>>> PRESENTATION OF "IDAHO REPORTS" ON IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION IS MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH THE GENEROUS SUPPORT OF THE LAURA MOORE CUNNINGHAM FOUNDATION, COMMITTED TO FULFILLING THE MOORE AND BETTIS FAMILY LEGACY OF BUILDING THE GREAT STATE OF IDAHO, BY THE FRIENDS OF IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION, AND BY THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING.

>>> THIS WEEK WE BRING YOU THE LATEST ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND CORRECTIONS AND WHAT IF LEGISLATURE MANAGED TO ACCOMPLISH ON PROPERTY TAXES.

I'M LOGAN FINNEY FILLING IN FOR MELISSA DAVLIN.

"IDAHO REPORTS" STARTS NOW.

♪ ♪ >>> HELLO AND WELCOME TO "IDAHO REPORTS."

THIS WEEK THE IDAHO LEGISLATURE ADJOURNED SIGNEE DIE FOR THE YEAR AFTER 81 DAYS IN SESSION.

PRODUCER RUTH BROWN SAT DOWN ON THURSDAY WITH REPRESENTATIVES GREG CHENY AND COLIN NASH TO DISCUSS CRIMINAL JUSTICE ISSUES, INCLUDING FUNDING FOR A NEW WOMEN'S PRISON, JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND EXECUTION BY LETHAL INJECTION.

THEN I'M JOINED BY KELLY PACKER WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF IDAHO CITIES TO REVIEW AN EFFORT TO REDUCE PROPERTY TAXES BY SHIFTING THE COST OF PUBLIC DEFENSE AND INDIGENOUS MEDICAL ASSISTANCE FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ON TO THE STATE.

BUT FIRST, ON MONDAY GOVERNOR BRAD LITTLE VETOED THE CROARNS PAUSE ACT, SENATE BILL 1381, SAYING IT WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY EXPANDED GOVERNMENT OVERREACH INTO THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

THE BILL WOULD HAVE LIMITED THE ABILITY OF PRIVATE AND PUBLIC ENTITIES TO REQUIRE THEIR EMPLOYEES TO RECEIVE A CORONAVIRUS VACCINATION.

THE SENATE ATTEMPTED TO OVERRIDE THAT VIET ON -- VETO ON THURSDAY, FALLING SHORT OF THE NECESSARY TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY.

ON WEDNESDAY PLANNED PARENTHOOD GREAT NORTHWEST FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE STATE OVER AN ABORTION BILL PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE.

THE TEXAS-STYLE LAW WOULD ALLOW THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF A FETUS TO SUE THE ABORTION PROVIDER, REGARDLESS OF THE PREGNANT WOMAN'S CHOICE TO TERMINATE THEIR PREGNANCY.

THE IDAHO ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE ALSO ISSUED AN OPINION STATING A COURT WOULD LIKELY FIND THE BILL UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

AND IN GOVERNOR.

'S LETTER, HE EXPRESSED THE CONCERNS ABOUT ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY.

>>> BEFORE RECESSING THE HOUSE REPEATEDLY SHOT DOWN THE BUDGET FOR THE COMMISSION FOR LIBRARIES, ARGUING LARGELY ABOUT WHETHER THE LIBRARIES ARE DISTRIBUTING OBSCENE MATERIALS TO MINORS.

THE BUDGET DRAFT DIED THURSDAY MARCH 24, AND THE SECOND DIED ON FRIDAY THE 25S, AND THE FINAL BUDGET NARROWLY PASSED THE HOUSE ALSO PASSED A RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A WORKING GROUP ON PROTECTING IDAHO CHILDREN FROM EXPOSURE TO HARMFUL MATERIALS IN LIBRARIES AND K-SCHOOLS.

>> THERE IS MATERIAL THAT IS DEFINED IN OUR STATE CODE AS BEING HARMFUL TO CHILDREN, HARMFUL TO MINORS, THAT CONTINUES TO BE ACCESSED IN THE SHELVES OF OUR LIBRARIES.

IS THIS JUST ANOTHER BUREAUCRATIC ANSWER?

I SAY IT ABSOLUTELY IS NOT.

WE HAVE AN -- HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE TO SHINE FURTHER LIGHT ON THIS ISSUE, TO CONTINUE IN THE NEXT 10 MONTHS, NINE MONTHS, OF FOCUSING ON MAKING SURE OUR KIDS ARE SAFE IN THE LIBRARIES, THAT THE MATERIALS THAT ARE CLEARLY ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO HAVE IN THEIR POSSESSION, AND ACCESS TO IN OUR LIBRARIES, THAT THAT PROBLEM IS GOING TO BE FULLY ADDRESSED.

>> IN THIS RESOLUTION WE CREATE A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE IDAHO LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, AND THE IDAHO COMMISSION OF LIBRARIES.

>> THIS IS A FALSE NARRATIVE.

