Harwood’s plan was to have it sent to print but not go any further, thus putting it up on the Legislature’s website in hopes that other states could access it and begin a process of coming together to fight the EPA.

Rep. Pete Nielsen, R-Mountain Home, proposed a motion to send the bill to print, citing the 10^th Amendment and the commerce clause within it. This led to some harsh words from Rep. Eric Anderson,R-Priest Lake. Anderson felt that the bill was flawed and that it would reflect badly on the legislative body and him personally. He asked that the committee chairman, Rep. Dell Raybould, R-Rexburg, be careful of the precedent and image to the committee if such legislation is approved.

Said Anderson, “We’re putting our name on something that is admittedly a wrong piece of legislation … This is a precedent, Mr. Chairman, that I think is so full of flaws. This particular piece of legislation … it gives us a conversation piece, but it sets a precedent here that we, I have never been involved with in my life. Any other committee we would be dissecting this, we would be taking this and saying ‘well you know on page 2, line 35 this is impossible to do.’ At the very least this would go to the amending order.”

Anderson believes that to just send a bill to print to bring up discussion is not the right way to do things especially, in his eyes, if the legislation is flawed. “My thoughts, to the sponsor, would be if you want something to go on the Internet let’s make sure that it is much more defined than this. This is nullification junior if all we’re doing is having a statement here that we’re unhappy with federal law. No one is happy with certain elements of federal law and federal dominion,” said Anderson. “I understand that, I get that. I don’t think anybody on this committee doesn’t have some frustration with that.”

The representative found it personally offensive to link his name to this kind of legislation. “I am not going to do a shotgun blast with my name on it out to the Internet that I agreed with this piece of legislation. I won’t do it. To me, this defines who I am, and who I am, by the maker of the motion, is somebody that doesn’t believe in the 10th Amendment, by somebody’s opinion, then so be it. I personally do believe in the 10th Amendment. But, I believe there’s a way to get there. I believe it needs to be judicial, it needs to be properly done. Because all we are doing is yelling in the wind and I don’t care if 12 other states can start to have a discourse or whatever.”

Anderson continued, “I can’t put my name on this. This defines me and I disagree with so much of how this is presented. This is a rejection of federal law. I can’t go there. I will not support the motion to print the way this is today, and I think it does set a precedent, Mr. Chairman, that we’re just going to print whatever just to get some dialogue going.”

Harwood believes that since the EPA was formed under an executive order by President Richard Nixon, it should only apply to federal lands, not the state ofIdaho. Instead, Harwood believes that Idaho’s Department of Environmental Quality should be in charge of setting and maintaining environmental regulations within the state, including regulations dealing with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act—both federal regulations.

Harwood also echoed comments he made to IdahoReporter.com in 2011, when he said that we (the state and its citizens) need to get back to following the Constitution and that this bill would be a step in the right direction, at least to get the conversation started.

A substitute motion was made to send the bill back to its sponsor, which Anderson supported. Once it passed, Anderson had more to say about the committee and the proceedings thus far this session. “I just would like to make this point to you, Mr. Chairman, that historically this has been my favorite committee and I have seen a lot of good things happen on this committee. This year has been a bit peculiar to me. I am not going to attend this committee and have a civics lesson every time I come here about my misunderstanding of the 10th Amendment and somebody else’s more appropriate understanding. I think it’s out of order …”

The measure, sponsored by Rep. Julie Ellsworth, R-Boise, would have made several changes to income tax forms, including putting bold wording around theuse tax box, which is used to report taxes on all out-of-state purchases.  The bill would have also ordered the Idaho State Tax Commission to put a table on income tax forms projecting Internet sales taxes due based on income levels.

Idahoans are legally obligated to pay sales taxes on Internet purchases, but many don’t because they don’t know about the law or simply choose to skip reporting at income tax time.  There are no mechanisms for accurately gauging how much Idahoans should pay.  That means that citizens must be on the honor system in reporting the tax.

The self-reporting system, Ellsworth explained, has led Idaho losing out on millions of dollars in tax revenue annually.  “There’s a lack of compliance with the use tax,” said Ellsworth. “We want to find a way that you get more compliance. There’s a general lack of understanding what the use tax is.”

