The scenario describes a situation where a county in Idaho, acting under its home rule authority granted by Article XII, Section 2 of the Idaho Constitution, attempts to enact an ordinance that conflicts with a state statute concerning election administration. The Idaho Constitution, while granting counties certain powers, explicitly states that this home rule authority is subject to and shall not conflict with the laws of the state. Idaho Code Title 34, which governs elections, establishes a comprehensive framework for election procedures, voter registration, and ballot access that is uniform across the state. When a county ordinance directly contradicts a state law on a matter of statewide concern like election administration, the state law preempts the local ordinance. This principle of preemption ensures uniformity and prevents a patchwork of differing election rules that could disenfranchise voters or create administrative chaos. Therefore, the county’s ordinance would be deemed invalid and unenforceable because it directly conflicts with the established state election laws. The Idaho Supreme Court has consistently upheld the supremacy of state law over conflicting county ordinances when the state has legislated in an area of statewide concern.

The scenario describes a situation where a county in Idaho, through its board of county commissioners, is considering a local ordinance that would restrict certain types of political signage on private property during election periods. This action directly implicates the balance between local government authority to regulate land use and public spaces, and the First Amendment rights of individuals to express political viewpoints through signage. Idaho law, like federal constitutional law, generally protects political speech. While local governments can impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech, these restrictions must be content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels for communication. Ordinances that discriminate based on the content of the message, such as favoring one political party’s signs over another, are typically unconstitutional. Furthermore, Idaho Code § 63-105D, concerning property tax exemptions, does not directly govern the regulation of political signage on private property. The power of county commissioners to enact ordinances is generally derived from Idaho Code Title 31, Chapter 23, which grants them authority over county roads, public health, and general welfare, but this authority is not absolute and must yield to constitutional protections. In this context, a blanket prohibition or content-based restriction on political signs on private property would likely be challenged as an infringement on free speech. The question asks about the primary legal constraint. The most significant constraint on such an ordinance would be the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech. State constitutions and statutes can offer additional protections, but the federal First Amendment provides a fundamental baseline. Therefore, the constitutional protection of political speech is the paramount consideration.

The scenario describes a situation where a proposed ballot initiative in Idaho aims to revise the state’s election laws. The core of the question revolves around the constitutional limitations and procedural requirements for such initiatives under Idaho law. Idaho’s Constitution, specifically Article III, Section 1, outlines the process for initiatives, including requirements for the number of signatures and the geographical distribution of those signatures. For a statewide initiative to qualify for the ballot, proponents must gather signatures equivalent to at least 6% of the votes cast for the office of Governor in the last general election in at least 18 of Idaho’s 35 legislative districts. This requirement ensures that an initiative has broad support across the state, not just concentrated in a few populous areas. Furthermore, the Idaho Legislature has enacted statutes, such as Idaho Code Title 34, Chapter 18, which detail the administrative procedures for initiative petitions, including verification of signatures by the Secretary of State. The question tests the understanding of these constitutional and statutory provisions regarding signature requirements and geographical distribution, which are crucial for a valid initiative to be placed on the ballot in Idaho. The calculation involves determining the minimum number of signatures needed based on the specified percentage and the number of legislative districts. For example, if the last gubernatorial election saw 500,000 votes, 6% would be 30,000 signatures. This 30,000 signatures must then be collected from at least 18 out of the 35 legislative districts. The question probes the candidate’s knowledge of these specific Idaho election law requirements for citizen-led ballot measures.

