What problems did the Idaho AG flag with the revised grocery sales tax exemption ballot initiative?

Subject

Certificate of Review on a revised Idaho ballot initiative by Howard Rynearson (Payette) that would add Idaho Code § 63-3622H exempting "food sold for human consumption" from sales and use taxes, defining "food" by reference to the federal SNAP definition at 7 U.S.C. § 2012, and wholesale-repealing six other Idaho Code sections including the Grocery Tax Credit, the school-meals exemption, the SNAP exemption, two information-sharing provisions, and (anomalously) the child-support statute § 32-706. AG Raúl Labrador's office, with Deputy AG Matthew L. Maurer drafting, identified two concerns under Idaho Code § 34-1809.

Plain-English summary

This is the second grocery tax exemption initiative reviewed in 2025. The first (April 2025, petitioner Joseph Evans) lacked a definition of "food" and didn't address the existing Grocery Tax Credit. This revised version (June 2025, petitioner Howard Rynearson) addresses both gaps. It defines "food" by reference to 7 U.S.C. § 2012 (the SNAP statute) and explicitly repeals the existing Grocery Tax Credit at Idaho Code § 63-3024A.

The revised drafting also tries to clean up related provisions by repealing them. But the AG flagged two big problems with that approach:

1. Single-subject rule violation. Section 5 of the proposed initiative would wholesale repeal Idaho Code § 32-706, the Idaho child-support statute. Section 32-706 deals with child support orders in divorce cases. Its only connection to food taxation is a passing reference at § 32-706(6) noting that the Grocery Tax Credit is a tax benefit that may be awarded in a child support order. The AG concluded that repealing the entire child-support statute as part of a food-tax initiative violates Idaho's single-subject rule, both at Idaho Const. art. III § 16 (legislative acts) and Idaho Code § 34-1802A (initiative petitions specifically). Idaho Watersheds Project v. State Bd. of Land Comm'rs, 133 Idaho 55, 60 (1999) provides the test: subjects must be "distinct and independent." Child support and food taxation are independent subjects. The AG recommended a narrow amendment to § 32-706 (removing only the Grocery Tax Credit reference) instead of wholesale repeal.

2. Wholesale repeal of federally-tied exemptions risks federal funding. The initiative would also repeal Idaho Code § 63-3622J (school lunch and meals for the aging) and § 63-3622FF (SNAP food purchases). § 63-3622FF is particularly sensitive: 7 U.S.C. § 2013 expressly prohibits a state from participating in SNAP if state or local sales taxes are collected on SNAP food purchases. Repealing § 63-3622FF without a substitute provision could remove the SNAP-specific tax exemption and potentially put Idaho's SNAP eligibility at risk if the new broad food exemption doesn't capture the same scope.

The other repeals (§ 63-3077G information-sharing between corrections and the Tax Commission; § 63-3077H information-sharing between Health and Welfare and the Tax Commission) are also wholesale, and the AG recommended explaining the rationale for each.

The AG explicitly stated: "This office offers no opinion with regard to the policy issues raised by the proposed initiative or the potential revenue impact to the state budget."

What this means for you

If you are an Idaho ballot initiative drafter or petitioner

Two structural fixes:

1. Replace the wholesale repeal of § 32-706 with a targeted amendment. Remove only the clause "the food tax credit under section 63-3024A, Idaho Code" from § 32-706(6). Leave the rest of the child-support statute intact. The AG provided this exact recommendation. Wholesale repeal of an unrelated statute is the textbook single-subject violation under Idaho Watersheds Project. A targeted amendment keeps the food-tax subject intact.
2. Preserve a SNAP-specific tax exemption. Either (a) keep § 63-3622FF intact, (b) replace it with a clean SNAP carve-out elsewhere, or (c) make sure the new broad exemption at proposed § 63-3622H is at least as broad as the SNAP definition. The federal trigger at 7 U.S.C. § 2013 is real and imposes a hard line: if Idaho collects sales tax on SNAP purchases, Idaho can be excluded from SNAP. The cost of getting this wrong is not theoretical.