It’s estimated that Idaho could bring in upward of $30 million annually by collecting taxes on Internet purchases.  Ellsworth said the average Idaho consumer should be paying about $69 for online purchases to the state each year.

Another change included allowing the tax commission to reject or delay all income tax forms that don’t have an entry in the use tax box.  That provision drew the ire of the Ken McClure, representing the Idaho Society of Certified Public Accountants, who said that only 8,000 of the approximately 600,000 income tax forms filed each year have entries for payment of use tax.

With such a high number not in compliance, McClure pointed out, it would be difficult for the commission to handle the workload.  “You might create pandemonium at the tax commission,” said McClure. “I think you’re not going to like the results.”

Many committee members felt that the bill would cause confusion for citizens and more work for the commission.  Rep. Dell Raybould, R-Rexburg, said the measure could force more Idahoans to go through costly audits.  “It looks like we are creating a hobgoblin here for the tax commission,” said Raybould.  “It looks to me like this is creating something that taxpayers don’t need to go through.”

But not all panel members opposed the measure.  Rep. Scott Bedke, R-Oakley, said the bill would help close tax shortfalls in the future and could even mean some tax relief.  “Maybe we could lower everybody’s taxes,” said Bedke.

Rep. Grant Burgoyne, D-Boise, said that a tax system should promote fairness and that the current system does not achieve that.  “The way things are now is unfair to the taxpayers who already pay the tax,” said Burgoyne.  “The system depends on voluntary compliance. If we don’t have voluntary compliance, the system falls apart.”

This is the second effort to move toward collection of Internet sales taxes killed this year.  Rep. Leon Smith, R-Twin Falls, brought a bill to help Idaho enter into a national consortium dedicated to developing tax policy to allow collection of the tax, but it never received a full committee hearing.

The measure, sponsored by Rep. Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, is the result of several months of work with stakeholder groups, including insurance companies, the Idaho Sheriff’s Association, and prosecutors across the state.

Members of the House voted 21-48 to kill the measure due to concerns that language might not be concise enough to prevent texting behind thewheel.

The bill would have prevented drivers from using cell phones to send text messages, update Facebook or Twitter, or do anything else that would prevent them from exercising “due care” behind the wheel.  Officers would have been able to stop someone they suspect of texting while driving and issue a $75 fine if they believe the law had been violated.

The measure said that if distracted driving caused by use a hand-held mobile device contributed to an accident, the penalty would have been hiked to up to $300 and 90 days in jail.

It could have been possible, however, that drivers could still text or use mobile devices behind the wheel, as long as they were not exercising unsafe driving habits.

The measure wouldn’t have been exclusive to cell phones.  It’s possible that a driver could have been cited for using an electronic toothbrush if there has been distracted driving.  “It’s not about the device, it’s about the change in the behavior of the driver,” said Hagedorn. “Texting never killed anybody.  Their behavior killed somebody. Distracted driving kills people.”

Rep. Wendy Jaquet, D-Ketchum, said that the language of the bill might not be adequate.  “It’s not comprehensive enough yet,” she said of the plan.  “I don’t think this bill does enough.”

Idaho has two laws to prevent bad driving on Idaho roadways – reckless driving and inattentive driving – but those are both misdemeanors and Hagedorn said prosecution of those could be difficult in court.

Rep. Rich Wills, R-Glenns Ferry, a former law enforcement official, says police officers would be capable of finding and stopping distracted drivers.  “What’s happening with the driving pattern?” he asked.  “That’s what the officer would look at.”

Rep. Lynn Luker, R-Boise, said that the focus on texting is too narrow.  “If we wanted a true distraction infraction, then we should just call it that,” argued Luker, who said he would like to see a bill that includes distracted driving caused by hamburgers, makeup, or changing stations on the radio.

Rep. Dell Raybould, R-Rexburg, said that bill is too ambiguous and that anyone talking on a cell phone could be subject to a $75 fine. “I’m totally opposed to texting while driving, but that isn’t what the bill says,” said Raybould, who argued that those talking on cell phones are less distracted than those who are texting.  “Because of the ambiguity in this, I’ve going to have to vote ‘no’ on this.”

