“While we may not be the first in Idaho to take this step, we are leading this issue in the Treasure Valley as a way to keep our roads safe for all who travel,” wrote Mayor Tammy DeWeerd in a Nov. 9, 2010, blog post on the city site.

More than a year later, there doesn’t seem to be a way to tell if the law has helped in the way of safety.

Elizabeth Ashworth, crime analyst for the city, told IdahoReporter.com Tuesday that Meridian police officers handed out 44 citations for texting while driving between Nov. 1, 2010 – when the ban went into effect – and Oct. 31, 2011.

Because the city doesn’t track the citations after they are issued, Ashworth is unaware how many of the 44 resulted in convictions.

While some onlookers might judge the effectiveness of a texting ban by the number of tickets written, others look at crash data for proof of the law’s successfulness. But anyone wanting that data would have trouble getting it because it just doesn’t exist – yet.

“The state just recently began to track the texting citations in connection with traffic collisions,” wrote Ashworth in an email to IdahoReporter.com. “I’m hoping that by next year, we will have the ability to query this information.”

House Transportation Chairman Joe Palmer, a Republican fromMeridian, says he doesn’t feel safer on his city’s streets because of the law, but is interested in how effective it’s been.  “Until we see all the data, we don’t know what impact the ordinance has had,” Palmer said Tuesday.

But one texting ban backer, Rep. Phylis King, D-Boise, says that simply having the law on the books is a somewhat effective deterrent. “I think just being able to get the word out is helpful,” King said. “I still think the law has some effect, regardless of convictions.”

Still, she says, it would be nice to have the collision data. “It would be interesting,” she concluded.

Meridianis one of a few cities inIdahoto ban texting. Twin Falls outlawed the practice in October 2010 and handed out five citations in the law’s first year.

Under consideration is designating seat belt violations as a primary offense in all cases, rather than a secondary violation. Seat belt laws are divided into two categories: primary and secondary. Primary seat belt laws allow law enforcement officers to ticket a driver for not wearing a seat belt, without any other traffic offense taking place. Secondary seat belt laws state that law enforcement officers may issue a ticket for not wearing a seat belt only when there is another citable traffic infraction.

Thirty-two states currently list seat belt violations as a primary offense. Idaho is one of the remaining states where it is a secondary violation, though there is a provision in Idaho for it being a primary violation for younger drivers and/or passengers.

Supporters of raising the fine believe it will result in more seat belt usage, thus reducing injuries and deaths in an accident. In a study done by the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, it concluded that by making a seat belt violation a primary violation, seat belt usage increased 12 percent in two years and motor vehicle occupant fatalities decreased by 13 percent in that time span.

Arguments against mandatory seat belt laws for adults are normally philosophical. Libertarian economist Walter Williams of George Mason University says in the name of “no logical end to laws that replace individual judgment with politically-mandated notions of what risks we are and are not allowed to take, if it is desirable to the state to control individuals while driving,” then why not expand it to “eating, working, and seeing the doctor … Without a principled and uncompromising defense of the individual’s right to own his life, we are reduced to being property of the omnipotent State, being permitted to live only at the mercy of a bureaucrat’s decision” of what is good and bad.

According to Rep. Phylis King, D-Boise, the current seat belt fine of $10 does not cover the costs associated with the fine. “The $61.50 would cover what is necessary with court costs, and other costs associated with not wearing a seat belt. This (proposed legislation) is just about making the playing field even.”

In 2010, the House Ways and Means Committee heard testimony from Rep. Richard Willis, R-Glenns Ferry, who proposed legislation to raise seat belt fines. The raise was estimated by Willis to generate around $705,000, though the Idaho Transportation Department said the generated revenue would be around $1,037,000.

King said there was a time when Idaho was in line for money from the federal government if it changed the seat belt law to a primary offense, but “that time has come and passed. It’s all about safety now.”

She said the study from Washington is a good example for Idaho and potential legislation to increase the fine. “The study in Washington shows use of seat belts helps with safety. We can sort of extrapolate that and apply it to Idaho.”

While the legislation is in the works, King is not sure if it will be brought during this next legislative session. “I’m not sure if it will be brought or not. The current Legislature will see it as an increase (in revenue) and nothing more, even though it’s just leveling the playing field.”

