What did Idaho's AG say about Ron Gillett's third 2006 wolf-removal ballot initiative, this one aimed at the 2008 ballot?
Plain-English summary
This is the third Certificate of Review the Idaho Attorney General issued in 2006 on a wolf-related ballot initiative sponsored by Ron Gillett. The earlier two (March 3 and March 9) addressed proposals aimed at the November 2006 ballot, which never qualified. Gillett refiled on November 6, 2006, this time aiming at the November 2008 general election.
The November 2006 version is substantively identical to the March 9 version. It contains nine sections: §§ 1-3 amend Idaho Code §§ 36-103(a), 36-201, and 36-712(a); §§ 4-5 repeal §§ 36-714(2) and 36-715; § 6 amends definitions in § 36-2401 to exclude wolves from species-conservation programs; § 7 adds a new provision making Title 36, Chapter 24 inapplicable to wolves; § 8 adds a new section excluding wolves from the jurisdiction of the Office of Species Conservation; and § 9 rescinds the legislative resolution approving the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan.
The AG's review was brief because most of the substantive issues had been worked out in the earlier two certificates:
Single subject. All substantive aspects relate to wolf regulation in Idaho. A single subject is involved.
Full-text compliance (Art. III, § 18). The proposed initiative complies with the full-text requirement.
One typographical error. Section 3 improperly quotes the section being amended as "36-712(a)" instead of "36-712." The petitioner should fix this if any subsequent measure is filed.
The AG referenced his March 3, 2006 Certificate of Review for the federal regulatory background on wolf management under the Endangered Species Act, and did not repeat that analysis here.
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, 36-2401) have all been amended since 2006. The Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan has been revised multiple times. Anyone analyzing wolf-related Idaho law today should consult current statutes, current federal listing status, and current management plans.
Common questions
Q: Did this third initiative make the 2008 ballot?
A: Like the two earlier 2006 versions, it did not gather sufficient qualified signatures to qualify for the November 2008 general election ballot.
Q: What changed between the March 9 and November 16 versions?
A: Substantively, very little. The November version added two new sections (§§ 7 and 8) explicitly excluding wolves from the species-conservation chapter (Title 36, Chapter 24) and from the jurisdiction of the Office of Species Conservation. These were intended to achieve some of the OSC-related goals from the original March 3 version (which had triggered single-subject objections) by surgically excluding wolves from those programs rather than abolishing the programs entirely. The AG cleared the surgical approach on single-subject grounds.
Q: Why does the typographical error matter?
A: Because Idaho Const. art. III, § 18 requires the section as amended to be set forth in full. If the petition cites the wrong section number, signers and voters might not understand which statutory text is changing, and a court could potentially strike the affected provisions if the error created actual confusion. The fix is small (replace "36-712(a)" with "36-712" in Section 3 of the petition text) but should be made if a subsequent version is filed.
Q: What was the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan?
A: A 2002 plan adopted by concurrent legislative resolution that articulated Idaho's position on wolves. It reiterated Idaho's formal position that all wolves should be removed from the State by the federal government, but acknowledged that "the state will seek delisting and manage wolves at recovery levels that will ensure viable, self-sustaining populations." FWS approved the plan in 2004. The plan, together with a January 2006 Memorandum of Agreement, transferred some regulatory authority over wolves from FWS to Idaho.
Background and statutory framework
This certificate is the third in a 2006 series on substantively similar wolf-removal initiatives sponsored by Ron Gillett. None of the three made the ballot. The federal context, summarized in detail in the March 3 Certificate of Review: 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); the central Idaho population had grown to an estimated 500-600 animals by 2006; FWS published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in February 2006 announcing intent to delist the wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountain area, conditioned on Wyoming adopting a satisfactory wolf management plan.
The Office of Species Conservation, created by Idaho Code §§ 67-818 and 67-819 (cited in the AG's 3/3/2006 certificate), serves as Idaho's coordinator for all 23 ESA-listed species in the State.
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, 36-2401
- Idaho Code Title 36, Chapter 24 (species conservation)
- Idaho Code Title 67, Chapter 8 (Office of Species Conservation)
- 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. 3/9/2006 (revised wolf-removal initiative)
Source
- Landing page: https://www.ag.idaho.gov/office-resources/opinions/
- Original PDF: https://ag.idaho.gov/content/uploads/2018/04/C111606.pdf
Original opinion text
STATE OF IDAHO
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
LAWRENCE G. WASDEN
November 16, 2006
The Honorable Ben Ysursa
Idaho Secretary of State
Statehouse
Re: Certificate of Review
Proposed Initiative Relating to Wolf Regulation in Idaho
Dear Secretary of State Ysursa:
An initiative petition was filed with your office on November 6, 2006. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 34-1809, this office has reviewed the petition and prepared the following advisory comments. Given the strict statutory time frame in which this office must respond and the complexity of the legal issues raised in this petition, the 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 one recommendation below is "advisory only." The petitioner is free to "accept or reject [it] in whole or in part." The opinions expressed in this review are only those that may affect the legality of the initiative. This office offers no opinion with regard to the policy issues raised by this proposed initiative.
BALLOT TITLE
Following the filing of the measure within the 15 working-day period specified in Idaho Code § 34-1809, 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 Wolf Regulation in Idaho" and is the third such proposal filed with your office during 2006. It is substantively identical to an initiative that was the subject of a certificate of review dated March 9, 2006. Insufficient signatures were gathered to qualify that initiative for the November 7, 2006 ballot. This initiative, if requisite qualified signatures are gathered, will be included on the ballot for the November 4, 2008 general election. The relevant federal statutory and regulatory background was summarized in my certificate of review dated March 3, 2006, which was directed to the initial wolf regulation petition filed on February 9, 2006, and will not be repeated.
The present petition contains nine 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. Section 6 amends certain definitions in Idaho Code § 36-2401 to exclude wolves, while Section 7 adds a new provision making chapter 36, title 24 inapplicable to wolves. Section 8 adds a new section to chapter 67, title 8 excluding wolves from the "jurisdiction" of the Office of Species Conservation. Section 9 rescinds a concurrent legislative resolution amending and approving the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan.
II. Unity of Subject. All substantive aspects of the proposed initiative relate to the regulation of wolves in Idaho. A single subject 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 proposed initiative complies with this requirement. A typographical error, however, appears in Section 3 which improperly quotes the section being amended as "36-712(a)" and not "36-712." This typographical error should be addressed in the measure, if any, submitted to your office following issuance of this certificate of review.
CONCLUSION
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed 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