This is the third anti-texting bill killed by the House in the past two years.  House members voted down one measure last year because they felt it couldn’t be enforced and another died because lawmakers felt it went too far with penalties.

Hart, after beating two ethics charges levied against him earlier this year, is now facing a third complaint, but this time from a member of his own party.  Rep. Eric Anderson, R-Priest Lake, sent a letter Friday to Speaker of the House Lawerence Denney, R-Midvale, asking for a look into Hart’s past actions.

In Coeur d’Alene for the North Idaho 2010 Legislative Tour, Anderson told IdahoReporter.com Sunday that he wants to see Hart voluntarily resign or be forced out of the Idaho House of Representatives. “These are serious issues he needs to deal with,” said Anderson.  “His continued service does a disservice to the institution as a whole.”

Anderson, focusing on Hart’s 1996 theft of timber from state endowment lands, said that the miscues of the Athol Republican are a “huge stain upon the reputation on the Idaho House of Representatives and those who serve in that body.”  Also included in Anderson’s letter to Denney is a complaint about Hart’s highly-publicized tax woes, though those dealings were already examined by one ethics panel.

The grievance isn’t personal for Anderson.  “This isn’t about me, this is about my desire, my conviction, to see the institution sanctified and appreciated for what it actually is,” he explained.

But should Hart’s mistake in 1996 cost him his job nearly 15 years later? Denney, who has yet to issue a formal response to Anderson’s grievance, said that’s up to the committee.  “I have to appoint a committee and they will make the determination,” said Denney.

House Minority Leader John Rusche, D-Lewiston, asked Denney for an ethics investigations into Hart earlier this year based on accounts in the media of his failure to pay $500,000 in taxes to the federal and state governments.  Rusche contended that Hart used his status as a state legislator and a loophole in state code meant to protect legislators from political prosecution to evade litigation with the IRS and the Idaho State Tax Commission.  Rusche also alleged that Hart had a conflict of interest while sitting on the House Revenue and Taxation Committee while in legal proceedings with the commission.

The initial ethics panel didn’t agree and dismissed both charges.  The committee did, however, recommend on a unanimous vote that Denney strip Hart of his seat on the tax panel.  Starr Kelso, lawyer for Hart during ethics proceedings, blasted the panel for the ruling, contending that the seven legislators acted without proper authority. Denney has come to his decision on the matter, but has yet to reveal it.  It is expected he will release his ruling this week.

In alluding to the tax woes, Anderson asserted that Hart is violating his oath of office by arguing that the state and federal income taxes are unconstitutional.  Anderson said that Hart’s stance on this issue is “regarded as a clever means of tax avoidance aided by his position as an elected official.”  In addition, he charged that Hart is putting himself above his constituents.  “Our laws were made for all of us,” contended Anderson.

Neither Denney nor Hart have responded to Hart’s letter.  Denney is expected to meet with Hart within the next two days to discuss his future on the Revenue and Taxation Committee.  The speaker expects to use the four Republicans from the first ethics panel – Rep. Dell Raybould of Rexburg, Rep. Bert Stevenson of Rupert, Rep. Tom Loertscher of Iona, and Rep. Rich Wills of Glenn Ferry – for the second investigation.  “They know the issues and they will be able to finish quickly,” said Denney.

It is likely Democratic Reps. Wendy Jaquet of Ketchum and Bill Killen of Boise will return to serve on the panel after participating in the hearings for Rusche’s complaint.  The other member of the panel, Rep. George Sayler, D-Coeur d’Alene, retired from the House and Denney thinks it’s likely he will find another Democrat to take his place.

Hart made a $2,450 donation to the state’s endowment fund after the incident was reported and admitted that he made a mistake in judgment.

Gov. Butch Otter, Idaho state agency leaders, and all of Idaho’s members of Congress have panned a court decision putting wolves back on the endangered species list, and taken steps to urge federal official to resolve the situation.  Many of the state lawmakers at the meeting in Boise were unhappy with the current legal status of wolves, but uncertain of how they could respond.

“Isn’t there some kind of environmental group that we could enlist to protect the elk?” Rep. Dell Raybould, R-Rexburg, said, referring to the conservation groups that challenged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decision to remove wolves from the endangered species list.  Raybould also asked if any legislative steps could be taken in Boise.

