Idaho legislators want the power to call special sessions. Why that’s a terrible idea

Idaho legislators want you to pass a constitutional amendment that would let them call themselves into a special session for whatever reason they want, whenever they want.

The amendment, which appears on your ballot as Senate Joint Resolution 102, requires just a majority to pass.

This one is a resounding “no” from us.

We have a long list of objections:

Idaho legislators have already shown they can’t be trusted with this authority. Last year, the Idaho House refused to adjourn, remaining in session “just in case” something came up, leading to the longest session in Idaho history. The year before that, during a legitimate special session called by the governor, some Idaho legislators tried to bring up legislation to end the governor’s pandemic emergency declaration, demonstrating their inability to exercise wise judgment.

Idaho legislators have sought to control everything, from librarians and monuments to rental fees and transgender athletes. If they can do all that in a part-time session, imagine what they’ll go after if they have all year.

Idaho’s Legislature is supposed to be part time. In fact, according to a guest opinion from two former attorneys general and secretary of state for Idaho, framers of the Idaho Constitution considered having legislators meet every three years. We like the sound of that much better.

Look what happened in Utah. Utah voters in 2018 approved legislature-called special sessions. The result? The Legislature called itself into special session multiple times in 2020 and some of the agenda items were not related to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to KSL. In May of 2021, legislators called themselves in for two resolutions related to critical race theory and making Utah a Second Amendment Sanctuary state, KSL reported. Extraordinary circumstances? Hardly. We’d likely see the same kind of nonsense in Idaho.

Bigger, more expensive government. Legislative expenses for a special session have been estimated at $21,300 per day. That was before legislators’ per diem was raised to $221, up from $139, so that expense will be even higher starting next year.

As Alex LaBeau, of the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry, pointed out, legislators likely will start asking for full-time staff if they come back to Boise often enough. This would be an expansion of government, not exactly a character trait of a state that prides itself on small government.

Unstable, unpredictable government. Legislation is supposed to take time. It’s supposed to go slowly. Having the Legislature come back for a couple of days to try to pass legislation is not stable government. The Legislature is supposed to set policy and then go home. Coming back into town in August or October to set new policy would be disruptive, particularly to state agencies.

One-party control. As of this writing, Republicans hold 58 seats in the House, or 83%, while Democrats hold 12. In the Senate, Republicans hold 28 seats, or 80%; Democrats seven. That might become even more lopsided in the upcoming election, which means that special sessions would be controlled by one party, without any buy-in from the other party.

Turns the process political. If legislators decide they need a little help in an upcoming election, all they’d need to do is call themselves back into session a couple of weeks before the election and pass a bill that might be politically popular but not good policy. We would argue that’s exactly what happened with the Sept. 1 special session. If this constitutional amendment were to pass, we predict we’d see it a lot more often.

Too low of a threshold. According to the amendment, it would take only 60% of legislators to call a special session. That’s only 42 representatives and 21 senators. If you want to pass a bond to build a new school in Idaho, you need 66.7% approval.

It ain’t broke. So don’t fix it. Little called legislators back into session in 2020 to deal with legal immunity and changes to the elections as a result of the pandemic. Those were extraordinary circumstances truly worthy of an extraordinary session. The process worked.

You’ll hear supporters complain that Idaho is one of only 14 states in which only the governor can call a special session. Well, Idaho is also one of just 13 states that doesn’t allow marijuana. Should we change the constitution on marijuana just so we can be in the majority?

This constitutional amendment has way too many check marks in the negative column and deserves your enthusiastic rejection.