Monica Church — Monica Church asks a series of related questions about the risks of opening the Constitution to add Land Board language, including what negative or unintended consequences could arise and whether the same concerns would apply in a grazing-land context versus timber land or other more valuable private uses.
Monica Church — Monica Church spoke in support of the motion, drawing on her family’s ties to Idaho’s timber, mining, grazing, and ranching heritage. She argued that Idaho taxpayers and residents should be viewed as beneficiaries of state public lands, rejected the idea that this is problematic, and emphasized that recreation is also a major and growing revenue-generating industry in the state.
Monica Church — Representative Monica Church was called during roll call; her vote was not captured in these lines.
Brent Crane — Chairman Crane is addressed during the exchange.
Brent Crane — Addressed by the witness while she responded to a question.
Brent Crane — Brent Crane, acting as chair, presided over committee action on H.J.R. 10, recognized the motion to send the resolution to the floor with a do pass recommendation, and then oversaw the roll-call vote, including his own recorded vote and the garbled vote entries associated with his name.
Joe Alfieri — Joe Alfieri supports the measure and uses the discussion to argue that the Obergefell v. Hodges decision may have been different if Justices Ginsburg and Kagan had recused themselves. He explains that with those recusals, the case would have failed 4-3 instead of passing 5-4, reinforcing the contention that the outcome depended on the full court.
Joe Alfieri — During roll call, Representative Joe Alfieri was called and recorded as voting yes on the substitute motion, and later voted no on the original motion.
Mark Harris — Representative Haas raises a sustained objection to the legislation on federalism grounds, arguing that Idaho should not urge the Supreme Court to revisit settled law. He notes that the current Court has acknowledged significant reliance interests tied to the case and expresses concern about the broader consequences if marriage remains unsettled in other states. He further explains that marriage is a legal contract that confers important rights, including hospital decision-making and participation in civic life, underscoring the practical impact of the issue.
Heather Scott — Heather Scott introduces a substitute motion to bring in RS 33-144 with a wording change, specifically striking the remainder of the phrase after “2,000 years” and ending the sentence there. During the ensuing discussion, she is referenced positively by another member for the proposed amendment. Later, Scott responds to the debate by arguing that protections could still be provided through partnership arrangements without using the term marriage.
Heather Scott — Representative Heather Scott participated in the roll-call vote, voting yes on the substitute motion and no on the original motion.
Kelly Anthon — A question was attributed to Representative Haas, but the name appears inconsistent with the member list and prior context.
Kelly Anthon — Praised for efforts to adjust the language in previous drafts of the joint resolution.
Kelly Anthon — Praised for bringing the proposal forward and acknowledged for addressing constituent concerns.
Erin Bingham — Representative Erin Bingham is called on and then asks whether Micron’s new substation means it will pay for excess power and whether the bill is being advanced preemptively to address potential future data centers.
Erin Bingham — Representative Erin Bingham participates in a focused exchange on the proposed amendment’s effect on logging and other revenue-generating activities on state lands. She asks how the amendment would affect logging, and after receiving a response, follows up by asking what percentage of revenue-generating activities on state lands comes from logging.
Erin Bingham — Representative Erin Bingham argued in favor of keeping public lands in public hands, saying that selling land would eliminate future opportunities to generate revenue for endowment funds that support schools and other organizations. She emphasized a preference to preserve public lands as much as possible because they can continue producing revenue over time.
Erin Bingham — Voted yes on the original motion.
Judy Boyle — Representative Judy Boyle is called on and then asks whether the utilities helped develop the bill language or were consulted about it.
Judy Boyle — Representative Boyle questioned Brenda Richards about whether federal or state land is preferable for grazing and followed up by asking her to explain the long-running permit issue she mentioned, specifically what she meant by permit 36 being an issue for 30 years. The later reference simply noted Boyle was asking in this same discussion.
Judy Boyle — Representative Boyle is brought into the discussion on the Admissions Act, with the chair indicating her question will be addressed and inviting her to speak. She then asks whether changing the Admissions Act would require Congress to act, and is later referenced again in the same exchange as the discussion continues.
Judy Boyle — Recognized as the next speaker making a substitute motion.
Judy Boyle — Made a substitute motion to hold H.J.R. 10 in committee and began explaining her reasons.
Judy Boyle — Argued that most land in Idaho is federal land and that state endowment lands are not public lands.
Judy Boyle — Said all Idahoans benefit from endowment lands through lower property taxes and general fund support.
Judy Boyle — Argued that endowment funds were built by timber, grazing, and mining and that new money comes from the land.
Judy Boyle — Continued arguing that recreation does not create new money and that timber and mining are major endowment revenue sources.
Judy Boyle — Thanked the committee and urged members to keep the measure in committee.
Judy Boyle — Called during roll call; vote not captured in this line.
Judy Boyle — Voted no on the original motion.
Joe Palmer — Asked whether the committee was moving ahead of the PUC and whether more time should be given.
Joe Palmer — During the roll call on the substitute motion, Representative Joe Palmer voted no; his name was called again as part of the same voting sequence.
James Holtzclaw — Requested to be recorded as voting no on the introduction of RS 33-144.
James Holtzclaw — During roll call, Representative James Holtzclaw was called and then recorded as voting no on the original motion.
Representative Britt Raibald — Identifies himself as Representative Britt Raibald from District 34 and begins explaining the amendment.
Cleet Edmondson — Cleet Edmondson, Executive Director of the Associated Logging Contractors of Idaho, testifies in opposition to the proposed amendment on behalf of the logging industry. He says the current system has worked well for 135 years, supports businesses and the state economy, and should not be changed lightly. He warns against opening the Constitution, argues that the amendment could shift priority away from timber interests, and emphasizes logging’s economic contribution, including jobs and revenue for public schools. He also notes that public lands are already open for access, that he personally hunts and fishes there, and that the existing system supports timber sales, forest health, fire prevention, and public access.
