The Idaho Legislature, when drafting bills, must adhere to specific constitutional and statutory requirements to ensure their validity and enforceability. One fundamental aspect is the adherence to the single subject rule, a principle enshrined in many state constitutions, including Idaho’s. This rule prevents the “logrolling” practice, where unrelated provisions are bundled together to garner broader support for a bill. Article III, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution states that “No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.” This means that all provisions within a bill must be logically connected to a single, overarching subject clearly indicated in the bill’s title. Failure to comply with this rule can lead to a bill, or parts of it, being declared unconstitutional by the courts. For instance, if a bill concerning agricultural land zoning also included provisions for public school funding, it would likely violate the single subject rule because the two subjects are not germane to each other. The title of the bill serves as a crucial guide, informing legislators and the public about the bill’s intended scope. The germane relationship requirement is broad, allowing for diverse provisions as long as they relate to the central subject. The Idaho Supreme Court has interpreted this rule to promote clarity and prevent deceptive legislative practices. Therefore, a legislative drafter must meticulously ensure that every section of a proposed bill directly contributes to or is reasonably connected with the singular subject announced in the title, thereby upholding constitutional integrity.

The Idaho Legislature’s process for amending existing statutes involves several key stages. When a bill is introduced, it is assigned to a committee. If the committee approves the bill, it is sent to the floor for debate and a vote. Amendments can be proposed and adopted during floor debate. Once a bill passes one chamber, it proceeds to the other chamber, where it undergoes a similar committee and floor process. If the second chamber passes the bill without amendments, it is sent to the Governor. If the second chamber passes the bill with amendments, it must be returned to the originating chamber for concurrence on those amendments. If the originating chamber concurs, the bill is sent to the Governor. If it does not concur, a conference committee may be appointed to resolve the differences. The conference committee’s report, if agreed upon by both chambers, is then sent to the Governor. The Governor can sign the bill into law, veto it, or allow it to become law without a signature. The Idaho Constitution, Article III, Section 15, outlines the procedure for bills passing through the legislature and the Governor’s role. Idaho Code Section 67-501 et seq. governs legislative procedures. The question asks about the most direct path for an amendment to become law after passing the House of Representatives. If the Senate passes the bill with amendments, the House must then concur with those Senate amendments. If the House concurs, the bill is enacted. If the House does not concur, a conference committee is the next step to reconcile differences. Therefore, the most direct path for the Senate’s amendments to become law, assuming the House agrees, is through concurrence.

The Idaho legislature, when drafting bills, must adhere to specific constitutional and statutory requirements to ensure their validity and enforceability. Article III, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution mandates that bills must embrace only one subject, which shall be expressed in the title. This “single subject rule” is a fundamental principle of legislative drafting to prevent logrolling and ensure that legislators are aware of the full scope of a bill they are voting on. Furthermore, Idaho Code § 67-5221 outlines requirements for administrative rules, including the need for clear and concise language and adherence to the rulemaking process. When a bill contains provisions that violate these principles, such as multiple unrelated subjects or a title that does not accurately reflect the bill’s content, the offending provisions may be severed from the remainder of the bill if the remainder can stand independently and give effect to the legislative intent. This severability doctrine, often codified in legislative practice or implied by constitutional principles, allows courts to uphold parts of a law even if other parts are found unconstitutional or improperly drafted. The question tests the understanding of how legislative drafting errors, specifically the violation of the single subject rule and the principle of germane titles, are addressed within the Idaho legislative framework, considering the potential for severability of provisions.

