What did Idaho's AG certify about the 2011 referendum on Senate Bill 1108, the Luna Law restricting teacher collective bargaining?
Plain-English summary
This is the second of three certificates of review issued for referendum petitions challenging the 2011 Idaho "Luna Laws," the education reform package signed by Governor Butch Otter. Senate Bill 1108 (codified as 2011 Idaho Session Law Chapter 96) restricted negotiated collective bargaining agreements with teachers, narrowing the scope of mandatory bargaining and limiting what could be included in master agreements between teacher associations and school districts.
The referendum petition was filed by the Idaho Education Association (Sheri Wood, President) on March 18, 2011 and forwarded to the Attorney General on March 21, 2011. Attorney General Lawrence Wasden's certificate confirms that S1108 met the § 34-1803 requirements for referendum and that the petition was in proper form.
The certificate flags an important practical detail: most sections of S1108 (Sections 1-5, 7-9, and 13-25) had emergency clauses, meaning they took effect immediately and remained in force pending the referendum vote. Only Sections 6 and 10-12 were eligible to be stayed by the referendum filing. So while the campaign played out, large portions of the new law were already operative.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 2011. 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.
Background and statutory framework
The Luna Laws were a three-bill education reform package championed by State Superintendent Tom Luna: S1108 (this referendum, on collective bargaining), S1110 (performance-based teacher pay, certified the same day), and SB1184 (laptop computers and online course requirements, certified April 11, 2011). All three drew referendum petitions from the Idaho Education Association.
The emergency-clause distinction is significant. In Idaho, when the legislature attaches an emergency clause to a bill, the bill takes effect upon signature rather than on the standard July 1 effective date. Emergency-clause sections are not stayed by the filing of a referendum petition; only sections without emergency clauses get the stay. This created an unusual situation for S1108 where most of the bargaining restrictions were already in force during the referendum campaign.
The Luna Laws referendums became Propositions 1, 2, and 3 on the November 2012 Idaho ballot. Idaho voters rejected all three, repealing the entire Luna Laws package. That historical outcome is documented in Idaho Secretary of State election records but is not addressed in this 2011 certificate.
Common questions
Q: What did S1108 actually do?
A: S1108, codified as 2011 Idaho Session Law Chapter 96, restricted teacher collective bargaining in Idaho. Among other things, it narrowed the topics subject to mandatory bargaining, limited the duration of master agreements, and required certain disclosure and notice procedures for bargaining sessions. Critics said it gutted collective bargaining; supporters said it restored management flexibility.
Q: Why did the emergency clause matter?
A: Without an emergency clause, a bill challenged by referendum is suspended pending the vote. With an emergency clause, the law takes effect immediately and remains in force during the referendum campaign. Most of S1108's substantive provisions were emergency-clause sections, so school districts had to operate under the new bargaining rules during the 2011-2012 school year regardless of the pending referendum.
Q: Why was the certificate review so brief?
A: Referendum certificates of review under Idaho Code § 34-1804 are procedural. The AG confirms the petition is in proper form and the targeted law is eligible for referendum (meaning it passed both houses and was signed). Substantive policy critique is left to the campaign and the voters.
Q: What happened with the referendum?
A: This certificate predates the referendum vote. The historical outcome is in Idaho Secretary of State records.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- Idaho Code § 34-1803 (referendum eligibility)
- Idaho Code § 34-1804 (referendum petition review)
Source
- Landing page: https://www.ag.idaho.gov/office-resources/opinions/
- Original PDF: https://ag.idaho.gov/content/uploads/2018/04/C032311b.pdf
Original opinion text
STATE OF IDAHO
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
LAWRENCE G. WASDEN
March 23, 2011
The Honorable Ben Ysursa
Idaho Secretary of State
HAND DELIVERED
RE:
Certificate of Review - Referendum Petition S1108
Dear Secretary of State Ysursa:
This letter shall serve as the certificate of review for the referendum petition submitted to the Secretary of State's office on March 18, 2011 and forwarded for review to this office on March 21, 2011. It appears that the Secretary of State has certified the petition as to form, and completed the initial review as provided for in Idaho Code § 34-1804. The referendum concerns Senate Bill 1108, 2011 Idaho Session Law Chapter 96, which having passed both houses and been signed into law meets the requirements of Idaho Code § 34-1803. It is worth noting that Sections 6 and 10-12 may be stayed according to Idaho Code § 34-1803. Sections 1-5, 7-9, and 13-25 have an emergency clause. Those sections of the law will remain effective pending the outcome of the referendum election (if held).
CERTIFICATION
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed measure has been reviewed for form, style, and matters of substantive import. The recommendations set forth above have been communicated to the Petitioner via a copy of the Certificate of Review, deposited in the U.S. Mail to Sheri Wood, President Idaho Education Association, P.O. Box 2638, Boise, Idaho 83701-2638.
Sincerely,
LAWRENCE G. WASDEN
Attorney General
Analysis by:
BRIAN KANE
Assistant Chief Deputy