From the Idaho Press

by Betsy Z. Russell

BOISE — Two election transparency bills cleared the Senate State Affairs Committee on unanimous votes on Friday, aimed at providing more timely access to campaign finance reporting in non-election years and ensuring candidates for office provide contact information.

SB 1337, from committee Chair Patti Anne Lodge, would close a gap in Idaho’s campaign finance reporting system that in non-election years, requires only reporting of contributions of more than $1,000, which must be reported within 48 hours. Full reporting, including all contributions or spending, currently isn’t required until the end of the year. Then, during the year of the election, there’s full monthly reporting.

“This is something that I’ve been working on for several years and that’s campaign finance transparency,” Lodge, R-Huston, told the committee. In 2021, a non-election year, $11.9 million was donated to 497 candidates and $7.2 million was spent on campaign activities, she said. But only the individual 48-hour reports were public before the Jan. 10 year-end report had to be filed; people had to sort through individual donation reports and add them up to get even a part of the full picture. “This is not what transparency of election contributions is about,” Lodge said. “Our citizens are calling for fair elections; that includes campaign financing of the campaigns.”

Under SB 1337, even in a non-election year, monthly reporting would start as soon as a candidate has raised or spent $500. That would apply to all campaigns, Lodge said.

She said with Idaho’s new electronic filing system, it’s easy to do.

“There have been a multitude of updates and improvements in our campaign filing system reports,” she said. “The system is friendly and easy to use now. This process in years past has been cumbersome and difficult. And I must commend our Secretary of State Lawerence Denney for his leadership in developing this reporting system.”

Elinor Chehey of the League of Women Voters of Idaho testified in favor of the bill, saying, “In 1974, the League of Women Voters of Idaho organized a successful campaign to get the Sunshine Law on the ballot. This was based on our goal to ensure transparency and the public’s right to know who is using money to influence elections. I carried a few petitions for the campaign.”

It passed with 77.4% of the vote, she noted. “SB 1337 helps to close a gap in the state’s new online campaign finance reporting system,” Chehey said, urging support for the bill.

Ada County Clerk Phil McGrane also spoke in favor of the bill. “I think Chairman Lodge has done an excellent job trying to push this forward,” he said. “Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been coming in during the non-election years. … We just didn’t anticipate campaigns beginning as early as they are beginning now.”

Lodge said, “Citizens deserve to understand who is financing campaigns in Idaho. This legislation was developed with the help of the secretary of state.”

Sen. Grant Burgoyne, D-Boise, said, “I just wanted to thank our chairman for bringing this legislation. Her persistence over the years for campaign transparency is much appreciated by me and I think many other people.” He moved to send the bill to the full Senate with a recommendation that it “do pass.” Sen. Lee Heider, R-Twin Falls, seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Lodge called on Ken Burgess, lobbyist for the Idaho Press Club, to present the other transparency bill, SB 1338. It requires that campaign contact information, including a phone number and email address, be included in declarations of candidacy, and clarifies that that information is publicly available upon request. “There has been some interpretation of one of the sections in there related to the electronic filing system that perhaps that information is not available,” Burgess said, “and some entities have had challenges getting that information in the past couple of years.”

That has included the press, civic groups organizing candidate forums, and even county clerks.

McGrane testified in favor of SB 1338 as well. “We had a contested recount in Meridian in November,” he said. “And one of the candidates who was involved in that, I had to scour the internet, including going on LinkedIn and trying to connect with the person to get them a message, because I could not find contact information … to let them know that they would be involved in a recount.” He said the bill would be “extremely helpful.”

“I think you all recognize as candidates, once you put yourself out there, it seems reasonable,” McGrane said. “The candidates can determine what the best number is to reach them at, but that we be able to contact candidates I think is pretty important.”

Chehey also testified in favor of SB 1338 on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Idaho. She has chaired the league’s “Vote 411” project since 2018, which allows voters to look up which candidates are on the ballot in their area and see the candidates’ positions, in their own words. “We do not support or oppose candidates,” Chehey said. “Our purpose is to encourage active participation of citizens in government.”

Putting the project together requires emailing each candidate, she said, which was “fairly easy” in 2018, because the Secretary of State Office’s campaign finance website included phone numbers for candidates and their campaign treasurers. But, she said, in 2020, those numbers no longer were on the site, nor would the office release them.