The Idaho Legislature, when drafting bills, must adhere to constitutional mandates and established legislative procedures. Article III, Section 16 of the Idaho Constitution requires that bills embrace but one subject and that it be expressed in the title. This is a fundamental principle of legislative drafting to prevent logrolling and ensure clarity and public notice. When a bill attempts to address multiple unrelated subjects, it risks violating this single-subject rule. For instance, a bill that purports to amend a statute concerning agricultural land valuation while simultaneously introducing new regulations for urban zoning would likely be challenged as unconstitutional. The Idaho Supreme Court has consistently interpreted this provision to ensure that all provisions within a bill are germane to the subject stated in the title. A drafter must therefore meticulously review the bill’s content to ensure that every section logically connects to the overarching purpose and that no extraneous matters are introduced. The principle of germane means that each part of the bill must have a reasonable relationship to the main subject. If a provision is entirely disconnected from the stated subject, it is considered non-germane and can lead to the entire bill being invalidated if it violates the single-subject rule. This requires a thorough understanding of existing Idaho law and the specific policy objectives of the proposed legislation.

The Idaho Legislature operates under a bicameral system. Bills can originate in either the House of Representatives or the Senate, with the exception of revenue-raising bills, which must originate in the House of Representatives, as per Article III, Section 15 of the Idaho Constitution. Once a bill is introduced in one chamber, it undergoes committee review, floor debate, and a vote. If passed, it then proceeds to the other chamber for a similar process. For a bill to become law in Idaho, it must be approved by a majority vote in both the House and the Senate. Following passage by both chambers, the bill is presented to the Governor. The Governor has several options: sign the bill into law, veto the bill, or allow the bill to become law without signing it (if the legislature is in session and the Governor takes no action within a specified timeframe). If the Governor vetoes the bill, the legislature can override the veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and the Senate. The Idaho Legislative Council plays a crucial role in bill drafting and providing research services to legislators. The process emphasizes collaboration and adherence to constitutional and procedural rules to ensure the legality and effectiveness of enacted legislation.

The Idaho Legislature operates under a bicameral system, with distinct roles and processes for bill introduction, committee review, floor debate, and final passage. When a bill is introduced in the Idaho House of Representatives, it is assigned a bill number and referred to a standing committee. This committee then reviews the bill, potentially holds public hearings, and may amend it. Following committee action, the bill is placed on the House calendar for consideration by the full House. Debate on the floor is governed by House Rules, which dictate speaking times and amendment procedures. A bill must receive a majority vote of those present and voting to pass the House. Subsequently, if it passes, it is transmitted to the Idaho Senate for a similar process of committee review, floor debate, and voting. The Idaho Constitution and Idaho legislative rules are paramount in guiding these procedures. For instance, Article III of the Idaho Constitution outlines the legislative power and the process for enacting laws. Idaho Code Title 67, Chapter 1, specifically addresses the legislative department and its organization. The question tests the understanding of the procedural steps a bill must traverse in the Idaho House of Representatives before it can be sent to the Senate, focusing on the typical progression from introduction to final House passage.

The Idaho Legislature’s authority to enact laws is derived from the state constitution and is subject to various constraints. When drafting legislation, understanding the scope of legislative power and potential limitations is paramount. Article III, Section 1 of the Idaho Constitution vests legislative power in the Legislature. However, this power is not absolute. The Idaho Supreme Court has consistently interpreted constitutional provisions and statutory enactments to define the boundaries of legislative action. For instance, legislation cannot violate the U.S. Constitution, including the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause. Idaho Code § 67-5001 outlines the general powers of the legislature, but these are always read in conjunction with constitutional limitations. Furthermore, the principle of separation of powers, enshrined in the Idaho Constitution, prevents the legislature from encroaching upon the duties of the executive or judicial branches. For example, a bill that purports to directly overturn a judicial ruling without establishing new legal principles or procedures would likely be deemed an unconstitutional legislative encroachment on judicial power. Similarly, legislation that improperly delegates legislative authority to an administrative agency without sufficient standards or guidance can be challenged as an unconstitutional delegation of power. The legislative drafting process must therefore carefully consider these constitutional and statutory frameworks to ensure the validity and enforceability of proposed laws.

