Preempting city nondiscrimination laws isn’t the state’s role | Opinion

Dear lawmakers,

House Bill 557 seeks to preempt local ordinance. I need not go further than that as a reason for the Legislature to reject this bill. The state legislature does not need to assume it knows best for each and every locality. I urge you to allow locals to make their own decisions, which can be argued and decided at the local city government level.

If you believe in the principles of federalism at the federal level between federal and state government, you should believe that those same principles should apply to state and local government. Local government is the best government.

On a substantive basis, the bill should also be rejected because it seeks to violate already-established rights of Idaho citizens in various cities. These cities pronounce that individuals cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in areas of housing, employment and public accommodation. I know that this is what you would like to stop, but instead of taking away already existing rights of nondiscrimination, I urge you to consider a different way.

Whether or not you are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (as I am), I hope you would find the message from the “Utah Compromise” instructive. Utah found a way to protect religious liberty and provide nondiscrimination in its state law for LGBTQ+ individuals. The result was heralded as a great success of negotiation and peace among neighbors that don’t always see eye-to-eye.

If you have the time (approximately 40 minutes), I strongly encourage you to listen to the lecture given by our church’s leader, Dallin Oaks (who was a former Utah Supreme Court justice), at the University of Virginia on November 12, 2021. He outlines a path of reconciliation and cooperation that gives both sides to an issue such as this a “win-win,” whereas a partisan bill such as 557 seeks quite the opposite. I encourage you to listen to his address. You can also read the address.

You truly have an opportunity to craft something that would respect the people of our pluralistic state and not simply hand a barrel-over-the-minority “win” to the majority, by putting aside House Bill 557 and making a serious effort at crafting a new state nondiscrimination statute patterned after the Utah Compromise.

You should also be aware that Idaho’s current law on nondiscrimination is already trumped by U.S. Supreme Court legal authority in the case Bostock v. Clayton County, which states that an employer who fires an individual employee merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

So if you intend to strip the power to make nondiscrimination law from cities and counties (which is unnecessary and would needlessly negatively affect many Idaho citizens) then act consistent with the successful Utah Compromise, recognizing that Idaho’s existing law is already outdated. Act consistent with established, recognized federal law. Craft a state law that protects the rights of all.

If you’re not inclined to do that, at the very least leave cities and counties alone. You are not smarter than local elected leaders, who know what is best for their communities. Let them make their own decisions, and live or die by their own successes or failures.

Be on the side of expanding rights and liberties, and not on the side of restricting them. Reject House Bill 557, and work for a better way.

Thank you for your service.

Sean Coletti is an attorney from Ammon.

This story was originally published February 6, 2026 at 4:00 AM.