Shawn Dygert — Shawn Dygert first moved to adopt the minutes for Wednesday, February 25th. Shortly afterward, he was referenced again in the proceedings and then presented RS 33470 C1 as Representative from District 23. After his presentation, the chair thanked him and opened the floor for questions.
Shawn Dygert — Representative Shawn Dygert was called on for discussion on the motion and then spoke in favor of it, thanking the sponsor and supporting the motion while referencing concerns about litigation involving federal agencies and government overreach.
Jaron Crane — Introduced R.S. 33439 and identified himself as representing District 12, Nampa.
Jaron Crane — Explained that the RS strikes duplicative language on pages one and three.
Jaron Crane — Was thanked for the explanation of the cleanup bill.
Jaron Crane — Was thanked after the motion passed and then prepared to present the next RS.
Jaron Crane — Explained that the RS updates statute in response to district court comments and relates to House Bill 710.
Jaron Crane — Explained that references to performances were removed to keep the bill focused on material itself in libraries.
Jaron Crane — Referenced as having district areas affected by the fire protection subdistrict issue.
Stephanie Mickelsen — Moved to introduce R.S. 33439.
Stephanie Mickelsen — Referenced indirectly as 'the good lady to my left' in support of the opposition argument.
Stephanie Mickelsen — Called in the roll call; no vote recorded in the transcript excerpt.
Joe Alfieri — Asked why references to performances were struck from the bill.
Joe Alfieri — Asked the question about striking references to performances.
Joe Alfieri — Moved to introduce R.S. 33439.
Joe Alfieri — Moved to introduce R.S. 32895.
Joe Alfieri — Representative Alfieri moves to introduce R.S. 32900.
Joe Alfieri — Representative Alfieri was called on to speak and said he was torn on the bill, raising concerns about state sovereignty and whether the 10th Amendment already addresses the issue. Another speaker then responded directly to Alfieri’s concern, explaining that the bill’s language is meant to be broad enough to address the issue without being overly limited.
Joe Alfieri — Asked how the proposal would be applied and requested an example.
Joe Alfieri — Voted yes on the motion.
Monica Church — Moved to introduce R.S. 33470 C1.
Monica Church — Representative Monica Church first asks what prompted the bill and whether specific incidents led to it. She is then called on again and speaks in opposition, saying the bill resembles a secessionist or transfer-and-sale conversation, reflects strong concerns about federal overreach, and is unnecessary. She continues by arguing the bill sends the wrong message about understanding the Constitution, expressing concern about the rationale behind it, and later adds that the proposal is unprecedented and unlike similar measures in other states, which typically include federal lands.
Monica Church — Voted no on the motion.
Heather Scott — Presented R.S. 32895 and explained it removes obsolete code related to securities lending.
Heather Scott — Explained that the bill removes obsolete code for securities lending and was recommended for removal by the executive branch.
Heather Scott — Said the code is no longer used and asked for introduction.
Heather Scott — Presented R.S. 32900 as another DOGE committee code cleanup measure affecting liquor code.
Heather Scott — Said the repealed sections appear minor and outdated and asked for the bill to be printed.
Heather Scott — Was asked why contact information for attorneys would be removed from the liquor code.
Heather Scott — Representative Scott is told she owes Representative Alfieri for saving the RS for her.
Heather Scott — Representative Scott is identified as working on House Bill 650 with Representative Boyle.
Heather Scott — Representative Scott is noted as having worked on the bill with Representative Boyle.
Heather Scott — Voted yes on the motion.
Mark Harris — Representative Harris is mentioned repeatedly during a continuous committee exchange, including questions about repealing the price-list provision in 23-215, discussion of liquor code sections, the bill’s scope and elections, sovereign tribes and the rebuttable presumption, and a note that further comments will be saved for later.
Mark Harris — Representative Scott is credited with clarifying that the 'excluding Federal Reserve water rights' language was intended to incorporate tribal waters.
Judy Boyle — Representative Judy Boyle introduces herself as the sponsor of House Bill 650 and explains that the bill is Idaho’s formal statement on federalism and state sovereignty. She clarifies that the bill is based on the U.S. and Idaho Constitutions, is not meant to be an exhaustive list, and is intended to establish clear boundaries between federal and state authority without changing court cases. She then takes questions and explains that the bill was motivated by numerous examples over time, including federal land issues.
Judy Boyle — Judy Boyle argued in favor of the motion, saying it reaffirms the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment, and limited federal power. She emphasized that the proposal is about ensuring the state stands on equal constitutional footing, not about secession or federal land. When asked how it would be applied, she said the Attorney General would enforce it if the federal government acted outside its authority. She then voted yes on the motion.
Brent Crane — Brent Crane moved to send House Bill 650 to the floor with a due pass recommendation, was briefly ruled undecided in debate, and then continued speaking in favor of the motion, arguing the bill is not exhaustive because it includes language such as 'but are not limited to.'
Brent Crane — Chairman Brent Crane completed the roll call, then closed the committee’s work for the day by thanking members for their thoughtful, civil debate and commending the committee’s engaging discussion before adjourning.
Braden Jensen — Testified on behalf of the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation in strong support of House Bill 650.
Kelly Anthon — Kelly Anthon critiques the bill as more than a simple statement of current conditions, arguing that it introduces additional legal standards and presumptions. The discussion focuses on concerns about subsection 5 creating another legal standard and broader objections to how the legislation is structured.
Brandon Shippy — No direct mention identified; no correction applied.
Brandon Shippy — Voted yes on the motion.
Bruce Skaug — Continued the debate in support of the motion, urging members to consider constitutional protections for states' rights.
Bruce Skaug — Continued arguing that the proposal is a slippery slope and should not be adopted.
Bruce Skaug — Voted yes on the motion.
James Ruchti — Representative Church is called on after the comment, indicating he is the next speaker in the debate sequence.
James Holtzclaw — Representative Haas comments on the bill, warning that it could create costly litigation, require expensive outside counsel, and raise constitutional or implementation concerns. The discussion then moves to the vote on the motion, with Holtzclaw voting yes, Haas voting no, and the chair announcing that the motion passes 11 to 2.