Idaho legislators declaring an end to the emergency won’t magically return us to normal
Idaho representatives voted Tuesday (48-20) to declare an end to the state of emergency that Gov. Brad Little declared back in March in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
For sure, there were some compelling arguments in favor of making the declaration during the more than two-hour debate in the House chambers.
Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale, made a pretty straightforward case with a “plain reading” of the part of Idaho Code, 46-1008, that deals with declaring an emergency.
“No state of disaster emergency may continue for longer than thirty (30) days unless the governor finds that it should be continued for another thirty (30) days or any part thereof,” according to the statute. “The legislature by concurrent resolution may terminate a state of disaster emergency at any time. Thereupon, the governor shall issue an executive order or proclamation ending the state of disaster emergency.”
But there was disagreement about the constitutionality of whether the legislators could even debate ending the emergency declaration because it wasn’t enumerated in the governor’s proclamation calling the Legislature into session.
Article IV, Section 9, of the Idaho Constitution, about calling for an extra session of the Legislature, states clearly, “when so convened it (the Legislature) shall have no power to legislate on any subjects other than those specified in the proclamation.”
In other words, if it were a regular session, the Legislature could take it up, but not during a special session. The governor’s proclamation listed the election and liability as the subjects to be discussed, not whether to end the emergency declaration.
Some legislators, such as Rep. Scott Syme, R-Caldwell, and Rep. Britt Raybould, R-Rexburg, felt the unconstitutionality of the resolution made it a nonstarter.
“I just feel that we are taking up something that we’re not constitutionally authorized to take up,” Syme said.
The Idaho Attorney General’s Office weighed in Tuesday with a legal analysis requested by Senate President Pro Tem Brent Hill. The upshot: The resolution is indeed unconstitutional and likely wouldn’t withstand a legal challenge, according to the letter signed by assistant chief deputy Brian Kane.
“It appears that (the resolution) would carry no legal effect and likely be the subject of a successful legal challenge to its validity,” according to the letter. Kane cites Article IV, Section 9, of the Idaho Constitution as his reasoning.
I think there were some cogent arguments about “taking back” legislative power when it comes to spending money and running the elections, and House Speaker Scott Bedke, R-Oakley, made a rare step down to the floor to debate, giving an eloquent defense of the legislative branch. I’m certain that come the next regular session, as is likely the proper time to do so, these issues will be debated. Rep. Gayann Demordaunt, R-Eagle, said there were 75 statutes that were changed by the governor’s orders.
There was kind of a weird undercurrent of an argument from a couple of legislators suggesting that since the governor has allegedly violated the Idaho Constitution with his orders, the Legislature could go ahead and violate it too.
Of course, as could be expected, many of the arguments were really, really bad.
In a nutshell, the bad arguments had the underpinning of “getting back to normal.” A few legislators minimized COVID-19, with Rep. Vito Barbieri, R-Dalton Gardens, on the floor of the Idaho House of Representatives accusing hospitals of making up numbers so they can get money for COVID-19. He also said wearing masks is a political statement and that cloth masks and N95 masks are of no value.
Barbieri, who’s no stranger to making outlandish claims in the Legislature and elsewhere, said his “hair cutter’s” husband hurt his shoulder and the hospital said they were going to categorize it as COVID-19.
This is what the legislators are basing their decisions on, folks.
Many legislators clearly showed they think what’s to blame for “what’s happening in society right now” is government overreach and not the coronavirus.
“The citizens of the state of Idaho feel that they have endured enough and it’s time to remove the emergency declaration,” said Rep. Christy Zito, R-Hammett. “It’s time to return to normal, not a new normal, to normal, to freedom, to liberty, to being Americans in a free country.”
Rep. Brent Crane, R-Nampa, said, “Individuals like myself who happen to disagree with this declaration are going to do what we can to ensure that our people can get back to work, that our children can go back to school, that they can play sports again, that individuals can go back to church, and that we can get life back to normal.”
As if the coronavirus were gone.
What a return to “normal” is, though, are the days when Blaine County experienced a sharp spike in cases, infecting health care workers and shutting down the hospital there. That’s what “normal” will look like in the pandemic. The coronavirus didn’t go anywhere.
Thinking we’ll return to normal by ending the emergency declaration is like saying we’ll have no new cases if we just stop testing, or that we can stop drunk driving by getting rid of DUI laws.
Since the Legislature can’t seem to escape a session without irony, outgoing Rep. Tim Remington, R-Coeur d’Alene, who is a pastor, launched a speech about turning to God’s message of loving one another and caring for others. He doesn’t seem to understand that wearing a mask and social distancing is a form of caring for others. If Remington has coronavirus, unwittingly, asymptomatic, he’s spraying down droplets of coronavirus on those members of the House sitting right in front of him.
There was a pretty good debate about losing out on federal disaster relief money if Idaho gets rid of the emergency declaration, with folks like Rep. Mike Moyle, R-Star, pointing out that the relief money being handed out doesn’t even really exist and that the federal government is trillions in debt as it is.
Freshman lawmaker Rep. Lauren Necochea, D-Boise, cut right to the chase and didn’t get caught up in the constitutionality, the money or the politics.
“We can have a conversation when we’re back in session about making changes in the balance of powers between our body and the gentleman on the second floor,” she said. “That will be very lively, I’m sure. That’s not what this resolution is about. This resolution takes away our emergency declaration during the worst pandemic of our lifetime. And if there were ever a moment to take advantage of emergency dollars to help our struggling Idahoans and keep them safe, this is absolutely it.”
To me, that’s the bottom line. It’s an interesting discussion about whether the Legislature can overturn the emergency declaration. More important is the question of whether the Legislature should overturn the declaration.
Right now? No way.