The Idaho Legislature’s process for amending existing statutes involves several key steps, reflecting a balance between legislative intent, legal precision, and public notice. When a bill proposing to amend an Idaho statute is introduced, it must clearly identify the section(s) to be amended. The drafting process emphasizes using specific language to indicate what is being changed, added, or deleted. This is often achieved through the use of strike-throughs for deleted text and underlining for new text within the bill itself, a convention that signals the precise nature of the proposed alteration. However, the actual enacted law, once it becomes an Idaho Session Law and is incorporated into the Idaho Code, will reflect the final, clean text without these strike-throughs and underlines. The purpose of these markings in the bill is to provide clarity to legislators, stakeholders, and the public during the debate and voting stages, ensuring that the scope of the amendment is unambiguous. A bill that fails to clearly indicate the specific sections of the Idaho Code it intends to modify, or that proposes changes in a vague or overly broad manner, risks being poorly understood, potentially leading to unintended consequences or legal challenges. Therefore, precise identification and clear articulation of amendments are fundamental to effective legislative drafting in Idaho, aligning with the principle that legislative intent must be ascertainable and the resulting law readily understood.

The Idaho Administrative Procedure Act (APA), specifically Idaho Code Title 67, Chapter 52, governs the process by which state agencies in Idaho can adopt, amend, and repeal rules. A critical aspect of this process involves public participation and ensuring transparency. When an agency proposes a new rule or a significant amendment to an existing rule, it must provide adequate notice to the public. This notice period is designed to allow interested parties, including citizens, businesses, and other stakeholders, to review the proposed changes and submit comments. Idaho Code § 67-5221 outlines the requirements for rulemaking, including the publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Idaho Administrative Bulletin. This bulletin serves as the official publication for such notices. Following the publication, there is a statutory period, typically 30 days, during which the public can submit written comments to the agency. Agencies are then required to consider these comments and may, in some instances, hold public hearings. The purpose of this process is to foster informed decision-making and to allow for public input to shape the final rule. Failure to adhere to these notice and comment requirements can render a rule invalid. The question probes the understanding of the specific publication vehicle mandated by Idaho law for initiating the rulemaking process.

The Idaho Legislature operates under a bicameral system. Bills can originate in either the House of Representatives or the Senate. Once a bill is introduced in one chamber, it must pass through a series of committee reviews, floor debates, and votes within that chamber. If it passes, it then moves to the other chamber, where it undergoes a similar process of committee review, debate, and voting. If the second chamber amends the bill, it must then go back to the originating chamber for concurrence on the amendments. If concurrence is not achieved, a conference committee, composed of members from both chambers, is formed to reconcile the differences. The final version of the bill, agreed upon by the conference committee, must then be approved by both the House and the Senate before it can be sent to the Governor. The Governor then has the option to sign the bill into law, veto it, or allow it to become law without a signature. The legislative drafting process in Idaho, as in many states, emphasizes clarity, precision, and adherence to established legal principles and drafting conventions to ensure the enacted legislation is unambiguous and constitutionally sound. This involves careful consideration of existing statutes, constitutional provisions, and the intended policy objectives. The process also involves ensuring that the bill does not conflict with federal law or other state laws, and that it is practically implementable.

The Idaho Legislature’s Committee on Administrative Rules (CAR) operates under specific statutory authority to review and approve administrative rules proposed by state agencies. The process is designed to ensure rules are consistent with legislative intent, constitutional principles, and statutory mandates, and that they are not arbitrary or capricious. Idaho Code § 67-5227 outlines the CAR’s role in the rulemaking process, including its ability to object to proposed rules. An objection by CAR can lead to a variety of outcomes, but importantly, it does not automatically invalidate a rule. Instead, it triggers a process where the agency must respond to the objection. If the agency fails to withdraw or amend the rule to address the CAR’s concerns, the rule is then submitted to the Governor. The Governor has the ultimate authority to approve or reject the rule, or to approve it subject to legislative review. If the Governor approves the rule, it becomes effective unless the Legislature, in its next regular or special session, disapproves it by concurrent resolution. This mechanism allows for legislative oversight even after an agency’s initial submission and CAR review. Therefore, an objection by CAR is a significant hurdle, but not a final determination of a rule’s validity.