AND I'M JUST GONNA SAY IT.

IT'S A FALSE NARRATIVE SUGGESTS THAT OBSCENE MATERIALS ARE ALL OVER IN OUR LIBRARIES.

THEY AREN'T.

YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO FIND ONE OR TWO EXAMPLES THAT MAKE CERTAIN MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITIES UNCOMFORTABLE, BUT THIS IS A FALSE NARRATIVE.

>> THE DEBATES OVER THE COMMISSION FOR LIBRARIES BUDGET STAYED HEATED LATE INTO FRIDAY EVENING, WELL AFTER THE AIRING OF LAST WEEK'S EPISODE OF IDAHO REPORTS.

>>> THE DRAFT THAT REMOVED ALL ARPA FUNDING FROM THE BUDGET INCLUDING 3 POIRCH 5 MILLION IN TECHNOLOGY GRANTS FOR TELEHEALTH ACCESS AT RURAL PRY BEARS -- LIBRARIES, DIED IN A 209-36 VOTE.

>> A GROUP OF PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM IS UPSET THAT -- >> MR. SPEAKER.

>> POINT OF ORDER.

>> I'M NOT READING.

>> HE'S MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT PEOPLE'S -- >> YOU'RE-IN HUMANNING -- IMPUGNING MOTIVES, AND IT'S LATE.

LET'S SAY WITHIN THE LINES.

GO AHEAD.

>> IT WOULD APPEAR TO BE -- [LAUGHTER] >> THAT THEY'RE REMOVING THIS THREE AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS FROM THIS BUDGET BECAUSE A GROUP OF PEOPLE SPOKE UP ADVOCATING FOR THEIR JOBS AND ADVOCATING FOR THEIR COMMUNITIES AND ADVOCATING FOR THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THEIR TOWN.

>> THIS ISSUE GOES SO FAR BEYOND LIBRARIES.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS BODY, I THINK IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT IT BE NIPPED IN THE BUT.

IT IS PROFOUNDLY DANGEROUS, ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS THINGS I'VE SEEN HAPPEN IN THIS BODY IN MY MIME TIER, AND THAT WAS -- MY TIME HERE, AND THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY GOING AFTER PEOPLE FOR EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT TO PETITION FAIR GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS -- THEIR GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS.

THIS IS ONE OF THE FIVE FREEDOMS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT AND ASSAY THIS IS WHY I WANT YOU TO DO THIS OR NOT DO THIS.

>> I'VE BEEN IN THIS BODY LONG ENOUGH AND ASSOCIATED WITH ALL OF YOU LONG ENOUGH THAT YOU KNOW THAT I AM NOT A PERSON WHO IS VINDICTIVE, WHO IS UNKIND OR WHO PUNISHES PEOPLE BASED ON THEIR VIEWPOINTS.

I WAS CLEAR IN MY DEBATE THAT MY OBSERVES WERE NOT TO THE FACT -- OBJECTIONS WERE NOT TO THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY DISAGREET BUT THE FACT THAT THE -- DISAGREED BUT THE FACT THAT THE INFORMATION WAS NOT ACCURATE, AND THAT THAT ASSOCIATION AT THAT TIME, KNOWING THAT THE INFORMATION WAS INACCURATE, DID NOT CORRECT THE NARRATIVE OR THE INFORMATION.

>> THAT FINAL BUDGET DRAFT, HOUSE BILL 827, PAGED IN A 41-GET 1 VOTE.

>>> BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS HELD PRESS CONFERENCES THIS WEEK, OUTLINING WHAT THEY CONSIDER TO BE THE SUCCESSES AND FAILURE OF THE SESSION.

>> TARGETED HISTORIC INVESTMENTS BACK IN OUR SCHOOL SYSTEM, NOT ONLY IN LITERACY BUT INTO OUR -- INTO THE TEACHER WORKFORCE, ROADS, BRIDGES, WATER, YOU CAN TALK ABOUT WATER FOR A WHILE IF YOU'D LIKE.

BUT THEN ALSO ANOTHER HISTORIC TAX CUT.

I THINK THOSE IS WHAT WE'LL LOOK BACK ON YEARS FROM NOW AND SAY, 2022, THAT WAS A PRETTY GOOD SESSION.

>> TO GIVE YOU -- PROPERTY TAXES ISSUE, IT TOOK THE JUDICIAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFF THE ROLL.

ONE OF THOSE MILL LEVIES WILL GO AWAY.

ABOUT A 40 MILLION PLUS, BASS THAT WILL ALLEVIATE THE COUNTIES OF THEIR $11,000 FOR ENERGY CASE FOR EVERY CASE.

THAT SHOULD ALSO PARLAY INTO MORE PROPERTY TAX RELIEF.

WE DID THE BILL THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T HAVE MORE THAN ONE HOMEOWNERS OKAY EMS.

