The latest on 3 controversial bills we’re watching for Idaho Gov. Brad Little to veto | Opinion

The Idaho Legislature is awaiting Gov. Brad Little’s decision on a number of bills before they adjourn for the session. Among them are three controversial bills that we’re watching with particular interest that we urge the governor to veto.

Here are the three bills we’re keeping a close eye on and why:

Library bounties

Bill: House Bill 314

What it does: Establishes a bounty system that allows parents to sue a library if their child comes into possession of library materials that they find objectionable.

What we think: Just the threat of a lawsuit and its accompanying legal costs likely would have a chilling effect on libraries. Afraid of being sued and spending thousands of dollars to defend themselves, library boards and directors likely will remove any books or materials that contain even a mention of a same-sex couple or a work of literature that contains a description of a sexual encounter. Library shelves would be stripped of such works as “The Bluest Eye,” “Catcher in the Rye” or even something as mundane as “Captain Underpants.”

That appears to be the point.

Little should veto the bill under the argument that a small minority of puritanical interests could bankrupt a library district by filing lawsuits under this new law or create such a chilling effect that libraries remove dozens if not hundreds of materials from their shelves.

What others say about it: As Blaine Conzatti of the Idaho Family Policy Center explained at a recent event, “These lawsuits are probably going to cost between $25,000 to $200,000 per incident, right? You have a couple of those, that’s going to be a significant hit to the school district or library district’s budget.”

What did the governor do? Little vetoed the bill, arguing “the bill’s ambiguity will have unintended consequences for Idaho libraries and their patrons,” he wrote in his veto letter. “This legislation makes sweeping, blanket assumptions on materials that could be determined as ‘harmful to minors’ in a local libarary, and it will force one interpretation of that phrase onto all the patrons of the library.”

And, yes, the governor recognized this bill for what it is: a bounty system. “Allowing any parent, regardless of intention, to collect $2,500 in automatic fines creates a library bounty system that will only increase the costs local libraries incur, particularly rural libraries.”

Could the House and Senate override a veto? It’s possible but seems highly unlikely. House Bill 314 passed the Senate, 26-9, a supermajority that could override a veto by Gov. Little. It passed the House, 42-26-2, which is five votes shy of the supermajority threshold. House members are under no obligation to vote the same way they did before, but historically the House and Senate have tended to lose rather than gain votes when attempting a veto override.

Criminalizing gender-affirming care

Bill: House Bill 71

What the bill does: Criminalizes doctors for providing gender-affirming care for children 17 and younger who are experiencing gender dysphoria. The bill includes bans on surgeries, which aren’t happening in Idaho, as well as any other care, such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy, which are approved by the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Providing gender-affirming care would be punishable as a felony with up to 10 years in prison.

What we think: Little should veto the bill and push the Legislature for a more reasonable compromise banning surgeries but allowing other gender-affirming care. We have heard over and over again from those who know best that this is bad legislation. We side with them.

What others think: Several parents have shared their first-hand experiences with providing gender-affirming care and handling gender dysphoria. One Republican legislator even shared her own personal story of a relative who is transgender — and she still voted for the bill.

Little would have been on firm ground vetoing this bill, arguing that it inserts government into a medical decision among parents, their children and their doctors. This bill promises to be subject to court challenges. The governor apparently was not swayed by the overwhelming testimony of transgender citizens and their families who just want to be left alone by the government in making their own medical decisions. In addition, he could have argued that it will be too expensive and risky for the taxpayers to defend in court.

What did Little do? Little signed this bill, arguing that “society plays a role in protecting minors from surgeries or treatments that can irreversibly damage their healthy bodies,”

Could the Legislature have overridden a veto? Probably not. The bill passed the House, 56-13-13, enough to override a veto, but it passed the Senate, 22-12-1, two votes short of the veto override threshold.

Criminalizing interstate travel for an abortion

The bill: House Bill 242

What would it do? It would make Idaho the first state in the country to criminally charge those who help pregnant minors get an abortion in another state. It’s often referred to as a ban on interstate travel, a point that could become a subject of legal trouble for the bill, if Gov. Little signs it. Since abortion is banned in Idaho, pregnant minors might seek an abortion in neighboring states, such as Oregon, Washington, Montana or Wyoming.

What others think: Bill supporters have called it “human trafficking,” which trivializes the actual problem of human trafficking. Far-right Republican state Sen. Scott Herndon, R-Sagle, said the bill didn’t go far enough because it didn’t criminalize parents or guardians.

What we think: This bill is a violation of the U.S. Constitution and is an extreme government overreach into a citizen’s right to interstate travel. If abortion is to be a state decision, Idaho has no say in whether someone obtains an abortion in a state that allows abortion. Little should veto this bill under the conservative argument that it will cost the state taxpayer dollars attempting to defend it in court — and that it will likely lose.

What did the governor do: Little signed the bill, arguing that the bill “seeks only to prevent unemancipated minor girls from being taken across state lines for an abortion without the knowledge and consent of her parent or guardian.”

Could the Legislature have overridden a veto? House Bill 242 passed the Senate, 27-7-1, and the House, 58-11-1, both enough to override a veto, but veto-proof majorities have a history of evaporating when put to the test.

This story was originally published April 3, 2023 at 2:30 PM.