That’s according to financial and ridership documents turned over to IdahoReporter.com by the agency. The data shows that when someone takes a ride on a VRT bus in the Boise area, the fare is combined with about $23 in local and federal taxpayer support.

While that number may seem large, the taxpayer subsidy in the Nampa area is a bit bigger. According to records, taxpayers spent about $25 per rider in fiscal year 2010, which ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Mark Carnopis, VRT spokesman, isn’t bothered by the subsidies for public transit. “We basically put the services out on the road that we can afford,” Carnopis explained. “Subsidies are a way of life for public transportation, as it is for roads and highways.”

One Treasure Valley lawmaker, Rep. Phylis King, D-Boise, says the service VRT provides is worth the cost to taxpayers.  “We want to get people out of their cars,” she said.  “Then we won’t have to build more highways.” She also said that greater use of public transit means less reliance on foreign oil.

But should taxpayers be subsidizing riders? King thinks the agency is doing the best it can with the money it has.  “It’s an option we should have for our citizens,” she concluded.

Meridian Republican Rep. Marv Hagedorn wouldn’t come down on the agency for its heavy subsidies, but said that local control is key.  “I think the citizens need to decide if it’s something they want to pay for,” Hagedorn told IdahoReporter.com.

Hagedorn said that local communities have the right to subsidize transit systems if citizens desire it, but said riders should pay as much of the costs of ridership as possible.

But Carnopis argues that raising fares to force riders to pay for the services isn’t a viable option.  “We could raise fares, but that really impacts many of our riders who are on fixed incomes and are transit dependent,” said Carnopis. “Fare increases always result in lower ridership. It would be prohibitive to raise fares to the point where it would pay a majority of a transit system’s operating costs.”

He added that the agency provides the essentials and nothing more.  “I do know we are a lean and mean transit system, and there is not a lot of waste in our budget,” Carnopis said.  “As community relations manager, I interact with the public a lot and I can tell you that a lot of our patrons do not have any other transportation options.”

The numbers for 2010 may be artificially high, however, due to stimulus dollars taken by the agency in 2010. According to a Boise City press release dated June 29, 2009, VRT received $8.4 million in stimulus funds.  A good share of the funds were used to purchase eight buses, but some of the money went to operating expenses.

With the federal money included, in 2010 the Boise route cost taxpayers $28.3 million.  The route took in $760,400 in direct revenue, generated from bus fares and advertising agreements.  In fiscal year 2011, the amount budgeted for Boise dropped to about $17.5 million. The loss of the stimulus funds and lower local funding sources accounted for the agency’s revenue drop in 2011.

Boise saw 1,194,216 riders in 2010, much higher than Nampa’s 213,026.  Nampa’s ridership figure included 85,285 patrons on the inter-county route that runs between Ada and Canyon counties.

The Nampa circuit cost taxpayers $5.4 million in 2010 and generated $182,000 in ticket fares and advertising dollars. In 2011, VRT budgeted $6.4 million in revenues.

The per-rider subsidies don’t include $3.7 million VRT spent on planning and support in 2010.  In all, the agency spent $37.1 million and generated about $942,000 in ticket sales and advertising dollars.

The agency is funded through a combination of ticket sales and federal and local dollars. Federal money comprised $26.6 million of the agency’s 2010 budget.

VRT set a budget of $28.5 million for fiscal year 2011, which ends Sept. 30. The agency plans to take in at least $27.3 million in revenue from fares, advertising and local and federal monies, though it is not yet known how much of that will be ticket sales. This year, the average monthly ridership is up slightly for the Boise route and down for the Nampa circuit.

With the federal money not included in the budget, the subsidy amount for the Boise system falls, while the Nampa figure climbs.  Based on average monthly ridership, each rider on the Boise route is subsidized with $14 in federal and local taxpayer support.

In Nampa, each rider costs taxpayers $31 in 2011 because of projected lower ridership and a higher budget than 2010.

View VRT’s 2010 revenue and expense report here, its 2011 budget here, and its ridership numbers here.

Picture from TreasureValleyinMotion.org.

The measure, sponsored by Rep. Jeff Thompson, R-Idaho Falls, passed on a 47-21 vote.