The scenario describes a situation where a proposed ballot initiative in Idaho aims to alter the method of judicial selection for the Idaho Supreme Court. Specifically, it seeks to replace the current merit-based system, administered by a judicial council, with a direct popular election process for all justices. Idaho’s Constitution, particularly Article V, governs the judiciary. The proposed change would fundamentally alter the balance of power and the appointment process. In Idaho, the selection of judges is a critical aspect of its democratic framework. The current system, established by Idaho Code §1-2101 et seq. and further detailed in the Constitution, emphasizes a merit selection process to insulate judges from direct political pressure and ensure qualifications. This process involves a nominating commission that vets candidates, and the governor then makes appointments. Judges initially serve a term and then face retention elections, where voters decide whether to keep them in office based on their performance, not as a contest against other candidates. A direct popular election, as proposed by the initiative, would mean candidates for the Idaho Supreme Court would campaign against each other, similar to how other elected officials are chosen. This shift would introduce significant political campaigning, fundraising, and potential partisan influences into the judicial selection process. The question asks about the *most direct* constitutional obstacle to such a proposal within Idaho’s existing legal structure. Article V of the Idaho Constitution outlines the judicial department, including the composition and selection of the Supreme Court. Section 2 of Article V specifically addresses the appointment of judges, stating that vacancies are filled by the Governor from a list of nominees provided by the Judicial Council. While the Constitution does not explicitly forbid popular elections for all judicial offices, the established framework for filling vacancies and the general tenor of judicial independence within the state’s constitutional design lean heavily towards non-partisan or merit-based selection. However, the specific mechanism of *direct popular election for all justices, replacing the merit selection and retention election system*, would likely face a constitutional challenge based on the established judicial appointment and retention processes. The question is about the *most direct* obstacle. The Idaho Constitution, in Article V, Section 2, states: “The Supreme Court shall consist of five justices, who shall be appointed by the Governor from a list of three qualified candidates for each vacancy, submitted by the Judicial Council.” This section directly mandates the appointment process, which the proposed initiative seeks to bypass entirely by instituting direct popular elections for all positions, effectively overwriting the constitutional appointment mechanism. Therefore, the most direct constitutional obstacle is the existing appointment process outlined in Article V, Section 2, which would be rendered moot by a shift to direct popular election for all justices. The initiative would require a constitutional amendment to alter this specific provision.

The Idaho Constitution, specifically Article II, Section 1, establishes the principle of separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. This division is designed to prevent any single branch from becoming too powerful and to ensure a system of checks and balances. The legislative branch, the Idaho Legislature, is vested with the power to make laws. The executive branch, headed by the Governor, is responsible for executing and enforcing laws. The judicial branch, through the Idaho Supreme Court and lower courts, interprets laws and resolves disputes. When a legislative act is challenged as exceeding the powers of the enacting branch, or as encroaching upon the powers of another branch, the judiciary has the authority to review that act. This review process, known as judicial review, is a fundamental aspect of Idaho’s constitutional framework, allowing courts to declare laws unconstitutional if they violate the state’s foundational document. The Idaho Supreme Court has consistently upheld this principle, ensuring that legislative actions remain within the constitutional bounds of its authority.

The Idaho Constitution, specifically Article II, Section 1, addresses the separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. This principle is fundamental to the structure of Idaho’s government, ensuring that no single branch becomes too powerful. The question asks about the primary mechanism by which the Idaho Legislature can scrutinize and potentially limit the actions of the executive branch, particularly concerning the implementation of laws passed by the legislature. While the legislature has oversight powers, the specific mechanism for reviewing administrative rules and regulations promulgated by executive agencies is through the legislative review process established by Idaho Code Title 67, Chapter 52, specifically focusing on administrative procedure and rule-making. This process allows for legislative committees to review proposed and existing administrative rules for conformity with legislative intent and statutory authority. The Idaho Legislature, through its committees, has the authority to review administrative rules proposed by executive agencies to ensure they align with the intent of the laws enacted by the legislature. This oversight function is a crucial aspect of the separation of powers, allowing the legislative branch to hold the executive branch accountable for how it implements and interprets statutes. This review process is distinct from impeachment, judicial review of constitutionality, or direct legislative amendment of agency policies, although these are also forms of checks and balances. The legislative review of administrative rules is a proactive and ongoing mechanism to ensure that executive agencies are acting within the scope of their delegated authority and in accordance with legislative policy.

