House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee
Key Moments
Tom Munza — Tom Munza testified in opposition to pursuing congressional term limits through an Article 5 convention. He argued that the ballot box and regular elections already serve as term limits and provide accountability, and warned that an Article 5 convention could exceed its intended scope. He concluded by urging civic engagement and cautioning that some organizations have spread deception, citing allegations of fraud in Nevada and Texas.
Jean Mullenkoff Moore — Jean Mullenkoff Moore testified in opposition to HCR 23. She identified herself as living in Boise County and argued that the Constitution should be protected, referencing her family history and the document’s long-standing value. She stated that term limits would not improve congressional representation or limit federal government power, cited California as an example of term limits failing to restrain government, and warned that an Article 5 convention could become a runaway convention. She concluded by thanking the committee.
Kayla Dodson — Kayla Dodson was introduced as the next witness and then testified on her own behalf in opposition to HCR 23. She identified herself as a Boise resident, asked the committee to vote no, and argued that the convention process is uncertain and not clearly defined.
Stephen Kaiser — Stephen Kaiser was called to testify, then delivered testimony identifying himself as from Boise and warning that the convention process is very high risk. He argued that the committee should not proceed because the risk is too great, saying he would rather risk his own home and car than risk damage to the U.S. Constitution. His testimony concluded with the chair thanking him.
Dan McKnight — Dan McKnight is called to testify and then begins his testimony, identifying himself as being from Eagle, Idaho, District 14, while noting an audio delay in the overflow room.
April Frederick — April Frederick was called to testify, introduced herself as a Boise resident speaking on her own behalf, and concluded by urging the committee to vote no on the bill.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon is recognized and then questions why the resolution was not accompanied by a bill laying out the process for selecting delegates, pressing for clarification on how the selection procedure would work.
John Gannon — John Gannon argued that Idaho lacks a Delegate Selection Act or Limitation Act and therefore has no clear process for choosing convention delegates. He questioned how delegates would be selected, such as whether they would be elected, and concluded that without such a process in place, it is premature to consider calling a constitutional convention.
John Gannon — Voted yes on the substitute motion.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon expressed concern that the bill, as written, would bar legal representation for someone who is in the country illegally, asking whether an individual who is ripped off and here illegally could still obtain legal counsel under the bill and stating that this is how the bill reads.
John Gannon — John Gannon is addressed during a continuous exchange in which he raises and elaborates on a hypothetical involving an undocumented worker seeking unpaid wages and legal assistance. The witness responds by explaining concerns about attorney duties in that context.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon raised concerns about the bill’s fiscal note and the claim that it would have no fiscal consequence, comparing it to Texas immigration enforcement efforts. He also asked where the bill addressed immigration interdiction and activity, and the discussion continued into whether the bill would actually be enforced, including concerns about criminal penalties, local prosecutors’ discretion, and the standard of reckless disregard.
John Gannon — Not mentioned in this section.
John Gannon — Representative Gannon argued that the legislation should protect people’s rights and guard against fraud or wage theft. He emphasized that the bill should not be framed as denying protections, noting that even people here illegally still have rights and should be protected from abuse.
John Gannon — Voted yes.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Hostetler is acknowledged for his patience and then raises concerns about term limits, institutional knowledge, and whether the proposed mechanism would shift power to unelected actors. He states support for term limits in principle but not for this approach. The following response directly addresses his questions.
Clint Hostetler — Voted yes on the substitute motion.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Clint Hostetler was recognized after being missed earlier and raised a question about concerns that the bill might affect access to legal counsel. He argued that the bill does not prevent legal representation in civil disputes, while the witness responded by focusing on the language of Section 4 and its broad reference to “legal assistance.”
Clint Hostetler — Says his federal court and prosecution experience makes him concerned the statute is off and too complicated.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Hostetler is briefly mentioned in an aside, with the transcript likely misrendering his name; both entries refer to the same reference to Representative Clint Hostetler.
Mike Pohanka — Addressed by name in the question about Article 5 and related strategy.
Mike Pohanka — Representative Mike Pohanka is mentioned in a brief exchange, with the transcript first showing a likely misspelling of his name and then recording his vote as 'No' on the substitute motion.
Mike Pohanka — Mike Pohanka was recorded voting yes twice in succession during the same vote, with his name appearing in slightly different forms ('Polanka/Pohanka' and 'Pohanka').
Ilana Rubel — Representative Ilana Rubel moves to hold the matter in committee and argues against the proposal, warning that it creates serious constitutional uncertainty. She says the state is effectively 'playing Russian roulette with the Constitution' and supports her concern by citing multiple legal authorities, including Supreme Court justices, federal solicitors general, and law professors, to argue that the convention is untested and uncontrollable.
Ilana Rubel — The transcript lists Representative Rubel, likely Ilana Rubel, but no vote is captured in this line.
Ilana Rubel — Mentioned in a compliment about speaking quickly.
Ilana Rubel — Voted yes.
Dan Garner — Voted no on the substitute motion.
Dan Garner — Offers a substitute motion to hold House Bill 764 in committee.
Dan Garner — Voted yes.
Clay Handy — Voted no on the substitute motion.
Clay Handy — Said he is not an attorney but has concerns about tightening immigration enforcement while the border has been wide open.
Clay Handy — Voted yes.
Dale Hawkins — Voted yes on the substitute motion.
Dale Hawkins — Representative Dale Hawkins is called to present the bill, with the chair asking him to bring up his co-presenter. Hawkins then introduces himself and states his legislative district. Later, the discussion continues with questions being taken on behalf of Representative Hawkins.
Dale Hawkins — Addressed by Representative Gannon during the fiscal note discussion.
Dale Hawkins — Referenced in connection with a question about the sheriff's office and emergency-services language in the bill.
Dale Hawkins — Dale Hawkins is referenced as part of a discussion about potential changes to the statute, with the speaker suggesting that Hawkins and others may be able to work together to resolve concerns about the statute’s structure and construction.
Dale Hawkins — Referenced as having offered changes earlier in the discussion.
Dale Hawkins — Referenced as having pointed out that Idaho is not sending people back or getting into that business.
Dale Hawkins — Referenced as one of the sheriffs' concerns being addressed in the bill discussion.
Dale Hawkins — Voted no.
Ted Hill — The transcript lists Representative Hill during the roll call, but no vote is captured in this line.
Ted Hill — The speaker says they have been closely following Representative Ted Hill’s guidance, notes that Hill asked them to support the first motion and that they do support it, and recalls having gone to the border with Hill and watched the situation together. The final mention is simply Hill’s name appearing in the roll call.
Don Hall — The transcript appears to say 'Representative Brown. Yes,' likely a transcription error for Representative Hall; preserved as uncertain.
Chris Mathias — The transcript lists Representative Matthias, likely Chris Mathias, but no vote is captured in this line.
Chris Mathias — Representative Chris Mathias questioned the bill’s language and pressed for clarification on the meaning of 'illegal alien' compared with the bill’s definition of 'alien.' The witness responded that he did not know and continued referring back to the language of Section 4, keeping the discussion focused on the bill’s terminology.
Chris Mathias — Addressed as the member asking whether the emergency-services exemption protects the sheriff's department.
Chris Mathias — Representative Matthias supported the substitute motion, but cautioned that the bill is not yet fully fleshed out. He warned that the measure could be vulnerable in federal court if it is not drafted carefully and emphasized that the wording matters because the bill may cast too wide a net.