-- EXEMPTION.

THEN WE GAVE THE CITIES THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE PROPERTY TAX RELIEF.

ALL THE FEDERAL MONEY THEY HAVE, THEY CAN PROVIDE LEAVE UP TO $10 MILLION FOR EACH CITY WITHOUT ANY QUESTIONS ASKED.

WE DID DO SEVERAL THINGS AROUND THE EDGES ON PROPERTY TAXES.

THERE'S MORE TO DO AND WE'VE SAID IT.

IT'S GOING TO BE SMALL BITES UNTIL WE CAN GET TO THE BIG ONE.

>> IN THE DEMOCRATS' PRESS CONFERENCE ON MONDAY, LEADERSHIP EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE GOP'S FOCUS BUT HIGHLIGHTED WHAT THEY SAW AS SOME SUCCESSES.

>> THE IDAHO GOP IN THE HOUSE WANTS TO DICTATE WHAT BOOKS YOUR KIDS CAN LEAVE, WHAT MEDICAL CARE YOU'RE ALLOWED TO GIVE TO THEIR CHILDREN, WHAT WOMEN ARE ALLOWED TO DO WITH THEIR BODIES, HOW PRIVATE EMPLOYERS ARE ALLOWED TO MAKE THEIR OWN EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS, WHAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CAN ANYTIME THEIR OWN STREETS AND PARKS AND MON I'MS.

-- MONUMENTS.

THE SALLY TOMB SUE HER INCENTIVES SIGNED INTO LAW.

MATTHIAS INSURED THE CHILDREN -- ENSURED THAT THE CHILDREN OF SERVICE MEMBERS WHO DIE IN THE LINE OF DUTY HAVE EDUCATION.

TO SEE BROADBAND IS INSTALLED THROUGHOUT THE CASE.

FOR NELSON AND I STAY -- WE SAW THE REPORT DESCRIBING THE DIRE STATE OF RURAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, AND WE DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

WE PASSED LEGISLATION TO BRING FUNDING FOR TRAINING AND OTHER COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ACROSS THE STATE.

MANY MEMBERS OF OUR CAUCUS INCLUDING LEFT NASH, MYSELF, SENATOR WARD, AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN WORKING FOR YEARS TO BRING FUKUSHIMA TO I'D -- FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN TO IDAHO AND WE'RE GLAD THAT HAPPEN.

>> SO WEDNESDAY GOVERNOR LITTLE VETOED A BILL THAT WOULD HAVE OVERHAULED THE WAY THE IDAHO JUDICIAL COUNSEL RECOMMENDS ATTORNEYS FOR JUDGESHIP.

THE HOUSE DID NOT ATTEMPT TO OVERRIDE THAT VETO.

THEY DISCUSSED THE LEGISLATION.

>> REPRESENTATIVE NASH, REPRESENTATIVE CHANEY, THANKS FOR JOINING ME.

TODAY I WANTED TO DIVE INTO THE EYE DOC BUDGET AND AROUND THE JUSTICE SYSTEM.

THEY DID HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL BUDGET INCREASE BUT THERE WAS A FUND CREDITING FOR A NEW PRISON.

IT A LITTLE OVER 800-BED WOMEN'S FACILITY BUILT OUT AT THE CUBANA -- KUNA COMPLEX.

REPRESENT CHANEY, WHAT FACILITY DO YOU THINK WILL BE BENEFICIAL?

>> IT WILL BE.

SPENDING IN A FORM THAT ALLOW US TO SAVE MONEY IN THE LONG TERM, WHICH IS IMPORTANT.

WE HAVE A LOT OF ONE-TIME MONEY THAT MAYBE WE CAN'T PUT INTO OUR REVENUE STREAM LONG TERM, BUT WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO SAVE MONEY IN THE LONG TERM BECAUSE EVENTUALLY THAT MONEY HAS TO BE PAID BACK.

SO PART OF THE STRUCTURE IS A GOOD WAY TO DO THAT.

AND THE WOMEN'S PRISON IS A GREAT WAY TO SAVE MONEY IN THE LONG TERM BY PAYING -- ESSENTIALLY PAYING CASH FOR IT.

WE SAVE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN INTEREST AS COMPARED TO IF WE DID BONDING FOR IT.

WE ALSO SAVED THE COST OF OUT-OF-STATE PLACEMENT.

AND JUST THE SAVINGS ON OUT-OF-STATE PLACEMENT WOULD COVER MOST OF THE COSTS OF THAT PRISON WITHIN THE NEXT DECADE.

AND SO AS FAR AS DOLLARS AND CENTS, IT MAKES A LOT OF RATIONAL SENSE TO USE OUR ONE-TIME MONEY TO BUILD THAT FACILITY, TO BRING OUR OUT-OF-STATE INMATES BACK TO THE STATE OF IDAHO, WHICH ALLOWS THEM A BETTER ON-BOARDING PROCESS TO GET BACK INTO SOCIETY BECAUSE THEIR FAMILIES HAVE CLOSER CONTACT.