The Idaho Legislature has established specific procedures for initiating a citizen-led ballot measure. Idaho Code §34-1806 outlines the requirements for the form and content of initiative petitions. A key aspect is the requirement for a sufficient number of valid signatures from registered voters. For a statewide initiative, the Idaho Constitution, Article III, Section 1, mandates that signatures must be collected from at least 6% of the registered voters in the state, with at least 6% of registered voters in each of at least eighteen of the legislative districts signing the petition. The calculation for the number of signatures required is based on the total number of registered voters in Idaho. Assuming a hypothetical scenario where the total number of registered voters in Idaho is 900,000, and the requirement is 6% from the state total and 6% from 18 legislative districts. The minimum number of signatures required from the state total would be 0.06 * 900,000 = 54,000 signatures. The additional requirement that at least 6% of registered voters in each of at least eighteen legislative districts must sign means that even if the total state signature count is met, the measure fails if the district distribution is not satisfied. The question focuses on the constitutional requirement for statewide initiatives concerning signature collection distribution across legislative districts. Therefore, the correct answer is the constitutional mandate regarding the percentage of signatures from a specified number of legislative districts.

The scenario involves a proposed initiative in Idaho that seeks to amend the state’s election laws. Specifically, the initiative proposes to implement a ranked-choice voting system for all state and local elections. To qualify for the ballot, the initiative must gather a certain number of valid signatures from registered voters across the state. Idaho law, as outlined in Idaho Code Title 34, Chapter 18, governs the initiative process. Section 34-1801 details the requirements for an initiative petition, including the number of signatures needed. For a state-wide initiative, the number of signatures required is 5% of the votes cast for the office of Governor at the last general election. In the given scenario, 350,000 votes were cast for Governor in the last election. Therefore, the number of valid signatures required is 5% of 350,000. Calculation: \(0.05 \times 350,000 = 17,500\). This means the initiative must collect at least 17,500 valid signatures from registered voters. The question then asks about the potential impact of a specific Idaho Supreme Court ruling on the validity of signatures collected before a certain date. Idaho Code Section 34-1806 addresses the verification of signatures. However, the core of the question revolves around the *number* of signatures required, which is determined by the percentage of votes cast for Governor, as per 34-1801. The scenario presents a hypothetical situation where the court ruling might affect the *counting* or *validity* of signatures based on when they were collected relative to a change in election law or a court interpretation. However, the fundamental requirement for ballot access remains the total number of valid signatures, which is calculated based on the specified percentage of gubernatorial votes. The question is designed to test the understanding of the signature threshold for initiatives in Idaho and how external factors, like court rulings, might influence the *process* of meeting that threshold, but not the threshold itself. The correct answer is derived directly from the statutory requirement.

The scenario describes a situation where a local initiative in Idaho proposes to amend the state’s election laws regarding the process of ballot access for independent candidates. Specifically, the initiative seeks to increase the signature threshold required for an independent candidate to appear on the general election ballot, raising it from the current requirement. Idaho law, as codified in Idaho Code Title 34, governs election procedures. Chapter 18 of Title 34 outlines the requirements for nomination of candidates, including those for independent candidates. The current threshold is established by statute. An initiative to change a statute is a form of direct democracy, allowing citizens to propose and vote on laws. If such an initiative were to pass, it would directly amend the existing statutory requirement. The question asks about the legal mechanism by which this change would be enacted within Idaho’s framework. Initiatives in Idaho, when approved by voters, become law and are codified into the state’s statutes, thereby directly amending or creating new statutory provisions. This process bypasses the regular legislative session for the initial proposal and approval, but the outcome is the same: a change in state law. Therefore, the correct understanding is that a successful initiative directly amends the Idaho Code.

The scenario involves the potential for a ballot initiative in Idaho to propose a new law that would repeal an existing state statute. Idaho law, specifically under Article III, Section 1 of the Idaho Constitution and Idaho Code Title 34, Chapter 17, governs the process of initiative and referendum. For a proposed initiative to be placed on the ballot, it must gather a sufficient number of signatures from registered voters. The number of signatures required is a percentage of the total votes cast for a statewide office in the preceding general election. For a statewide initiative, the Idaho Constitution mandates that the petition must be signed by a number of voters equal to at least six percent of the total votes cast for Governor at the last general election. This ensures a broad base of support across the state. If the initiative qualifies by meeting this signature threshold, it is then transmitted to the legislature. The legislature has a specific timeframe to act upon the proposed initiative. If the legislature approves the initiative as submitted, it becomes law. If the legislature rejects the initiative or fails to act within the allotted time, the initiative is then returned to the Secretary of State and must be submitted to the voters at the next general election. The question tests the understanding of this legislative referral process when an initiative proposes to repeal an existing law, and the legislature’s role in that process. The critical element is that the legislature must decide whether to enact the proposed repeal or allow it to go directly to the voters.