The other improvements over the April version (defining "food" by reference to 7 U.S.C. § 2012, explicit repeal of the Grocery Tax Credit) are good drafting moves and should stay.

If you are an Idaho voter

Initiatives that bundle multiple subjects are vulnerable to constitutional challenge after passage, even if voters approved them. If Idaho's single-subject rule is enforced, a court could throw out the entire initiative or could sever specific provisions. The cleanest path is for the petitioner to fix the bundling before signature collection. If the petitioner doesn't fix it and the initiative passes, expect litigation to focus on the § 32-706 repeal as a single-subject hook.

If you are a SNAP recipient or food assistance advocate

The SNAP angle here is concrete. § 63-3622FF currently keeps Idaho compliant with 7 U.S.C. § 2013 by exempting SNAP food purchases from sales tax. Repealing it without a clear replacement could trigger a federal review of Idaho's SNAP participation. If the new broad food exemption covers the same scope, Idaho is fine. If gaps appear, Idaho's SNAP eligibility could be in question.

If you are an Idaho legislator

The Certificate is a useful preview of how single-subject challenges can derail otherwise straightforward tax legislation when drafters reach for collateral repeals. The narrow-amendment approach the AG suggested is standard legislative drafting practice; initiatives often skip that discipline.

If you are a Tax Commission or Health and Welfare staffer

The repeal of § 63-3077G and § 63-3077H (information sharing between corrections, H&W, and the Tax Commission) is mentioned but not flagged as a major issue. Still, these provisions enable specific data flows. Their repeal could disrupt operations. If the petitioner includes those repeals to declutter unrelated provisions, the operational consequences should be considered.

If you are a child support attorney or family law practitioner

Section 32-706 deals with child support orders, including specific tax-related provisions like the Grocery Tax Credit. A wholesale repeal of § 32-706 by a food-tax initiative would, if it survived single-subject challenge, eliminate a substantial chunk of Idaho's child-support framework. The narrow-amendment approach the AG suggested is the appropriate fix.

Common questions

Q: How is this version different from the April 2025 grocery tax initiative?
A: This June 2025 version (a) defines "food" by reference to the federal SNAP definition at 7 U.S.C. § 2012, (b) explicitly repeals the existing Grocery Tax Credit at § 63-3024A, and (c) tries to clean up related provisions by wholesale-repealing § 63-3622J, § 63-3622FF, § 63-3077G, § 63-3077H, and (anomalously) § 32-706. The first two changes addressed concerns from the April Certificate. The wholesale repeals introduced new problems.

Q: What is Idaho's single-subject rule?
A: Idaho Const. art. III § 16 (for legislative acts) and Idaho Code § 34-1802A (specifically for citizen initiatives) both require that an act or initiative embrace only one subject. The Idaho Supreme Court in Idaho Watersheds Project v. State Bd. of Land Comm'rs, 133 Idaho 55, 60 (1999), articulated the test: subjects must be "distinct and independent" such that "any one of which be adopted without in any way being controlled, modified or qualified by the other." Child support and food taxation fail that test.

Q: Why is the SNAP exemption repeal a federal funding concern?
A: 7 U.S.C. § 2013 expressly states: "[A] State may not participate in the supplemental nutrition assistance program if the Secretary determines that State or local sales taxes are collected within that State on purchases of food made with benefits issued under this chapter." If Idaho repeals its SNAP-specific tax exemption and the new broad food exemption doesn't cover all SNAP purchases, Idaho's participation in SNAP could be at risk.

Q: Why is § 32-706 in a food-tax initiative at all?
A: Idaho Code § 32-706(6) contains a passing reference to the Grocery Tax Credit as a tax benefit that may be awarded in a child support order, requiring the Tax Commission to recognize such an award. The petitioner appears to have wholesale repealed the entire statute to delete that one reference, instead of doing a targeted amendment.

