The Idaho Senate this week approved a joint resolution to deny voters the authority to legalize cannabis through a statewide ballot initiative. Tuesday’s passage of HJR 4 came one week after the Idaho House of Representatives approved the measure, which will ask voters in the 2026 election if the state’s constitution should be amended to prohibit ballot initiatives to legalize cannabis and other drugs.

Idaho’s voters will be asked to decide on the ballot question reading “Shall Section 26, Article III of the Constitution of the State of Idaho be amended to provide that only the Idaho Legislature shall have power and authority to legalize the growing, producing, manufacturing, transporting, selling, delivering, dispensing, administering, prescribing, distributing, possessing, or using of marijuana, narcotics, or other psychoactive substances?”

If a majority of voters in the 2026 election vote “yes” on the ballot question, the Idaho Constitution will be amended. If most voters decide against the proposal, Idaho’s voters will retain the authority to legalize cannabis and other drugs through a statewide ballot measure.

Republican state Sen. Scott Grow, a co-sponsor of HJR4, said that the constitutional amendment to block cannabis legalization initiatives is a way to be tough on marijuana. He also believes the amendment, if passed, can set Idaho apart from neighboring states that have legalized cannabis for recreational or medical use.

“Too many legislatures across this nation have sat back and just waited as initiative after initiative would come after them, until they finally overwhelm it and overwhelm the legislature,” Grow said, according to a report from the Idaho Capital Sun. “We are acting because that’s our responsibility.”

Grow also noted that the Idaho Constitution already states that, “The first concern of all good government is the virtue and sobriety of the people, and the purity of the home. The legislature should further all wise and well directed efforts for the promotion of temperance and morality.”

Opponents Of HJR4 Speak Out

Opponents of HJR4 say that the proposal indicates that lawmakers do not trust the voters of Idaho to weigh in on drug policy reform.

“The people have a right under the initiative and the referendum process to weigh in on these issues,” said Democratic state Sen. James Ruchti. “We have been clear in the Constitution that all political power is inherent in the people, and we have been clear that the people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws and enact the same at the polls independent of the Legislature. We should respect the people.”

In a report on HJR4, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) noted that in a recent survey, 70% of Idaho voters said that “the use of marijuana for medical purposes should be made legal.” The poll also found that nearly half (48%) of the state’s voters support legalizing marijuana for recreational use.

“State lawmakers are well aware that their ‘reefer madness’ views are out of step with most Idahoans,” NORML deputy director Paul Armentano said in a statement from the cannabis policy reform advocacy group. “That is why they are seeking to remove voters from the equation. Whether or not one personally supports or opposes cannabis legalization, these overtly undemocratic tactics ought to be a cause of deep concern.”

Weed Legalization Ballot Measure Already Filed For 2026

In November, the group KindIdaho filed a proposed ballot initiative to legalize cannabis possession and cultivation for personal use. If the measure qualifies for the ballot, voters will see both the legalization ballot question and HJR4 on the ballot for the 2026 election.

If passed by Idaho voters, the proposal would exempt adults aged 21 and older from state laws that prohibit the “possession, production, or cultivation of cannabis” under certain specified conditions.

Marijuana could only be grown or possessed “for personal use and not for sale or resale” and consuming cannabis would be prohibited in a “public or open setting.” The proposal would not legalize marijuana sales or the commercial cultivation and distribution of cannabis.

Joseph Evans, a military veteran and a spokesman for KindIdaho, says that if it becomes part of the state constitution, “HJR4 would block citizens’ initiatives to legalize invaluable and irreplaceable medications in Idaho.”

“This is the fourth attempt in three years by the legislature to become the sole arbiters of medical value in the state,” Evans said after the House passed the resolution.

With HJR4 now approved by the Senate, KindIdaho will be forced “divide our efforts between our current initiative and campaigning against HJR4.”

“As a small grassroots non-profit, this would significantly hinder our mission of patient access, not only for cannabis but for other effective treatments as well,” Evans added.

CNN
 — 

Attorneys for Bryan Kohberger plan to argue at trial that the knife sheath recovered from the crime scene could have been planted by the real killer of four University of Idaho students, according to prosecutors in a new court filing.

Kohberger is accused of fatally stabbing Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin at an off-campus home in Moscow in November 2022. Not guilty pleas have been entered on his behalf and his trial is set to begin in August. He faces the death penalty if convicted.

In the state’s filing released Tuesday afternoon, prosecutors summarize a defense filing that appears to be sealed.

“Instead of challenging the conclusion that the DNA on the knife sheath belonged to Defendant, the defense’s expert disclosures reveal that the defense plans to argue the DNA on the knife sheath does not prove Defendant was ever at the crime scene and the knife sheath itself could have been planted by the real perpetrator.”

The prosecutors’ filing quotes a defense expert disclosure that prosecutors say reveals Kohberger’s lawyers intend to call an expert in forensic biology and DNA who will testify that “[t]here is good support that Mr. Kohberger’s DNA was found on Item 1.1, a swab from the knife sheath.”

No further information from the defense expert disclosure is provided in the prosecution’s filing dated March 10 and any response from Kohberger’s lawyers has not been made public.

The DNA recovered on the button of the knife sheath, which ultimately led investigators to Kohberger, is a key piece of evidence in the case and has been the subject of multiple motions ahead of trial.

The Idaho state lab first located a single source of male DNA left on the button snap of the knife sheath found on the bed next to Mogen’s body at the crime scene.

Authorities used investigative genetic genealogy – or IGG – a field of forensic science combining DNA analysis with genealogical research, to connect that sample to Kohberger’s family, prosecutors have said.

Investigators then went to Kohberger’s family home in Pennsylvania and pulled items from the family’s trash to test against the knife sheath sample. A DNA profile obtained from the trash was identified as “as not being excluded as the biological father of Suspect knife Profile,” according to court documents.

A cheek swab from Kohberger confirmed he was a “statistical match” to the knife sheath sample, court documents show.

Kohberger’s defense team has repeatedly questioned the use, legality and accuracy of the DNA testing done in each step of the process.

The new glimpse into Kohberger’s potential defense strategy comes in a filing from Idaho state prosecutors saying they are willing to agree with the defense position to exclude trial evidence related to IGG.

Prosecutors say they only plan to refer to the IGG material as a generic tip without revealing the source or the substance of the tip, the filing says. They’ll ask an investigator on the stand to testify that law enforcement received a tip and that based on the information and other evidence, authorities eventually identified Kohberger as a suspect.

When the highly controversial Idaho school voucher measure, House Bill 93, landed on Gov. Brad Little’s desk, his office asked for comment from Idahoans about what he should do: sign the bill, or veto it?

The bill had been passed by both chambers of the Legislature, but not overwhelmingly: 42-28 in the House, and 20-15 in the Senate, meaning the Republican caucuses were split on it. A veto likely would not have been overridden. That means a veto would not have been performative or a statement of concern; it would be decisive.

It turns out that a veto is what most Idahoans wanted. We’ve known that for some time. In the Boise State University Idaho Public Policy Survey released in January, 53.3% said they opposed vouchers compared to 38% who supported them. The proposal was defined in the survey as “use of tax dollars to help pay for a private or religious education if a parent chooses not to send their child to a local public school,” which if anything may have been a favorable description.

But we don’t have to rely only on that to gauge Idaho’s attitude toward the subject. Actual opposition in Idaho may have been larger, to judge from the response to Little’s invitation. A lot of Idahoans did respond, as 37,457 phone calls and emails poured into the governor’s office. And 86% of them opposed the voucher bill.

Little, without making any direct reference to this, then signed the bill into law. In fact, the statement he released about his signing made no direct reference to the content (other than the cost) or the meaning of the bill at all, or the overwhelming wave of opposition to it.

This legislative session is packed full of bills most Idahoans, if informed of them, likely would oppose. But no significant roadblock or blowback has surfaced yet.

Most Idaho legislators no longer appear to see themselves as representatives of the people. In many cases, they seem empowered to do whatever they want to do: carry out their personal preferences. That’s constrained mainly by the will of a few interests — the state Republican Party organization, the Idaho Freedom Foundation and a few others — which have an outsized impact on Republican primary elections. Voters, whether aware of what their legislators are doing or not, have been imposing no political penalties for failing to represent them.