The question concerns the application of Idaho’s initiative and referendum process, specifically focusing on the signature verification and certification timeline for a proposed statewide ballot measure. Idaho Code §34-1806 outlines the procedures for submitting initiative petitions. Upon submission to the Secretary of State, the county clerks are responsible for verifying the signatures. Idaho Code §34-1806(4) states that the Secretary of State shall notify the proponents and the county clerks of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the petition within twenty (20) days after the petition is filed. This notification period is critical for the proponents to gather additional signatures if the initial submission is found insufficient. The question asks for the maximum number of days proponents have to gather additional signatures if the initial petition is deemed insufficient. Based on the statutory timeline, the proponents are notified of insufficiency within 20 days of filing. Following this notification, they have an additional period to collect signatures. Idaho Code §34-1806(4) specifies that if the petition is insufficient, proponents have “thirty (30) days after receiving notice of the insufficiency to file additional signatures.” Therefore, if the Secretary of State uses the full 20 days to notify them of insufficiency, the proponents would then have 30 days from that notification to submit more signatures. This means the total time from the initial filing to the deadline for submitting additional signatures, in a scenario where the petition is initially insufficient and the maximum notification time is used, is 20 days (for notification) + 30 days (for additional signatures) = 50 days. The scenario presented in the question implies that the proponents are notified of insufficiency on the 20th day after filing, and then they have 30 days from that notification to gather more signatures. Thus, the total duration from the initial filing to the deadline for additional signatures is 50 days.

The scenario describes a situation where a county in Idaho is considering adopting a new local ordinance. The question pertains to the specific procedural requirements under Idaho law for such an ordinance to be legally enacted and take effect. Idaho Code § 31-1509 outlines the process for counties to adopt ordinances, which typically involves public notice, a hearing, and a vote by the county commissioners. While a simple majority of commissioners might be sufficient for passage, the effective date is often tied to specific statutory provisions or the ordinance itself. Idaho law generally requires ordinances to be published after passage and before they become effective, with a specified period for public challenge or referendum. Without specific details on the ordinance’s content or any referendum petition, the most common and legally sound provision for an ordinance’s effective date, absent a specific clause within the ordinance itself, is after its publication and the expiration of any statutory period for a referendum to be initiated. This ensures public awareness and allows for potential citizen oversight as guaranteed by democratic principles. Therefore, the most accurate answer reflects this procedural step of publication and the subsequent waiting period.

In Idaho, the process for initiating a ballot initiative is governed by Idaho Code Title 34, Chapter 18. Specifically, Section 34-1801 outlines the requirements for a petition to propose a new law or constitutional amendment. A key aspect is the number of signatures required. The law mandates that the petition must be signed by a number of qualified electors equal to at least ten percent (10%) of the number of votes cast for the office of Governor at the last preceding general election. To determine the required number of signatures for a hypothetical initiative in Idaho, we first need to know the number of votes cast for Governor in the most recent general election. Let’s assume, for the purpose of this question, that the number of votes cast for Governor in the last preceding general election in Idaho was 450,000. Therefore, the minimum number of valid signatures required would be 10% of 450,000. Calculation: \(0.10 \times 450,000 = 45,000\). This calculation demonstrates the direct application of Idaho’s constitutional provision for citizen-initiated legislation. Understanding this percentage requirement is crucial for assessing the viability of a proposed ballot measure and ensuring compliance with state election laws, which are designed to balance direct democracy with the need for substantial public support. The Idaho Legislature also has specific rules regarding the format and submission of initiative petitions, including requirements for circulators and verification processes.