The bill would provide $209 million in state funding for public universities and colleges in fiscal year 2012.  That amount is a $7.6 million reduction from fiscal year 2011.

Though state support dropped, budgets for universities and colleges increased by about 5 percent, thanks to the addition of various dedicated funding measures, including student fees.  In fiscal year 2011, this budget received $377.6 million in total funding, a number that will jump to $396.7 million in fiscal year 2012.

Many lawmakers said that the budget will lead to higher tuition and the exodus of good professors to higher-paying institutions of higher education.

GOP Rep. Tom Trail of Moscow said that Idaho is becoming a “minor league” of education and that talented teachers are not interested in staying in the Gem State for the long haul.  “We are just not adequately supporting higher education,” said Trail.

Rep. Phylis King, D-Boise, pointed out that businesses often open new operations in areas of the country that are able to provide an educated workforce.  With continual education cuts, King argued, businesses might we wary to move to the Gem State.  “We are not providing that [an educated workforce] when we cut education,” said King.

Rep. Grant Burgoyne, D-Boise, said “our best and brightest are leaving us” because of cuts.  He said that the state is not funding enough education to keep up with the global economy.  “America must be No. 1, but we are not doing our job,” said Burgoyne.

The bill was pulled back from the floor into committee last Friday by Rep. Maxine Bell, R-Jerome, one of the co-chairs of the panel.  Bell told IdahoReporter.com that she felt she didn’t have enough votes in the House to pass the legislation.

Several members of the House believed that the state shouldn’t accept federal money because it might come with strings attached.  The new bill still calls for research of health insurance exchanges, but $500,000 in dedicated funds will be used for the project.

The vote on the measure came immediately after lawmakers approved a bill to prevent the state from implementing discretionary provisions of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).  House Minority Leader John Rusche, D-Lewiston, said it is odd that the House would stand against the PPACA in one vote and support a part of the act in another.  “It just doesn’t make any sense to me to do that,” said Rusche.

Rep. Brian Cronin, D-Boise, said not taking federal money to develop the exchanges is “utterly foolish.”

The measure passed 53-15.  GOP Reps. Tom Trail of Moscow and Dick Hardwood of St. Maries joined all 13 House Democrats in opposition to the measure.

The measure passed the House on a 57-10 vote.

Floor sponsor Rep. Brent Crane, R-Nampa, said that about 7,200 residents of Canyon County have been forced to pay for auto registrations a second time after failing an emissions test.  “There are some flaws in the system,” said Crane.

He said that the handling of emissions testing in Canyon County, which began in 2010, has been botched on many levels, but that his measure would clarify the process.  “We’re trying to get people to test their cars, we are not trying to penalize them,” Crane said.

Rep. Phylis King, D-Boise, said the bills has some issues, including the absence of timelines for owners to get cars fixed.  “There are some things that need to be fixed in this bill,” said King.

Rep. Grant Burgoyne, D-Boise, opposed the bill, saying that there is a cost to the state to reinstate vehicle registrations and that citizens or the county should foot the bill.  Burgoyne noted that though Ada County requires emissions testing, there have been no reports of double-charging for registrations.

Crane said the emissions testing in the two neighboring counties are being handled by two different entities, leading to the double-charging in Canyon County.

Legislators from Canyon County came out with strong support of the  bill. Rep. Gayle Batt, R-Wilder, said that double-charging is unfair.  “We’re paying for something  we’ve already paid for,” said Batt.

Rep. Darrel Bolz, R-Caldwell, said the bill prevents unneeded financial burdens for his constituents.  “These people are paying twice for the registrations of their vehicles,” said Bolz.  “Why should this be imposed on them?”

The measure now heads to the Idaho Senate for consideration.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Vito Barbieri, R-Dalton Gardens, would prevent any discretionary provisions within the PPACA from being enacted in the Gem State.  The legislation defines discretionary as programs that could be implemented prior to July 1, 2012.

The measure passed the House on a 50-17 vote. GOP Reps. Tom Trail, Moscow, Leon Smith, Twin Falls, and Fred Wood, Burley, joined all 13 House Democrats in opposing the measure.

