Idaho legislators should not vote on bills that line their own pockets

Idahoans learned this year that the Idaho Legislature’s conflict of interest rules are essentially toothless. Under rules adopted by both Houses, legislators are not required to disclose the nature of a financial interest they may have in a legislative measure.

An April press report disclosed that Senator Codi Galloway had introduced Senate Bill 1141, which banned public camping or sleeping on public property. As initially drafted, the bill allowed persons or businesses to file suit against political subdivisions that did not enforce the ban. At the time she did not disclose that her husband’s business was affected by camping in Boise and that he might well be a person filing such a suit. The bill was amended to remove the private enforcement provision and limit its application to the few Idaho cities with populations exceeding 100,000. She voted to pass the bill without disclosing a conflict of interest. Galloway claimed she did not have to report a conflict because other Boise business owners were facing the same situation as her husband. She should have reported the potential conflict before voting on the bill.

In the last days of the legislative session, Rep. Jordan Redman, a Coeur d’Alene Republican who owns Medicine Man Prairie Pharmacy in Hayden, introduced Senate Bill 1211, allowing Idaho pharmacies to make over-the counter sales of ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug. When the bill came up for a vote in the House, Jordan disclosed a conflict of interest, but not the “nature” of the conflict as required by law–more on that later. Redman’s pharmacy began selling the drug after his bill was signed into law.

Much more concerning is the fact that not a single member of either House of the Legislature is recorded as having disclosed a conflict of interest when they voted in favor of House Bill 93, the education tax credit legislation. This new law will provide a direct financial benefit of $5,000 per student ($7,500 for students with disabilities) to legislators who apply for and get the tax subsidy. There is good reason to believe that some legislators voted for the bill with the intention of benefitting from its provisions. The public may never know because the new law specifies that the annual subsidy report “shall not include any personally identifying information of eligible students, their parents, or their households.” All information about the tax subsidy will be contained in confidential tax records.

Getting back to the issue of what legislators are required to disclose regarding conflicts of interest, it must be said that existing House and Senate rules do not comply with the actual law. House Rule 80 (3) and Senate Rule 39 (H) merely require that a member disclose the existence of a conflict of interest before voting on a bill. However, Idaho Code section 74-404 (1) requires legislators to “disclose the nature of the potential conflict of interest.” I drafted that language in 1990 and can attest that the Google AI definition is right on the mark: “The phrase ‘nature of conflict of interest’ describes the underlying characteristics and specific ways in which an individual’s personal interests or relationships can compromise their professional duties or responsibilities.” In other words, a legislator must explain how his or her personal interests conflict with the public interest, not just that a potential conflict exists.

It was extremely difficult to get this mild conflict law passed. During my last three years as Idaho Attorney General, I tried each year to get the Legislature to do a tough and comprehensive rewrite of Idaho’s public corruption and conflict laws. Those efforts met substantial resistance from legislators in both the 1988 and 1989 legislative sessions. In 1990, the legislation was split into two components–a tough public corruption bill and a conflict-of-interest bill. The public corruption bill that dealt primarily with non-legislative public officials passed easily. The conflict-of-interest provisions faced tougher sledding. Conflict rules pertaining to the Legislature had been watered down in the two previous sessions and they were the sticking point in 1990. Mike Crapo, then a state senator, watered the conflict provisions down even more. That toothless version passed and remains on the law books to this day.

One item of interest is that Idaho judges are exempt from the conflict-of-interest law. That is because they are subject to a much stricter and more comprehensive set of rules that prohibit even the appearance of impropriety. We can only wish that the Idaho Legislature would try to police itself with a fraction of the restraints judges place on themselves under the Code of Judicial Conduct. That would help to prevent our representatives from lining their own pockets at the expense of taxpayers.

About the Author

Jim Jones is a Vietnam combat veteran who served 8 years as Idaho Attorney General (1983-1991) and 12 years as a Justice on the Idaho Supreme Court (2005-2017).