Idaho’s Open Meetings Law was written for a different era — one when showing up in person was the only realistic way to participate in government. In a state as large, rural, and geographically spread out as ours, that model no longer works for many Idahoans.

Idaho House Bill 537 – introduced by Representative Chris Bruce – is an overdue recognition of that reality.

The bill would require governing bodies to provide an opportunity for public comment at all open public meetings, either in person or through remote means like telephone or video conferencing. It also prevents agencies from forcing citizens to submit comments in advance, requires clear notice of how to participate, and allows reasonable time limits so meetings can stay orderly.

That may sound procedural, but it’s actually a meaningful shift. Today, many Idaho governing bodies are legally allowed to hold meetings where the public can observe but not speak — or where participation is limited to those who can physically attend at a specific time and place. H537 changes that by making participation a right, not a courtesy.

This reform comes amid a broader debate about transparency in Idaho government. As we highlighted in a recent case in Jerome, public meetings across the state are often inaccessible in practice, even when they are technically “open.”

Citizens who can’t attend in person — because of work, distance, disability, or caregiving responsibilities — are effectively shut out. In some cases, officials have even restricted recording or livestreaming, limiting the public’s ability to see how decisions are made.

H537 addresses part of that problem by ensuring people can speak. But transparency doesn’t end with comment periods. Participation and observation are two sides of the same democratic coin. The right to speak matters little if the broader public cannot watch proceedings, understand the context of decisions, or review discussions after the fact. And in 2026, the technology to make meetings visible is neither exotic nor expensive.

That’s why lawmakers should view House Bill 537 not as the finish line, but as the foundation.

To make it stronger and more durable, the Legislature should consider three targeted improvements.

First, when governing bodies use video or internet-based platforms, meetings should be livestreamed whenever practicable and recordings made available afterward. If officials can hear the public remotely, the public should be able to see officials remotely.

Second, Idaho law should explicitly protect the right of citizens and journalists to record public meetings, so long as recording is not disruptive. This would prevent transparency from depending on local policy swings or individual discretion.

Third, the law should clarify that remote access tools used for public comment must also allow passive viewing, even after comment periods close. Watching a meeting should never be conditioned on speaking at it.

These changes would not burden local governments. Most already possess the necessary technology, and clear statewide rules would reduce confusion, complaints, and legal risk. More importantly, they would align Idaho’s transparency laws with modern expectations.

Open government is not about mistrust. It’s about legitimacy. Decisions carry more weight when people can see how they were made and know they had a fair chance to be heard.

House Bill 537 moves Idaho in the right direction by guaranteeing public participation. Legislators could do even more to ensure visibility as well as voice.