THE COMMUNITIES HAVE CLOSER CONTACT.

AND SO OVERALL, IT WAS WHAT I THINK IS A SMART MOVE BY THE LEGISLATURE.

>> SURE.

FOR LISTENERS WHO MAY NOT KNOW, THE STATE OF IDAHO HAS -- THEY'RE OVERCAPACITY WITH INMATES, SO THEY HAVE SOME -- SOME INMATES AT A PRIVATE PRISON IN ARIZONA.

AS OF TUESDAY THAT NUMBER WAS 474 MEN THAT WERE HOUSED OUT OF STATE BECAUSE WASN'T ROOM FOR THEM AT THE STATE FACILITY.

REPRESENTISH NASH, YOU EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT WOMEN'S INCARS NATION.

>> I THINK THE INTENT -- INCARCERATION.

>> I THINK THE INTENT OF THE PRISON IS GOOD, HOW CAN WE SAVE SOME COSTS AND PLACEMENT.

MY CONCERN IS IT'S VERY DIVORCED FROM THE POLICY QUESTION OF ARE WE SAFER BEING THE NUMBER ONE INCARCERATOR OF WOMEN IN AMERICA, AND I THINK THERE ARE DIMINISHING RETURNS ON HOW MANY PEOPLE WE'RE INCARCERATING TO KEEP OURSELVES SAFE.

AND I WANT TO HAVE THAT POLICY CONVERSATION AT THE SAME TIME WHEN WE'RE SPENDING HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON NEW PRISON BEDS.

>> SO I WANT TO SHIFT A LITTLE BIT TO -- SO I-DOC IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR SENTENCING, BUT JUDGES ARE.

SO LET'S SHIFT THE CONVERSATION TO THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL.

THERE WAS A BILL THAT WOULD -- WOULD OF MADE CHANGES.

THE GET VETOED THAT THIS WEEK.

YOU SPONSORED THAT BILL.

CAN YOU WALK ME THROUGH WHAT THAT LEGISLATION WOULD HAVE DONE AND YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE VETO?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

WHAT THE LESS WOULD HAVE DONE IS MAKE SURE THERE 357 THAT THERE WAS A BROAD PRACTICE ON THAT COMMISSION AND IT WOULD HAVE INCREASED THE NUMBER OF VOTES NECESSARY TO RECOMMEND THE FILLING OF A JUDICIAL VASEANS SO THAT THE PRIVATE -- VACANCY SO THE PRIVATE SECTOR MEMBERS MAINTAINED THEIR INFLUENCE ON THE COUNCIL AS WELL.

ADDITIONALLY, IT WOULD HAVE PROVIDED SOME LIMITED TRANSPARENCY IN REVEALING SOME OF THE CRITERIA USED BY THE COUNCIL AT MAKING THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE GOVERNOR.

AND IT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE GOVERNOR TO ESSENTIALLY THROW BACK ONE LIST OF NOMINEES.

SO THE COUNCIL RIGHT NOW IS PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR DISCIPLINE OF JUDGES.

BUT THEY ALSO SEND A LIST OF TWO TO FOUR PEOPLE TO THE GOVERNOR WHENEVER THERE'S A DISTRICT APPELLATE OR SUPREME COURT VACANCY FOR THE GOVERNOR TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT FROM.

AND IT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED ONE SLATE TO BE REJECTED FULLY, BUT THEN THE SECOND ONE WOULD HAVE STILL BEEN COMPULSARY FOR THE GOVERNOR.

THAT WAS VETOED.

AND I UNDERSTAND THE REASONING BEHIND THE GOVERNOR'S VETO.

IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL TIME TO STUDY AND COLLABORATE.

I THINK THAT WE DID GOOD WORK.

I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT POLICY AND THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

NONETHELESS, FOR THE LEGISLATURE, WE ARE THE LEAST AFFECTED BY THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION.

BOTH THE JUDICIARY AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCHES ARE MORE AFFECTED BY THIS LEGISLATION THAN WE ARE.

AND SO WE'RE BOTH -- BOTH OF THOSE BRANCHES ARE SAYING SLOW UP.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE MAY SLOW DOWN AND WE DON'T DO SOMETHING UNILATERALLY THAT DOESN'T AFFECT US AS A BRANCH BUT AFFECTS THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES.

>> REPRESENTATIVE NASH, THAT -- WHILE THAT BILL DID PASS, IT WAS A NARROW VOTE.

I KNOW THAT YOU VOTED IN OPPOSITION TO IT.

WHAT WERE YOUR CONCERNS WITH THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL CHANGES?

>> THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL WAS FORMED 55 YEARS AGO AS PART OF THE MODERNIZATION OF THE JUDICIARY.