The Idaho Legislature operates under a bicameral system. When drafting legislation, particularly concerning the appropriation of funds or the creation of new state agencies, understanding the legislative process and the roles of each chamber is paramount. Article III, Section 15 of the Idaho Constitution specifies that bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. However, the Senate retains the power to propose amendments to revenue bills. Furthermore, Article III, Section 16 of the Idaho Constitution grants the Legislature the power to appropriate public moneys. While the House typically initiates revenue bills, both chambers must agree on the final version of any appropriation bill before it can be presented to the Governor. The process involves committee review, floor debate, and voting in both the House and the Senate. If a bill passes one chamber but is amended by the other, a conference committee is often formed to reconcile the differences. The ultimate goal is to produce a bill that reflects the consensus of both legislative bodies, adhering to constitutional requirements and legislative rules. The specific sequence of amendments and the nature of the subject matter, such as a capital outlay bill versus an operating budget, can influence the procedural nuances, but the fundamental requirement for passage by both chambers remains constant.

Idaho Code § 67-5227 governs the procedure for adopting administrative rules. When an agency proposes to adopt, amend, or repeal a rule, it must first publish a notice of proposed agency action in the Idaho Administrative Bulletin. This notice must include the text of the proposed rule or a summary, the agency’s authority for the rule, a statement of the rule’s purpose, and information on how interested parties can comment. Following the publication, there is a public comment period, typically 30 days. After considering public comments, the agency may adopt the rule. The adopted rule must then be filed with the Idaho Secretary of State and published in the Idaho Administrative Code. The rule becomes effective on the date specified in the rule, which must be at least 20 days after filing, unless a different date is specified. This process ensures transparency and allows for public input, a cornerstone of administrative law in Idaho.

The Idaho Legislature’s process for amending existing statutes involves several key steps and considerations, particularly concerning the clarity and precision required in legislative drafting. When a bill proposes to amend an existing section of Idaho law, the drafting must clearly identify the specific section being modified. This is typically done by referencing the Idaho Code by its chapter and section number. The amendment itself must then be presented in a manner that shows what is being added, deleted, or changed. Idaho Code Section 67-509 outlines the requirements for amending statutes, mandating that the section to be amended be published at length, and the new or amended part be inserted in its proper place. Furthermore, legislative drafting principles emphasize the importance of using strike-throughs for deleted text and underlining for new text within the bill itself to visually represent the proposed changes. This convention aids in understanding the precise nature of the amendment and ensures that the legislative intent is accurately conveyed. For example, if a bill seeks to amend Idaho Code Section 18-3302 concerning concealed weapons, the drafting would involve quoting the existing language of that specific section and then clearly indicating the proposed modifications using the established strike-through and underlining conventions. The goal is to create a seamless and unambiguous integration of the amendment into the existing statutory framework, avoiding any confusion about the operative language.

The core principle tested here is the constitutional requirement for bills introduced in the Idaho Legislature to have a single subject, as mandated by Article III, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. This provision aims to prevent “logrolling,” where unrelated measures are bundled together to gain passage. When a bill contains multiple unrelated subjects, it is considered unconstitutional and subject to a facial challenge. The question presents a hypothetical bill that addresses both the regulation of agricultural water use and the establishment of a new state park. These two subjects are demonstrably distinct and do not share a common purpose or a natural and logical connection. Therefore, a bill encompassing both would violate the single-subject rule. Drafting a bill that combines these disparate topics would likely result in its invalidation by the Idaho Supreme Court if challenged on these grounds. Understanding this constitutional constraint is fundamental to ensuring the legality and enforceability of legislative enactments in Idaho. The process of legislative drafting requires meticulous attention to constitutional limitations to produce sound and durable laws.