The question pertains to the Idaho Open Meeting Law, specifically concerning the proper procedure for executive sessions. Idaho Code § 67-2345 outlines the conditions under which a public agency may convene in an executive session. It specifies that a majority of the members must be present, and the session must be called to order by the presiding officer. Furthermore, the motion to enter executive session must state the specific purpose for which the session is being called, and this purpose must be one of the enumerated exceptions in the law. These exceptions include discussions related to personnel matters, pending litigation, real property acquisition, or other sensitive topics where public disclosure would be detrimental to the public interest. Crucially, no action may be taken in executive session; its purpose is solely for deliberation and discussion. Following the executive session, the agency must reconvene in open session to take any necessary action. Therefore, a motion to enter executive session for “strategic planning” without further specificity, especially if it involves discussing matters not covered by the statutory exceptions, would be improper under Idaho law. The law requires a clear and specific reason tied to the statutory allowances for executive sessions.

The Idaho Constitution, specifically Article II, Section 1, establishes the principle of separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. This article vests legislative power in the Legislature, executive power in the Governor, and judicial power in the Supreme Court and inferior courts. The question asks about the primary constitutional mechanism by which the Idaho Legislature exercises its oversight function over the executive branch, particularly concerning administrative rules and regulations. Idaho Code Title 67, Chapter 52, governs administrative procedure, including the promulgation and review of agency rules. Within this framework, the Legislative Council, through its Administrative Rules Committee, plays a crucial role. This committee is empowered to review proposed and existing agency rules for compliance with legislative intent and statutory authority. If the committee finds a rule to be inconsistent with legislative intent or exceeding statutory authority, it can recommend disapproval or suspension. The Legislature, in its subsequent session, can then act upon these recommendations, potentially leading to the amendment or repeal of the rule. This process is a direct manifestation of legislative oversight, ensuring that administrative agencies do not overstep their delegated authority and that their regulations align with the policy objectives set by the elected representatives of Idaho. The Idaho Legislature’s ability to review and potentially nullify administrative rules is a key check on executive branch power, ensuring accountability and adherence to democratic principles.

The Idaho Constitution, specifically Article VI, Section 1, outlines the qualifications for voting, stating that every citizen of the United States, of the age of eighteen years, who has resided in this state for six months and in the county wherein they claim the right to vote for thirty days, shall be a qualified elector. This foundational principle ensures that residency and citizenship are primary determinants of suffrage. Idaho law, as further elaborated in Idaho Code Title 34, Chapter 2, addresses voter registration and eligibility. The question probes the understanding of when a new resident in Idaho gains the right to vote after establishing domicile. Upon meeting the state residency requirement of six months and the county residency requirement of thirty days immediately preceding an election, an individual becomes eligible to vote. Therefore, an individual who moves to Idaho on March 1st would meet the six-month state residency requirement by September 1st and the thirty-day county residency requirement by August 1st, making them eligible to vote in any election held on or after September 1st, assuming they have also registered to vote in accordance with Idaho Code.

The Idaho Legislature’s authority to call a special session is primarily governed by the Idaho Constitution. Article IV, Section 9 of the Idaho Constitution grants the Governor the power to convene the Legislature in special session. The Governor may also call the Legislature into extraordinary session if the circumstances warrant it. However, the Constitution does not grant the Legislature itself the inherent power to unilaterally convene a special session without gubernatorial action. While the Legislature can pass resolutions or memorialize the Governor to call a special session on specific matters, the ultimate authority to initiate such a session rests with the executive branch. Therefore, a direct legislative act by the Idaho Legislature to convene itself without the Governor’s proclamation would be unconstitutional. The legislative branch’s role in special sessions is typically to address the specific agenda items outlined by the Governor in the call for the session. The question tests the understanding of the separation of powers and the constitutional framework for convening legislative sessions in Idaho, emphasizing the executive’s exclusive authority in initiating special sessions.

The Idaho Constitution, specifically Article VI, Section 1, outlines the qualifications for voting. It states that every citizen of the United States, of the age of eighteen years, who has resided in this state for six months and in the county where he or she offers to vote for thirty days next preceding the election, shall be a qualified elector. This foundational principle ensures that residency and citizenship are primary determinants of suffrage. Idaho law, consistent with federal mandates, also prohibits certain individuals from voting, such as those convicted of infamous crimes and not restored to citizenship. The question tests the understanding of these core eligibility requirements as established by Idaho’s constitutional framework for participation in democratic processes. The scenario presented involves a resident who meets the age and citizenship criteria but has only recently moved to a specific county within Idaho. Therefore, their eligibility hinges on fulfilling the county residency requirement, which is explicitly stated as thirty days.