THIS IS AN INSTITUTION THAT'S KEPT ITS CURRENT FORM.

I WAS ACTUALLY LOOKING THROUGH THE HIS OVER THIS -- HISTORY ON THIS AND MY WIFE'S GREAT-GRANDFATHER WAS ON THE COMMITTEE THAT FORMED THIS SO LONG AGO.

IT'S REALLY SPEAKS TO -- IT'S EN -- ITS ENDURING NATURE, SPEAKS TO THE QUALITY OF JUDGES THAT IT'S BEEN ABLE TO RECOMMEND TO THE GOVERNOR.

AND MY CONCERNS WITH THIS, WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE BILL OR MORE AROUND PROCESS, AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE -- IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A A ONCE-IN-A-GENERATION CHANGE TO THIS INSTITUTION THAT BY ALL ACCOUNTS IS WORKING QUITE WELL, WE NEED TO HAVE MORE INPUT AND MORE PUBLIC INPUT IN THIS PROCESS FROM THE OTHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT AND FROM AFFECTED STAKEHOLDERS.

AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT THE PROCESS THAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE HAS RECOMMENDED, THAT THE GOVERNOR SHOWING AN INTEREST IN PARTICIPATING IN, WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE MEANS TO GET THAT INPUT SO THAT IF WE DO NEED TO MAKE CHANGES, WHICH I THINK A LOT OF FOLKS WOULD LIKE TO SEE US DO TO HELP WITH JUDICIAL RECRUITMENT, WHICH IS -- FOR ME IS A CHALLENGE -- REMAINS A CHALLENGE, THAT THAT PROCESS WILL BE ABLE TO DELIVER ON ANY NES ARE REFORMS.

>> -- NECESSARY REFORM.

>> AND THAT WILL BE A WORKING GROUP THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS TRYING TO ESTABLISH, CORRECT?

I WANT TO MOVE ON TO A MORE CONTROVERSIAL BILL THAT I WOULD SAY THIS YEAR CREATED SOME REAL SOMBER DISCUSSIONS.

AND THAT WOULD BE REGARDING LETHAL INJECTIONS.

AND WHERE THE CHEMICALS USED IN LETHAL INJECTION ARE OBTAINED.

REPRESENTATIVE CHANEY, CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT 658 WOULD HAVE DONE?

>> 658 ALLOWS THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION TO KEEP ANONYMOUS THE SOURCE OF LETHAL INJECTION DRUGS AND THE IDENTITIES OF THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE EXECUTION PROTOCOLS.

IT DOESN'T KEEP THE IDENTITY OF THE CHEMICAL OR THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED CONFIDENTIAL.

THAT'S STILL AVAILABLE INFORMATION.

AND IT'S ALSO AVAILABLE TO THE CONDEMNED IF -- TO INDEPENDENTLY SAMPLE AND TEST THE CHEMICALS TO CONFIRM THAT THEY ARE OF THE NATURE AND QUALITY THAT THEY CLAIM TO BE.

AND SO THERE'S A LOT THAT IT DOESN'T MAKE ANONYMOUS.

BUT THESE CRUCIAL PIECES, IT DOES MAKE ANONYMOUS.

FOR THE TURNS OF AVOID -- PURPOSES OF AVOIDING USING PUBLIC PRESSURE TO EFFECTIVELY ELIMINATE THE DEATH PENALTY.

IF THE DEATH PENALTY IS TO BE ELIMINATED, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I WOULD SUPPORT, BUT IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT GOES THROUGH THE BALLOT BOX AND THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, NOT SOMETHING THAT IS DONE BY FIAT BY PUTTING ENOUGH PUBLIC PRESSURE ON CHEMICAL PROVIDERS OR EVEN THOSE WHO MIGHT BE MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTION PROTOCOL TEAM TO THE POINT WHERE IT'S FUNCTIONALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

THE DEPARTMENT WAS PUT IN AN INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT POSITION IN BEING UNABLE TO OBTAIN THOSE CHEMICALS BUT STILL HAVING UNDER IDAHO STATUTE AN OBLIGATION TO CARRY OUT THESE SENTENCES.

AS IMPOSED BY JURIES ACROSS THE STATE.

>> REPRESENTATIVE NASH, -- [INAUDIBLE] WAS THE NAMES OF THOSE SUPPLIERS ALSO WOULD NOT BE DISCOVERABLE IN COURT.

THE REASON THAT WE ARE AWARE OF WHERE THE CHEMICALS WERE OBTAINED FOR MR. RHODES AND MR. LEVITTE, THE LAST TWO MEN IF IDAHO TO BE EXECUTED, IS THEY -- IN IDAHO TO BE EXECUTED, IS THEY CAME THROUGH COURT.

WHAT WAS SOME OF YOUR OPPOSITION TO THE BILL?

