Addressed as the chair during the exchange.
Brent Crane — Addressed as chair during the comment.
Brent Crane — Addressed by the speaker while responding to the DUI comparison.
Brent Crane — Addressed during the sponsor's response and again when discussion resumed.
Kelly Anthon — Representative Haas is repeatedly referenced during a continuous questioning exchange, with the discussion staying focused on the same member throughout the brief overlapping time span.
Kelly Anthon — Kelly Anthon questioned what problem the bill is intended to solve, asking whether the concern is that being in the wrong restroom increases the risk of assault. He argued that if assault is the issue, existing laws already punish such conduct, and he noted that many women and girls feel afraid to speak up about the issue and want an avenue to address it and reclaim their spaces.
Shawn Dygert — Representative Shawn Dygert is introduced as the next questioner, then asks how inadvertent restroom entry would be handled. He later returns to the same issue, saying he supports the proposal but wants stronger enforcement.
Shawn Dygert — Voted yes on the motion.
Shawn Dygert — Asked whether he needed permission to refer to a previous RS and then questioned why the bill uses a civil cause of action.
Shawn Dygert — Representative Dygert moves to hold House Bill 510 and the related RS 332-4-5 subject to the call of the chair.
Bruce Skaug — Bruce Skaug participates in a committee exchange about the bill’s enforcement and practical operation. He responds to questions about how law enforcement would investigate and make arrests, acknowledges he cannot give personal testimony about arrest procedures, answers a scenario-based question with a simple yes, and later comments that laws without enforcement teeth can be ineffective. The discussion remains focused on enforcement mechanics and the bill’s real-world impact.
Bruce Skaug — Voted yes on the motion.
Bruce Skaug — Representative Skaug is recognized by the chair and then begins speaking, thanking the chairman and starting his remarks.
Heather Scott — The transcript says 'Mr. Scott,' likely referring to Representative Scott, who comments that the bill has teeth and is personal to her.
Heather Scott — Commented that police and prosecutors have discretion and that the law may never become a major issue in practice.
Heather Scott — Requested a roll call vote on the motion to introduce RS 33092.
Heather Scott — Representative Scott introduces statistics about sexual violence, specifically rape, to support the bill, and her earlier remarks are later referenced in the discussion.
Monica Church — Representative Monica Church questioned the practical enforcement of the bill, asking how police would identify the person involved, whether the scenario assumes a male-presenting individual, how officers would know the person's name if they arrived later, whether a citizen's arrest is expected, and whether someone who remains until police arrive would still be arrested and charged. She also raised concern that the bill does not appear to account for someone who enters the wrong restroom by mistake.
Monica Church — Representative Church spoke against the motion, arguing that the proposal would effectively punish someone for merely being in the wrong room and that existing laws already address assault and related conduct. Subsequent references reiterated his concern about the potential legal consequences and noted that he voted no on the motion.
Monica Church — Representative Church questioned the premise that the issue is a new or uniquely modern problem, repeatedly asking when there was a time when society was not fractured or in moral decay. He then followed up by asking what legal mechanism exists for someone who is wrongfully accused.
Brandon Shippy — Brandon Shippy is mentioned in two nearby references that both appear to involve a transcription or naming error, where the speaker refers to 'Representative Dygert' while discussing a prior question and a mistaken-entry scenario. Together, the mentions reflect a single brief discussion about the same mistaken reference.
Brandon Shippy — Representative Hill twice referenced Representative Scott as having described the same issue, specifically cultural degradation, reinforcing the point with a repeated citation of Scott’s similar characterization.
Jim Guthrie — During the committee hearing, the speaker addressed the chair in a brief, light exchange, first referring to 'Chairman Crane' and then saying 'Thank you, Chairman Gray,' indicating the same ongoing interaction with the committee chair.
Jim Guthrie — The chair first recognizes the committee for comments or questions on the motion to introduce RS 33183, then later calls for a vote on the motion and announces that it passes.
Stephanie Mickelsen — Stephanie Mickelsen questioned how the bill would address an unusual situation where someone might need to use the women’s restroom because the men’s room is closed, then argued that she has never personally encountered such a situation and suggested the bill may be addressing a rare, one-off problem rather than a common issue.
Stephanie Mickelsen — Representative Mickelson questioned the bill’s enforcement and practical implications, asking how the government could reasonably prevent members of the other sex from using certain restrooms and what enforcement methods would be used, such as scans or DNA testing. He then raised concerns about private causes of action, arguing that they would invite litigation, burden already overloaded courts, and ultimately cost taxpayers and benefit trial lawyers.
Stephanie Mickelsen — Representative Michelson reviews both bills and says she prefers the prior RS over the current bill because it represents a lighter touch of government. She argues the bill would burden businesses and government through private rights of action and potential lawsuits, and questions whether it would be better to target individuals directly through criminal enforcement rather than creating litigation against institutions. Her concern is that the bill may not be the best way to achieve the goal of keeping men out of women’s safe spaces.
Treg Bernt — The transcript likely intended Representative Scott; the speaker is identified as Representative Scott in the text.
Joe Palmer — Voted yes on the motion.
James Holtzclaw — Voted yes on the motion.
Joe Alfieri — Voted yes on the motion.
Judy Boyle — Voted yes on the motion.
Judy Boyle — Speaker references Representative Nicholson in a side comment before turning to Representative Michelson.
Erin Bingham — Voted yes on the motion.
Erin Bingham — Welcomed to House State Affairs and identified himself as Ted Hill, District 14, Eagle and Emmett.
Erin Bingham — Explained the purpose of the proposal as protecting privacy and safety in public buildings.
Erin Bingham — Continued describing the bill's purpose and the problem it is intended to address.
Erin Bingham — Explained that the proposal extends existing safety obligations and requires separate facilities based on biological sex.
Erin Bingham — Said the proposal builds on prior protections and cited polling in support of separate facilities.
Erin Bingham — Yielded for questions after presenting the bill.
Erin Bingham — Answered that the distinction is simply women's showers versus men's showers.
Erin Bingham — Argued the issue is real and cited a YMCA complaint involving a daughter in the shower.
Erin Bingham — Argued the bill protects people and described potential conflict involving a father in his daughter's shower.
Erin Bingham — Said he would defer a legal question until the full hearing and bring Mr. Kinsetti to discuss it.
Erin Bingham — Attributed the issue to cultural degradation and societal chaos.
Erin Bingham — Expanded on his view that society has been degrading over time and referenced his military experience.
Erin Bingham — Confirmed he would address the legal question in the full hearing if the bill is introduced.
Erin Bingham — Repeated his view that cultural degradation is driving the issue.
Erin Bingham — Continued his remarks about societal degradation and the need to protect vulnerable people.