Q: Could the initiative be saved if a court severs the § 32-706 repeal?
A: Possibly. Idaho courts can sever unconstitutional provisions if the rest of the act can stand alone and would have been enacted without the offending provision. The proposed initiative's severability provisions (if any) and the legislative history (which for initiatives is the campaign materials) would matter. The cleaner path is to fix the bundling before signature collection.

Q: Did this initiative reach the ballot?
A: That's a separate question depending on signature collection and verification, which happen after the Certificate of Review. The Certificate is the legal review that precedes signature gathering.

Background and statutory framework

Idaho's citizen initiative process runs through Idaho Code §§ 34-1801 through 34-1822. Section 34-1809 governs the AG's pre-circulation legal review. Section 34-1801A and § 34-1802A specifically apply the single-subject rule to initiative petitions, paralleling Idaho Const. art. III § 16 (legislative acts) and Idaho Const. art. XX § 2 (constitutional amendments).

Idaho's sales tax statute is at title 63 chapter 36. The existing exemptions cited (§ 63-3622J for school meals; § 63-3622FF for SNAP) and the related Grocery Tax Credit (§ 63-3024A) form the existing food-tax landscape.

The federal SNAP statute is at 7 U.S.C. §§ 2011 through 2036. Section 2012 defines "food" for SNAP purposes. Section 2013 establishes state participation conditions, including the prohibition on state sales tax on SNAP food purchases.

Idaho Code § 32-706 governs child support orders in divorce proceedings, with subsection (6) containing a passing reference to the Grocery Tax Credit as a tax benefit subject to allocation in a child support order.

Citations and references

Idaho statutes:
- Idaho Code § 34-1801A, single-subject rule for initiative petitions
- Idaho Code § 34-1802A, single-subject rule for initiative petitions (explicit text)
- Idaho Code § 34-1809, Certificate of Review process
- Idaho Code § 32-706, child support orders in divorce; § 32-706(6) referencing Grocery Tax Credit
- Idaho Code § 63-3024A, Grocery Tax Credit (income tax)
- Idaho Code § 63-3077G, information exchange between corrections and Tax Commission
- Idaho Code § 63-3077H, information exchange between Health and Welfare and Tax Commission
- Idaho Code § 63-3622FF, sales tax exemption for SNAP food purchases
- Idaho Code § 63-3622J: sales tax exemption for school lunch and meals for the aging

Idaho Constitution:
- Idaho Const. art. III, § 16, single-subject rule for legislative acts
- Idaho Const. art. XX, § 2: single-subject rule for constitutional amendments

Federal:
- 7 U.S.C. § 2012, SNAP food definition (referenced in the initiative)
- 7 U.S.C. § 2013: SNAP state participation conditions, including no-state-sales-tax requirement

Cases:
- Idaho Watersheds Project v. State Bd. of Land Comm'rs, 133 Idaho 55 (1999), single-subject test ("distinct and independent" subjects)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.idaho.gov/office-resources/opinions/
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.idaho.gov/content/uploads/2025/06/25-97825-Response-COR.pdf

Original opinion text

June 17, 2025

VIA HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Phil McGrane
Idaho Secretary of State
Statehouse
RE:

Certificate of Review
Proposed Initiative for Adding a New Section to Title 63, Idaho Code,
Providing for a Sales Tax Exemption for Food.

Dear Secretary of State McGrane:
An initiative petition was filed on May 22, 2025, proposing to amend title 63 of
the Idaho Code. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 34-1809, this office has reviewed the petition and prepared the following advisory comments. Given the strict statutory
timeframe within which this office must review the petition, our review can only isolate areas of concern and cannot provide in-depth analysis of each legal or constitutional issue that may present problems. This letter therefore addresses only those
matters of substance that are “deemed necessary and appropriate” to address at this
time and does not address or catalogue all problems of substance or of form that the
proposed initiative may pose under federal or Idaho law. Idaho Code § 34-1809(1)(a).
Further, under the review statute, the Attorney General’s recommendations are “advisory only,” and the petitioners are free to “accept or reject them in whole or in part.”
Id. § 34-1809(1)(b). This office offers no opinion with regard to the policy issues raised
by the proposed initiative or the potential revenue impact to the state budget from
likely litigation over the initiative’s validity.