>> WELL, ONE OF THE ISSUES IS THAT DOZENS OF MANUFACTURERS OF THESE DRUGS, ALL FDA APPROVED, PROVIDERS OF THESE DRUGS, HAVE CONTRACTS IN PLACE THAT ELIMINATE THEIR ABILITY -- THAT -- TO SUPPLY THESE DRUGS.

THEY DON'T WANT TO BE A PART OF IT.

AND THEY WILL BE UNABLE TO ENFORCE THOSE CONTRACTS IF IT'S NOT DISCOVERABLE IF -- THEY WON'T EVEN KNOW IF THEY'RE ACTUALLY SUPPLYING THE DRUGS FOR LETHAL INJECTION AT THIS POINT IN THE STATE OF IDAHO.

AND I GUESS MY BIGGER CONCERN IS THAT WHEN WE GIVE THE GOVERNMENT THE ABILITY TO TAKE LIFE, WHETHER YOU CONSIDER THAT JUSTIFIED OR NOT, THAT IS AN INCREDIBLE POWER AND THAT NEEDS AS MUCH SUNLIGHT ON IT AS POSSIBLE.

AND IDAHO DOES NOT HAVE A GREAT TRACK RECORD WITH TRANSPARENCY WHEN IT COMES TO THIS PROCESS.

I MEAN, THE LAST COUPLE EXECUTIONS HAVE BEEN SHROUDED IN ALLEGATIONS OF PRIVATE CHARTERED PLANES IN CASES FULL OF -- SUITCASES FULL OF CASH, KEEPING TWO SETS OF BOOKS TO HIDE THOSE TRANSACTIONS.

AND THAT GIVES ME PAUSE.

IF WE'RE GOING TO GIVE GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO TAKE LIFE, THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THAT PROCESS.

SO THAT'S WHERE I'M COMING FROM ON MY OPPOSITION TO THAT BILL.

>> THE GOVERNOR DID SIGN THAT LEGISLATION.

AND I KNOW MR. BIZUTEO IS PENDING APPEALS.

HE AVOIDED EXECUTION IN JUNE AND SO WE'LL SEE HOW THAT MOVES FORWARD.

BUT IN THE MEANTIME, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME, GENTLEMEN.

AND HOPEFULLY YOU'LL SEE SINE DIE SOON.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING US.

>> THANK YOU.

>> EXECUTE DREFFOR KELLEY PACKER FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF IDAHO CITIES JOINS ME NOW TO DISCUSS NEW LEGISLATION THAT'S INTENDED TO PROVIDE PROPERTY TAX RELIEF BY CHANGING THE FUNDING MODEL FOR PUBLIC DEFENSE IN IDAHO.

>> THANKTHANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>> BIG PICTURE ON START, HOW DID THIS SESSION TREAT THE CITIES?

>> YOU KNOW, IT WAS A REAL UPHILL CLIMB FOR CITIES TO BE HONEST.

WE BROUGHT ONE PIECE OF PERSONAL LEGISLATION.

THERE WERE 62 BILLS THAT WE ENDED UP HAVING TO FIELD, WHETHER WE SUPPORTED IT OR OPPOSED THEM.

THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK THAT WE ENDED UP DOING.

BUT I THINK WE CAME OUT FAIRLY WELL INTACT.

WE HAD A FEW SLICES TAKEN OFF OF US, BUT FOR THE MOST PART WE FARED PRETTY WELL.

>> WE HAD YOU ON THE SHOW A NUMBER OF WEEKS AGO.

AND WE TALKED ABOUT EARLY PROPOSALS TO USE THE TAX RELIEF FUND FOR SOME DIFFERENT PROJECTS.

THOSE EARLY BILLS RAISED SOME CONCERNS FROM THE CITIES.

WHEN WHERE HAVE WE ENDED UP?

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, THEY STILL USED -- WE WERE REALLY CONCERNED -- PROBABLY OUR BIGGEST CONCERN WHEN I WAS LAST ON WAS THAT WAYFAIR FUND.

GETTING THE FUNDS COMING THROUGH THE SAME DISTRIBUTION THAT WE RECEIVE FROM THE BRICKS AND MORTAR BUSINESSES.

THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE HOUSE BILL 735 AS AMENDED IN THE SENATE.

IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN BASICALLY AT THE SAME TIME LINE IT WOULD HAVE, AND THAT'S WONDERFUL.

BUT THERE'S SOME CAVEATS AROUND IT.

FOR THE MOST PART, WE'RE HAPPY BECAUSE WE HOPE TO SEE SOME INCREASES IN REVENUES THAT WILL HELP US TO BE ABLE TO DECREASE PROPERTY TAX RELIANCE MOVING FORWARD.

>> AND FOR OUR VIEWERS, THE WAYFAIR FUND IS THE TAX RELIEF FUND IS WHEN YOU PAY SALES TAX, IF IT'S IN A BRICK AND MORTAR STORE, IT GOES THROUGH THE DISTRIBUTION FORMULA TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WHEREAS ONLINE IT GOES INTO A SPECIAL BUCKET.