“Since 2020, we have had to Google candidate names and hope to find a candidate’s website or Facebook page,” she said. “Some candidates have no website, or are up very late in the season, so they may get left out.”

Lodge told the committee, “Elinor contacted me this last summer about this legislation, and so she’s one of the bright lights that has brought it forward.”

Sen. Abby Lee, R-Fruitland, moved to send SB 1338 to the full Senate with a recommendation that it “do pass,” and Sen. Michelle Stennett, D-Ketchum, seconded the motion. It passed unanimously.

To become law, both bills still would need to pass the full Senate, clear a House committee, pass the full House and receive the governor’s signature.

From the Idaho Press

By Keith Ridler

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — The House on Thursday approved legislation that would bar Idaho officials from releasing where they obtain the drugs used in lethal injection executions.

The House voted 38-30 to send the measure to the Senate.

The Idaho Department of Correction has long tried to keep details about where and how it obtains lethal injection drugs secret, but the bill from Caldwell Republican Rep. Greg Chaney would make that secrecy part of state law.

Chaney said the legislation is needed because death penalty critics use the information to publicly shame companies that provide the drugs. He said some drug suppliers have refused to sell to Idaho without a promise of anonymity.

Chaney said courts have upheld Idaho’s death penalty, but “a new strategy has emerged in fighting the death penalty, and that is to name and shame the providers and the participants in that process.”

He said not keeping such information secret would essentially end the death penalty in Idaho. He said the proposed law allows disclosing the qualifications of those involved in carrying out executions, but not their identity.

He said the Idaho Constitution allows lethal injection, the current method, and a firing squad as appropriate means of execution.

“Firing squad, in theory, could be brought back, but our current protocols are the result of years and years of litigation on both state and federal questions, and we are in a place where our procedures are absolutely defensible,” he said.

The National Conference of State Legislatures said 27 states, the federal government and the U.S. military authorize capital punishment. The group on its website says that 22 states have expanded confidentiality laws to make secret some aspects of executions. That includes sources of drugs and identities of participants.

“Increasing difficulty in sourcing execution drugs has led states to enact or expand confidentiality laws specific to capital punishment,” the group says on its website.

Democratic Rep. Colin Nash argued against the bill.

“The government shouldn’t have the right to kill people using secret means, methods, practices and chemicals,” he said. “To do that in a constitutional manner, I just don’t trust them to do that.”

The suitability and origin of lethal injection drugs are frequently called into legal question when states are planning executions. Ineffective drugs can lead to botched executions, violating the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Idaho’s prison officials have long said they fear they won’t be able to obtain drugs for future executions if their suppliers believe they could be exposed. Major pharmaceutical companies have refused to sell medications to states if they think they will be used for executions, forcing some states to look for more novel sources, including compounding pharmacies and drugs from other countries such as India.

In 2020, the Idaho Supreme Court ordered the state Department of Correction to turn over information about where officials obtained lethal injection drugs used in recent executions in response to a public records lawsuit. In that case, the state had to release the identity of a drug supplier who was no longer in the business of supplying the drugs.

From the Associated Press

From the Idaho Statesman

BY KEVIN FIXLER

Idaho lacks the lethal injection drugs needed to execute a death row inmate, and state prison officials do not expect that to change if lawmakers won’t guarantee stiffer identity protections to potential suppliers.

The assertion by Josh Tewalt, director of the Idaho Department of Correction, was disclosed last week during public testimony over a bill designed to grant legal confidentiality to sources of execution drugs. Suppliers, Tewalt told lawmakers, have been reluctant to provide the drugs to the state if they are not ensured anonymity to avoid possible public backlash for their involvement in ending a human life.

“As I stand in front of you, I can attest that the state does not have the material ability to carry out an execution,” Tewalt said. “We have been unable to secure the necessary chemicals, and potential suppliers have expressed concern that the language in our administrative rule is insufficient to protect their identities.”

Tewalt’s statement conflicts with the state prison agency’s stance on the issue just nine months prior. In May, as Idaho sought a death warrant to execute convicted double-murderer Gerald Pizzuto, department spokesperson Jeff Ray told criminal justice news outlet The Marshall Project by email, “We are confident that when the time comes, we will have the chemicals necessary to carry out the court order.”