The Idaho Legislature’s process for amending existing statutes involves several key stages, ensuring thorough review and public input. When a bill proposes to amend an Idaho statute, it must clearly identify the section of the Idaho Code being altered. This is typically achieved through the use of specific bill drafting conventions that indicate the intent to amend, repeal, or add to existing law. For instance, language intended to be deleted is often enclosed in brackets, and new language is underlined. The legislative process itself, including committee hearings, floor debates, and votes in both the House and Senate, provides opportunities for scrutiny and modification. However, the fundamental requirement for amending a statute is that the bill must pass both houses of the legislature in identical form and then be signed by the Governor, or have a gubernatorial veto overridden. The question specifically asks about the initial drafting and introduction phase for an amendment, focusing on how the intent to modify an existing law is signaled within the bill itself. The correct approach involves using precise language and formatting to denote the changes being made to the Idaho Code, ensuring clarity for legislators and the public. This involves referencing the specific Idaho Code section number and employing standard legislative drafting symbols to indicate additions and deletions.

The Idaho Legislature, in its drafting process, must adhere to established principles of statutory construction and legislative intent. When considering a bill that amends existing Idaho law, a key consideration is the doctrine of implied repeal. Implied repeal occurs when a later statute conflicts with an earlier one, and the later statute is so inconsistent with the earlier one that they cannot both stand. However, implied repeal is generally disfavored by courts, and legislative drafters must be mindful of this. If a bill intends to repeal an existing provision, it should do so explicitly. In this scenario, Representative Anya is proposing a bill that modifies the definition of “agricultural land” in Idaho Code Title 63, Chapter 6, concerning property taxation. The proposed amendment introduces a new criterion for classification that directly contradicts a criterion established in a prior, separate act that also defined “agricultural land” for a different regulatory purpose, specifically concerning water use permits under Idaho Code Title 42. While the bill explicitly states it amends Title 63, Chapter 6, it does not mention or repeal the definition in Title 42. The core issue is whether the new definition in Title 63 implicitly repeals the definition in Title 42 due to the conflict. Because implied repeal is disfavored, and the amendment is focused on property taxation (Title 63) without any language addressing water use permits (Title 42), the most accurate drafting approach would be to acknowledge the potential conflict and, if the intent is to harmonize the definitions or explicitly supersede the earlier one, to include language to that effect. However, if the intent is merely to modify the property tax definition and allow the water use definition to remain as is, despite the conflict, then the drafter must be aware that a court might later interpret the situation. Given the options, the most prudent drafting strategy that avoids creating ambiguity and potential litigation concerning implied repeal is to explicitly address the conflicting definitions. If the intent is to ensure the new definition in Title 63 governs all contexts, including water use, then the bill should explicitly state that the definition in Title 42 is amended or repealed. Without such explicit language, the potential for implied repeal, while disfavored, remains a point of legal contention. Therefore, the most appropriate legislative drafting principle here is to avoid ambiguity and ensure clarity regarding the intended scope and effect of the amendment on other existing statutes. The question is about the legislative drafting principle to avoid implied repeal. The correct approach is to explicitly address the conflict if the intent is to supersede the prior definition.

The Idaho Legislature, when drafting bills, must consider the constitutional limitations on legislative power, particularly concerning the impairment of contracts. Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, often referred to as the Contract Clause, prohibits states from passing any law impairing the obligation of contracts. Idaho, as a state, is bound by this prohibition. When a legislative proposal in Idaho potentially alters existing contractual rights or obligations, drafters must analyze whether the alteration constitutes an unconstitutional impairment. This analysis typically involves determining if the law substantially impairs a contractual relationship and, if so, whether the impairment is reasonable and necessary to serve an important public purpose. For example, if a bill sought to retroactively nullify a previously executed bond agreement between a municipality and a private entity in Idaho, it would likely face a Contract Clause challenge. The fundamental principle is that while states retain broad police powers to enact laws for the public welfare, these powers are not absolute and cannot be exercised in a way that arbitrarily abrogates existing contractual commitments. Idaho Code § 67-501 mandates that all bills must be drafted in a manner consistent with the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Idaho. Therefore, a legislative drafter’s duty includes identifying and mitigating potential Contract Clause violations during the drafting process.