The measure would prevent state agencies from entering into agreements with the federal government stemming from the PPACA. Agencies would also not be allowed to accept federal money from health reforms. State departments could still implement parts of the PPACA if they show that it is required by the act.

The new measure does not challenge the authority or legality of the PPACA.

The bill would also give legal protection to Idaho employers and says that they have the option to offer health insurance to employees.

Rep. Phylis King, D-Boise, said the state should move forward with implementation of health reform provisions.  “This is the law of the land,” said King.  “We should move forward. We can’t deny this.” King said the PPACA offers many benefits to Gem State citizens.

There was no debate in favor of the bill, likely due to Democrats using procedural maneuvers to force some bills to be read at length on the House floor Wednesday.  Democrats are unhappy the GOP majority will not allow hearings on two bills, including one to hike the state’s cigarette tax.

This is the second bill of its kind.  An earlier version cleared the House, but members of the Senate State Affairs Committee killed the measure upon concerns that it might not be constitutional.  There is no firm indication of how the new measure will fare in the Senate this time, but Republican Senate Majority Leader Bart Davis of Idaho Falls says he supports the new version.

Note: Wayne Hoffman, head of the Idaho Freedom Foundation, helped craft this legislation. IdahoReporter.com is published by the Idaho Freedom Foundation.

The measure passed the committee on a 15-3 party-line vote, with Republicans supporting and Democrats opposing.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Vito Barbieri, R-Dalton Gardens, would prevent any discretionary provisions within the PPACA from being enacted in the Gem State.  The legislation defines discretionary as programs that could be implemented prior to July 1, 2012.

The measure would prevent state agencies from entering agreements stemming from the PPACA with the federal government.  Agencies would also not be allowed to accept federal money from health reforms. State departments could still implement parts of the PPACA if they show that it is required by the act.

The new measure does not challenge the authority or legality of the PPACA.

The bill would also give legal protection to Idaho employers and says that they have the option to offer health insurance to employees.

Wayne Hoffman, head of the Idaho Freedom Foundation, said that it is unfair that more than 20 states have filed legal challenges over the PPACA and are simultaneously being forced to implement the law.  “We have a law that is on dubious grounds,” said Hoffman.

Rep. Phylis King, D-Boise, asked Barbieri what happens if legal challenges to the PPACA fail and the state is behind in implementing health reform provisions.  Barbieri said that it’s not delaying implementation, but rather protecting citizens and businesses.  “I submit that this is the will of the people.”

King said that Barbieri’s bill is misguided because she feels the PPACA is helpful to Gem State citizens and businesses. “I think it would be good for Idaho,” King said.

Barbieri told IdahoReporter.com that the new bill has been toned down to help it gain passage through the Idaho Senate.  The Senate State Affairs Committee killed a stronger measure a few weeks ago on the belief that the state has no right to challenge the constitutionality of federal legislation with state code.

There is no direct indication of how the measure might fare in the Senate, but Senate Majority Leader Bart Davis, R-Idaho Falls, has said he supports the new plan.

Note: IdahoReporter.com is published by the Idaho Freedom Foundation.

Representatives voted 48-28 to grant passage of the measure.  Only Republicans voted for the bill, and 12 of 13 House Democrats were joined by 16 GOP members in opposition. The only Democrat to vote for the bill was Rep. Grant Burgoyne of Boise.

Simpson said that the bill is about providing clarity for where permit holders can carry a firearm and is also a safety measure.  “When seconds count, armed law enforcement is just four or five minutes away,” said Simpson.

The Idaho Falls Republican argued that the Idaho Constitution already allows citizens to carry guns openly on campuses, but that college and university policies are prohibiting it.  “Those rights are being denied by Idaho’s colleges and universities,” said Simpson, who also acknowledged that the bill only deals with concealed weapons.

The legislation would prevent guns from being brought into undergrad housing, though there are questions as to how that provision could be applied.  Neither of the state’s two largest schools, Boise State University and the University of Idaho, differentiate between undergrads and graduate students in housing complexes.

One co-sponsor of the bill, Rep. Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, echoed Simpson’s notion about safety, noting that police response time is four minutes around Boise.  “There are a lot of things that can happen in four minutes,” said Hagedorn.