The Idaho Department of Correction has otherwise been unwilling for more than two years to say whether it possesses lethal injection drugs, citing ongoing litigation and its own internal guidelines against doing so. Before then, a previous director of the state agency affirmed in a sworn affidavit in September 2016 that IDOC had not had execution drugs on hand since June 2012, when Idaho last executed a death row inmate.

The bill, sponsored by two Republicans, would resolve this apparent insurmountable hurdle in the state’s pursuit of the ability to execute an inmate by way of lethal injection. Idaho maintains a one-drug lethal injection protocol that entails pentobarbital — a potent sedative that can stop a person’s breathing in higher doses, and is a Schedule II controlled substance in the U.S.

A House committee chaired by Rep. Greg Chaney, a Caldwell Republican and co-sponsor of the bill, approved House Bill 658 last week. It is scheduled for a full House vote Thursday.

Chaney and Brian Kane, chief deputy attorney general, each framed the bill during committee debate as an existential question over whether lawmakers wished to preserve the state’s current policy permitting capital punishment. IDOC and the attorney general’s office collaborated on drafting the bill, said Chaney and Scott Graf, spokesperson for the attorney general’s office.

“What’s not before us is a question on the ultimate appropriateness of capital punishment by lethal injection,” said Chaney, adding that he supports the death penalty. “However, functionally speaking, it is. Because, functionally speaking, they don’t have an avenue to move forward. The suppliers aren’t confident enough in the (current) rule to protect their identity.”

Idaho is one of 24 U.S. states that maintains active use of the death penalty. Of those, 19 of them extend some form of the drug supplier or execution participant shield, Chaney said. Idaho could become the 20th. The Idaho Way newsletter A weekly roundup of opinions, commentary and your views from around the region.

CRITICS ARGUE BILL ENDS PUBLIC EXECUTION OVERSIGHT

Chaney, an attorney who wore a scales of justice lapel pin for last week’s committee hearing, also said lethal injection is a more humane method of execution. He hinted that voting down the bill could result in the pursuit of reintroducing other alternatives, such as a firing squad, as South Carolina added in 2021.

“I don’t think you could expect fewer legal challenges to a firing squad,” Tewalt told the committee. “And, more importantly, I don’t feel as the director of the Idaho Department of Correction the compulsion to ask my staff to have to do that.”

In fact, Idaho prison officials explored reinstating the firing squad as recently as 2014, even drafting a bill in collaboration with the attorney general’s office, Graf confirmed. At the time, Ray, the IDOC spokesperson, told the Spokesman-Review that the bill didn’t move forward only because “it would take too much time and money” to implement.

Critics said Chaney’s bill instead allows the state to dodge accountability and appropriate scrutiny by hiding the source of execution drugs. Barring access to the business names of suppliers, including through litigation in a court of law, they argued, prevents legitimate oversight over the purity and effectiveness of the drugs.

Such public review is important in avoiding punishment of inmates that courts could deem cruel and unusual, as prohibited under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, said Lauren Bramwell, policy strategist with the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho, which opposes the death penalty.

“The state carries out executions on behalf of Idahoans,” Bramwell told the committee. “The public has a right to know the source of lethal injections and the reputability and safety record of drug suppliers. Secrecy around lethal injection hinders open, meaningful and robust discourse about the death penalty.”

Attorneys with the ACLU of Idaho previously represented a University of Idaho law professor who sued the Idaho Department of Correction over its refusal to provide public records that could help identify the lethal injection drug suppliers in Idaho’s past two executions.

After a three-year legal battle, the Idaho Supreme Court sided with the professor and compelled IDOC to deliver the documents, which were later used to name two out-of-state pharmacies that supplied the lethal drugs. Both pharmacies had problematic regulatory histories. The court also ordered IDOC to pay more than $170,000 to cover the plaintiff’s attorneys fees.

During the course of the lawsuit, IDOC’s appointed board, at Tewalt’s recommendation, amended the department’s records disclosure rules to block release of such information going forward. For suppliers, though, Tewalt said last week, that’s proven not enough to sell lethal injection drugs to Idaho.

