Lawmakers note the slow-going of pandemic legislation

▶️ Listen to this article now.

Three new bills made progress Thursday in the Idaho Legislature to try and limit the government’s impact on citizens during emergencies.

A new version of House Bill 98 will go to the House floor for debate after passing the State Affairs Committee on a voice vote. The bill prohibits a sitting governor from suspending Idaho Code during an emergency, such as the decision to hold an all-absentee election in May during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The new version of HB 98 also limits states of emergency to 60 days but enables the Legislature to extend that timeline to a year. It comes the same day a pair of bills passed the House that would essentially strip both the Department of Health and Welfare and health districts of authority over schools, colleges and universities.

The trio of bills represent the latest in what’s become a long line of bills looking to either curtail or legislatively end restrictions stemming from the coronavirus pandemic.

In the month since the Legislature was gaveled into session, at last 26 pandemic-related bills and resolutions have been introduced into House or Senate panels. Some have made their way to full passage in their respective chambers. Some have fizzled and died in committee.

It’s a process, local lawmakers say, that requires patience.

“It’s been very deliberate,” Rep. Ron Mendive, R-Coeur d’Alene, told the Press. “Anything we do, we need to make sure we’re in agreement with the Senate. With the emergency declaration, for example, there’s a concern about federal money and concern for the National Guard. We want to make sure the Senate’s involved. Emergency declarations are just that. We want to make sure the body that’s closest to the people is involved in the decisions.”

Mendive said that while legislating has been slow-going, he’s optimistic about the prospects of either limiting the government’s role during a pandemic or, at the very least, including the Legislature in the process.

It’s a sentiment that Rep. Paul Amador, R-Coeur d’Alene, shares, but with reservations over which legislation will satisfy citizens’ concerns.

“I think part of the issue, just in general, with the emergency order is what really is the root cause of people’s concerns,” Amador said. “It’s not the actual emergency declaration. I think what people are most frustrated by is the Stay Healthy order that was issued by the governor. Those are the things that are affecting everyday life.”

Gov. Brad Little’s Stay Healthy guidelines, part of his Idaho Rebounds re-opening plan, make up the protocols businesses and residents have been required to follow since May. Those protocols have included which industries could open for business and when.

The protocols, along with health district mask mandates, have been the targets of the public’s ire as business owners and managers clamor for the state to fully re-open. Many local lawmakers have called orders stemming from the pandemic response unconstitutional, including calls from Rep. Vito Barbieri, R-Dalton Gardens.

“We saw those rights were violated by the gentleman on the second floor,” Barbieri said during Thursday’s committee hearing. “How are we to address violations of this statute by the gentleman on the second floor or the governor’s office in the future? How does [the] Legislature expect to address that, given what we’ve seen in the past here?”