BOISE, ID – A bill backed by Idaho Republican legislative leaders that would let the state freeze funds for local governments if the state’s attorney general suspects they violated state law stalled in committee on Wednesday.

House Bill 743 would allow Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador to enforce violations of state laws through lawsuits, and it would allow courts to hold individual state employees or officials liable for up to $50,000 in penalties if their violation was “willful.”

Under the bill, the attorney general could freeze funds to government entities before a court decides whether they violated state law.

Idaho Republican House Speaker Mike Moyle asked the House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee to hold the bill in committee on Wednesday.

He said he was working on another version of the bill following opposition from local officials. But he attempted to downplay concerns, saying “If you’re obeying the law, this bill won’t touch you.”

“What we found is we have some public officials who openly say ‘There’s no penalty. I’m not following along,’” Moyle said. “… Been a concern of mine for quite a while. It doesn’t make any sense for you to pass laws if people aren’t going to obey them, and if you can’t enforce them.”

Moyle told committee members to look at emails from local officials who are concerned about the bill, “and ask yourself: Why?”

The bill is cosponsored by Republican legislative leaders: Moyle, from Star; House Majority Leader Jason Monks, from Meridian; and Senate President Pro Tempore Kelly Anthon, from Rupert.

The committee only discussed the bill for 10 minutes on Wednesday before shelving it. Two Republican lawmakers expressed support for the bill, but a Democratic lawmaker worried the bill would create “an unfair legal system.”

The bill comes on the heels of the city of Boise flying an LGBTQ+ pride flag at its City Hall. A state law passed last year banned the practice, but the law lacked an enforcement mechanism.

Rep. Ted Hill, an Eagle Republican, brought a bill this year to fine cities that violate the flag ban law $2,000 per day, for each offending flag. He has said his bill is in response to Boise, which declared the pride flag as an official city flag to work around the flag ban law.

On Wednesday, Hill praised Moyle’s bill.

“This is essential and needs to be decisive,” Hill said in the committee meeting. “The insubordination you see from certain folks that we’ve seen recently and close by — it needs to be decisive.”

But Rep. John Gannon, a Boise Democrat, said the bill creates “an unfair legal system” by only saying the attorney general can collect attorney fees if he wins in pursuing violations of state laws, but not if local officials win their defense cases.

And Gannon took issue with other parts of the law that allow local officials to be charged with contempt, and that hold the attorney general’s potential accusations to a lower standard of evidence than in criminal court.

That, Gannon argued, could give the attorney general power by just threatening lawsuits.

Rep. Dale Hawkins, a Republican from Fernwood, said he would’ve supported advancing the bill to the full House if Moyle didn’t ask for it to be shelved.

“The fact that we would have a fear that the attorney general could enforce the rule of law is simply amazing to me,” Hawkins said in committee.

Association of Idaho Cities argues bill ‘treats an allegation like a proven violation’

The committee unanimously voted to hold the legislation, without hearing any public testimony. A dozen people signed up to testify on the bill, which was slated for a full public hearing Wednesday.

In written testimony provided to the committee, Association of Idaho Cities Deputy Director Jonathan Wheatley wrote that cities agree that complying with state law “is not optional.”

But, he wrote that the association worried the enforcement structure under the bill would allow cities “to be financially punished first and heard later.”

“HB 743 fundamentally changes the relationship between the state and cities by creating a punitive mechanism that treats an allegation like a proven violation, destabilizes city budgets, and exposes public servants to extraordinary personal liability effectively codifying a presumption of guilt until innocence is proven rather than the foundational right of being considered innocent until proven guilty,” Wheatley wrote.

What the bill would do: Freezing government funds, up to $50,000 civil penalties

The bill would allow the Idaho attorney general to civilly enforce violations of state law “when the attorney general has reason to believe” that officials, government employees, or government entities either violated a state law that told them to do something, or banned them from doing something. The Legislature routinely blocks local governments from enacting certain policies, or requires local governments to do certain things, through preemption laws, the Idaho Capital Sun reported.

Under the bill, the attorney general would only have that power for state laws that lack enforcement mechanisms.

Once the attorney general files an action about violations of state law, the bill orders the attorney general to freeze certain funds to the county or city government entity, including installments from revenue-sharing accounts and state general funds. Funds would be released if a court finds the government entity complied with state law.

Courts would issue orders to comply with state law in cases where the attorney general’s claims were proven “by a preponderance of the evidence.” That legal evidentiary standard, common in civil cases, is lower than the criminal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt.”

But people who violate judicial orders associated with the bill could be found guilty of contempt. And if an official or government employee’s violation of state law is found to be “willful,” a court could fine them an up to $50,000 civil penalty.

This story first appeared on Idaho Capital Sun.