Additionally, Hagedorn said that the bill seeks only to bring clarity to concealed weapons laws and is not intended to bring more guns to campuses.   “This is not about arming students,” he argued. “This bill brings consistency into where a person with a concealed weapons permit can go.”

Rep. Phylis King, D-Boise, called the plan “ill-conceived” and said the policy could cause the loss of performing events that might have come to college campuses but decided not to due to the rule.

Rep. Elfreda Higgins, D-Garden City, expressed concern that the college environment, with acute social, educational, and financial pressures, might not be the best place to allow guns.  “Do the students really want the classrooms to be filled with guns?” asked Higgins.

Many lawmakers worried that the elevated amounts of drinking that occur on campuses might lead to poor choices, but one lawmaker said that type of situation if already prevented.  “It is illegal to be in possession of a firearm and possess alcohol,” said Rep. Brent Crane, R-Nampa.

But another representative challenged Crane’s assertion. Rep. Cherie Buckner-Webb, D-Boise, said that drinking can lead to “stinking thinking” and “unintended consequences.”  Webb said that the bill would lead to more accidental shootings in the state.

Rep. Christy Perry, R-Nampa, said that the legislation would allow individuals to protect themselves on campuses, where classes can go into the late hours of the night.  “This bill is about rights,” said Perry.

She also contended that the state has the right and the duty to be the sole regulator of firearms.  “Not a college,” she argued.  “Not a university.”

Rep. Ken Roberts concurred.  “This is all about freedom,” he said. “This is all about defending yourselves.”

The bill now heads to the Idaho Senate for consideration.  Officials from Boise State University, the University of Idaho, the College of Southern Idaho, Idaho State University, and the Idaho State Board of Education have come out against the plan.

The measure passed on an 11-8 vote, with four Republicans joining all Democrats in opposition of the measure.  The bill now heads to the House floor for a vote.

Debate was heavy for the two-day hearing on the bill, which is being pushed by Rep. Erik Simpson, a Republican from Idaho Falls.  The bill would not give those with concealed weapons permits complete freedom on campuses; guns would still be prohibited in undergraduate dorms.

Throughout his arguments, Simpson said that forcing law-abiding citizens to disarm once they step foot on college campuses is unfair and likely unconstitutional. One of the major sticking points of debate was the question if having more guns on campus makes schools safer.  Simpson explained that gun bans are ineffective.  ”Gun free zones don’t work,” said Simpson.  ”Every few years in this country, this is tragically proven.”

Matthew Dogali, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, said that the effects of the tragedy on the Virginia Tech campus in 2007 could have been minimized if students had been able to defend themselves. Dogali explained that even though the response time of police officers to the campus – nine minutes – was deemed sufficient by an official report on the incident, that time is too much for victims of the tragedy.  ”Nine minutes is a lifetime when someone is firing a gun at you,” said Dogali.

Several public officials, including representatives from Boise State University, the University of Idaho, the College of Southern Idaho, and the Idaho State Board of Education testified against the bill, with many arguing that the bill would lead to unsafe campuses and a loss of local control.

The lobbyist for Boise State, former House Speaker Bruce Newcomb, said that passage of the bill could jeopardize national sporting events and concerts that come to Boise State’s campus.  Newcomb said that the bill isn’t solving any problems for colleges in Idaho.  “Why fix something that ain’t broke?” asked Newcomb.

Rep. Elfreda Higgins, D-Garden City, attempted to derail the legislation by moving to kill it, but her maneuver was killed on an 8-11 vote. Higgins, who said she has been using guns since the age of 7, said she only wants schools to make decisions for themselves.  “I’m not against guns. I have guns,” said Higgins.  “To me, this takes away local control.”

Rep. Ken Andrus, R-Soda Springs, noted that concealed weapons permit holders are required to meet several requirements – including fingerprinting and background checks – before being approved for permits.  “They don’t get permits out of the blue,” Andrus said.

Rep. Phylis King, D-Boise, said that banning guns on campuses is a good policy to prevent accidental shootings and that her concern is not necessarily about folks with nefarious intentions coming on campuses. “We don’t have terrorists around here, we have people with poor judgment,” said King.

Emily Walton, a student a Boise State University, said she is so opposed to guns at colleges that she would rather risk a Virginia Tech-type shooting than change the culture of campus.