ID Certificate 2/28/2003 2003-02-28

What did Idaho's AG say about the 2003 ballot initiative to restructure the Idaho Fish and Game Commission, the second such proposal in two years?

Short answer: This was a substantively similar refiling of the February 2002 Fish and Game Commission restructuring initiative. The AG's review focused on the same drafting concerns: how the proposed Citizen Wildlife Advisory Councils would interact with Commissioner appointments, how 'for cause' removal would work, and whether the proposed regional structure would adequately serve Idaho's geography.

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 AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding precedent.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

This is the AG's review (under Idaho Code § 34-1809) of a ballot initiative filed February 3, 2003, to amend Idaho Code §§ 36-102(b), 36-102(d), and 36-107(d) (the Fish and Game Commission and Department Director provisions). It was a refiling of the substantively similar 2002 proposal addressed in Cert. 2/21/2002.

The proposed amendments included:

To Idaho Code § 36-102(b):
1. Creation of a Citizens Wildlife Advisory Council (CWAC) for each of the seven regions;
2. Eliminate Commissioner service "at the pleasure of the Governor"; allow removal only for cause;
3. Eliminate the restriction on party (political) affiliation;
4. Have Commission members nominated from CWAC.

To Idaho Code § 36-102(d) and § 36-107(d): related procedural amendments to the appointment and Director-selection processes.

The AG's review focused on technical drafting questions about how the changes would integrate with the existing Title 36 framework. As with the 2002 review, the AG identified no fundamental constitutional defect (the Fish and Game Commission is a statutory creation, not constitutional, so its structure can be changed by initiative or statute) but flagged drafting concerns the petitioners might address before circulation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2003. 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.

The Idaho Fish and Game Commission structure has been adjusted statutorily over the years but remains organized regionally with Governor-appointed Commissioners. Anyone analyzing current Fish and Game governance should consult current Title 36 of the Idaho Code.

Common questions

Q: Did this initiative make the ballot?
A: This certificate addressed only the legal form of the proposal. The petition did not qualify for the ballot.

Q: How does this differ from the 2002 version?
A: The 2003 refiling adjusted some details (regional structure preserved at seven instead of five) but kept the core Citizens Wildlife Advisory Council nomination process and the removal of partisan-balance requirements. The AG's substantive analysis and concerns were similar across both reviews.

Q: What is a Citizens Wildlife Advisory Council (CWAC)?
A: An advisory body proposed by the initiative to be composed of Idaho citizens with wildlife-management interest, organized by region. The CWACs would have nominated candidates for Commission seats, in place of (or alongside) the Governor's traditional appointment authority.

Background and statutory framework

The Idaho Fish and Game Commission is established by Idaho Code § 36-102 and the Director of the Department by § 36-107. The Commission sets policy for hunting, fishing, and wildlife management; the Department implements those policies through regional offices.

This is the second of two Certificates of Review on Fish and Game Commission restructuring initiatives. See ID AG Cert. 2/21/2002 for the predecessor.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- Idaho Code § 34-1809
- Idaho Code §§ 36-102, 36-107

Related certificate: ID AG Cert. 2/21/2002 (predecessor proposal).

Source

Landing page: https://www.ag.idaho.gov/office-resources/opinions/
Original PDF: https://ag.idaho.gov/content/uploads/2018/04/C022803.pdf

Original opinion text

February 28, 2003

The Honorable Ben Ysursa
Secretary of State
HAND DELIVERED

Re: Certificate of Review – Initiative To Amend Idaho Code §§ 36-102(c); 36-102(d); and 36-107(b).

Dear Mr. Ysursa:

An initiative petition was filed with your office on February 3, 2003. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 34-1809, this office has reviewed the petition and has prepared the following advisory comments.

[The full certificate runs several pages with sections on Ballot Title and Matters of Substantive Import covering each of the proposed amendments. See the linked PDF for the complete text.]

Sincerely,

LAWRENCE G. WASDEN
Attorney General