>> RIGHT.

>> THAT TAX RELIEF BUCKET IS BEING WOUND DOWN IN 2024, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

AND THEN IT WILL GO TO -- THROUGH THE REGULAR FORMULA, WHICH MEANS 11.5%, WHICH GOES TO LOCALS, WILL SEE A LITTLE BIT OF AN INCREASE AFTER THE FIRST COUPLE OF YEARS.

>> RIGHT.

AFTER THE FIRST COUPLE OF YEARS.

SO THAT GETS US TO THE PUBLIC DEFENSE BILL, BECAUSE PART OF THE WAY THAT THE BIG PUBLIC DEFENSE PROJECT IS BEING FUNDED IS FROM THAT SALES TAX FORMULA.

SO CAN YOU WALK ME THROUGH WHAT CHANGES ARE BEING MADE AND SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE CITIES ARE CONTRIBUTING.

>> YOU BET.

SO 735 WAS PROPOSED IN HOUSE REV AND TAX, AND THE CITIES IMMEDIATELY OPPOSED IT.

AND THERE WAS A COUPLE OF REASONS FOR THAT.

FIRST IS WE WERE NOT PART OF THE CONVERSATIONS IN DRAFTING AND BUILDING THAT LEGISLATION.

AND YET WE WERE GOING TO HAVE MAJOR IMPACTS TO OUR REVENUE STREAMS THROUGH THE LEGISLATION THAT WAS BEING PROPOSED.

735 WAS GOING TO CREATE A FUNDING STREAM FOR THE PUBLIC DEFENSE NEEDS IN THE STATE.

AND WE AS CITIES RECOGNIZED THAT THAT WAS A HUGE NEED.

THERE'S A CURRENT LAWSUIT IN PLACE FOR EXAMPLE.

AND WE BELIEVED THAT ALL OF US, FROM THE STATE, THROUGH THE COUNTIES, TO THE CITIES, SHOULD PARTNER TOGETHER AND BE GOOD PARTNERS.

WE JUST DID NOT BELIEVE IT SHOULD COME OUT OF THE 11.5% CITIES CURRENTLY USE TO HELPD OFFSET PROPERTY TAX NEEDS.

BUT THAT'S WHERE THE STATE INYIFSED IT COME -- INSISTED IT COME OUT OF.

THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE THE CITIES PAY 50% OF THE FREIGHT.

WE OPPOSED THAT BECAUSE WE DON'T PROVIDE 50% OF THE FOOTPRINT FOR THE COST.

>> RIGHT.

THE INDIGENT SERVICES FOR -- >> OR PUBLIC DEFENSE.

>> WHETHER IT'S MEDICAL OR PUBLIC DEFENSE, THAT LARGELY COMES AT THE COUNTY LEVEL.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

AND CONSTITUTIONALLY IT'S THE STATE AND THE COUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PUBLIC DEFENSE NEEDS.

AND NOT THE CITY'S.

>> IN YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH LAWMAKERS, WHY DID THEY CHOOSE TO HAVE YOU PAY INTO THAT?

>> THEY DIDN'T WANT IT COMING OUT OF THEIR STATE FUNDS.

PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

OUT OF THE GENERAL FUNDS BECAUSE THEY WERE -- OTHER STATE PRIORITIES THAT WERE GOING TO BE USED FROM THE SURPLUS AND OTHER REVENUES THAT THEY HAD AT THE GENERAL FUND LEVEL.

>> AND THEN -- SO LIKE WE SAID, A LOT OF THE INDIGENT SERVICES, WHETHER IT'S MEDICAL OR PUBLIC DEFENSE, THESE ARE LEVEED AT THE COUNTY LEVEL, SO WITH THIS SHIFT, WHAT ARE THE CITIES GOING TO SAY IN EXCHANGE FOR WHAT YOU'RE PAYING INTO THIS NEW PROGRAM?

>> REALLY NOTHING.

TO BE HONEST, OTHER THAN MAYBE A HEALTHIER PUBLIC DEFENSE SYSTEM BUT THAT'S YET TO BE SEEN BECAUSE THEY DECIDED TO PASS A PIECE OF LEGISLATION FUNDING A PUBLIC DEFENSE SYSTEM THAT DOESN'T REALLY EXIST.

THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE YET.

SO BASICALLY, WE'RE GOING TO PAY THERE ARE 16 MILLION FROM THE CITY LEVEL TO HELP FUND THE PUBLIC DEFENSE SYSTEM WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING IF THAT'S HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO COST OR WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE.

AND WE THINK THAT'S SOMEWHAT PROBLEMATIC.

WE WEREN'T THRILL WITH HAVING TO PAY THE 16 MILLION BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT CURRENTLY OUR RESPONSIBILITY.