Mr. Edmondson — Mr. Edmondson explained that he was raised on a ranch and works with cattlemen on grazing allotments, which led him to support multiple use of public lands. He said his view of multiple use includes grazing and timber, and that existing timber sales or grazing allotments should be handled on a case-by-case basis, with the Land Board using its discretion to find workable solutions such as alternative grazing allotments. The chair then closed questioning of Mr. Edmondson.
Travis Jones — Travis Jones testified in opposition to H.J.R. 10 on behalf of several timber company clients. He thanked Representative Raebel for revising earlier language and acknowledged concerns related to the Driggs-160 grazing lease and development pressure, but said his clients still opposed the resolution. He argued that H.J.R. 10 would remove important clarity for the Land Board, weaken the endowment land mission, and potentially reduce returns to the endowment fund that supports Idaho public schools. He warned that redirecting endowment assets or proceeds could conflict with the Admissions Act, invite litigation, and force the legislature to use general fund dollars to cover any shortfall. He also said the proposal’s language creates legal ambiguity, especially around priority of use and revenue-generating activities, and could shift Idaho land management toward a federal-style multiple-use model rather than the current sole-use endowment approach. He concluded by asking the committee to hold H.J.R. 10 and consider statutory alternatives to address the Driggs-160 issue.
Brenda Richards — Brenda Richards introduced herself as a rancher from Hawaii County and former county treasurer with extensive public lands policy experience. She testified in opposition to moving H.J.R. 10 forward, arguing that a constitutional amendment of this magnitude has not been sufficiently vetted statewide and that stakeholders have not had enough time for discussion. She warned that the new language could invite litigation, drawing on her experience with long-running Hawaii land-use litigation, and said a thorough long-term financial analysis is needed before any changes are made. In response to questions, she said state land has generally been a better grazing partner than federal land, acknowledged concerns about the sale of grazing leases, and explained that private leases can also be sold, requiring lessees to find alternatives.
Brenda Kriner — Described ongoing litigation over ambiguous language and permit renewal, and warned that constituents need to understand the issue.
Dan Waugh — Dan Waugh testified in support of H.J.R. 10 on behalf of the Idaho Recreation Council, introducing himself and explaining that he represents the council while continuing his support for recreation opportunities.
Benjamin Davenport — Benjamin Davenport testified on behalf of the Idaho Mining Association, noting the association had not yet taken an official position but had several internal questions about the proposed amendment and mineral lease program. He expressed concerns about how the department maximizes revenue across different land uses, why land use is limited to the purposes for which lands were acquired, and broader issues around interpretation, public access, and land exchange or acquisition priorities. He concluded by offering to answer questions.
Elizabeth Kriner — Elizabeth Kriner testified on behalf of the JR Simplot Company about concerns with the proposed change to land objectives. She warned that the amendment could prioritize public access over transactions needed to support Idaho’s resource economy and potentially restrict necessary land transactions. She concluded that more discussion with all interested stakeholders is needed before moving forward with a constitutional amendment.
Jack Hurdy — Jack Hurdy, representing the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association, testified in support of H.J.R. 10. He explained that outdoor recreation and outfitting are major economic drivers in Idaho and that outfitters value public lands. He argued the amendment would provide regulatory stability and benefit outfitters by prioritizing revenue-generating uses such as timber, grazing, outfitting, and mining, and he asked the committee to move the measure forward with a due pass recommendation.
Vicki Purdy — Vicki Purdy, speaking for Adams County, testified in strong opposition to H.J.R. 10. She contrasted the Rock Fire with the much larger 2024 Lava Fire to argue that wildfire and forest management decisions have major economic and community impacts, including timber losses, damage to the school endowment, and harm to the county economy. She described losses from the Lava Fire, including cattle deaths, and argued that the resolution wrongly assumes the state would limit access to public lands. Purdy warned that H.J.R. 10 would reduce recreation access, invite litigation from environmental groups, and further constrain resource production. She concluded by criticizing federal forest management on the Payette and urged a no vote on the resolution, framing the issue as one of production rather than destruction.
Stephen Thomas — Named as the final person signed up to testify, though the chair then called on another attendee.
Jim Guthrie — Addressed as Mr. Chairman while managing testimony and calling on the next speaker.
Dustin Miller — Dustin Miller, Director of the Idaho Department of Lands, introduced himself and his staff and explained that the department manages about 2.5 million acres of endowment trust lands granted at statehood to support public schools and other beneficiaries. He described the board’s fiduciary duty under the Idaho Admissions Act and Constitution to manage those lands in the best interest of the named beneficiaries, noting that land management income has produced a large share of beneficiary distributions and that the department has reinvested in productive timber land. He then addressed the joint memorial, saying the land board had not yet taken a position and offering to answer questions. In response to concerns, he argued that making the public a de facto beneficiary could create competing interests with the endowment beneficiaries, and warned that opposition to timber sales, grazing, or mineral leasing could reduce returns, invite legal challenges, and increase tax liability. He also said the public already has access to endowment lands, and that explicitly adding the public as a beneficiary would conflict with the Idaho Admissions Act and could create conflict with the board’s revenue-generating priorities.
Anne Haws — Anne Haws questioned whether the amendment changes the duty to manage lands as trust assets, then followed up by pressing whether the concern was merely hypothetical and whether any trust-asset duties would actually change. She also read the proposed amendment language and asked how it balances public access with revenue-generating activities, specifically whether access is being prioritized over revenue.
Anne Haws — Representative Anne Haws participated in the roll-call vote sequence, voting no on the substitute motion and then yes on the original motion.