In response to a question from Rexburg Republican Rep. Ron Nate, about the state’s acquisition of execution drugs in 2012, Tewalt did not directly address his personal involvement in the process. Tewalt was one of two IDOC officials aboard a state-chartered flight back and forth to Tacoma, Washington, bringing with them as much as $15,000 cash to make the after-hours exchange with a pharmacist, according to documents and court depositions from the public records lawsuit.

“I think the important thing to note is that while we’ve chosen to do our talking where it really matters, and that’s in the appropriate legal venue,” Tewalt said. “I would suggest that those chemicals were lawfully obtained, they were tested and verified through an independent third-party, and they were administered in accordance to the law.”

Tewalt has declined repeat interview requests over several months from the Idaho Statesman, and previously said through the department spokesperson that he refuses to discuss execution drugs. A renewed request for an interview received no response Wednesday.

‘WE HAVE TO HAVE A CERTAIN FAITH’ IN GOVERNMENT

A representative of the Idaho Press Club also testified against the bill, citing a degradation of transparency and the Idaho Public Records Act with its approval. If it becomes law, it may lead to an erosion of public trust and confidence in the government, Press Club lobbyist Ken Burgess said. (Many Statesman journalists are members of the Idaho Press Club.)

Republican Reps. Gary Marshall, of Idaho Falls, and Julianne Young, of Blackfoot, rejected the idea in lending their support for the bill. Public records redactions aren’t uncommon to protect people under certain circumstances, and America was founded on an understanding that some actions are classified and held from public consumption, they said.

“We have never accepted the idea that the public has the right to know every detail of what our government does,” Marshall said. “We have to have a certain faith” in elected and appointed decision-makers to use good judgment and carry out the law.

Rep. Colin Nash, a Boise Democrat, disagreed, questioning why Idaho needed to operate covertly to fulfill an inmate’s death sentence if the state’s actions were above board.

“I trust the government to take out my trash,” Nash said. “I don’t trust them to kill people in secret processes. I think this is embarrassing.”

He was joined by Blackfoot Rep. David Cannon — an attorney and the only Republican on the committee to vote against the bill — who labeled the bill’s end result a “wall of secrecy” that left him with constitutional concerns, as raised by the ACLU. Bramwell stated better alternatives would be for Idaho to abolish capital punishment altogether or, absent that, instead consider the firing squad to avoid the execution process being taken further underground.

Chaney tried to allay fears about the bill by noting the lethal injection drugs acquired by the state will continue to be tested to verify their quality, which should eliminate any worries about where they are sourced. The credentials of execution participants will also remain available, he said, so long as they cannot be used to identify individual medical or prison personnel.

“What matters is the finished product,” Chaney said. “In fact, I would argue that the identity of the provider would be wholly irrelevant, except for the strategy of shaming them away from participating.”

Other committee members voiced their own unease over the bill before supporting it for a full vote on the House floor.

“I don’t like this bill, and I don’t like it because I think it’s sad that we’ve gotten to the point where we have to have this bill,” said Rep. Paul Amador, a Coeur d’Alene Republican. “But I don’t see an alternative to this option at this point.”

From the Idaho Statesman

From Eye on Boise/The Idaho Press

by Betsy Russell

The House Judiciary Committee, at the end of a meeting that lasted until nearly 6 p.m., has approved two public records exemption bills, sending them to the full House with recommendations that they “do pass.”

There was much testimony in favor of HB 620, after Rep. Brooke Green, D-Boise, spoke tearfully about her best friend’s death by suicide after she was arrested amid a mental breakdown and her booking mug shot was widely shown. HB 620 would prevent the public release of a booking photo of someone arrested on a misdemeanor not involving assault or battery, who is detained for mental health treatment within 24 hours after the arrest.

Rep. Marco Erickson, R-Idaho Falls, who is co-sponsoring the bill with Green, said, “It’s about mental health in a big way.”

The Idaho Sheriff’s Association opposed the bill, citing procedural issues with how it would work. But the committee passed it. “This bill is narrowly crafted,” said Rep. Gary Marshall, R-Idaho Falls. “It makes perfect sense.”

The second bill, HB 621, was proposed by the Association of Idaho Cities to exempt cybersecurity records. “HB 621 is a public records exemption, but it’s a very specific one and it’s a limited one,” said Rep. Dustin Manwaring, R-Pocatello, the bill’s House sponsor. “It does not exempt public expenditure records.”