BUT THEY HAD DONE THE -- THE BILL SPONSORS HAD DONE SOME VCH AND THEY SAID THAT 38 -- RESEARCH AND THEY SAID 38% OF SIGH VIOLATIONS THAT WERE WRITTEN BY CITY LAW ENFORCEMENT HIT THE PUBLIC DEFENSE SYSTEM.

WE DID OUR OWN RESEARCH AND SHOWED THAT WHILE THAT NUMBER WAS ACCURATE AND TRUE, 93.43% OF THOSE VIOLATIONS WERE ACTUAL ENFORCEMENT FOR STATE AND COUNTY LAWS.

SO THEY WEREN'T EVEN CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT NEITHER.

>> THE CITY CARRYING OUT WHAT THE STATE AND COUNTIES REQUIRE.

>> RIGHT.

WE'RE STILL TO GOING UP -- PICK UP 38% OF THE EXPENSE BECAUSE WE WANTED TOB GOOD PARTNERS IN THE NEED THAT OUR STATE HAS.

>> AND THEN ANOTHER PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT PASSED INTO LAW THIS YEAR ALSO GIVES CITIES THE ABILITY TO ISSUE PROPERTY TAX REBATESES, IN THE SAME -- REBATES, IN THE SAME STYLE AS THETIC -- INCOME TAX REBATES.

ARE MANY CITIES PLANNING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT PROVISION?

>> TO BE HONEST, NOT VERY MANY OF THE CITIES ARE GOING TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT.

>> WHY IS THAT?

>> I KNOW THAT SOME LEGISLATORS THINK THAT CITIES ARE RICH WITH MONEY RIGHT NOW BECAUS OF ARPA FUNDS AND NOW THE INVESTMENT ACT FUNDS THAT ARE GOING TO BE BECOME COMING THEIR WAY.

BUT THERE'S ALREADY A HUGE OVERWHELMING NEED FOR THOSE FUNDS TO BE USED FOR STREETS, WATER, SEWER.

WE HAVE A LOT OF AGING INFRASTRUCTURE IN OUR STATE THAT THE CITIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR AND THOSE HUNDREDS -- MONEYS ARE GOING TO BE USED FOR THAT.

FOR EXAMPLE, AN AVERAGE WATER OR SEWER PROJECT COSTS $16 MILLION.

16.1 MILLION DOLLARS.

AND THERE'S ONLY TWO CITIES IN ALL OF SOUR 199 -- OUR 199 THAT GOT THAT OR MORE.

THE MAJORITY OF THEM MAYBE GOT A MILLION OR LESS.

SOME OF THEM GOT A COUPLE HUNDRED THOUSAND.% SO FOR LEGISLATORS TO THINK THAT THE FUNDS THAT ARE COMING TO THE CITIES IS GOING TO CREATE A SITUATION WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO JUST HAVE EXCESS CASH LAYING AROUND, IS REALLY A MISNOMER.

IT'S JUST NOT TRUE.

>> AND THEN LOOKING FORWARD NOW THAT WE'VE REACHED SINE DIE, WITH REDISTRICTING THAT HAS HAPPENED, THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF TURNOVER IN THE LEGISLATURE WITH THE PUBLIC DEFENSE BILL.

THEY SET UP A FUNDING MECHANISM BUT NOT NECESSARILY THE PUBLIC DEFENSE SYSTEM.

SO WHAT SHOULD THE NEXT BATCH OF LAWMAKERS PREPARE TO ADDRESS NEXT YEAR FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE?

>> I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY.

AND I WOULD HOPE THAT EVEN THE EXISTING ONES, WHETHER COMING BACK OR NOT, WO YOORK IN -- WOULD WORK IN THE INTERIM TO MEET THAT NEED.

AS I MENTIONED, WE PASSED LEGISLATION.

IN FACT, I ASKED IN TESTIMONY, WHY ARE WE PASSING A FUNDING STREAM FOR SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST.

FOR SOMETHING WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE.

AND SO MY SUGGESTION IS THAT THAT BECOMES THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY FOR THE LEGISLATORS COMING BACK, IS THEY FIGURE OUT THAT SYSTEM AND GET IT DONE.

>> ALL RIGHT, KELLEY PACKER, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

WE HAVE MUCH MORE ONLINE AT THE "IDAHO REPORTS" BLOG.

FOR THAT AND MORE, CHECK OUT IDAHOPTV.ORG/IDAHOREPORTS.

>>> PRESENTATION OF "IDAHO REPORTS" ON IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION IS MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH THE GENEROUS SUPPORT OF THE LAURA MOORE CUNNINGHAM FOUNDATION, COMMITTED TO FULFILLING THE MOORE AND BETTIS FAMILY LEGACY OF BUILDING THE GREAT STATE OF IDAHO, BY THE FRIENDS OF IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION, AND BY THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING.