IDAHO SECRETARY OF STATE
Elections, Campaign Disclosure and Lobbyists

Ben Ysursa, Secretary of State

Amendment Number and Question

Legislative Council's

S.J.R. 102

"Shall Section 5, Article X, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho be amended to provide that the state board of correction shall have the control, direction and management of adult felony probation and parole?"

Meaning, Purpose and Result to Be Accomplished

Currently, Section 5, Article X, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho provides that the Board of Correction shall have the control, direction and management of adult probation and parole. The proposed amendment would insert the word "felony" before the word "probation" and would clarify that the Board of Correction's authority is limited to the supervision and management of felony offenders. Consequently, if the proposed constitutional amendment is adopted, the Board of Correction would not have the authority to supervise or manage misdemeanor probationers. Misdemeanor probationers would continue to be supervised by Idaho counties, as is permitted by law.

Statements FOR the Proposed Amendment

1. Currently, adult felony probationers are supervised by the Board of Correction through the Idaho Department of Correction. This amendment would preserve local control of the misdemeanor probation process by clarifying that the state's role is limited to felony offenders, while counties have supervision authority over misdemeanor probationers.
2. Because the Idaho Constitution is not clear regarding state and local supervision of adult felony and misdemeanor probationers, legal challenges could result in unwanted changes to the current system. This amendment would allow voters to provide constitutional clarification.

Statements AGAINST the Proposed Amendment

1. Changes to the Constitution should be made only for major issues of interest to the state or in the event of a constitutional crisis.
2. This Section preserves the statewide uniform felony probation system, but does not address possible different misdemeanor probation treatment among judicial districts.

H.J.R. 2
[as amended]

"Shall Article I, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho be amended by the addition of a New Section 23, to provide that the rights to hunt, fish and trap, including by the use of traditional methods, are a valued part of the heritage of the State of Idaho and shall forever be preserved for the people and managed through the laws, rules and proclamations that preserve the future of hunting, fishing and trapping; to provide that public hunting, fishing and trapping of wildlife shall be a preferred means of managing wildlife; and to provide that the rights set forth do not create a right to trespass on private property, shall not affect rights to divert, appropriate and use water, or establish any minimum amount of water in any water body, shall not lead to a diminution of other private rights, and shall not prevent the suspension or revocation, pursuant to statute enacted by the Legislature, of an individual's hunting, fishing or trapping license?"

Meaning, Purpose and Result to be Accomplished

This proposed amendment would provide that the rights to hunt, fish and trap are a valued part of Idaho's heritage and would preserve these rights for the people of Idaho and manage these rights through the laws of the state. This amendment specifies that hunting, fishing and trapping shall be a preferred means of managing wildlife. This amendment does not create a right to trespass or affect rights to divert or appropriate water. This amendment also will not prevent the suspension or revocation of licenses issued by the state for hunting, fishing or trapping.

Statements FOR the Proposed Amendment

1. Hunting, fishing and trapping have long been practiced by the people of Idaho, and this amendment preserves Idaho's great sporting heritage.
2. Hunters, fishers and trappers help sustain a healthy ecosystem, and this amendment provides sportsmen meaningful and permanent protection to hunt, fish and trap.
3. Without constitutional protection, bans on certain types of hunting and trapping have been successful in other states and have incrementally eroded sportsmen's rights.

Statements AGAINST the Proposed Amendment

1. Future legislation to address public concerns regarding inhumane and unsportsmanlike practices could be affected by this amendment.
2. This amendment is unnecessary because the rights to hunt, fish and trap are not threatened and are already protected by law.
3. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game's wildlife management decisions could be constitutionally challenged as a result of this amendment.