Idaho
OPINION: Do Idaho voters’ wishes matter to their legislators anymore?
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.
PAYETTE — A Payette mom’s bond was revoked Tuesday after she was charged with suffocating her twin children earlier this month and is believed to pose a danger to the life of her newborn child.
The case, which has drawn national headlines, concerns Andrea Renee Shaw, a 23-year-old Payette mother who in May 2025 said her 18-month-old fraternal twins died the same day, after receiving routine childhood vaccinations. In January, Shaw joined as a plaintiff in a federal lawsuit filed by Children’s Health Defense, an anti-vaccine organization founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., with several other plaintiffs claiming vaccine injury or death.
Kennedy, who now serves as secretary of Health and Human Services, is no longer part of the group after taking on the cabinet position, as was reported by the Associated Press.
In Idaho, the twins’ deaths prompted a 14-month investigation by the Payette County Sheriff’s Department. On June 29, the investigation yielded a grand jury indictment of Shaw on two counts of first-degree murder by suffocation. If convicted, Shaw can be punished by up to life in prison or the death penalty, and the court would have the ability to order the penalties be served consecutively, or back to back.
Tuesday’s arraignment at the Payette County Courthouse was primarily attended by Shaw’s relatives and members of the media. Payette County Judge Kiley Stuchlik, who serves Idaho’s Third Judicial District, presided.
A key consideration for Stuchlik on Tuesday was a request from Joseph Filicetti, the legal counsel for Shaw, to have her bond reduced from $2 million to $100,000. Filicetti said this would allow for Shaw to care for a newborn girl, who, according to court documents, was born by caesarean section on June 25, four days prior to Shaw’s grand jury indictment.
State prosecutors objected to the motion for bond reduction, noting at hand was a potential death penalty case and asserting, unlike her husband, Shaw’s story repeatedly changed during questioning. Prosecuting Attorney Mike Duke said releasing Shaw would ultimately put the newborn’s safety at risk.
“That child is the most at risk. We do not think she should be allowed to be anywhere near any children, let alone her own children,” Duke said.
Stuchlik decided to revoke bond entirely, stating Shaw posed a “risk of safety” to the newborn child that was not known to Stuchlik or prosecutors when the $2 million bond was initially set.
Also for consideration Tuesday was a request to have grand jury transcripts of witness testimony provided to prosecutors and defense counsel to prepare their respective cases.
Idaho
Idaho is home to the nation's first DarkSky Reserve. Now it's home to the nations first DarkSky Certified Resort
IDAHO FALLS, Idaho (KIFI) – A controversy is brewing as the City of Idaho Falls reviews its alcohol ordinance.
The goal is to consolidate four existing ordinances for beer, wine and liquor into a single law and ensure compliance with state code.
However, at its meeting last Thursday, the Idaho Falls City Council unanimously voted to remove the proposed ordinance from its agenda, in order to receive and consider additional public comment.
The proposed ordinance would:
1. Require commercial establishments selling, dispensing or permitting consumption of alcohol – including beer, wine or liquor – to have an alcohol license, alcohol catering permit or a charitable event permit.
2. Business events with 20 or less employees consuming alcohol at the business would be allowed.
3. Require alcohol servers to complete training every three years.
4. Individuals who violate the law could be charged with a misdemeanor.
Idaho Falls City Council President Jim Francis said the changes were the culmination of months of collaboration between law enforcement, business owners and city attorneys.
“We wanted to provide a safe environment – the primary point here – for public gatherings,” Francis said. “We recognize that certain antiquated elements of the current code are overly restrictive and needed to be addressed. We wanted to make the code more accessible to the public. We needed to address over-pouring issues. We wanted to reduce penalties where possible for violations, particularly the first offenses, and yet make the code clear enough to be enforceable consistently by law enforcement.”
But City Council Member John Radford said the changes represent an overreach by city government.
“I believe it’s a bad policy. What problem are we solving in the name of trying to solve a non-problem?” Radford said. “We’re becoming big brother around alcohol in your private property. I’m concerned that landlords will be at risk of being charged with a misdemeanor if they knowingly, which I made sure that was in there, because that is what we’ve been talking about, allowed people to drink in our business. We will be outside the norm of Idaho cities. This is a big step, and I don’t think the public has weighed in on this.”
At a City Council Work Session on June 1, Idaho Falls Chief of Police Bryce Johnson cited an increase in alcohol-related crime – particularly downtown – as a reason for the changes.
“DUI is there, but this would include sexual assaults, assaults, batteries, disturbances, urination, public vandalism, shooting – all sorts of crimes,” Johnson said.
But business owners are concerned about the potential impact on commercial enterprises.
“The ordinance doesn’t address the real problem – which is people drinking … at one event and then showing up in a bar or restaurant already hammered and causing problems anyway,” ” said Terri Ireland, representing the Idaho Falls Downtown Merchants Association. “The industry is really well-regulated by state and local laws already.”
The City of Idaho Falls began the process of updating its alcohol ordinance in January 2026, seeking input from community stakeholders.
Multiple community members spoke out about the ordinance.
For more in-depth information, you can read the full 39-page proposed alcohol ordinance here.
-
Lifestyle3 minutes agoThey just completed all of L.A. Times’ 101 Best California Experiences — and we’ve got questions!
-
Politics9 minutes agoBlanche to face questions about his independence at attorney general confirmation hearing
-
Sports21 minutes agoHow World Cup senior citizens like Lionel Messi have bio-hacked longer careers
-
World33 minutes agoBaltic presidents warn of Russian infrastructure attack plans
-
News1 hour ago
ICE should do traffic stops despite recent shootings, Trump says, seeming to oppose new suspension
-
Los Angeles, Ca3 hours agoSouthern California hits hottest day of its extreme heat warning
-
Detroit, MI3 hours agoSteve Yzerman out as Detroit Red Wings GM, moves to senior advisor role
-
San Francisco, CA3 hours agoSupervisors urge California to expand S.F. speed-camera program