Secretary of State McGrane
June 17, 2025
Page 2

MATTERS OF SUBSTANTIVE IMPORT
I.

Summary of the Proposed Initiative

The proposed initiative seeks to add a sales tax exemption for “food sold for
human consumption” to chapter 36 (Sales Tax) of the Idaho Code. The proposed exemption is similar to a provision in a piece of legislation proposed during the most
recent session of the Idaho Legislature. See proposed House Bill No. 260, Sixty-eighth
Legislature; First Regular Session 2025; https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/2025/legislation/H0260/. In both the proposed legislation and the proposed initiative, a new section (63-3622H) would add “food for human consumption” to the list
of goods and services that are exempt from Idaho’s sales and use taxes.
The proposed initiative further specifies that “the types and kinds of food products eligible for exemption by this section shall be the same types and kinds of food
products that are eligible for purchase with benefits provided under the federal supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP).” Initiative Pet. § 1. The proposed
initiative goes on to state that the term “food,” as used in the section, “shall have the
same definition as provided in 7 U.S.C. § 2012 as that section existed on January 1,
2027.
Sections 2 – 7 of the proposed initiative go on to list various sections of the
Idaho Code that would be repealed by the initiative, including § 63-3024A (Grocery
Credit); § 63-3077G (provision for information exchange between department of correction and state tax commission); § 63-3077H (provision for information exchange
between department of health and welfare and state tax commission); § 32-706 (child
support provision); § 63-3622J (church and senior citizen meals tax exemption); and
§ 63-3622FF (SNAP food purchases tax exemption). Most of the provisions to be repealed relate to the current Idaho Grocery Credit or existing tax exemptions for food.
Initiative Pet. Sections 2 – 7.
Finally, the proposed initiative includes a fiscal impact statement. The impact
statement notes the potential for lost state revenue as a result of no longer taxing
“food for human consumption.” The funding statement asserts that the initiative
would not require the expenditure of “state or local funds beyond normal expenses
associated with the initiative process” and that the State Tax Commission may see
cost savings due to not having to process the Grocery Credit. Id. at 2.

Secretary of State McGrane
June 17, 2025
Page 3
II.

Analysis of the Proposed Initiative
1. The Proposed Initiative May Violate the Single-Subject Rule

The most problematic aspect of the proposed initiative is Section 5, where it
calls for the wholesale repeal of Idaho Code § 32-706. Idaho Code § 32-706 is the provision in Idaho law that deals with child support in divorce cases, something completely unrelated to the proposed initiative. Although § 32-706 does reference the
Grocery Credit in passing, 1 the statute deals with child support, not sales tax exemptions or food tax credits. Therefore, the wholesale repeal of §32-706 embraces a different subject, wholly separate from the proposed initiative’s main purpose—taxation
of food and related exemptions and credits.
In other words, the proposed initiative appears to violate the single subject
rule—the initiative embraces more than one subject. Under Idaho Code § 34-1802A,
“[a]n initiative petition shall embrace only one (1) subject and matters properly connected with it.” Idaho’s single subject rule applies also to constitutional amendments
(Idaho Constitution article XX, section 2) and legislative acts (id. at article III, section
16). The single subject rule considers whether a proposed change can “be divided into
subjects distinct and independent, ... any one of which be adopted without in any way
being controlled, modified or qualified by the other.” Idaho Watersheds Project v. State
Bd. of Land Comm’rs, 133 Idaho 55, 60 (1999). This rule is intended to prevent initiatives from addressing multiple subjects at the same time and “forcing the voter to
approve or reject such amendment as a whole.” Id. (citation omitted).
Because this proposed initiative relates to repealing the Idaho Grocery Credit
and replacing it with a sales tax exemption for food purchased for human consumption, to also call for the wholesale repeal of § 32-706 would seemingly venture into a
new subject (child support). Given that the proposed initiative currently embraces
these two distinct subjects, it likely runs afoul of Idaho Code § 34-1801A.
The straightforward remedy in this instance would be to, instead of calling for
the wholesale repeal of § 32-706, simply amend the statute and remove the passing
reference to the Grocery Credit within § 32-706. Indeed, this may have been the petitioner’s intent. If that is the petitioner’s intent, it is recommended that Section 5 be

