Zoe Wagner — Zoe Wagner was introduced and then testified against the bill, arguing that it would increase scrutiny and unequal treatment of women based on appearance and community perceptions. She said laws based on rigid sex definitions do not protect women and instead invite confrontation, and she concluded by urging lawmakers to vote no on the bill.
Andrew Kukla — Andrew Kukla is introduced after the chair confirms the pronunciation of his last name, then delivers a continuous testimony describing his personal journey from fear to trust and love, emphasizing that diversity brings beauty and strength and that the world is not binary. He argues that the bill is rooted in fear, urges the committee to reject it, and concludes by offering to answer questions.
Reverend Dr. Andrew Kukla — Reverend Dr. Andrew Kukla introduced himself as the pastor of First Presbyterian Church in downtown Boise and described his involvement in community service and civic boards focused on ending homelessness, increasing interfaith engagement, and protecting the environment. He then said these commitments led him to oppose House Bill 607 and asked the committee not to give in to fear and control.
Sarah LaWall — Introduced as the next witness after Andrew Kukla's testimony.
Reverend Sarah LaWall — Reverend Sarah LaWall, minister of the Boise Unitarian Universalist Fellowship and mother of a trans daughter, testifies in opposition to the bill. She explains that the bill would harm her daughter by making it illegal for her to use the women’s bathroom, leaving her with no safe or appropriate option because she fears using the men’s bathroom due to safety concerns and the risk of assault. LaWall urges the committee to remember that transgender people are human beings deserving of the same rights and dignity as everyone else, and asks them not to pass the bill.
Misty Tolman — Introduced as the next witness, with a note about pronunciation of her last name.
Misty Deli-Carpany-Tolman — Misty Deli-Carpany-Tolman, the regional political and Idaho state director for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, opposes HB 607. She argues the bill creates a $10,000 civil penalty and expands government overreach into private businesses by forcing owners to police restroom use and target people based on appearance or gender stereotypes. She says the measure stigmatizes transgender people, codifies discrimination, does nothing to prevent crime, and instead shifts legal and financial risk onto businesses, local governments, and taxpayers. She concludes by urging a no vote on HB 607.
Pam Eaton — Pam Eaton opposes the bill because its liability provisions would effectively force businesses and public accommodations to police restroom use. She argues businesses should not have to station employees to monitor restrooms, and asks for a safe harbor for establishments that designate restroom areas or already operate unisex restrooms. She adds that customers can choose whether to enter such businesses, that restroom arrangements are a business practice decision, and that complying with the bill could require major remodels or operational changes, which is why her organizations oppose it.
Ms. Eaton — Ms. Eaton responded to questions about the bill by saying her concern is not that it explicitly requires restroom policing, but that the liability language could allow customers to sue businesses if they believe someone is in the wrong restroom. She argued that this could pressure businesses—especially smaller Idaho retailers and mom-and-pop stores—to monitor restrooms, station staff near them, or otherwise take extra precautions. She also said the public-accommodation language appears broad enough to cover many private businesses, and that businesses might respond by restricting restroom access, adding signage, or labeling restrooms male/female. Ms. Eaton explained that the association’s members are a mix of large chains and small businesses, with many independent Idaho retailers, and that the smaller businesses are more worried because they have fewer staff and greater liability exposure. She defined 'prohibit' as 'to stop,' said the association communicates regularly with members about bills, and reiterated that the core issue is liability and cost if someone enters a restroom and is thought not to belong there. When asked about exemptions, she said the single-occupancy restroom exemption does not resolve her concern because it is different from multi-stall facilities, and she supported expanding the definition to include women’s, men’s, or family labeling. She also confirmed that members do comply with ADA and life-safety requirements.
Heather Scott — Representative Heather Scott questioned the Idaho Retailers Association about its membership makeup, asking whether its positions reflect large corporations, chain retailers, or small mom-and-pop businesses, including how much of the membership is Idaho-based versus outside corporations. She then followed up by asking how the association communicates with or polls its members before testifying on their behalf.
Heather Scott — Thanked Carissa and said her testimony highlighted privacy concerns parents face with small children.
Heather Scott — Votes no on the substitute motion.
