House passes IRS conformity bill, 52-18, opponents cite opposition to same-sex marriage

The Idaho House has voted 52-18 in favor of HB 26, the annual IRS conformity bill, though several members spoke out against conforming the state’s tax code with federal rules on grounds that a now-invalidated clause in the Idaho Constitution forbids same-sex marriage, which the federal tax code recognizes.

The 18 “no” votes came from Reps. Boyle, Crane, Dixon, Gestrin, Giddings, Hanks, Barbieri, Harris, Hartgen, Holtzclaw, Monks, Moon, Nate, Redman, Scott, Shepherd, VanderWoude, and Zito.

Rep. Ron Nate, R-Rexburg, who led the opposition, said, “This is the annual conformity bill to make tax filing for Idaho state filers’ lives much easier. The idea is that we can use the adjusted gross income from the federal tax forms on the state tax forms, but in doing that we’re adopting all the federal standards for what goes into that adjusted gross income number. Part of this tax conformity incorporates what the Supreme Court ruled a number of years ago about the status of gay marriage,” he said.

“In other words, it says ignore the Idaho Constitution,” Nate said. “It puts us in a bit of a conflict here, that if we swore an oath to uphold the Idaho and U.S. constitutions, how do we vote on this and uphold both of those oaths at the same time?”

He added, “A way to fix this would be to amend the Idaho Constitution so we don’t have this conflict. Amend that section out, and then we can vote with a clear conscience that we’re upholding the law.”

Two Democratic House members introduced a personal bill last year to do just that, but it never got a hearing.

Nate said he recognizes that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, but he believes the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage was mistaken. “The supremacy clause says the … Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It doesn’t say all U.S. laws are the supreme law of the land. It says all U.S. laws made in pursuance thereof. If we here in Idaho think that the laws or even the ruling of the Supreme Court is not constitutional, then we have an obligation and a duty to defend our state Constitution against those infringements.”

Rep. John McCrostie, D-Boise, countered, “There is definitely inconsistency between what the U.S. Constitution says and what the Idaho Constitution says and what our state statutes currently state. I agree that there is a need to repeal sections of the code and to repeal sections of the state Constitution.”

But McCrostie, a lawyer and an openly gay legislator who is married, cited the landmark case of Marbury vs. Madison . The 1803 case was the first in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared an act of Congress unconstitutional; it established the concept of judicial review. He added, “One other aspect of this that I think is forgotten through this whole process, for same-sex couples who are married, if we were not to adopt this, and we were to require them to file their taxes separately, then that would mean that both individuals would have to file a separate state income tax return as individual, and a third … federal return. That creates an undue burden of filing taxes three times. I’m sorry, but I think that is unfair and unduly burdensome.”

Rep. Stephen Hartgen, R-Twin Falls, decried the bill as “federal intrusion into an area that has been dominated by the states.” House Minority Leader Mat Erpelding, D-Boise, said, “The bill is about whether or not we should conform with the U.S. federal tax code. It is not about relitigating the history of decisions at both the state and national level about same-sex marriage.”

Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale, said, “The U.S. Supreme Court has been wrong numerous times, and probably the very worst one that they were wrong in was the Dred Scott decision . That was where our U.S. Supreme Court told this man that he was not a man because he was black.”

Rep. Dell Raybould, R-Rexburg, spoke in favor the conformity bill. “We went through this situation a few years ago, where we did not conform to the federal tax code,” he said. “It cost farmers, businessmen, construction, anyone who had any depreciable assets, a tremendous amount of money to keep two sets of books … to file two different tax forms, one to the state and one to the feds, and it was a disaster.”

Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard, told the House, “This decision is very simple for me. The question is are we going to ignore our oaths we’ve taken and our Idaho state Constitution, because it’s the easy thing to do, or are we going to start standing up as a sovereign state and making decisions for the citizens that fall in line with our Idaho state Constitution? I will be voting no on this bill.”

In the end, the bill passed on a 52-18 vote and now moves to the Senate, where it’ll next face a Senate committee hearing.