ID Certificate 3/22/2000 2000-03-22

Could Idaho voters require cities to hold an election within a proposed annexation area before annexing it, with the city paying for the vote?

Short answer: The proposed initiative would have repealed Idaho Code 50-222 and replaced it with new sections requiring cities to hold a hearing and an election in the unincorporated area before annexation, with the city bearing the election cost. The AG found no constitutional or statutory bar to the change.

Disclaimer: This is an official Idaho Attorney General opinion. AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding precedent. This summary is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Consult a licensed Idaho attorney for advice on your specific situation.

Plain-English summary

A petitioner filed an initiative in March 2000 that would have repealed Idaho Code § 50-222 (the existing annexation statute) and replaced it with two new sections. New § 50-221A would have required municipalities to hold hearings and conduct an election within the area proposed for annexation. Subsection (6) would have barred annexation unless a majority of the qualified electors in the area voted in favor. The municipality proposing the annexation would pay for the election.

The AG's certificate of review was unusually short. After noting the initiative's substance, the AG concluded that "there is no constitutional or statutory impediment to the petitioners' proposed changes to the current procedure for annexing adjacent unincorporated property." That is, the policy choice (requiring affected residents to vote on annexation) is the kind of legislative judgment that voters can make through the initiative process without running into a constitutional problem. The certificate did not address petition form, ballot title length, or any of the typical drafting issues, and it did not warn petitioners about likely challenges to specific provisions.

The brevity stands in contrast to the more detailed certificates the AG issued on other initiatives during this period (the term-limits, tribal-gaming, and candidate-testing initiatives all generated multi-page critiques). For this annexation initiative, the AG's view was simply that the proposal was within the state's legislative power.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Idaho's annexation statutes have been substantially amended since 2000. The current annexation framework at Idaho Code §§ 50-222 and following has evolved through later legislative sessions in response to political and judicial developments. Anyone advising on a current Idaho annexation question should consult the current statute, not this 2000 certificate.

Common questions

Q: What was Idaho Code § 50-222 in 2000?
A: It was the basic annexation statute, allowing cities to annex contiguous or adjacent territory under specified procedural conditions, including a finding of contiguity and compliance with the relevant area-of-city-impact rules. It did not require a vote of residents in the area to be annexed.

Q: Why would a petitioner want a vote requirement?
A: Because in many states, including Idaho at that time, "forced annexation," a city annexing adjacent unincorporated property without resident consent, has been a perennial source of complaint from rural and suburban residents who object to being added to a city's tax base and zoning controls without a voice in the decision.

Q: Did the AG bless every detail of the proposal?
A: No. The certificate is narrow. It says that the kind of change proposed is within the legislative power, but it does not warrant that every implementation detail (election mechanics, voter qualification, cost allocation) is bulletproof. The advisory comments under Idaho Code § 34-1809 are limited and time-pressured.

Q: What was the AG's role?
A: Idaho Code § 34-1809 requires the AG to review every initiative within twenty working days for matters of substantive import. The recommendations are advisory and the petitioner is free to accept or reject them. The AG also drafts the ballot title.

Background and statutory framework

Initiative review under Idaho Code § 34-1809 is a quick-turn advisory mechanism. Petitioners file proposed initiatives with the Secretary of State, who routes them to the AG. The AG has twenty working days to issue a certificate of review. The certificate flags form, style, and substantive concerns, but the recommendations are not binding.

Idaho Code § 50-222 (in 2000) established the city annexation framework. Idaho's areas-of-city-impact provisions at Idaho Code § 67-6526 were the cooperative planning framework between cities and counties for the urban fringe.

Citations and references

Statutes: Idaho Code §§ 34-1809, 50-222; proposed Idaho Code § 50-221A.

Source

Landing page: https://www.ag.idaho.gov/office-resources/opinions/
Original PDF: https://ag.idaho.gov/content/uploads/2018/04/C032200.pdf

Original opinion text

March 22, 2000
The Honorable Pete T. Cenarrusa
Secretary of State
HAND DELIVERED

Re: Certificate of Review
Proposed Initiative Related to Annexation of Adjacent Unincorporated Property

Dear Mr. Cenarrusa:

An initiative petition was filed with your office on March 15, 2000, which would repeal Idaho Code § 50-222 and replace it with two new code sections. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 34-1809, this office has reviewed the proposed initiative and has prepared the following advisory comments. It must be stressed that, given the strict statutory timeframe in which this office must respond and the complexity of the legal issues raised in this proposed initiative, our review can only isolate areas of concern and cannot provide in-depth analysis of each issue that may present problems. Further, under the review statute, the Attorney General's recommendations are "advisory only," and the petitioners are free to "accept or reject them in whole or in part."

BALLOT TITLES

Following the filing of the proposed initiative, our office will prepare short and long ballot titles. The ballot titles should impartially and succinctly state the purpose of the measure without being argumentative and without creating prejudice for or against the measure. While our office prepares the titles, if petitioners would like to propose language with these standards in mind, we would recommend that they do so and their proposed language will be considered.

MATTERS OF SUBSTANTIVE IMPORT

The initiative would make a number of changes to the manner in which annexation of adjacent unincorporated property is accomplished under Idaho law. New section 50-221A would require municipalities to hold hearings and conduct an election within an area proposed for annexation before actually annexing the area. Under new section 50-221A(6), a municipality may only proceed with a proposed annexation after a majority of the qualified electors in the area proposed for annexation have voted in favor of the annexation. The cost of the election would be borne by the municipality proposing the annexation.

Upon review, it is the opinion of this office that there is no constitutional or statutory impediment to the petitioners' proposed changes to the current procedure for annexing adjacent unincorporated property.

Sincerely,
ALAN G. LANCE
Attorney General

Analysis by:
MATTHEW J. MCKEOWN
Deputy Attorney General