The Idaho Legislature’s approach to statutory interpretation prioritizes the plain meaning of the text. When a statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, courts will not look beyond it to discern legislative intent. This principle is fundamental to legislative drafting, ensuring that enacted laws are predictable and understandable. The Idaho Supreme Court has consistently held that if the language of a statute is plain, clear, and unambiguous, then the court must give it its plain, obvious, and rational meaning. The court’s duty is to interpret the law as written, not to rewrite it or to speculate on what the legislature might have intended if the language is not susceptible to multiple interpretations. Therefore, when drafting legislation, drafters must ensure that the language used is precise and leaves no room for misinterpretation. Any attempt to infer intent from legislative history, debates, or committee reports when the statutory language itself is clear would be contrary to established Idaho jurisprudence on statutory construction. The focus remains on the words chosen by the legislature in the enacted text.

The Idaho Legislature, when drafting statutes, must adhere to constitutional requirements and established legislative procedure. Article III, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution mandates that “no bill shall embrace more than one subject and matters properly connected thereto.” This is commonly referred to as the “single subject rule.” The purpose of this rule is to prevent “logrolling,” where unrelated provisions are bundled together to gain enough votes for passage, and to ensure that legislators and the public have clear notice of the bill’s content. When a bill violates this rule, it is subject to legal challenge, and courts may strike down the offending portions or the entire act if the violation is pervasive. Drafting a bill that consolidates unrelated policy changes into a single enactment, such as amending the Idaho Forest Practices Act to also alter the definition of a “motor vehicle” for registration purposes, would likely be deemed unconstitutional under this provision. Such an amendment would not be considered a “matter properly connected” to forest practices, thereby violating the single subject rule.

The Idaho Legislature operates under a bicameral system, meaning it consists of two distinct chambers: the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Idaho Constitution, specifically Article III, Section 2, outlines the structure and composition of the legislature. It specifies that the Senate shall consist of not more than thirty-five members and the House of Representatives shall consist of not more than seventy members. Each senator and representative must be at least twenty-one years old, an inhabitant of the state for at least two years, and a resident of their district for at least six months prior to election. The process of legislative drafting in Idaho involves careful adherence to these constitutional provisions and established legislative rules. Drafting a bill requires understanding the legislative process, including introduction, committee review, floor debate, and gubernatorial action. The Idaho Code, particularly Title 67, Chapter 5, addresses the legislative department and provides further guidance on legislative procedures and drafting standards. For instance, the process of amending existing statutes or creating new ones must be precise to avoid ambiguity and ensure legal enforceability, aligning with the principles of statutory construction. The question tests the understanding of the fundamental structure of the Idaho Legislature as established by its constitution.

The Idaho Legislature operates under a bicameral system. Bills must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate. After passing both houses in identical form, a bill is presented to the Governor. Idaho Code § 67-5225 outlines the process for presenting bills to the Governor. If the Governor approves the bill, they sign it, and it becomes law. If the Governor vetoes the bill, it is returned to the originating house with the objections. The legislature can override a veto with a two-thirds vote in each house. If the Governor neither signs nor vetoes a bill within three days (excluding Sundays) after its presentation, and the legislature is still in session, the bill becomes law without the Governor’s signature. If the legislature has adjourned, the bill does not become law without the Governor’s signature. This specific scenario describes a bill passed by both houses and presented to the Governor, who takes no action, and the legislature remains in session. Therefore, the bill becomes law without the Governor’s signature.

