November 2016 Treasure Valley Voters Guide




Welcome to our Voter Guide for November's local races, bonds and levies, as well as the presidential election. Compare candidates' views on the issues side by side and create your own ballot, which you can then print or email.

Election Day:

Looking for more coverage? Visit IdahoStatesman.com/election for previews, voting information and other things to know before you vote.

...Please note: Candidates' responses have not been edited except for libel.



Constitutional Amendment - HJR 5

A re-run of a proposed amendment that failed in November 2014, this would enshrine in the Idaho Constitution the Legislature's existing ability to review administrative rules proposed by state agencies.Answers to the questions below come from this fall's voters pamphlet released by the Idaho Secretary of State's Office.For additional perspectives on this amendment:U.S. Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, on reasons to vote for it.Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden on reasons to vote against it.

Click a candidate icon to find more information about the candidate. To compare two candidates, click the "compare" button. To start over, click a candidate icon.

  • Yes - For the Measure

  • No - Against the Measure

Social Media

What are arguments for this amendment?

What are reasons to oppose it?

1. The proposed constitutional amendment safeguards the ability of the legislature - elected by the people - to review and reject agency rules created by unelected state officials if those rules conflict with legislative intent. This will protect Idahoans from unfair or over regulation.

2. The legislature’s current ability to review agency rules is in the law. Idaho’s Supreme Court previously held that statute valid, a future supreme court could potentially declare it invalid, because Idaho’s Constitution does not expressly recognize the ability of the legislature to review agency rules. The proposed constitutional amendment would protect the legislature’s authority to ensure that agency rules conform with legislative intent.

3. If a future court determined the legislature did not have the right to review and reject agency rules, then Idahoans would have to hire lawyers and file lawsuits to challenge agencies’ rules. That would be a much more expensive and time-consuming process than the current system which this amendment proposes to protect.

4. A Governor’s veto is not required, because agency rules are proposed by the Governor’s departments and agencies.
Candidate response is not yet available.
Candidate response is not yet available.
1. This constitutional amendment is unnecessary because the legislature already has legal authority to review agency rules. Even if the legislature did not have this authority, sufficient methods of challenging agency rules exist: the legislature can pass a law limiting an executive agency’s rulemaking ability, or a rule can be challenged in court.

2. The legislature is overly involved with state agencies when it examines their rules to see whether they conform to legislative intent, and that practice should not be in Idaho’s Constitution. Legislative review of agency rules is time-consuming and makes it more difficult for state agencies to conduct day-to-day business.

3. The legislature responds to agency rules in different ways. One way is to pass a bill, which it does every year to extend the agency rules from previous years. The proposed constitutional amendment would prohibit any veto of a rule approval or rejection and would infringe on the Governor’s right to veto bills under the Idaho Constitution.