The committee also approved that bill on a voice vote.

From Eye on Boise/The Idaho Press

From the Idaho Capital Sun

BY: CLARK CORBIN

Idaho Department of Correction director says the state does not have the ability to secure the drugs to execute Idahoans on death row.

A bill that would provide confidentiality to the manufactures of lethal injection drugs used in executions in the state is headed to the Idaho House of Representatives. 

On Thursday afternoon, the House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee voted to send House Bill 658 to the floor of the Idaho House with a recommendation it passes after two different organizaitons warned the bill would add even more secrecy to carrying out the death penalty.

If passed into law, the bill would provide confidentiality to and prevent the disclosure of any person or company who “compounds, synthesizes, tests, sells, supplies, manufactures, stores, transports, procures, dispenses, or prescribes the chemicals or substances for use in an execution or that provides the medical supplies or medical equipment for the execution process.”

The bill would also block that information from being introduced as evidence or discoverable during court cases. The bill would also shield the identity of the on-site physician, and the medical and escort teams that are present during executions. 

Rep. Greg Chaney, R-Caldwell, sponsored the bill, saying the makers of lethal injection chemicals won’t supply them to the state of Idaho anymore without the protection of confidentiality.

In the age of social media, Chaney said activists are finding the companies that provide lethal injection chemicals and “naming them and shaming them.”

“The problem is that currently our ability to carry out the sentence that has been imposed is impaired,” Chaney said. “It is impaired by an inability to procure the lethal injection drugs without protections provided to the identity of those who provide them.”

“The death penalty cannot move forward absent this legislation,” Chaney added.

Idaho Department of Correction Director Josh Tewalt agreed. 

“As I stand in front of you, I can attest that the state does not have the material ability to carry out an execution,” Tewalt said during Thursday’s hearing. “We have been unable to secure the necessary chemicals and potential suppliers have expressed concern that the language in our administrative rule is insufficient to protect their identities.”

But the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho and The Idaho Press Club opposed the bill, arguing the public has a right to know the information about executions carried out by the state and funded by taxpayers.  

“Lethal injection is the only method of execution allowed under Idaho law, and the public has the right to know the source of lethal injections and the reputability and safety record of the drug’s suppliers,” said Lauren Bramwell, a policy strategist with ACLU of Idaho. 

Idaho’s past use of lethal injection drugs comes under scrutiny

Idaho’s use of lethal injection drugs has come under scrutiny recently. Last June, Idaho death row inmate Gerald Pizzuto wrote to his prison warden and asked to be executed by firing squad instead of using the drug pentobarbital, the Idaho Statesman reported. Pizzuto argued pentobarbital would be too hard on him given his medical history and violate the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. 

Public records and court depositions from a lawsuit filed by University of Idaho law professor Aliza Cover indicate that in May 2012 Tewalt, who was then a deputy chief with the Bureau of Prisons, took a state chartered flight to Tacoma, Washington, with up to $15,000 in cash, the Idaho Statesman and Idaho Press have reported. Tewalt and Department of Correction then-director Kevin Kempf kept the money in a suitcase and exchanged it for lethal injection chemicals from a Tacoma pharmacist during a meeting at a Walmart parking lot, records and dispositions from the Cover lawsuit indicate. 

Reps. Ron Nate, R-Rexburg, and Colin Nash, D-Boise, cited reporting over that 2012 trip during Thursday’s hearing. 

“I trust the government to take out my trash, I don’t trust them to kill people in secret processes,” said Nash, who voted against the bill. ”I am very uncomfortable with this idea. When I read the article that Rep. Nate was talking about — I have probably never been more embarrassed to be an Idahoan than when I found out how the government handled the last execution. I think this is embarrassing, and I don’t think our government should be in the business of carrying out executions in secret processes.”

Tewalt responded to Nate’s question about the 2012 trip during Thursday’s hearing. Tewalt said the report includes a caveat that allegations came out of a lawsuit. Tewalt also said the chemicals were lawfully obtained, verified, tested and administered in accordance with law. He also stressed that carrying out the death penalty is a solemn process, which the Department of Correction treats with care and dignity. 

