Court hears commandments initiative appeal
BOISE – If citizens are allowed to vote on whether a Ten Commandments monument should be returned to a city park, then all administrative decisions by local governments – from replacing playground equipment to pruning park trees – could be subject to voter reversal, the Idaho Supreme Court was told Friday.
“This case won’t just stand for this monument, it won’t just stand for the Ten Commandments,” said Valencia Bilyeu, who argued on behalf of the city of Boise to uphold a lower court ruling rejecting the voter initiative petitions by a group known as Keep the Commandments Coalition. “This case will stand for administrative decisions across the state.”
Coalition members gathered more than 18,000 signatures in support of putting to a public vote the March 2004 decision by the Boise City Council to relocate a 40-year-old monument inscribed with the biblical commandments from the city’s Julia Davis Park to private property at an Episcopal church. But city officials refused to include the initiative on the November 2004 ballot, arguing that administrative decisions do not qualify as legislative actions subject to reversal through the initiative process.
The coalition sued, and 4th District Judge Ronald Wilper sided with the city in October last year. The coalition appealed, asking the Idaho Supreme Court to overturn the decision and allow the monument removal to be put to a vote.
Coalition attorney Christ Troupis told the court that the city’s action qualified as legislative because the council had workers remove the monument without consulting the city’s administrative body for regulating park monuments, the city parks commission. And, Troupis said, the city’s stated reason for the removal was clearly a policy decision: to avoid a lawsuit from an anti-gay preacher who wanted a monument of his own placed in the park.
“They wanted to avoid a controversy and a lawsuit,” said Troupis. “Well, that’s too bad.”
But Justice Linda Copple Trout asked Troupis if the test of whether an action is legislative or administrative in nature is whether it’s controversial.
“So if it’s a monument of a horse, then it’s administrative because no one cares about it?” she asked.
Troupis countered that the Ten Commandments are different because of the intensity and breadth of passion that is generated by the religious references.
“I think many Americans stand with me,” he said. “It’s something people had a right to vote on.”
Chief Justice Gerald Schroeder asked what should happen if the court determines that the decision to remove the monument was equally balanced between administrative and legislative.
“Which way do we go?” he asked Bilyeu. “Shouldn’t we go with the constitutional provision of a voter initiative?”
She said no, since that would submit to voters virtually any administrative decision made by a city, potentially crippling the operation of local governments.
That brought a sharp reply from Justice Daniel Eismann.
“Do you believe all political power is inherent in the people?” he asked Bilyeu. “If it’s a close question, why shouldn’t we come down on the side of a vote of the people?”