State Politics

Defying Idaho law — like flying Pride flag — could get elected officials booted

Key Takeaways
Key Takeaways

AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.

Read our AI Policy.


  • House members advance bill letting governor, speaker refer state law violations to AG.
  • Proposed law allows sanctions, including attorney fees up to disqualification from office.
  • Opponents warn the law could be weaponized for targeting of political rivals.

An Idaho House committee advanced a “measured approach” Thursday to ensure that cities and counties adhere to state laws, a second attempt this year to bring public officials to heel with punishment.

House Bill 896 is still aimed at forcing compliance and would grant new authority to elected officials, including the governor and speaker of the House, to refer possible violations to the Idaho Attorney General’s Office for enforcement. Potential sanctions range from collecting attorney’s fees to disqualifying local public officials from their elected offices for failing to fix willful offenses.

Sponsored by House Speaker Mike Moyle, R-Star, and Rep. Ted Hill, R-Eagle, the revised legislation follows a high-profile standoff between the state and the city of Boise over the past year. The capital city has skirted a 2025 law that prohibits any Idaho government entity, including public schools, from displaying flags or banners on public property that are not defined as “official.” After passing an ordinance to work around the new law, Boise has continued to fly a Pride flag outside City Hall.

An initial version of the bill specifically targeted the flag feud. It would make violations eligible for up to $2,000 in fines per instance per day.

The reworked bill, presented in the House judiciary committee Thursday by Rep. John Shirts, R-Weiser, removed any reference to possible violations of Idaho’s 2025 flag law. It includes language that offers a public official accused of the violation 14 days to respond to the attorney general over the allegation and “cure” the issue.

“In a lot of legislation that we’ve passed, there have been many instances where what we pass is just not followed,” Shirts, an attorney, told the committee. “Crafting something like this, I think, is a very measured approach to address that situation.”

House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel, D-Boise, challenged him in committee to identify another instance in recent memory of a problem that the bill may be trying to solve. As Hill, a fellow committee member on the dais, rocked in his chair, Shirts denied that the Pride flag in Boise was the impetus for the bill.

“Obviously you named one that’s gotten a lot of attention,” Shirts said. “I’m not going to say this law was drafted just for that, because that’s not the reason behind the bill.”

Boise continues to display a Pride flag at City Hall downtown, just over a block away from the Idaho Capitol. Lawmakers seek to pass a bill to force compliance with state law.
Boise continues to display a Pride flag at City Hall downtown, just over a block away from the Idaho Capitol. Lawmakers seek to pass a bill to force compliance with state law. Darin Oswald doswald@idahostatesman.com

Jonathan Wheatley, a lobbyist representing the Idaho Association of Cities, raised concerns that the bill grants violation-referral powers to the chair of county commissions instead of elected county prosecutors, who have more legal experience. The Senate president pro tempore is also bestowed authority to identify possible violations of law and contact the attorney general about them.

“You do have some, on occasion, political challenges between city councils and elected officials at the city level and those at the county,” Wheatley said.

Similarly, Rep. John Gannon, D-Boise, shared discomfort over the potential for the proposed law to be deployed for partisan gain. The bill also specifically exempts members of the state’s legislative and judicial branches of government from meeting its requirements, which he called the “icing on the cake.”

“This bill opens up a weaponizing of the political process,” Gannon told the committee. “There’s nothing here that would prevent the misuse of this procedure.”

The three Democrats on the House committee — Gannon, Rubel and Rep. Chris Mathias, D-Boise — voted against advancing the bill. It moved to the House floor for a future vote. The House passed the earlier version of the bill with just three Republicans in the GOP supermajority voting in opposition, but it has yet to move forward in the Senate.

This story was originally published March 19, 2026 at 5:23 PM.

Related Stories from Idaho Statesman
Kevin Fixler
Idaho Statesman
Kevin Fixler is an investigative reporter with the Idaho Statesman and a three-time Idaho Print Reporter of the Year. He holds degrees from the University of Denver and UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism. Support my work with a digital subscription
Get unlimited digital access
#ReadLocal

Try 1 month for $1

CLAIM OFFER