House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee
Key Moments
Chris Mathias — Asked a follow-up question to Representative Scott about the scope of 'religious gathering' and House of Worship.
Chris Mathias — Addressed in the question about what counts as a religious gathering outside a house of worship.
Chris Mathias — Voted no.
Chris Mathias — Named again in the roll call sequence.
unidentified committee member — Praised the presentation, noted a recent helpful experience with the Fifth Judicial District, and complimented the district's family law assistance.
Chris Paulson — Chris Paulson introduced himself as the Deputy Trial Court Administrator in the Third Judicial District and noted that he recently moved from Wilder to Adrian, Oregon to assist aging in-laws. He then thanked the committee for the opportunity to speak and began his testimony on family court services, including his prior role from 2022 to 2024 as the District 3 Family Court Services Manager.
Heather Scott — Requested a quick recess because she had a serious matter.
Heather Scott — Representative Scott is thanked for her objection and is told there are pending bills covering the area being discussed.
Heather Scott — The speaker referred to a 'seatmate' who has likely been involved in the issue; identity is uncertain.
Heather Scott — The speaker referenced state legislators being kept out of proceedings; a committee member may be among those affected, but no specific name is given.
Heather Scott — Addressed as the chair when the question was raised.
Heather Scott — Facilitated the question period after testimony.
Heather Scott — The sponsor was asked to distill the problem being addressed by the bill.
Heather Scott — Managed the question period and recognized the question to Ms. Walker.
Heather Scott — Addressed as chair during the question exchange.
Heather Scott — Made the motion to send House Bill 692 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Heather Scott — Made the motion to send the bill to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Heather Scott — Responded that judges retain discretion to exclude attendees.
Heather Scott — Explained that judges can exclude attendees but should state reasons, and justified including legislators as possible attendees.
Heather Scott — Responded that judicial discretion remains intact and the bill is broader than just the children.
Heather Scott — Was asked to explain how a judge would reason through a legislator's motion to be included.
Heather Scott — Said legislators need to understand how policy affects the courts and supported observing proceedings.
Heather Scott — Explained that watching policy play out in court helps legislators understand where policy and legal practice diverge.
Heather Scott — Said observing proceedings helps identify disconnects between policy and practice and that legislators are supposed to be a check on the judicial branch.
Heather Scott — Supported the observation provision as a checks-and-balances measure and said it helps understand policy and process.
Heather Scott — Called 'Chairman Scott' in the transcript, likely a transcription error for Chair Bruce Skaug or another chair reference.
Heather Scott — Representative Scott was acknowledged for spending significant time working on the bill and then recorded as voting yes on the substitute motion during the roll call.
Heather Scott — Was addressed by Representative Matthias as the sponsor/answering member.
Heather Scott — Called during the roll call vote.
Bruce Skaug — The chair apologizes for an interruption and asks the speaker to continue, after which the speaker immediately resumes by addressing the chair and objecting again.
Bruce Skaug — The speaker addressed Chairman Scott, indicating Bruce Skaug was presiding.
Bruce Skaug — Identified as Chairman Skaug, responding to Representative Shirts.
Bruce Skaug — Chairman Skaug called for a roll call vote on the substitute motion and then recorded a yes vote as part of that same vote.
Bruce Skaug — Bruce Skaug, as chair, is referenced briefly before he takes the floor to introduce HB 615. He explains that the bill is intended to address activists who disrupt worship services for political or disruptive purposes, drawing on prior Idaho legislation that prohibited disruptions at funeral processions. He says the idea came from a church security team and that an Ada County prosecutor’s office helped refine the language. He clarifies that the bill is aimed at the volume and disruptive conduct, not the content of speech, and closes by asking the committee to send the bill to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Bruce Skaug — Bruce Skaug is thanked for bringing House Bill 615, then is called back to close after negative testimony. In his remarks, he responds to questions by saying the current disturbing-the-peace statute already applies, that the bill is meant to protect worship without elevating religion, and that similar conduct at religious gatherings could already be addressed under existing law. He also notes that synagogues and other religious services are under attack and explains that Section 2 was added because of protests at military funerals.
Bruce Skaug — Will present the bill on the floor.
Israel Enriquez — Israel Enriquez introduced himself as the treatment court manager in Twin Falls and coordinator of Veterans Court and Mental Health Court, then described his background as an Army veteran and long-time Idaho criminal justice professional. He went on to explain that treatment court is not a lenient or passive program but an intensive accountability system, with the judge making final decisions on admission, sanctions, termination, and graduation. He emphasized how demanding the program is, noting that some participants would rather return to prison than continue in treatment court.
Judge Butler — The witness describes Judge Butler’s treatment court approach as one that challenges participants’ thinking, corrects their errors, and reinforces accountability through rigorous honesty, which changed the witness’s view of the judge’s role.
Joe Alfieri — Joe Alfieri asked follow-up questions about the treatment court program, first seeking clarification on whether it is identical statewide or unique to the 5th District, and then asking how long the program has existed in its current form.
Joe Alfieri — Vice Chair Alfieri argued that perfection should not prevent progress and supported moving the bill forward, then later voted no on the substitute motion.
Joe Alfieri — Asked who would reimburse the sheriff or county for collection costs.
Joe Alfieri — Asked whether the state could seek reimbursement from another state to offset the costs.
Joe Alfieri — The Vice Chair is taking over the gavel.
Joe Alfieri — Responded that he envisions the bill applying to religious gatherings in places like parks or the Capitol rotunda.
Joe Alfieri — Named in the exchange as the member being addressed.
Ms. Enriquez — Thanked for testimony and asked about program consistency and recidivism performance.
Barbara Ehardt — Representative Barbara Ehardt is introduced as the sponsor from District 33, representing Bonneville County, and is then referenced again as the sponsor during questioning about the bill’s purpose and the specific problem it is intended to fix. The surrounding discussion also notes that state legislators were kept out of proceedings, but the main thread remains the presentation and explanation of the bill by Ehardt.
Barbara Ehardt — Addressed by Representative Gannon in questioning.
Barbara Ehardt — The question was directed to Representative Ehardt.