During the hearing, Chaney told legislators 27 states use the death penalty and 19 of those states have similar shield laws on the books. 

If the Idaho House passes the bill, it would be sent to the Idaho Senate for consideration. 

Disclosure: Reporter Clark Corbin and other Idaho Capital Sun reporters are members of the Idaho Press Club.

From the Idaho Capital Sun

From EastIdahoNews.com

by Eric Grossarth

BOISE — Two Idaho legislators want to change how mugshots are released for people booked into jails during mental health crises through a bi-partisan bill.

Representatives Brooke Green, D-Boise, and Marco Erickson, R-Idaho Falls, are co-sponsoring Idaho House Bill 620, which was introduced to the legislature Monday. If passed, the bill would prohibit disclosing booking images for those arrested, detained or hospitalized for mental health purposes, provided their alleged crime is a misdemeanor and does not involve assault or battery.

Proposing and presenting the bill is personal to Green, who lost her best friend Jessica Harrison to suicide in 2019. Harrison, who served as the Idaho Association of Cities director, struggled with mental illness. As friends and family tried to get Harrison committed for help, she was ultimately arrested on misdemeanor charges of disturbing the peace and trespassing.

“The day she gets arrested, she gets processed in the Ada County Jail, they take her mugshot,” Green told EastIdahoNews.com. “The media picks it up and it gets blown up all over the news. At the same time, she is transferring to the hospital and she is finally getting committed.”

Green said when those who were close to Harrison saw her mugshot on the news, they knew her life would be impacted forever. Harrison was ultimately released from a mental health facility, and later, charges were dismissed.Jessica Harrison | Courtesy photo

“Here it is, this one person most terrible day where a mugshot is going to remind her of the day she had no control of her actions,” Green said. “We captured it in film and we stuck it out there for entertainment purposes for people to pass judgment.”

Three months later, Harrison took her own life.

“While I can’t get my best friend back, I can certainly acknowledge that this is one step at moving forward to decriminalizing mental health in Idaho,” Green said.

In the bill, a sheriff’s office could not release to the public the mugshot for those booked on misdemeanors if they are detained on a mental health hold or transferred to receive medical care for mental illness within 24 hours of booking. The exception would be those charged with assault or battery.

The booking photo in these cases could be made public once the case reaches a verdict of guilty or the person pleads guilty, but no earlier than three months following booking.

“It gives them (the) dignity to get the help they need without their mugshot being presented on a website,” Green said. “It enables them to keep that moment private while they work through the system to get help.”

Erickson, whose background is in mental health, felt supporting the bill would also be a step forward in making changes to how Idaho treats those with mental illness.

“We look at the strategic plan and things that can be changed, little tweaks in code (law) and small things that can be done to help people with mental health crises going on,” Erickson said. “That’s been my focus since I got here is bills related to that topic.”

House Bill 620 is currently awaiting a hearing with the House Judiciary Rules and Administration Committee in the coming weeks.

In 2021, Utah passed legislation that probits the public release of most mugshots until an individual is convicted. The bill received strong pushback from the media and First Amendment advocates who said mugshots should be part of the public record.

Suicide Prevention Resources

If you or someone you know is struggling with thoughts of suicide, EastIdahoNews.com encourages you to call the Idaho Suicide Prevention Hotline at (208) 398-HELP [4357] or (800) 273-TALK [8255].

Local Resources

• Behavioral Health Crisis Center (Idaho Falls): (208) 522-0727
• Behavioral Health Center (EIRMC, Idaho Falls): (208) 227-2100
• South East Idaho Behavioral Crisis Center (Pocatello): (208) 909-5177
• Portneuf Behavioral Health Services (PMC, Pocatello): (208) 239-2571

Online Resources

• Community Suicide Prevention
• Idaho Suicide Prevention Program
• Suicide Prevention Lifeline
• Suicide Prevention Resource Center
• Suicide Awareness Voices of Education (SAVE)

From EastIdahoNews.com

From the Associated Press

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Legislation that would bar Idaho officials from releasing where they obtain the drugs used in lethal injection executions was introduced by the House State Affairs Committee on Monday.

The Idaho Department of Corrections has long tried to keep details about where and how it obtains lethal injection drugs secret, but the bill from Caldwell Republican Rep. Greg Chaney would make that secrecy part of state law.