The Idaho State Constitution, specifically Article III, Section 1, establishes the legislative power vested in the Idaho Legislature. This article also outlines the process for initiating legislation through the legislature itself. However, Idaho also provides for direct democracy mechanisms, allowing citizens to propose and vote on laws and constitutional amendments. The initiative process, as detailed in Idaho Code Title 34, Chapter 17, allows citizens to propose laws or constitutional amendments. To qualify a measure for the ballot, proponents must gather signatures from a percentage of registered voters. For a statutory initiative, 5% of the qualified electors who voted in the last general election are required. For a constitutional initiative, 10% of the qualified electors who voted in the last general election are needed. These signatures must be collected within a specific timeframe and verified by the Secretary of State. If a measure qualifies, it is then placed on the ballot for voter approval. The question asks about the *minimum* percentage of signatures required for a *statutory* initiative in Idaho. Therefore, the correct percentage is 5%.

The Idaho Constitution, specifically Article III, Section 1, establishes the legislative power of the state, vested in a legislature consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives. This section also outlines the process for proposing and enacting laws, including the role of the governor in signing or vetoing legislation. When a bill is passed by both houses of the Idaho Legislature, it is presented to the Governor. The Governor then has a specific timeframe to act. If the Governor signs the bill, it becomes law. If the Governor vetoes the bill, it is returned to the originating house with the objections. The legislature can override a gubernatorial veto with a two-thirds vote in each house. If the Governor does not act on a bill within a specified period (typically ten days, excluding Sundays, while the legislature is in session), the bill also becomes law without the Governor’s signature. This mechanism ensures that the legislative process can conclude even without explicit executive approval, provided the legislature has acted with sufficient consensus. Therefore, a bill presented to the Governor during a legislative session that is not signed or vetoed within the allotted time automatically becomes law.

The question probes the understanding of Idaho’s initiative and referendum processes, specifically concerning the signature verification and certification timeline for a proposed statewide ballot measure. Idaho Code §34-1806 outlines the procedures for submitting initiative petitions. After a petition is filed with the Secretary of State, they have 20 days to review it for compliance with constitutional and statutory requirements. If the Secretary of State deems the petition sufficient, they then transmit it to the county clerks for signature verification. Each county clerk has 10 days from receipt to verify the signatures against voter registration records. Once the county clerks complete their verification, they must report the results to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State then has 5 days to compile the results from all counties and determine if the required number of valid signatures has been met. The total maximum time from submission to the Secretary of State to the final certification decision by the Secretary of State, assuming the petition is initially deemed sufficient and county verification proceeds without delays beyond the statutory limits, is 20 days (initial review) + 10 days (county verification) + 5 days (final compilation) = 35 days. Therefore, the earliest a proponent could expect a definitive certification of a valid initiative petition, assuming all steps are completed within the maximum statutory timeframes, is 35 days after submission. This process is crucial for ensuring the integrity of direct democracy mechanisms in Idaho, safeguarding against fraudulent petitions while allowing citizens to propose legislation.

The scenario describes a situation where a local initiative in Idaho seeks to amend a zoning ordinance. The Idaho Constitution, specifically Article III, Section 1, outlines the power of the people to propose and enact laws through the initiative process. For a statewide initiative to qualify for the ballot, it must gather signatures equivalent to at least six percent of the voters who voted in the preceding general election for the office of Governor, with at least six percent of the signatures coming from voters in each of at least eighteen of the legislative districts. The question asks about the minimum number of legislative districts that must contribute signatures for a statewide initiative to be validly submitted under Idaho law. This directly relates to the constitutional requirement for signature distribution. Therefore, the correct answer is eighteen legislative districts. This ensures a broad geographic representation of support across the state, a core principle of the initiative process designed to prevent a few populous areas from dominating the outcome. Understanding this distribution requirement is crucial for anyone involved in ballot access efforts in Idaho, as failure to meet this threshold renders the initiative invalid regardless of the total number of signatures collected.

