What did Idaho's AG say about Ron Gillett's revised 2006 wolf-removal ballot initiative, after the AG flagged single-subject problems with the original?

Plain-English summary

The Attorney General reviewed a wolf-removal initiative filed on March 7, 2006, after reviewing an earlier proposal filed February 9. This March 9 certificate addresses the revised petition.

The revised initiative proposed amendments to Idaho Code §§ 36-103(a), 36-201 and 36-712(a), repeals of §§ 36-714(2) and 36-715, two new sections and rescission of a legislative resolution concerning the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan. The AG said the petition addressed his earlier unity-of-subject concern by limiting its scope to wolf management. He concluded that a single subject was involved.

The AG repeated his recommendation that the full text of amended sections (specifically §§ 36-103 and 36-712) be set out in the petition with strikeouts and underlines, per Idaho Const. art. III, § 18 and Golconda Lead Mines v. Neill, 82 Idaho 96 (1960). The petition included only the affected subsections, and the AG construes "section" in art. III, § 18 to mean the full statutory section.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2006. 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.

Common questions

Q: Did the AG say this revised petition met the single-subject requirement?
A: Yes. The certificate says the petition addressed the earlier concern by limiting its scope to matters directly related to wolf management and concludes, "A single subject therefore is involved."

Q: Why does the AG insist that the "full text" of an amended section be included?
A: Idaho Const. art. III, § 18 says the section as amended must be published at full length. The certificate cites Golconda Lead Mines v. Neill, 82 Idaho 96 (1960), and interprets "section" to mean the entire statutory section, rather than only the subsection being changed. The AG also suggested marking additions and deletions to help people decide whether to sign the petition; he said those markings were not constitutionally required.

Q: What did the AG still want changed?
A: The petition reproduced only the subsections of Idaho Code §§ 36-103 and 36-712 that it proposed to amend. The AG interpreted the constitutional full-text rule to require each entire section and repeated his recommendation to set both out in full.

Background and statutory framework

This certificate says the March 7 petition superseded a proposal filed February 9 that was reviewed in a March 3 certificate. It identifies which recommendations the petitioner addressed and repeats the recommendation to publish amended statutory sections in full.

Citations and references

Statutes and constitutional provisions:

• Idaho Code § 34-1809 (AG initiative review)
• Idaho Code §§ 36-103, 36-201, 36-712, 36-714, 36-715
• Idaho Const. art. III, §§ 16, 18

Case:

• Golconda Lead Mines v. Neill, 82 Idaho 96, 350 P.2d 221 (1960)

Related certificates of review:

• ID AG Cert. 3/3/2006 (initial wolf-removal initiative)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.idaho.gov/office-resources/opinions/
• Original PDF: https://ag.idaho.gov/content/uploads/2018/04/C030906.pdf

Original opinion text

STATE OF IDAHO
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
LAWRENCE G. WASDEN

March 9, 2006
VIA HAND DELIVERY

The Honorable Ben Ysursa
Idaho Secretary of State
STATEHOUSE

Re: Certificate of Review
Proposed Initiative Relating to the Removal of Wolves from Idaho

Dear Secretary of State Ysursa:

A proposed initiative petition was filed with your office on March 7, 2006. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 34-1809, this office has reviewed the proposal and prepared the following advisory comments. It must be stressed that, given the strict statutory time frame in which this office must respond and the complexity of the legal issues raised in this proposed initiative, this office's 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 following recommendations are "advisory only." The petitioners are free to "accept or reject them in whole or in part." The opinions expressed in this review are only those that may affect the legality of the proposed initiative. This office offers no opinion with regard to the policy issues raised by this proposed initiative.

BALLOT TITLE

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

MATTERS OF SUBSTANTIVE IMPORT

I. The Proposed Initiative. The proposal is captioned "An Initiative Relating to Idaho Policy and Law Regarding the Removal of Wolves From Idaho." It effectively supersedes a proposed initiative that was filed with your office on February 9, 2006, and was the subject of a Certificate of Review dated March 3, 2006. The petition's sponsors adopted some, but not all, of the recommendations in the earlier Certificate. The newly filed petition contains eight sections. Sections 1 through 3 amend, respectively, Idaho Code §§ 36-103(a), 36-201, and 36-712(a). Sections 4 and 5 repeal, respectively, Idaho Code §§ 36-714(2) and 36-715. Sections 6 and 7 add two sections to the Idaho Code. Section 8 rescinds a concurrent legislative resolution amending and approving the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan.

II. Unity of Subject. The Certificate of Review directed to the prior wolf initiative expressed concern over the compliance with Article III, Section 16. The current petition addressed that concern by limiting its scope of matters directly related to wolf management. A single subject therefore is involved.

III. Full Text of Sections Amended. Article III, Section 18 prohibits any act for being "revised or amended by mere reference to its title, but the section as amended shall be set forth and published at full length." See Golconda Lead Mines v. Neill, 82 Idaho 96, 99-101, 350 P.2d 221, 222-23 (1960). The Certificate of Review directed to the earlier petition recommended that the full text of, inter alia, Idaho Code §§ 36-103 and 36-712 be reproduced in the initiative, with amendments indicated appropriately by underscoring for additions and strikeouts for deletions. The underscoring and strikeouts, while not required constitutionally, were suggested to facilitate informed decision-making with respect to whether to sign the petition. The present petition again includes only those subsections of §§ 36-103 and -712 proposed to be amended. We construe the term "section" in Article III, Section 18 literally and thus repeat the recommendation that the full text of the latter two sections be set out in full. Finally, because the amendments in Sections 6 and 7 of the proposed initiative add new sections and do not modify existing ones, Article III, Section 18's full text requirement is inapplicable.

CONCLUSION

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the measure has been reviewed for form, style and matters of substantive import and that the recommendations set forth above have been communicated to petitioner Ron Gillett by deposit in the U.S. Mail of a copy of this Certificate of Review.

Sincerely,

LAWRENCE G. WASDEN
Attorney General

Analysis by:
Clay R. Smith
Deputy Attorney General