Chaney said the secrecy bill was needed because of “woke cancel culture,” claiming that anti-death penalty advocates were trying to identify and then publicly shame the companies that provide lethal injection drugs. Chaney said such instances had happened around the country, though he didn’t provide any details.

Now the companies are refusing to sell the lethal injection drugs to Idaho unless they are guaranteed confidentiality, he said.

“They’ve been successful enough around the country that the word they are giving to our Department of Corrections is don’t even call us if you cannot provide us with anonymity,” Chaney said.

The State Affairs Committee agreed to introduce the bill on a voice vote.

The suitability and origin of lethal injection drugs are frequently called into legal question when states are planning executions. Ineffective drugs can lead to botched executions, violating the U.S. Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Idaho’s prison officials have long said they fear they won’t be able to obtain drugs for future executions if their suppliers believe they could be exposed. Major pharmaceutical companies have refused to sell medications to states if they think they will be used for executions, forcing some states to look for more novel sources, including compounding pharmacies and drugs from other countries like India.

More than a dozen states have passed laws since 2011 preventing the release of information about the source of their execution drugs, while several other states have invoked existing laws or regulations to keep that information secret.

In 2020, the Idaho Supreme Court ordered the Idaho Department of Correction to turn over information about where officials obtained lethal injection drugs used in recent executions in response to a public record lawsuit. In that case, the state had to release the identity of a drug supplier who was no longer in the business of suppling the drugs.

Access to lethal injection drugs could become an issue in the case of Gerald Ross Pizzutto Jr., who was sentenced to death for the 1985 slayings of two gold prospectors near McCall.

The Idaho Department of Corrections was scheduled to execute Pizzutto last year for the murders of two gold prospectors near McCall in 1985. But that execution was canceled after the state’s parole commission recommended that Pizzutto’s sentence be commuted to life in prison without parole. The state is asking the Idaho Supreme Court to allow the execution to move forward as planned; arguments in that case have not yet been scheduled.

Pizzuto’s attorneys with the Federal Defender Services of Idaho have also sued the state over its execution procedures, and the high court has not yet released a ruling in that case.

From the Idaho Press

From the Associated Press

By Rebecca Boone

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — An Idaho lawmaker who was censured after publicizing the name of a 19-year-old intern who reported being raped is being sued under the state’s public records act.

Attorney Erika Birch filed the lawsuit earlier this month against Rep. Priscilla Giddings, a Republican from White Bird, contending Giddings didn’t comply with state law when she denied a public records requests for documents related to the ethics cases against Giddings and former Republican lawmaker Aaron von Ehlinger.

Giddings, who is running for lieutenant governor, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from The Associated Press. But in a campaign email sent to constituents Thursday, Giddings called the case a “nuisance lawsuit” from the “Boise swamp” and wrote that the requested records don’t exist. She asked supporters to contribute money to her campaign to help fight the lawsuit.

“This lawsuit is over a ‘public records request’ for records that don’t exist. The legislative services office even searched all my files and found nothing related to their request,” Giddings wrote in the email.

Wendy Olson, the attorney representing Birch and Birch’s law firm Strindberg Scholnick Birch Hallam Harstad Thorne in the case, declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Giddings faced criticism and became the subject of two ethics complaints last year for her actions after her colleague was accused of rape. Shortly after the rape allegations became public, Giddings publicized the intern’s name, photo and personal details about her life by sharing links to a far-right website post on social media and in a newsletter to constituents. With her identity revealed, the intern was subjected to repeated harassment and ridicule from some of von Ehlinger’s supporters.

Both von Ehlinger — then a state representative from Lewiston — and Giddings faced separate ethics complaints for their actions. Birch represented the intern during the ethics investigations. Von Ehlinger ultimately resigned rather than face a vote on whether he should be suspended from the Statehouse. He was also criminally charged, and has pleaded not guilty to rape in state court. That trial is scheduled for April.

After Gidding’s ethics hearing, the committee found that Giddings did disseminate the intern’s name and that she lied and was disrespectful to the lawmakers tasked with investigating the matter. Giddings was censured and stripped of her seat on the Commerce and Human Resources Committee for “conduct unbecoming a legislator.”

