Reclaim Idaho/Gilmore v. Denney
N/A (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Idaho Constitution's reservation of initiative and referendum powers to the people establishes these as fundamental rights, meaning legislative acts imposing conditions or manner on their exercise are subject to strict scrutiny and must be necessary to achieve a compelling state interest, narrowly tailored to that end, and cannot effectively nullify the people's independent legislative power.
Facts:
- In 1912, the Idaho Constitution was amended (Article III, Section 1) to reserve initiative and referendum powers to the people, while directing the Legislature to enact laws establishing the “conditions” and “manner” for their exercise.
- The Legislature initially failed to pass reasonable enabling legislation; a 1915 bill was vetoed by Governor Alexander for being too restrictive, leaving these direct legislative powers dormant for over two decades.
- In 1933, the Legislature passed a law setting signature requirements at 10% of statewide votes, without any geographic distribution, which remained for 64 years, during which only 24 initiatives and three referenda qualified for the ballot.
- In 1997, after a successful voter initiative created term limits in 1994, the Legislature introduced a 22-county geographic distribution requirement, which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later struck down as violating equal protection and the "one person, one vote" principle.
- In 2013, following three successful referenda in 2012 that repealed certain education legislation, the Legislature adopted a new geographic distribution requirement: 6% of registered voters statewide, including 6% from each of at least 18 of Idaho’s 35 legislative districts.
- In 2018, Reclaim Idaho successfully qualified and passed the Medicaid Expansion initiative, garnering over 60% of the statewide vote and exceeding the 18-district signature requirement.
- In 2020, the Legislature amended Idaho Code section 34-1813(2)(a) to mandate that any voter-approved initiative could not take effect earlier than July 1 of the year following its passage.
- In 2021, the Legislature passed SB 1110, amending Idaho Code section 34-1805(2) to increase the geographic distribution requirement for initiative and referendum petitions, demanding signatures from 6% of registered voters in each of the 35 legislative districts in the state.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Stephen Gilmore, a qualified elector, filed a verified petition with the Idaho Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus, seeking to prevent the Idaho Secretary of State (SOS) from implementing Idaho Code section 34-1805(2)'s geographic signature requirement (35 legislative districts).
- The SOS opposed Gilmore's petition.
- The Legislature (Scott Bedke, Chuck Winder, and the Sixty-Sixth Idaho Legislature) sought and was granted permission to intervene to oppose Gilmore's petition.
- Reclaim Idaho and the Committee to Protect and Preserve the Idaho Constitution, Inc. (Reclaim and the Committee) filed a verified petition with the Idaho Supreme Court, naming the SOS as respondent.
- Reclaim and the Committee sought a declaration that Idaho Code section 34-1805(2) and Idaho Code section 34-1813(2)(a) violate Article III, Section 1 of the Idaho Constitution, and sought a peremptory writ of prohibition to prevent the SOS from enforcing these provisions.
- The SOS opposed Reclaim and the Committee's petition.
- The Legislature was granted permission to intervene to oppose Reclaim and the Committee's petition.
- The Idaho Supreme Court consolidated Gilmore's petition and Reclaim and the Committee's petition for oral argument and the issuance of a single opinion.
