State Sen. Michelle Stennett, who represents District 26, says she has been fielding numerous questions from voters who are unclear about SJR 102, a constitutional amendment and advisory question on the Nov. 8 ballot.

Here is her assessment:

“Currently, the Idaho Governor can already call the Legislature to an extraordinary or special session, outside of the annual regular sessions for the narrow purpose of one topic needing to be resolved that cannot be delayed to the next regular session. It is rarely necessary to convene for more than a day or two. The debate, public input, and legislative process in a special session has limited public scrutiny.

 “This Constitutional Amendment would allow the Legislature to call itself into a special session with approval of 60% of the Senate and the House of Representatives, but the language is vague about why and what topic, saying only, “…specifying the subjects to be considered” and does not limit the length of the special session.

“Notice that many subjects could be considered, not the current single topic, which could create lengthy or recurrent sessions that could more properly and robustly be debated in a regular session.

“This encourages a full-time Legislature and more political grandstanding. The cost to taxpayers to convene the Legislature is around $35,000 per day and should not be frivolously abused. According to the Governor, Utah passed a similar amendment and has met seven times in a year.

 “The rarely used Advisory Question on the ballot this November asks the voters to give their opinion, approve or disapprove, of the Governor’s and Legislature’s actions, House Bill 1, during the last special session on Sept. 1, 2022. Sounds good, right? However, an Advisory Question is nonbinding, has no teeth, gives voters no power or benefits, and is unnecessary. It is just a pat on the back.

 “House Bill 1 gives tax refund disbursements to Idahoans before November. Voters may be misled to believe that, by voting yes, they will receive more money. Or voters may loudly express their opinion on education, but the Advisory Question gives them no power. It is a nonbinding opinion.

 “In fact, the special session was unnecessary. Tax refunds and education funding could have been considered in January’s regular session. Some relief for Idahoans during this difficult financial time helps, but tackling many infrastructure needs would benefit more people for a much longer period of time.

“The education funding in the bill is for 2024 and must be approved by the Joint Finance & Appropriation Committee. More disturbingly, the November elections had the education initiative for consideration with hundreds of thousands of Idahoans’ signatures. Purposely, House Bill 1 nullified the initiative, interfering in voter rights and silencing the public’s voice.

“In the end, we want the best results in our public education which requires secured, reliable resources.

 --Senator Michelle Stennett