In the lawsuit, Birch said she filed a public record request for written or electronic communications between Giddings and von Ehlinger regarding the intern, the release of information about the intern, and the various ethics investigations against Giddings and von Ehlinger. Birch also asked for written and electronic communication between Giddings or her representatives and von Ehlinger’s former attorney David Leroy, who also released the intern’s name.

According to the lawsuit, Giddings responded by stating that her office “does not have any public record related to your request that isn’t already public,” and that she “considers this request closed.”

Two days later, Birch sent another email reminding Giddings that the Idaho Public Records Act required her to provide the documents or explain why the request was denied under state law. After no response, according to the lawsuit, Birch sent an additional follow-up email, again asking Giddings to provide the requested documents. Giddings never responded, nor did she cite the legal basis for denying the request, Birch said in the lawsuit.

Birch wants a judge to order Giddings to turn over the records, to pay for Birch’s legal fees and for any civil penalties if Giddings is found to have improperly refused the request.

From the Associated Press

From the Idaho Press

by Betsy Z. Russell

BOISE — As a reporter who covers government, a central part of my mission is to inform citizens about what their government is doing. That requires that the government operate openly, and not in secret.

But it’s certainly not only reporters who benefit from openness in government. It’s at the heart of our nation’s ideals that we have, in President Abraham Lincoln’s words, a “government of the people, by the people (and) for the people.”

For the people to drive our government, the people must be informed about the actions their government takes in their name. Only then can they be informed, engaged citizens and make our system of self-government work. That’s why we have a free press in our nation, independent of the government. It’s why we have rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. And it’s why we have laws requiring openness in government, including two key laws in our state: The Idaho Open Meeting Law and the Idaho Public Records Act.

I am a co-founder and longtime president of Idahoans for Openness in Government, a broad-based, non-profit coalition that includes people from inside and outside of government, the media, civic organizations and more. Since 2004, IDOG has partnered with Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden to present free training across our state on these two key laws, what they require, and how to comply with them.

We’ve taken our show on the road to every corner of the state, from Rexburg to Lewiston, from Idaho Falls to Coeur d’Alene, from Twin Falls to Sandpoint, and from Boise to Bonners Ferry. But the pandemic has put a crimp in our in-person events the past two years, prompting us to turn to creating virtual versions of our sessions.

Last January, more than 500 people across the state participated in our free online session on open meetings in a pandemic. It was highly productive and helpful in making sure all of us continue to be able to monitor our government at the state and local levels, and that our government agencies know how to preserve openness even amid a pandemic.

We hope to be back on the road within the year, but for now, are planning a statewide virtual open government seminar for Wednesday, Jan. 5, running from 2-4 p.m. MST.

“I often hear from constituents who have questions about Idaho’s open meetings and public records laws, and I know there are a lot of new public officials and reporters who are navigating these waters for the first time,” Wasden said in a news release about the event. “The virtual seminar is a good way to address this demand statewide.”

Participants will learn about the Open Meeting Law and the Public Records Act, how they work and what they require. It’s free and open to anyone; it’s especially recommended for elected officials, government staff, reporters, and interested members of the public.

IDOG’s open government seminars are recommended by the Office of the Attorney General, the Association of Idaho Cities, the Idaho Association of Counties and the Idaho Press Club.

Those who would like to participate are asked to register online; there’s more information and a registration link at this address: openidaho.org/upcoming-seminars. Participants will be able to submit questions via email during the seminar, and it will be live-streamed on YouTube. It also will be recorded and made available for those who’d like to view it later.

Panelists will be Wasden, myself, and Chief Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane; Scott Graf, the attorney general’s public information officer, will serve as moderator to receive and pose your questions.

This session marks 50 open government trainings that Wasden and IDOG have hosted since 2004.

You can find more information at IDOG’s website, openidaho.org. Consider tuning in to this virtual seminar. Please pass the word to anyone you think could benefit from this – your local government agencies and their staffs, your favorite news providers, your elected officials, your friends or family.

It’s a great way to open a new year in 2022 that will see a lot going on in government, from politics, elections and redistricting to local efforts to cope with everything from growth to taxes to transportation.

It was back in 1863 when President Lincoln spoke of the “great task before us,” to ensure that “government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.” 2022 is coming, and we’re still working on it.

From the Idaho Press