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

Six days after the Attorney General issued a Certificate of Review (March 3, 2006) flagging single-subject and federal-preemption problems with Ron Gillett's first wolf-removal initiative, Gillett refiled a revised version on March 7, 2006. This second Certificate of Review (March 9, 2006) addresses the revised version.

The revised initiative kept the wolf-management changes (amendments to Idaho Code §§ 36-103(a), 36-201, 36-712(a); repeal of §§ 36-714(2) and 36-715; and rescission of the legislative resolution approving the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan) but dropped the provisions abolishing the Office of Species Conservation that had triggered the unity-of-subject concern in the first certificate. The AG concluded the revised petition addressed only wolf management and so 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.

The federal-preemption concern from the March 3 certificate (the caption is misleading because state law cannot remove federally protected wolves under the ESA) was not repeated here, but it has not gone away; the AG referenced the prior certificate for the federal regulatory background.

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.

The federal regulatory landscape for the gray wolf has shifted multiple times since 2006. The Northern Rocky Mountain population was permanently delisted by congressional action in 2011, and Idaho has primary management authority. The specific Idaho statutes that this initiative would have amended (§§ 36-103, 36-201, 36-712, 36-714, 36-715) have all been amended since 2006. Anyone advising on Idaho wolf policy today should consult current statutes and current federal law, not the 2006 framework.

Common questions

Q: Did this revised initiative make the ballot?
A: This initiative did not gather enough signatures to qualify for the November 2006 ballot. Ron Gillett refiled a third version on November 6, 2006 (subject of a separate Certificate of Review dated November 16, 2006) for the November 2008 ballot.

Q: Why does the AG insist that the "full text" of an amended section be included?
A: Because Idaho Const. art. III, § 18 says no act may be revised or amended by mere reference to its title; the section as amended must be set forth and published at full length. The Idaho Supreme Court applied that rule in Golconda Lead Mines v. Neill, 82 Idaho 96 (1960). The AG construes "section" literally to mean the entire numbered section of the Idaho Code being amended, not just the subsection touched. That gives signers and voters a complete picture of what the amended law will look like.

Q: Why does it matter that the OSC sections were dropped?
A: Because Idaho Const. art. III, § 16 requires every act to embrace one subject and matters properly connected with it. The first version of the initiative bundled wolf-management changes with the elimination of the Office of Species Conservation, which manages 23 ESA-listed species in Idaho. The AG concluded that combination raised a substantial single-subject question. The revised version stuck to wolf management, addressing the concern.

Background and statutory framework

This is the second of three Certificates of Review the Idaho AG issued in 2006 on substantively similar wolf-removal initiatives sponsored by Ron Gillett. The first (March 3, 2006) addressed the initial proposal; this second (March 9, 2006) addresses a quickly revised version that dropped the OSC provisions; and a third (November 16, 2006) addresses a re-filed version aimed at the November 2008 ballot. None of the three made the ballot.

The federal context, summarized in detail in the March 3 certificate: the gray wolf was federally listed as endangered in the contiguous 48 states (except Minnesota); FWS had reintroduced wolves into central Idaho under ESA Section 10(j); and the central Idaho population had grown to an estimated 500-600 animals by 2006.

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)
- ID AG Cert. 11/16/2006 (third version, for November 2008 ballot)

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