— Begins debate by outlining the bill's history and asking to be corrected if inaccurate.
James Holtzclaw — Named as chairman of the House Commerce and Human Resources Committee, which will not meet.
Bruce Skaug — Named as chairman of the House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee in the schedule announcement.
Dan Garner — Named as chairman of the House State Affairs Committee in the meeting schedule announcement.
Clay Handy — Clay Handy is briefly addressed by name during the opening of the meeting, and shortly afterward the House is called to order following the prayer/pledge transition.
Chaplain Tom Doherty — Named as the chaplain delivering the prayer.
Kaysen Obregan — Named as the new page providing the Pledge of Allegiance; identified as being from Caldwell High School.
John Gannon — Named as the seconded motion to approve the journal.
Jordan Redman — Requested unanimous consent to return House Joint Memorial 12 to committee.
Jordan Redman — Named as chairman of the House Business Committee in the committee schedule announcement.
Cornel Rasor — Moved to dispense with a further reading of House Bill 652.
Betty Grandy — Identified as a fourth-grade student from Twin Falls who discovered Idaho does not currently have a state sport.
Soñia Galaviz — Referenced as suggesting a future bill for basketball.
Soñia Galaviz — So ia Galaviz is identified as the member asking questions during debate on the bill, specifically asking whether it differs from a prior law that created problems enforcing out-of-country child support orders. The exchange continues in the same discussion, with her being referenced again as part of the ongoing conversation about prior enforcement issues.
Jason Monks — Referenced as suggesting a future bill for couples water skiing.
John Shirts — Likely the speaker identified as 'Gentleman 21,' arguing the bill is good but the fiscal note is too large for this year.
Charlie Shepherd — Likely the 'good gentleman from 13' introducing House Bill 602.
Charlie Shepherd — Referenced as the gentleman from 13 who yielded to the question.
Charlie Shepherd — Explained that the bill is different because it does not prescribe a new agreement and instead uses current Idaho and U.S. law as the guardrail.
Charlie Shepherd — Referenced as the gentleman behind the speaker from 17.
Charlie Shepherd — Presented House Bill 654 and requested unanimous consent to dispense with further reading.
Charlie Shepherd — Referenced as the gentleman from 28 asking for a question, though the exact identity is uncertain from the transcript alone.
Charlie Shepherd — Sought to ask a question of the bill sponsor.
Charlie Shepherd — Asked how many candidates could be affected and whether the bill would impact eligibility.
Charlie Shepherd — Asked for a follow-up question after the sponsor's answer.
Charlie Shepherd — Asked for clarification on whether the 120 days must be consecutive or within the preceding year.
Judy Boyle — Judy Boyle clarified that the bill is intended to eliminate the property-owner petition requirement and narrow the standard to the voting electorate in the district, addressing confusion about whether the bill uses an either-or approach and explaining that the change is meant to resolve the Valley County situation.
Dori Healey — Dori Healey presented House Bill 673 and requested unanimous consent to dispense with further reading. She explained that the bill would require legislative candidates to have lived in their district for at least 120 days before filing, clarifying that the standard is based on 120 days within the preceding year and does not need to be consecutive. She argued that the bill creates a clearer residency standard than the current intent-based rule, applies to all members who intend to file, and still accommodates legislators who are away from home during session. She concluded by asking for support for the measure.
Janie Ward-Engelking — Janie Ward-Engelking clarified that the bill requires 120 days of habitation in the district and is intended to affect candidates considering whether they can meet that standard. She addressed concerns about exemptions for traveling nurses, military members, and missionaries, explaining that the bill does not create specific exemptions and that a deployment preventing a candidate from meeting the 120-day requirement would disqualify them for that campaign cycle. She also noted that the bill would need to be signed before Friday to affect current candidates, that moving within the same district would not be disqualifying because district lines are the relevant boundary, and that the immediate effective date was meant to emphasize the importance of fixed in-district habitation. Finally, she explained that compliance would rely on candidate attestation and a complaint process handled by the Secretary of State, who would investigate and evaluate evidence of qualification.
Jim Guthrie — Jim Guthrie continued his remarks against the bill, saying he better understood its intent but remained concerned about its immediate effect upon passage. He also raised legal concerns, including ex post facto issues, and stated that he would vote no.
Edward Hill — Edward Hill debated the bill’s residency provisions, arguing that Idaho Code 34-107 and the bill’s immediate effective date could unfairly prevent someone from filing after moving within the same year. He used his own move within Moscow as an example, questioned whether moving within the same district would still allow a person to run, and indicated he would probably vote no.
— The member opposed the bill/motion, arguing that its residency and enforcement requirements would unfairly burden candidates. The discussion raised concerns about National Guard or military service, travel for family caregiving, and how the 120-day requirement could realistically be verified. The member said the legislation appeared targeted, could create a 'got-you' situation, and would be difficult to enforce in practice, with unrealistic proof requirements such as receipts, cameras, or neighbor testimony.
— Gentleman 22 first sought unanimous consent to hold the remaining Third Reading Calendar bills in place for one legislative day, after which the House moved on to announcements. Shortly afterward, he moved that the House adjourn until 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, February 24, 2026.
— Argued the bill is retroactive and unfair because it could prevent already-filed candidates from running.
— Argued the bill is retroactive and unfair because it could prevent already-filed candidates from running.
— Said she would support the bill next year but not this year because it is unfair and equal.
— Referenced as having raised concerns that the speaker agreed with.
— Referenced as having said the bill would not move quickly enough to affect the current cycle.
— Praised for bringing the legislation forward and being willing to fix a flaw in the bill.
— Seconded the motion to adjourn.
— Argued the bill is targeted and should have been made effective July 1st instead of immediately.
— Requested unanimous consent to send House Bill 673 to General Orders.
— Moved that House Bill 673 be sent to General Orders after objection to unanimous consent.
— Spoke in favor of sending the bill to General Orders so the sponsor can fix it.
— Requested unanimous consent to dispense with further reading of House Bill 628.