Representatives from the governor’s office and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) said they’re doing all they can to bring back state management of wolves.  The governor’s attorney, David Hensley, said the state would send the draft of a new memorandum of agreement to the U.S. Department of the Interior to outline how the state would handle wolves until they are delisted.

“One of the most frustrating aspects with this is that the problems really lie in federal law,” Hensley said.

Sen. Jeff Siddoway, R-Terreton, said the state should look into adopting one of the tactics of the environmental groups challenging federal decisions.  “Our legislative approach to try to address the wolf delisting again in there may be an opportunity for us to file federal suit against the government,” he said.  Siddoway, a sheep rancher, said Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming all have more wolves than the 10 packs that were set as the threshold for being on the endangered list.  “Now we’ve got packs up the ying-yang,” he said.

IDFG Policy Director Sharon Kiefer also provided lawmakers with an update on its management of wolves.  So far this year, 132 wolves have been killed, with 46 harvested by hunters.  Wolves have killed 172 sheep and cattle.  That livestock depredation total is on pace to be less than last year, when wolves killed 385 animals.

“We do believe the hunting season as well as the aggressive control action by wildlife services has benefitted that reduction,” Kiefer said about the drop in wolf depredation.

Hart was cleared of two ethics complaints against him – one at an earlier committee meeting and one Wednesday – but members of the ethics panel felt that Hart’s ongoing legal case against the Idaho State Tax Commission could prove to be a conflict-of-interest for a member a House committee tasked with writing tax code.   The commission and the Internal Revenue Service say Hart owes more than $700,000 in back taxes, fees, and interest, but he is fighting that amount. The commission recently ruled against Hart in the matter, but the Athol Republican has filed a motion to reconsider.  If that motion is not approved, it is possible Hart could take his battle to district court.

Kelso, in a letter to media outlets, rejects the committee’s ruling.  ”Any purported action taken by the Ethics Committee regarding Mr. Hart, such as recommending that he no longer serve on the House Revenue and Taxation Committee, has no basis in law or procedure and exceeds the Committee’s authority under Rule 76,” wrote Kelso.  Brian Kane, deputy attorney general, told committee members Wednesday that a recommendation was within the committee’s scope of power.

During Wednesday’s meeting, Rep. Dell Raybould, R-Rexburg, with the panel’s approval, offered Hart a way out of the mess. Raybould asked Hart to voluntarily resign from the tax committee.  Hart rejected the offer, and countered with a proposal that he would meet with the Idaho speaker of the House and members of the tax committee to discuss the issue.  Kelso says that is still in Hart’s future.  ”The committee was advised that Rep. Hart would voluntarily discuss his membership on the Revenue and Taxation Committee with the Speaker of the Idaho House, and he will do so,” said Kelso.

Hart has maintained through the process that he has correctly filed his taxes in the past.  Wednesday’s letter from Kelso was no exception.  ”Since January 2005 Mr. Hart has paid over ONE HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSANDDOLLARS ($120,000.00) in taxes. Mr. Hart believes that when the law is applied to the facts it will be determined that he has overpaid his income taxes,” concluded Kelso.

The committee will send its recommendation in a letter to Speaker of the House Lawerence Denney, R-Midvale, who has the final say in determining Hart’s fate.  Denney can choose to accept the committee’s proposal or ignore it completely.

Read about the panel’s decision here or read Kelso’s full response here.

Hart is being investigated after a writer from the Spokesman Review revealed that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has filed more than $300,000 in liens against the north Idaho lawmaker.  The panel, with its initial meet-up slated for Tuesday, will look into whether Hart has violated House ethics rules in the situation.  Reports have surfaced that Hart used a loophole in state law – a provision which prevents Idaho lawmakers from being arrested or served during legislation session – to avoid IRS inquiry into his finances many times, including his first year in the Idaho House in 2006.

The controversy started with a post on Durst’s blog penned by the Boise lawmaker last week.  Durst criticized almost every aspect of the Republican makeup of the panel, including the geographic, professional, and political leanings of majority members.  Durst said that because each Republican member of the panel served as committee chairman during the 2010 legislative, it could lead to a highly partisan decision when the final judgment is rendered on Hart.   “This is significant because it means that all of the majority members on the panel are fiercely loyal to the Speaker. I am not saying this is going to have an impact, but I do believe it is worth noting,” wrote Durst, who is looking to jump from the House to the Senate in November.