The Idaho Constitution, specifically Article VI, Section 4, addresses the qualifications for holding office. This section states that “No person shall be elected or appointed to any office unless such person be a qualified elector under the provisions of this article.” A qualified elector, as defined in Article VI, Section 2, must be a citizen of the United States, have resided in Idaho for six months, and in the county for thirty days, and be at least eighteen years of age. The question presents a scenario where a candidate meets all these basic requirements but has a prior felony conviction. Idaho law, consistent with federal trends and constitutional interpretations regarding disenfranchisement, generally restricts individuals with felony convictions from voting and holding office until their civil rights are restored. While specific restoration processes vary, the fundamental disqualification based on a felony conviction, unless explicitly restored, prevents an individual from being a “qualified elector” for the purpose of holding public office. Therefore, without evidence of restoration of civil rights, the candidate is ineligible.

The Idaho Constitution, specifically Article VI, Section 3, outlines the qualifications for holding public office, including the requirement of being a qualified elector. A qualified elector in Idaho is generally defined as a citizen of the United States, who has resided in the state for six months and in the county for thirty days preceding any election, and who is at least eighteen years of age. The question probes the understanding of how these residency requirements might interact with the specific scenario of a candidate seeking a county office. While a candidate might meet the general state residency requirement, the county-specific thirty-day residency is also a prerequisite for being a qualified elector within that county. Therefore, a candidate who has recently moved to Idaho, even if they have established residency in a particular county for less than the constitutionally mandated thirty days prior to the election, would not be a qualified elector for that county office. This principle ensures that individuals holding local office have a demonstrable connection to the community they seek to represent. The other options present scenarios that either misinterpret the duration of residency or confuse state and local residency requirements.

The Idaho Constitution, specifically Article III, Section 1, outlines the legislative power vested in the Legislature, consisting of a Senate and House of Representatives. However, it also reserves to the people the power to propose laws and to enact or reject laws at the polls independent of the Legislature. This is known as the initiative process. The Idaho Constitution further details requirements for initiatives. For a statutory initiative to qualify for the ballot, it must be signed by a number of voters equal to at least six percent of the qualified electors who voted at the last general election for which the results are known, and these signatures must be gathered from at least eighteen of the legislative districts in the state. Each of these eighteen districts must contribute signatures representing at least three percent of the qualified electors who voted at the last general election for which the results are known within that specific district. This multi-tiered signature requirement ensures broad geographic support across the state. A constitutional amendment initiative requires signatures from at least eight percent of the qualified electors, with at least five percent from each of twenty-one legislative districts. The question asks about the signature requirement for a statutory initiative. The calculation involves determining the base number of signatures required from the total electorate and then applying the district-specific minimums. Since the question does not provide specific election results, it tests the understanding of the *percentage* requirement and the *number of districts* for a statutory initiative. Therefore, the correct answer focuses on the six percent statewide and the eighteen-district requirement with a three percent minimum per district.

The Idaho Constitution, specifically Article II, Section 1, establishes the principle of separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. This division is fundamental to preventing any single branch from becoming too powerful and to ensure a system of checks and balances. The Idaho Legislature, as the law-making body, has the authority to enact statutes. The Governor, as the head of the executive branch, has the power to approve or veto legislation. The judiciary, through its power of judicial review, can interpret laws and determine their constitutionality. In this scenario, the legislature passed a bill that directly encroaches upon the Governor’s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws by mandating specific, non-discretionary actions in a manner that bypasses the executive’s established administrative processes. Such a legislative act would likely be challenged as an unconstitutional infringement on executive authority, violating the separation of powers doctrine enshrined in Idaho’s foundational law. The legislative branch cannot, through ordinary statute, usurp the inherent executive functions or dictate the minute details of executive branch operations in a way that removes all executive discretion.

