Idaho Democrats rethink tactics after opening votes on ‘divisive’ issues draw backlash

Their votes were standard procedure, for the sake of decorum and longer-term strategy. But they jarred some reliable constituents, and prompted reflections about Democratic tactics in deep-red Idaho.

At the first House committee meeting of the year, 15 Idaho lawmakers voted unanimously to introduce two resolutions that targeted the LGBTQ+ community. One seeks to return to a ban on same-sex marriage and another to commend Boise State University’s volleyball team for forfeiting games against an opponent that reportedly had a transgender player on the roster.

The House State Affairs Committee’s two Democrats – Reps. Brooke Green and Todd Achilles, both of Boise – voted alongside the committee’s 13 Republicans to introduce the resolutions, which do not carry the force of law. While the voice votes used in committees to bring forth legislation are often a formality, liberal advocates and constituents noticed the Democrats’ participation, and knocked them for it, exposing a rift among progressives about how the superminority party should approach its fragile political capital at the Statehouse.

“When you’re being faced with a fire hose of divisive, terrible – probably illegal – legislation, you can argue whether you should duck left or duck right,” House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel, D-Boise, said in an interview with the Idaho Statesman.

Before draft legislation or a resolution is introduced to the Legislature, it’s usually brought forward at committee, where the sponsor briefly explains its intent. Lawmakers then vote – usually without a roll call – on whether to introduce it. Once the bill or resolution advances, it returns for a public hearing at a later date, allowing the public to testify and lawmakers to ask questions. The votes at those later hearings are more significant: They are recorded, and the committee’s recommendation is passed on to the full Legislature.

At any point, measures can be stopped in their tracks – either before they are introduced during a voice vote, after a committee’s public hearing, or later on the House or Senate floors. In Idaho, where Republicans control 86% of seats in the Legislature, bills and resolutions rarely fail to be introduced, but routinely die at a later stage.

Democrats voting to introduce measures they don’t like is nothing new. It’s often considered respect for the process of government. But Tuesday’s vote in the House committee renewed debate over the practice as Democrats begin the session with one of their slimmest minorities in decades: six Senate seats and nine House seats – the smallest caucus since 2001.

“I think the technical term is a ‘super-duper-minority,’ ” Rep. Chris Mathias, D-Boise, told the Statesman.

After news reports were published Tuesday noting the unanimous vote to introduce the two hot-button resolutions, Green and Achilles sustained blowback on social media, which led a spokesperson for Democratic lawmakers to issue a statement from the two legislators addressing “confusion” over their votes.

While they deemed the resolutions “mean-spirited, unconstitutional and time-wasting,” they said their votes to introduce them were motivated by a recognition that they have little sway and yet also their own priorities to advance.

“As members of a superminority that often can’t get our bills heard, we support everyone having the ability to discuss these issues through the democratic process,” Green and Achilles said in their statement. “Voting to print the bill means we have the chance to debate it, challenge it, and vote against it on the record with our colleagues.”

But some progressives viewed it differently. On Wednesday, Mistie DelliCarpini-Tolman, Idaho’s Planned Parenthood director, issued a statement condemning the resolutions while also criticizing the two Democrats’ votes.

“While we know our Democratic legislators will vote against this bill on its substance, failing to oppose bigotry at every opportunity perpetuates harm and weakens our shared values of justice and equality,” she said.

Wednesday evening, Green and Achilles both posted apologies on social media. Green wrote that she should have explained her vote in committee, while Achilles said he “deeply” regretted that his vote did not reflect the expectations of his constituents.

On Thursday morning, the volleyball resolution advanced out of committee, with Green and Achilles voting against it.

’I hope we can all just unite’

In interviews with the Statesman, Rubel and Mathias decried the Legislature’s focus on controversial issues that they said are aimed at taking rights away from residents.

There are merits to both viewpoints – acquiescing to the process or refusing to advance bills – Rubel said, and over her decade in the Legislature, she recalled having voted to introduce all but a handful that came before her, many of which she opposed.

“I hope we can all just unite on trying to stop that fire hose,” Rubel said. But when many Democratic priorities never see the light of day in a committee room, “it begs the question of, ‘should we really extend this courtesy if we’re not going to get some comparable courtesy?’ ” she said.

House Republicans, through a spokesperson, did not respond to a request for comment.

Mathias, a state lawmaker since 2021, said he has generally done the same as Rubel, which has led him to find success introducing bills into committees, even if they fail to advance.

But there’s been a larger shift in the state’s polarized politics, he said.

“I think it’s time for House Democrats to re-evaluate … the supermajority’s commitment to this system of decorum and our willingness to follow unwritten rules,” Mathias said. His calculus may change following resolutions like the one against same-sex marriage, which, he said, cause his constituents to not “see themselves being treated with respect.”

“If that means I have to vote against a (bill proposal) knowing that the bill I’ve been working on all summer is not going to get a hearing as a result …” Mathias said, “so be it.”