IdahoFailed proposal would let Idaho enforce legal duties of public workers
The failed proposal would let Idaho's attorney general pursue certain legal violations by public officials and seek court orders, fees, or disqualification.
What it does
The failed proposal would create a notice-and-cure process before the attorney general could sue public officials, employees, or entities for certain legal violations.
Courts would order compliance and could impose contempt penalties; after a separate enforcement case, a court could bar a willful violator from public office or employment for up to five years.
A public party facing one of these cases could hire different legal counsel, with payment coming from funds assigned to that party or the employee's employer.
Argument forA notice and cure period may give public bodies a chance to correct unlawful conduct before facing a court case.
Argument againstPublic funds could pay for alternate lawyers and attorney's fees, while willful violations could lead to losing public employment for up to five years.
More detail
The attorney general may bring a case against a public officer, employee, or public entity that does not respond, denies a violation, or fails to fix it. The process covers state agencies and offices, schools and districts, public bodies, local governments, and other entities created by Idaho law. It excludes legislative and judicial officers and branches. A governor, Senate president pro tempore, House speaker, or county commissioner may refer a possible violation. The case may proceed only when the law allegedly violated has no penalty or other enforcement method. The attorney general must first give notice. The recipient may acknowledge and plan to fix the violation or deny it. The recipient has 14 days to respond. After acknowledging a violation, the recipient has another 14 days to stop violating the rule.
A court would order compliance if the attorney general proves a violation, and could remove a public officer or employee from public office or employment for up to five years after a willful violation. The compliance remedy applies to covered public officers, employees, and entities. Disqualification applies to public officers and employees, except elected state officers. The attorney general must prove a violation by more likely than not evidence for a compliance order. A person who knowingly and deliberately violates the rule must be found guilty by clear and convincing evidence before disqualification. A disqualification case may be filed only after an enforcement case for the same alleged violation. A person named in a compliance order who disobeys it could face contempt. The winning party in either case could receive reasonable attorney's fees. A disqualification order could last up to five years. The bill text does not state a separate start date for these remedies.
A public officer, employee, or entity sued under the chapter may hire a lawyer other than the attorney general's office. This option covers parties that would otherwise receive legal representation from the attorney general's office, including public employees and public entities. The alternate lawyer would be paid with money already set aside for the public officer, public entity, or public employee's employer. The option becomes available when a case authorized by the proposed chapter is filed.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Passed 1st Chamber
- Passed 2nd Chamber
- To Governor
- Became Law
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2026
- Apr 2Returned from Senate Failed; Filed in the office of the Chief ClerkLatest
- Vote recorded Read third time in full –. Result: fail.Upper
- Apr 2Read third time in full – FAILED - 8-27-0AYES – Anthon, Carlson, Den Hartog, Foreman, Harris, Lakey, Okuniewicz, ToewsNAYS – Adams, Bernt, Bjerke(Bjerke), Blaylock, Burtenshaw, Cook, Galloway, Grow, Guthrie, Hart, Keyser, Kohl, Lenney, Lent, Nichols, Rabe, Ricks, Ruchti, Semmelroth, Shippy, Taylor, VanOrden, Ward-Engelking, Wintrow, Woodward, Zito, ZuiderveldAbsent and excused – NoneFloor Sponsor - LakeyRet’d to HouseMajor
- Apr 1Retained on calendar
- Mar 31Read second time; filed for Third ReadingMinor
- Mar 30Reported out of Committee with Do Pass Recommendation; Filed for second readingMinor
- Mar 23Introduced, read first time; referred to: Judiciary & RulesMinor
- Mar 23Received from the House passed; filed for first reading
- Mar 20Rules Suspended: Ayes 70 Nays 0 Abs/Excd 0, read in full as required – PASSED - 60-9-1AYES – Alfieri, Barbieri, Beiswenger, Bingham, Boyle, Bruce, Burgoyne, Cannon, Cayler, Cheatum, Cornilles, Crane(12), Crane(13), Dygert, Ehardt, Ehlers, Erickson, Fuhriman, Furniss, Garner, Hall(Stone), Handy, Harris, Hawkins, Healey, Holtzclaw, Hostetler, Leavitt, Manwaring, Marmon, McCann, Mendive, Mickelsen, Miller, Mitchell, Monks, Nelsen, Palmer, Petzke, Pickett, Pohanka, Price, Rasor, Raybould, Raymond, Redman, Sauter, Scott, Shepherd, Shirts, Skaug, Tanner(13), Tanner(14), Thompson, Vander Woude, Veile, Weber, Wheeler, Wisniewski, Mr. SpeakerNAYS – Berch, Church, Egbert, Galaviz, Gannon, Green, Haws, Mathias, RubelAbsent – HillFloor Sponsor - ShirtsTitle apvd - to SenatePassed 1st Chamber
- Vote recorded Rules Suspended: Ayes 70 Nays 0 Abs/Excd 0, read in full as required –. Result: pass.Lower
- Mar 20Read second time; Filed for Third ReadingMinor
- Mar 19Reported out of Committee with Do Pass Recommendation, Filed for Second ReadingMinor
- Mar 16Reported Printed and Referred to Judiciary, Rules & Administration
- Mar 13Introduced, read first time, referred to JRA for PrintingIntroduced
- Apr 2Returned from Senate Failed; Filed in the office of the Chief ClerkLatest
Government & EthicsCriminal JusticeEmergency Management