Denney thinks Durst should check with House rules before releasing critical comments.  ”I want to set the record straight,” said Denney.  ”House rules dictate that I must choose from committee chairmen.”  Durst said the professional makeup of the panel, consisting of three ranchers or farmers, was also a concern.  He said that Denney should have looked to Republicans Leon Smith, R-Twin Falls, or Lynn Luker, R-Boise, to serve because of their past work experience in the legal fields.  Denney pointed to the House rule that prevented those two men from serving.  ”While Smith and Luker would have been very good choices, neither is a committee chairman.”

In fact, Denney is bound by House Rule 76, which states that “The majority party members of the committee shall be selected from among the chairmen of committees of reference of the House.”  There is no designated formula on how Denney was supposed to select three Democrats to serve, except that the speaker must take recommendations from the minority leader.  Denney, however, can choose to ignore those suggestions and go his own way.  House rules only dictate that thespeaker should select “from among the members of the House who are senior in service and experience.”  Denney tapped Rep. Wendy Jaquet, D-Ketchum, to serve as vice chairman for the panel.  Jaquet is one of the most-tenured Democrats in the House, having served since 1994.  Joining Jaquet are Reps. Bill Killen, D-Boise, and George Sayler, D-Coeur d’Alene, who have served since 2007 and 2002, respectively.

Denney explained that of the chairmen available to serve – there are 14 – the four he chose – Reps. Tom Loertscher, R-Iona, Rich Wills, R-Glenns Ferry, Dell Raybould, R-Rexburg, and Bert Stevenson, R-Rupert – were the ones who were willing to take on the task of investigating Hart.   Denney commended the four men, saying that they will be fair to Hart, and are four chairmen who are “good, respected, and experienced legislators.”

The investigation comes after a writer for the Spokesman Review revealed that Hart used his status as a representative, beginning in his first year in service, to keep tax collectors at bay.  A provision in the Idaho Constitution prevents lawmakers from being arrested or served during session, a loophole which Hart has used several times.  The writer found that Hart had more than $300,000 in liens placed against him by the IRS and that he has been delinquent in paying property taxes several times.

Denney called on state Rep. Tom Loerstcher, R-Iona, to chair the panel, while tapping Rep. Wendy Jaquet, D-Ketchum, to serve as the vice chairman.  Reps. Bert Stevenson, R-Rupert, Dell Raybould, R-Rexburg, and Rich Wills, R-Glenn Ferry, will also represent the majority party on the ethics committee.  Reps. George Sayler, D-Coeur d’Alene, and Bill Killen, D-Boise, will sit for the minority party.  Denney expressed faith in the panel to come to the right conclusion.  ”I have full confidence in the Idaho House process and in the capable and experienced members I have selected for this committee. It is important for both the House and for Rep. Hart to have this matter resolved quickly and in a fair, even-handed manner.”

Because the House is not in session, Denney explained, there will be no action regarding his seat on the House Revenue and Taxation Committee, the group of lawmakers tasked with setting tax policy in the state.

Hart said that he welcomes the investigation, which was called for by House Minority Leader John Rusche, D-Lewiston.

The Idaho State Republican Convention passed two dozen resolutions spanning a variety of policy topics.  The resolutions along with the party platform, took up most of the official business of the convention.  The resolutions will be distributed to Republican state lawmakers, some of whom voiced their concerns for the proposals that are now part of the party agenda.

“I opposed almost all of them,” said Senate President Pro Tem Bob Geddes, R-Soda Springs.  “Many of those resolutions send a message, but they certainly can’t be contemplated that they can be implemented as the party has proposed them.”  Geddes said many of the proposals show Idaho Republicans’ dissatisfaction with the federal government.

Many resolutions were deemed uncontroversial and passed without debate by the full convention.  Those included plans supporting Arizona’s new illegal immigration legislation, opposing any federal health care mandate, and calling the notion that carbon dioxide is a pollutant “junk science.”