The Idaho Constitution, specifically Article III, Section 1, grants the people the power to propose laws and to enact or reject laws passed by the legislature through the initiative and referendum processes. Idaho Code Title 34, Chapter 17, outlines the procedures for initiating legislation and the requirements for qualifying initiatives for the ballot, including the number of signatures needed from registered voters. For a statutory initiative to be placed on the ballot, it requires signatures from at least 6% of the qualified electors who voted in the last general election, with at least 6% of those voters residing in each of at least 18 of the state’s legislative districts. This ensures a broad geographic distribution of support. The process involves filing a notice of intent, drafting the initiative language, collecting signatures, and submitting them to the Secretary of State for verification. If the initiative qualifies, it is then presented to the voters at the next general election. The question focuses on the constitutional basis and the statutory requirements for this direct democracy mechanism in Idaho. The correct answer reflects the specific constitutional provision that reserves legislative power to the people.

The scenario involves the potential for a county in Idaho to adopt a new form of county government under Idaho Code Title 31, Chapter 2. Specifically, the question probes the procedural requirements for such a change. Idaho law, particularly within Title 31, outlines the process for counties to transition between different forms of county government, such as the traditional county commissioner system and alternative structures like the county executive or county manager systems. This process typically involves voter initiative or a resolution by the board of county commissioners, followed by a public hearing and, crucially, a vote by the electorate of the county. The threshold for initiating such a change through petition, the required notice periods for public hearings, and the majority vote necessary for adoption are all key elements governed by state statute. For a change to be legally enacted, all statutory procedural steps must be meticulously followed. Failure to adhere to these requirements, such as insufficient public notice or an improper petition, would render the adoption invalid. Therefore, the most fundamental requirement for a valid transition is adherence to the statutory procedural framework, which ensures democratic participation and legal validity. The question tests the understanding of this procedural prerequisite for governmental reform at the county level in Idaho.

The Idaho Constitution, specifically Article VI, Section 2, outlines the qualifications for voting. It states that every citizen of the United States, of the age of eighteen years, who has resided in this state for six months and in the county wherein he or she offers to vote for thirty days next preceding the election, shall be an elector. This establishes residency requirements for voting within Idaho. When considering potential challenges to a voter’s eligibility based on residency, the focus is on whether the individual has maintained a bona fide domicile in the state and the specific precinct where they are attempting to vote. The intent to remain in a place, coupled with the physical presence, forms the basis of establishing residency for voting purposes. Therefore, a voter’s declaration of intent to reside in a new county, combined with their physical presence and the absence of intent to return to their previous residence, would be the primary factors a county clerk would examine when verifying eligibility under Idaho law. This aligns with the principle that residency for voting is about establishing a permanent home.

The scenario involves a county in Idaho considering a local ordinance that restricts the types of campaign signs that can be displayed on private property during election periods. The core legal question revolves around whether such an ordinance infringes upon free speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as applied to states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and as interpreted by Idaho’s own constitutional provisions and relevant case law. Idaho, like all states, must balance the government’s interest in regulating certain aspects of speech with the fundamental right to express political views. Ordinances that regulate speech based on its content are subject to strict scrutiny, meaning the government must demonstrate a compelling interest and that the ordinance is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. If the ordinance is deemed content-neutral, it is subject to intermediate scrutiny, requiring a significant government interest and that the regulation is not substantially broader than necessary. In this case, an ordinance that dictates *what* messages can be conveyed (e.g., prohibiting signs supporting specific candidates or ballot measures) would likely be considered content-based. Conversely, an ordinance that regulates *how* signs are displayed (e.g., size, duration, placement) without regard to the message might be content-neutral. The Idaho Supreme Court, when interpreting the state constitution’s free speech protections, often looks to federal precedent but can provide broader protections. Without specific details on the ordinance’s provisions, it’s impossible to definitively categorize it. However, regulations on political speech, especially concerning elections, are highly scrutinized. The question asks about the *most likely* legal challenge based on common interpretations of free speech law. Regulations that ban specific political viewpoints or messages are generally unconstitutional. Regulations that impose time, place, and manner restrictions, if content-neutral and narrowly tailored, are more likely to be upheld. Given the nature of campaign signs, which are inherently political speech, any ordinance that restricts the *message* of these signs rather than their *physical characteristics* would face significant constitutional hurdles. The most direct and common challenge to such a restriction would be that it violates the freedom of speech by impermissibly restricting political expression.