Stephanie Mickelsen — Stephanie Mickelsen questioned how the bill’s language prohibiting a member of the other sex from accessing a restroom would be understood by business owners, then followed up by asking what the practical fallout would be if private businesses were responsible for preventing such restroom access and whether businesses would effectively have to stand guard at restroom doors.
Stephanie Mickelsen — Representative Mickelsen questioned whether the bill could make it harder for parents, especially those with small children, to find public restrooms when out in public. She referenced her own experience as a mother of four and emphasized how often families need access to a bathroom for a child, framing restroom availability as a practical concern if the bill leads to closures or reduced access.
Stephanie Mickelsen — Representative Mickelsen participates in a continuous discussion about how the proposed policy would operate in practice. He first asks whether Mr. Gansotti is an attorney and notes the committee has attorneys on staff, then questions what more a business must do beyond posting male and female signs and having a policy. The ensuing responses continue addressing his concerns, including follow-up explanations tied to his questions about business obligations and the bill’s enforcement or private-right-of-action provisions.
Stephanie Mickelsen — Representative Mickelson follows up with questions challenging the bill’s assumption that it has no cost. He argues that the private right of action and compliance requirements would create real expenses for both government entities and private businesses, including the need for signage and internal training, and says it is misleading to describe the legislation as de minimis or cost-free.
Eric Geronda — Eric Geronda testified that he opposes the bill because he believes it does not go far enough. He then made discriminatory remarks comparing transgender people to racial segregation, argued the bill should be more specific, and suggested bathroom policing. He continued by invoking his Christian beliefs and quoting Matthew 19:12, saying he had looked to the Bible because of what he called a trans conspiracy. He concluded by claiming transgender people have changed his Bible and that Jesus would not support eunuchs or transgender people.
James Holtzclaw — Commented that the Bible passage was about whether people should or should not get married.
James Holtzclaw — Votes no on the substitute motion.
Christian Welp — Testified on behalf of the Calic Church in Idaho in support of House Bill 607, emphasizing safety in bathrooms and asking for a due pass recommendation.
Monica Church — Representative Church raised concerns about business liability, following earlier testimony, and asked whether businesses might respond by installing cameras outside bathrooms to protect themselves from liability, questioning whether that would be an acceptable outcome for children and others using the facilities.
Monica Church — Representative Church asks a series of related questions about how a proposed prohibition would work in government buildings, including what compliance would look like, what the fiscal note or cost of enforcement might be, and what liability or cost implications a private right of action could create for government entities. The discussion continues into concerns that businesses and government bodies might respond with guards, cameras, or other burdensome policies, reflecting a broader focus on the practical and financial consequences of the proposal.
Mr. Walt — Mr. Walt deferred questions about the legality and exact wording of the proposal to the lawyers, and added that he personally would not be comfortable with video cameras in bathrooms.
Carissa Folks — Carissa Folks testified in support of the bill as a District 18 resident and nursing mother of two toddlers. She described the practical challenges mothers face when using public restrooms with small children, emphasized the need for privacy and accommodations for breastfeeding and childcare, and argued that restroom access matters for other vulnerable people as well, including the elderly. In response to questions, she said public restroom closures were unlikely but businesses should not avoid making necessary accommodations for mothers and children. She concluded by urging a yes vote and asking the committee to consider that everyone may need help in restroom settings someday.
Jody Dunn — Jody Dunn, a born-and-raised Pocatelloan and Army veteran, testified as a transgender witness and urged a no vote on the bill, explaining that it would force her into women's restrooms and humiliate her. She then confirmed her testimony was complete and was thanked by the chair.
Sam Reese — Sam Reese was introduced as the next virtual testifier, then identified himself as a 31-year-old social worker, roller derby player, and transgender person. He testified against H.B. 607, saying it would have a destructive impact on him and other people in Idaho, particularly by contributing to harassment and discrimination against transgender and gender non-conforming people. The chair then thanked him and moved to questions, but none were asked.
Michael Hahn — Michael Hahn was introduced as the next virtual witness and then testified on his own behalf as a Meridian, Idaho resident in support of Bill H. 607. He argued the bill protects women and girls from being forced to share bathrooms with transgender people, said it prevents others from being compelled to accept what he described as a delusion, and asked that the bill be moved to the House floor. The chair then thanked him and closed his testimony without questions.
