2025 ID Legislative Scorecard

HCR10 would make three separate applications to Congress to call a “convention of the states” under Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

The House rejected HCR10 on March 12, 2025, by a vote of 26 to 44. We have assigned pluses to the nays because efforts to call an Article V “convention of the states” must be resisted. A constitutional convention (Con-Con) would have the power to make major changes to the U.S. Constitution, or even completely rewrite it. Instead of failing to uphold their oath of office and risking the danger of a “runaway convention,” which could act as a “trojan horse” to destroy many of the Constitution’s limitations on government power, state legislators should act to immediately nullify all unconstitutional federal laws. Whenever the federal government assumes undelegated powers, in blatant violation of the 10th Amendment, nullification of such lawless acts is the proper remedy. Article V was designed to correct potential errors or defects in the Constitution, not to “misconstrue or abuse its powers.” We must use Article VI to enforce the Constitution, rather than use Article V to alter or abolish it.

H157 would order the collection of a DNA sample from any person who is convicted of, or pleads guilty to, any “serious crime,” including certain misdemeanors.

The House rejected H157 on March 7, 2025, by a vote of 34 to 34. We have assigned pluses to the nays because this bill changes the definition of “serious crimes” from felonies to misdemeanors, even in cases of “withheld judgment” and regardless of “the sentence imposed or disposition rendered.” Moreover, the requirement to provide a DNA sample would also be retroactive, applying to those who are currently imprisoned or confined. Since many misdemeanor convictions are the result of negotiated plea deals, this legislation would effectively ignore those agreements, amounting to an even greater undue expansion of the statewide DNA database system and the dangerous threat it poses to individual privacy. Lawmakers should support, not undermine the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

H177, creates the “Idaho Constitutional Money Act of 2025,” declaring “gold and silver coin” as legal tender.

The House passed H177 on February 25, 2025, by a vote of 66 to 3. We have assigned pluses to the ayes because this bill is a necessary step toward restoring sound money and adhering to the U.S. Constitution’s monetary provisions. Article 1, Section 10, of the Constitution says that “No State shall … make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” States can and must act now to protect Americans’ financial freedom and privacy by both ending the Federal Reserve’s unconstitutional monopoly on money and thwarting government plans to impose a Central Bank Digital Currency.

  HJR1 would propose to amend Article IX, Section 9, of the Idaho Constitution to remove the provision that allows the Legislature to require public school attendance. The House failed to adopt HJR1 on February 19, 2025, by a vote of 46 to 23 (two-thirds vote needed). We have assigned pluses to the ayes because education is not the role of government—it is the responsibility of a child’s parents or family. Not only do parents have a fundamental right to educate their children freely, but schools can and should be privatized, without relying on public funds. If not dismantled, the government’s monopoly on pre-K-12 education will continue to displace traditional private schools and homeschooling in favor of universal state-sponsored schooling. The best “school choice,” by far, is for parents to choose not to place their child’s education in the hands of the state. Educational and economic freedom cannot be achieved by forcing other citizens to give up their hard-earned tax dollars for all that now entails a compulsory, failing, and government-run school system.

HJM1 urges the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges and “restore the natural definition of marriage, a union of one man and one woman.”

The House adopted HJM1 on January 27, 2025, by a vote of 46 to 24. We have assigned pluses to the ayes because the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges recognizing “same-sex marriage” is egregiously illegitimate and unconstitutional. It mistakenly assumes that marriage, along with morality itself, can be determined exclusively, even frivolously, by the government. Yet, marriage, being coeval with mankind, is ordained by God—not civil authorities. Unlike homosexuality, which is contrary to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” marriage is the most sacred of all human institutions. For more than two thousand years, it has been honored as a lifelong covenant between one man and woman, whose one-flesh union serves as the foundation of the family. There is no right to “same-sex marriage” in the U.S. Constitution because there can be no appeal to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” apart from the moral sanctions set forth by our “Creator” who grants us with “certain unalienable Rights.” Further, the 10th Amendment is clear that the “powers not delegated” to the federal government (e.g., Supreme Court), such as the authority to regulate marriage, are reserved to the “States, or to the people.”