1 Idaho Code §32-706(6) notes that “the food tax credit under section 63-3024A” (the Grocery Credit)

is a tax benefit that may be awarded in a child support order, and the statute requires the tax commission to recognize such an award.

Secretary of State McGrane
June 17, 2025
Page 4
edited to clarify that only the brief reference to the Grocery Credit would be removed
from § 32-706. 2
2. Other Uncertain or Unintended Effects of Wholesale Repeal

The proposed initiative calls for the wholesale repeal of several sections of the
Idaho Code. See Initiative Pet. §§ 2 – 7. In each case, the initiative lists out the section
of the Idaho Code to be repealed, followed by the words “and the same is hereby repealed.” Id. In this way, the proposed initiative calls for the complete repeal of each
identified section of the Idaho Code. Each of these Idaho Code sections identified for
repeal under the proposed initiative have to do with sales tax exemptions or the Idaho
Grocery Credit (aside from the anomaly noted above regarding Idaho’s child support
provision).
Repealing at least portions of some of the identified Idaho Code sections does
make some sense. In principle, it is helpful for the petitioner to address the various
Idaho laws that could potentially be affected by the initiative’s proposed tax exemption on “food for human consumption.” However, the wholesale repeal of each of the
identified laws could have uncertain or unintended effects.
For example, Idaho Code §§ 63-3622J and 63-3622FF both reference, federal
laws. Idaho Code § 63-3622J provides for a sales tax exemption on meals sold “under
the federal school lunch program” or “meals for the aging,” as articulated in the federal Older Americans Act. Similarly, § 63-3622FF provides for a sales tax exemption
on food purchased “with benefits provided under the federal supplemental nutrition
assistance program (SNAP).” In other words, each of these Idaho laws provides for
Idaho tax exemptions based on federal programs and definitions. The wholesale repeal of these Idaho tax exemptions may adversely impact the federal programs they
are linked to. Alternatively, the repeal of these Idaho tax exemptions could disqualify
Idaho from receiving certain federal funds to the extent Idaho law is inconsistent with
federal requirements. It is not uncommon for federal programs to require participating states’ laws to meet federal requirements. See 7 U.S.C. § 2013 (“[A] State may not
participate in the supplemental nutrition assistance program if the Secretary determines that State or local sales taxes are collected within that State on purchases of
food made with benefits issued under this chapter.”).

2 The following clause would be removed from §32-706(6): “the food tax credit under section 63-

2034A, Idaho Code.”

Secretary of State McGrane
June 17, 2025
Page 5
It is recommended, therefore, that the repeal provisions in the initiative petition more fully explain the intent behind repealing each of the identified Idaho laws.
At a minimum, the petitioner should explain 1) how each Idaho law identified for
repeal relates to the initiative, and 2) why the identified law should be repealed. Additionally, the initiative could leave in place those provisions that exempt from sales
tax the purchase of items using funds from those federal programs.
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 copy of this Certificate of Review, deposited
in the U.S. Mail to Howard Rynearson, 2245 NE 19th Ave., Payette, ID 83661.

Sincerely,

RAÚL R. LABRADOR
Attorney General
Analysis by:
Matthew L. Maurer, Deputy Attorney General
Civil Litigation and Constitutional Defense