- The SOS filed motions to strike certain paragraphs from declarations submitted by Reclaim and the Committee, which were partially granted or reserved for ruling, and a joint motion with the Legislature to strike additional declarations, which was denied.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state statute (Idaho Code section 34-1805(2)) requiring initiative and referendum petitions to gather signatures from every legislative district in the state, and a statute (Idaho Code section 34-1813(2)(a)) delaying the effective date of voter-approved initiatives until July 1 of the year following the election, unconstitutionally infringe upon the people's fundamental initiative and referendum rights under the Idaho Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Moeller, Justice
Yes, both Idaho Code section 34-1805(2)'s requirement for signatures from all 35 legislative districts and Idaho Code section 34-1813(2)(a)'s delayed effective date for voter-approved initiatives unconstitutionally infringe upon the people's fundamental initiative and referendum rights. The Idaho Constitution's Article III, Section 1 expressly reserves these powers to the people, qualifying them as fundamental rights. As such, any legislation limiting these rights is subject to strict scrutiny, requiring the state to demonstrate the law is necessary to promote a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The phrase "independent of the legislature" underscores that the people's power to propose and enact laws is not subservient to legislative will; the "conditions and manner" language only permits the legislature to define the process of exercising these rights, not to suppress them. Regarding the 35-legislative-district requirement (SB 1110), the state failed to satisfy either prong of strict scrutiny. First, it did not demonstrate a compelling state interest. The historical pattern reveals legislative attempts to restrict these rights after successful public use, rather than to protect minority interests, which are constitutionally protected by the judiciary. The argument for ensuring a "modicum of statewide support" is unpersuasive, as broad support can exist without meeting a threshold in every district. Second, even if a compelling interest existed, the requirement is not narrowly tailored. By demanding support from every legislative district, the statute effectively grants veto power to any single district, allowing a small minority to thwart a popular statewide initiative. This creates an actual "tyranny of the minority," conflicting with democratic ideals. Regarding the delayed effective date (I.C. § 34-1813(2)(a)), the power to enact laws "independent of the legislature" necessarily includes the power to set the effective date, consistent with Article III, Section 22 (emergency clauses), placing initiatives on "equal footing" with legislative acts. The blanket delay serves primarily to give the legislature an opportunity to repeal voter-passed laws before they take effect, which infringes on the people's independent legislative power. Therefore, this provision is also unconstitutional. The Court restored the previous 18-district requirement for I.C. § 34-1805, noting it did not rule on its constitutionality. Attorney fees were awarded to Reclaim and the Committee under the private attorney general doctrine for vindicating significant public policy interests.
Specially concurring - Stegner, Justice
I concur with the majority's ultimate holding that Idaho Code sections 34-1805(2) and 34-1813(2)(a) are unconstitutional. However, I disagree with the majority's analysis regarding Gilmore's lack of standing. The Idaho Constitution, unlike the U.S. Constitution, lacks a "case or controversy" clause. Therefore, the adoption of the federal standing framework by Idaho courts is legally unsound and a fundamental rejection of Idaho's unique judicial power and constitutional guarantee of open courts (Article I, Section 18). State courts should establish their own standing requirements, which are typically more liberal than federal ones. Gilmore's standing, or lack thereof, does not affect the outcome, as Reclaim and the Committee's claims are coterminous and prevail.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Brody, Justice
I concur with the Court's conclusion that SB 1110 is unconstitutional, but I dissent from the majority's decision to apply strict scrutiny as the standard of review. Article III, Section 1 of the Idaho Constitution explicitly grants the Legislature the authority to regulate the "conditions and manner" by which the people exercise their initiative and referendum rights. Applying strict scrutiny effectively presumes legislative unconstitutionality when the legislature is acting within its constitutional mandate. Instead, I would apply the "reasonable and workable" standard established in Dredge Mining Control-Yes!, Inc. v. Cenarrusa (1968), which addressed the tension between these powers previously. Under this standard, SB 1110 is unconstitutional because it is not reasonable and workable; it grants every legislative district veto power over qualifying initiatives and referenda, thereby creating an actual "tyranny of the minority." I concur with all other portions of the majority opinion.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the status of initiative and referendum powers as fundamental rights under the Idaho Constitution, thereby subjecting any legislative efforts to restrict them to strict scrutiny. This ruling establishes a demanding legal standard for future legislative amendments to the direct democracy process, requiring a compelling state interest and narrowly tailored means. It significantly limits the legislature's interpretation of its authority to prescribe "conditions and manner," preventing actions that effectively nullify or unduly burden the people's reserved direct legislative powers. The decision underscores the Idaho judiciary's role in upholding constitutional checks against potential legislative overreach, particularly when it impacts the foundational principle of popular sovereignty.
