Representatives weigh in on Monday's special session

▶️ Listen to this article now.

A gathering of state lawmakers on Nov. 15 to discuss vaccination mandates and the punishment of Rep. Priscilla Giddings could very well be a lively couple of days at the statehouse.

Or not.

Six House representatives — four Republicans and two Democrats — met with The Press and the Daily Bee, to share their views about what the legislative session could bring.

In late October, House Speaker Scott Bedke issued the call for lawmakers to return and consider proposed legislation on vaccination mandates that would combat an executive order made by the Biden administration on Sept. 9.

President Joe Biden announced last month that all employers with more than 100 workers must require staff to be vaccinated or tested weekly for the virus. Health facility workers, federal employees and federal contractors must get vaccinated, the order says.

In regard to the potential vaccine mandate, Senate Representative Jim Woodward (R-Sagle) expressed concern about conflicting legislation at the state and federal levels.

“There are a number of legislative proposals in the works which are in opposition to the federal vaccine mandates,” Woodward said. “If any legislation passes in conflict with federal law, a court will have to decide which law is valid.”

Woodward said he has seen policy that conflicts with federal law, creating a catch-22 situation with which citizens, employers, and elected officials have to contend.

“I do not want to force people into deciding whether to comply with one law while violating the other,” Woodward said. “Idaho is currently party to two lawsuits opposing federal government vaccine mandates. These lawsuits appear to be the fastest way to get from point A to point B.”

House Representative Sage Dixon (R-Ponderay) was more ambiguous in his comments about the upcoming session.

“My hope for the final session of 2021 is that we will provide protections that allow personal medical information to remain confidential, prohibit discrimination based on medical choices, and enact legislation that will prevent federal government actions that go beyond the scope of constitutional authority.”

Republican Rep. Paul Amador from Coeur d'Alene said "there's a considerable amount of public angst" surrounding vaccination and mask mandates and a "desire to push back" through legislative action. But, Amador said, lawmakers must be mindful of the lawsuits circulating in federal court.

On Saturday, a ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the Biden administration's mandate "because the petitions (of suit plaintiffs) give cause to believe there are grave statutory and constitutional issues with the Mandate."

Twenty-six states have filed four legal challenges in federal court against the Biden administration's mandate for private businesses. The court gave the government until 5 p.m. Monday to respond to the plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction.

"I am by no means a fan of the vaccine mandates, but we have to do it in the right way that hopefully will get us the outcome that we want," Amador said.

Rep. Caroline Troy, R-Genesee, said she's heard from "a lot" of University of Idaho employees who would be affected by the mandate.

"I've talked to people that cry. They are afraid," said Troy, a sixth-generation Idahoan. "This is a topic that you can't win on."

Democrat Rep. Chris Mathias from Boise said the state needs to “start taking affirmative steps to reduce the spread” of COVID-19.

"This idea that we should just let everyone get sick is selfish to me," Mathias said. "Requiring people to get tested if they don't want to get a shot seems to be a reason worth discussion."

Mathias, a lawyer and decorated former member of the U.S. Coast Guard, said he expects to see a bill by Dalton Gardens Sen. Steve Vick regarding the mandate. Initially proposed on Oct. 4 in the state Committee on Federalism, the bill would criminalize Biden's executive order being implemented by any Idaho public official or agency.

The four lawmakers at The Press anticipate several bills will focus on whether or not private businesses will be allowed to implement vaccination mandates if they so choose.

The House Ways and Means Committee will introduce legislation on Nov 15. Amador, the committee chairman, said he knows that lawmakers have submitted at least 17 pieces of legislation. To pass, bills must receive House, Senate, and executive approval.

In the meantime, though?

"I think there are going to be some games," Troy said.

Another must-do item on the agenda is considering the House Ethics Committee's recommendation to censure Giddings, R-White Bird, and take away one of her committee assignments.

The censure comes from an ethics complaint filed against Giddings in May for posting the name and identity of a 19-year-old legislative staffer who accused former Rep. Aaron von Ehlinger, R-Lewiston, of rape. Censure requires a majority vote from House lawmakers, and without it being done in this session, the punishment expires.

Von Ehlinger, considered a "fugitive from justice," was arrested in Georgia in late September.

"We can't let this kind of behavior go unpunished," Mathias said. "If people have the strength to publicly come forward and allege violent crimes against people of power, and as someone who is a member of an out-group, that's a ballsy thing to do."

Amador echoed Mathias' statement.

"If you sent your son or daughter, in this case, that 19-year-old, to what I view should be a highly esteemed organization to work in that environment, and this happened...would you be OK with that?" Amador said.

In response to criticism that Giddings was unfairly condemned publicly for sharing the victim's identity, the four lawmakers unanimously disagreed. Rep. James Ruchti, D-Pocatello, explained that leadership provided each representative a packet of investigative material on the allegations against von Ehlinger.

"If you read the investigative material and you understand what he did with that young woman, you know he was in the wrong in many different ways," said Ruchti, an attorney. "(Giddings) had the obligation that all of us had, which was to exercise some due consideration and take a step back, and she didn't do it."

He also described the doxing of the 19-year-old as "a political move," and Giddings' later fighting of the ethics committee hearing as "political efforts designed to get clicks and donations."

Troy added that House Ethics Committee members are elected by their peers because "they are who we believe are our most ethical members of our body."

"They did not make this choice lightly to pursue this. It wasn't just something they're like, 'Let's go get her,'" she said. "There were checks and balances all the way through, and they felt strongly enough as a group that they needed to continue to pursue that."