The Idaho Legislature’s primary method for amending existing statutes is through the enactment of new bills that specifically repeal and reenact sections of the Idaho Code. This process ensures that any changes are clearly identified and formally adopted by both houses and signed by the Governor. When a legislative drafter is tasked with modifying a statute, such as changing the penalty for a specific offense, they must draft a bill that explicitly states which section of the Idaho Code is being amended. This typically involves language like “Section 12-345, Idaho Code, is amended to read as follows:” followed by the new text of the section. The original language is effectively replaced. The Idaho Constitution and the Idaho Legislative Council’s drafting manual provide guidance on the precise form and structure of these amendment bills. Other methods, like committee notes or informal directives, do not carry the force of law and are insufficient for statutory amendment. Therefore, the most direct and legally sound method is the formal amendment of the code through a new enactment.

The Idaho Legislature, when drafting statutes, must adhere to constitutional requirements for clarity and specificity. Article III, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution mandates that “No bill shall contain more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.” This principle, known as the single-subject rule, is a critical constraint on legislative drafting. Its purpose is to prevent “logrolling” (the practice of bundling unrelated provisions into a single bill to gain support) and to ensure that legislators and the public can readily understand the scope of proposed legislation by examining its title. A violation of this rule can render a statute unconstitutional. Therefore, when drafting a bill concerning, for example, agricultural land valuation for property tax purposes, any provisions related to unrelated matters, such as the regulation of mining operations or the establishment of a state park, would be considered a violation of the single-subject rule if not clearly delineated and tied to the primary subject expressed in the title. The drafting process requires careful consideration of how each provision relates to the overarching subject to maintain constitutional compliance.

The Idaho Legislature, when enacting statutes, must adhere to constitutional mandates and established legal principles. One crucial aspect of statutory drafting involves ensuring that new legislation does not conflict with existing laws or create an unconstitutional impairment of contracts. Article I, Section 16 of the Idaho Constitution, mirroring the U.S. Constitution’s Contract Clause, prohibits the passage of any law impairing the obligation of contracts. This means that a newly enacted statute cannot retroactively alter the rights or obligations of parties under existing agreements. For instance, if a local ordinance in Boise, Idaho, granted a specific tax exemption to a business for a ten-year period as part of a development agreement, a subsequent state law could not unilaterally revoke that exemption before the ten years expired without potentially violating the Contract Clause. Similarly, legislative drafting must consider the principle of statutory construction that favors interpretations avoiding unconstitutional outcomes. When faced with ambiguity, a drafter or interpreter would lean towards a meaning that upholds the validity of the law and respects contractual rights. Therefore, a legislative proposal that attempts to retroactively nullify a previously executed, valid contractual obligation would likely be deemed unconstitutional in Idaho. The focus is on the retrospective application of a law to existing contractual relationships.

In Idaho legislative drafting, the concept of “enrolled bill” refers to the final, official version of a bill that has been passed by both houses of the Idaho Legislature and signed by the Governor, or has otherwise become law without the Governor’s signature. This version is precisely as it will appear in the Idaho Session Laws. The process of enrolling a bill involves meticulously comparing the text of the bill as passed by the second house with the text as passed by the first house, reconciling any differences, and preparing a clean, authoritative copy. This final version is then authenticated by the presiding officers of both the House and the Senate. The enrolled bill is the operative legal text. Understanding this distinction is crucial for drafters, as it represents the culmination of the legislative process and the authoritative statement of the law. Any amendments or changes made during the legislative process must be accurately reflected in the enrolled bill. For instance, if a bill originates in the House and is amended by the Senate, the enrolled bill will contain the Senate’s amendments, assuming the House concurs or the Senate’s version prevails through the legislative process. The enrolled bill is then filed with the Secretary of State. This process ensures the integrity and accuracy of the legislative record.

The Idaho Legislature’s process for amending existing statutes involves several key steps, emphasizing careful review and adherence to established procedures. When a bill proposing an amendment is introduced, it typically undergoes committee review in both the House and the Senate. During this process, amendments can be proposed and debated. If a bill passes one chamber with amendments, it must then be transmitted to the other chamber for consideration of those amendments. If the second chamber concurs with the amendments, the bill proceeds to the Governor. If the second chamber rejects the amendments or proposes further amendments, a conference committee may be formed to reconcile the differences. The conference committee’s report, if adopted by both chambers, then goes to the Governor. The Governor has the option to sign the bill, veto it, or allow it to become law without signature. The question focuses on the legislative branch’s internal mechanism for resolving differences on a proposed statutory amendment between the two houses, which is the conference committee process. This process is crucial for ensuring that a unified version of the legislation is presented to the Governor, reflecting consensus between the House and Senate on the specific changes to Idaho Code.