Brandon Shippy — Representative Dygert is recognized and asks why the bill uses civil penalties instead of criminal penalties. The discussion then shifts to a response addressing that penalty choice, and later the speaker refers back to what was previously explained to Representative Dygert earlier.
James Ruchti — Representative Haas pressed concerns about the bill’s reasonable standard of care and its real-world enforceability. He questioned whether a business could satisfy the standard merely by posting restroom signs and adopting an internal policy, then shifted to how a plaintiff would prove a violation in a multi-use restroom case. He raised practical proof issues, including whether a business owner would need to detain someone or whether a person would have to take a photo in the restroom, and asked for the specific bill language being referenced. Haas further argued that the bill could expose businesses to double liability and that even if a business ultimately wins in court, the cost and burden of litigation still amount to liability.
James Ruchti — Representative Haas followed up on the discussion by asking about a pending lawsuit, whether the underlying legislation had been passed in 2025, and whether the lack of a decided case means the liability outcome is still unknown.
James Ruchti — Votes no on the substitute motion.
Mike Pohanka — Representative Harris participates in the committee discussion on the substitute motion, first confirming his understanding of it. He then explains his opposition to moving the primary, saying March helps ensure Idaho is represented on the federal stage and that the GOP supported keeping the primary in March. He adds that the fiscal note may be closer to $1.5 million and argues the state should fund elections. Harris also clarifies that he spoke with Chairwoman Moon and understood she supported the resolution, notes he worked with the Secretary of State, and confirms that the primary is open to any entity that wants to put up a candidate. He further states that he did not speak with the Democratic chairwoman about the move.
Judy Boyle — Representative Mickelson moves a substitute motion to shift the presidential primary from March to May, arguing that holding it in March would unnecessarily cost taxpayers about $2.5 million and is not fiscally responsible. She says she supports eliminating the caucus but believes the presidential primary should be held alongside the state’s regular May primary. In response to comments, she adds that if the Republican Party wants a March primary, it should pay for it rather than have taxpayers fund a private party activity. She then votes yes on the substitute motion.
Ben Toews — Representative Mickelson references the budget committee in discussing the state budget crisis.
Brent Crane — Votes no on the substitute motion.
Joe Palmer — Votes no on the substitute motion.
Erin Bingham — Votes no on the substitute motion.
Mark Harris — Identified himself as the sponsor of RS 32925 from District 22.
Mark Harris — Mentioned as the person who asked the sponsor to carry the resolution.
Mark Harris — Referenced as the person who asked the speaker to carry the resolution.
Mark Harris — Explained his military service and asked the committee to introduce RS 32925.
Mark Harris — Presented House Bill 607 and described its purpose.
Mark Harris — The chair asks questions about Chairwoman Moon and the Secretary of State's support, recalling prior conflict.
Mark Harris — Votes no on the substitute motion.
Joe Alfieri — Moved to introduce RS 33088.
Joe Alfieri — Joe Alfieri repeatedly questioned Ms. Eaton's claim that the bill requires businesses or establishments to police restrooms, saying he could not find such language in the bill and asking her to point to the specific provision. The chair briefly intervened to remind participants to speak through the chair and keep the exchange orderly, but the discussion remained focused on Alfieri's challenge to Eaton's interpretation of the bill.
Joe Alfieri — Representative Alfieri asked a follow-up question about restroom signage and the bill’s exemptions, referencing concerns that simply posting male and female signs may not satisfy the exemption or liability requirements. He then cited page five, lines 26 through 28, to ask whether the single-occupancy restroom exemption addresses Ms. Eaton’s concern.
Joe Alfieri — Representative Alfieri first asks whether the primary is open to all entities rather than being exclusively Republican, and then later votes no on the substitute motion.
Bruce Skaug — Representative Skaug moved to introduce RS 32925.
Blaine Kanzati — Blaine Kanzati is introduced as the witness who will respond, and then he testifies by identifying himself as president of the Idaho Family Policy Center and supporting House Bill 607.