Other ideas approved by the convention include charging inmates in state prisons for their room and board, not requiring citizens to get permits to carry a concealed weapon, and allowing Idaho citizens to pay their taxes with gold or silver.

“We are pushing for state sovereignty and state’s rights,” said Chris Stevens, a former legislative candidate from Pocatello who served on the committee that approved the resolutions.

Some resolutions failed

The convention delegates rejected just two of the 24 resolutions.  One would have asked state lawmakers to set up an unregulated militia.  Guy Mongan, the chair of the Butte County Republican Party backed the plan, saying it would assist the state during disasters.

“It’s to be an all-volunteer organization to assist the state of Idaho, especially when the National Guard is called from the state,” he said.

Opponents said the plan could cost the state money during difficult economic times.

The other unsuccessful resolution would have thwarted future attempts by the Idaho Public Charter School Commission to remove a school’s charter if it faces economic hardship.  The commission revoked Nampa Classical Academy’s charter on Thursday.

Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna, a proponent of charter schools, opposed the plan because it would hold charter schools to a different standard than traditional public schools.  “We have to hold all schools accountable at the same level of accountability, in good times and bad,” Luna said.

Reaction from lawmakers

Several Republican state lawmakers pleaded with delegates to say no to a resolution opposing two constitutional amendments that will be on the November election ballot.  The amendments would allow publicly-backed airports and hospitals to incur debt without requiring a public vote.

Rep. Dell Raybould, R-Rexburg, said that the resolution is like sticking their finger in the eyes of Republican lawmakers that voted for the amendments.  Both the Idaho House and Senate approved the amendments by a two-thirds majority.

Supporters of the resolution said that citizens should get to vote on whether public entities take on debt, which is the current requirement.  House Speaker Lawrence Denney, R-Midvale, said lawmakers vetted the issue, and that taxpayers wouldn’t be on the hook to repay any debt that a hospital or airport sustains.

Denney said that while not all the resolutions are practical, they inform state lawmakers of how the party’s base feels.  “There are some that we can probably act on, and there are some that we probably can’t,” he said.

The plan pitched by the duo of lawmakers would have created a conservation permit that would have served as an additional revenue stream for the department.  Individuals or families wishing to participate in activities, such as picnicking or bird-watching, would have been required to purchase the permit, which the sponsors said would help the department pay for maintenance and operations of parks and campground.  The cost of the permit would have been $10, but families who purchased it would have only needed one permit for an entire group of family members.  Children would not have been required to purchase permits.  Out-of-state residents would have been charged $20 for each permit.

Anyone caught on fish and game land without one of the permits – conservation, trapping, hunting, or fishing – would be cited by department officials, though Boyle said during implementation of the program, which she estimated to be about a year-long process, no one would receive a citation.  Boyle noted that the in the first year of the program, fish and game officials will spend time educating the public about the new requirements.

For Hagedorn and Boyle, the permit was about leveling the paying field.  The duo argued that though hunters and fishermen pay to use state land by purchasing hunting and fishing licenses, those who utilize the land for other activities pay nothing while putting a burden on department officials.

Rexburg Republican Dell Raybould rejected that notion, saying that hunting and fishing permits are all about “the take.”  He told lawmakers that that difference between established permits and the proposed permit is that hunters and fishermen typically reap some benefit in using their licences, usually in the form of a dead animal or fish to take home.  Raybould added that conservation permits would provide no such benefits for resident.

“What are they going to take?” asked Raybould.  ”A picture?”

House Assistant Minority Leader James Ruchti, D-Pocatello, said the permits fly in the face of what it means to be an Idahoan.  He told lawmakers that he feels that living in Idaho is synonymous with being in the outdoors, and that the permit would place unneeded barriers for those wishing to use public lands.

Rep. Lenore Hardy Barrett, R-Challis, offered the most critical testimony of the legislation during the lengthy floor debate.  Barrett, not one to beat around the bush on issues, scolded representatives for trying to raise taxes through the permit in tough economic times.

“Money is tight for everybody, not just government,” said Barrett, adding that lawmakers often “sneak in the backdoor and raise fees” to generate addition revenue.  Barrett also joined with Raybould in decrying the perceived lack of value associated with the permit by inviting lawmakers to her home in Challis, from which, she says, she can see wildlife in her backyard.