The Idaho Legislature’s process for amending existing statutes involves several key steps, particularly concerning the structure and content of the bill. When a bill proposes to amend a section of the Idaho Code, it must clearly identify the section being amended and indicate the nature of the changes. Idaho Code Section 67-507 outlines the requirements for legislative bills. Specifically, when amending an existing statute, the bill must set forth the entire section as it will read after amendment. New matter intended to be added to the section is typically indicated by underlining, and matter intended to be deleted is indicated by enclosing it in double brackets. However, the question asks about the correct method for presenting a bill that *deletes* an entire existing section of the Idaho Code without replacing it with new text. In such a scenario, the bill must clearly state that the section is repealed. The most precise way to achieve this, following drafting conventions and the intent of statutory revision, is to present the bill text as a direct repeal of the identified section, without the need for underlining or bracketing, as there is no new text to add or specific old text to mark for deletion within the context of that section. The phrasing “repeals Section 123 of Title 42 of the Idaho Code” is a direct and accurate legislative action. The other options, while involving elements of amendment, do not precisely capture the act of completely removing a section without replacement. Underlining new material is for additions, and bracketing deleted material is for showing deletions within a section that is otherwise being retained and modified. Simply stating the section number and indicating its repeal is the standard and most efficient drafting method for outright removal.

The Idaho Administrative Procedure Act (APA), specifically Idaho Code Title 67, Chapter 52, governs the process by which state agencies in Idaho adopt, amend, and repeal rules. When an agency proposes a new rule or a significant amendment to an existing one, it must provide public notice and an opportunity for public comment. This process ensures transparency and allows stakeholders to voice their concerns or support. The APA outlines the specific requirements for this notice, including the content of the notice, the publication methods, and the duration of the comment period. For instance, Idaho Code § 67-5221 details the requirements for agency rulemaking, including the publication of proposed rules in the Idaho Administrative Bulletin and the opportunity for written or oral comment. The legislative review process, as outlined in Idaho Code § 67-5291, involves the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, which has the authority to review agency rules for compliance with legislative intent and statutory authority. If the committee finds a rule to be inconsistent with legislative intent or statutory authority, it can object to the rule. The governor then has the opportunity to review the committee’s objection and make a final decision. This multi-stage review process is designed to ensure that administrative rules are consistent with the laws enacted by the Idaho Legislature and reflect the public interest. The question tests the understanding of this procedural safeguard, specifically the role of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules in the legislative review of agency-adopted rules in Idaho.

The Idaho Legislature, when drafting bills, must consider various constitutional and statutory constraints. One crucial aspect is ensuring that new legislation does not violate the Idaho Constitution. Article III, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution, for instance, prohibits private or special laws in certain enumerated cases. This means that a bill cannot grant special privileges or immunities to a specific individual, group, or locality if a general law can be made applicable. For example, a bill that would allow a single named county to deviate from standard property assessment procedures, when other counties follow those procedures, would likely be unconstitutional as a special law. The principle is that laws should operate uniformly and impartially. When drafting, a legislative drafter must analyze whether the proposed legislation targets a specific entity or situation in a way that could be addressed through a broader, generally applicable statute. If a bill creates an exception or special rule for a particular entity without a compelling, constitutionally permissible reason for that distinction, it risks being challenged on these grounds. Therefore, a drafter must always ask if the intended effect of the bill can be achieved through a general law, thereby avoiding the prohibition against private or special laws. This principle is fundamental to maintaining the rule of law and equal protection under the law within Idaho.