Friday could’ve been ordained “Rep. Barbara Ehardt Day” at the Idaho Statehouse. Three of the Idaho Falls Republican’s bills advanced — on her birthday. 

The bills include a proposal barring transgender college students from using same-sex university facilities that align with their gender identity. The House approved it on a party-line vote. 

“Consider the dorm rooms where you might send your daughter to school, and lo and behold, she finds out that she’s going to be rooming with a man,” Ehardt said. “…It’s a common sense, Idaho piece of legislation.”

House Bill 264 would direct colleges and universities to designate multi-occupancy restrooms, changing rooms and dorm rooms “for the exclusive use by either females or males.” The requirement would also apply to prisons and domestic violence shelters.

Transgender college students — and other students whose gender identity doesn’t match their birth sex — would be barred from using bathrooms, locker rooms and dorm rooms that align with their preferred gender.

The legislation also includes a private cause of action that would give someone standing to file a lawsuit against a higher education institution, prison or shelter that fails to take “reasonable steps” to maintain same-sex facilities. 

Only Rep. John Gannon debated against the bill on the House floor Friday. Gannon, D-Boise, said the same rules shouldn’t apply to prisons, shelters and universities, which are “so incredibly different.” Gannon also argued that the bill would place an additional burden on corrections officers who already frequently face lawsuits by inmates.

“The staff should be in charge, not the inmates, and giving another right to sue to inmates is not a good idea.”

Friday’s House debate followed a lengthy public hearing last week when more than a dozen people testified against the proposal. Many argued that the bill targets transgender rights, and it would create uncomfortable — and potentially dangerous — situations when transgender Idahoans use same-sex facilities that don’t align with their identity. 

The bill now heads to the Senate. 

Additionally, the House unanimously approved these bills Friday, sending them to the Senate: 

House Bill 331 would increase the cap on a state credit enhancement tool helping charter schools earn lower interest rates on bonds.

House Bill 275 would consolidate sections of code that require public school districts and charter schools to have internet filtering policies.

House Education Committee debates campus free speech, sex education

The House Education Committee advanced two more Ehardt bills Friday. 

One aims to protect free speech on college campuses while the other would require that parents opt-in to sex education.

Sex education 

Tensions flared in a committee debate over House Bill 239, which would change Idaho’s sex education law from a parental opt-out to an opt-in. 

In other words, parents would have to consent for their children to participate in instruction on sexuality, including sexual and gender identity. The bill would require two-week notice to parents before the instruction takes place. 

“Of all the topics out there that are being taught…sexuality is the topic that parents are most upset about,” Ehardt said. “Parents want to be in that conversation.”

The bill would also create a private cause of action allowing parents to sue a school district for instruction given without their consent. Districts could face $250 fines along with additional damages. 

Rep. Monica Church, a public school teacher, objected to handing down a new regulation to public schools without applying a similar standard to private schools.

“We add one every day in this body,” said Church, D-Boise. “What about the parental rights of all these other schools?”

Ehardt said she “took issue” with the suggestion that the opt-in would be “adding more regulation” because it’s “swapping out” the old opt-out rule. When Church pressed that the opt-in would be “difficult to administer,” Ehardt gave a terse response, 

“How much sex are you planning to teach?” she said.

All but two Republicans on the committee supported the bill. HB 239 now heads to the full House. 

Campus free speech

The House Education Committee also voted to advance House Bill 240, which aims to protect free speech rights on Idaho’s college and university campuses. 

The bill would prohibit colleges and universities from placing limitations on speech that are more restrictive than the time, place and manner restrictions allowed by the First Amendment. It would also bar colleges and universities from charging security fees for controversial campus speakers. 

“With this bill’s passage, Idaho would send a great message to its current and prospective students that Idaho campuses are places for the open exchange of ideas, where your free speech rights will be protected,” said Zack Pruitt, senior counsel and director of U.S. government relations with the Alliance Defending Freedom. 

The ADF is a Christian legal advocacy group that has worked with Ehardt on multiple bills this legislative session as well as previous sessions. 

Ehardt said in a previous hearing that the speech protections would have shielded Big City Coffee had they been in place before owner Sarah Jo Fendley successfully sued Boise State University on First Amendment grounds. But Pruitt clarified Friday that the bill doesn’t apply to commercial speech. 

“This bill is strictly dealing with the ability to speak in public spaces on university campuses,” he said. 

The House Education Committee approved the bill on a 9-5 vote. 

Before voting in favor, Rep. Tony Wisniewski tied the proposal to a recent North Idaho legislative town hall that has sparked free speech debates across the state. During the event, hosted by the Kootenai County Republican Central Committee, a Post Falls woman was dragged out of a public school auditorium by plainclothes security guards for heckling a panel of legislators. The Coeur d’Alene Press reported on the chaotic situation here.

Wisniewski, R-Coeur d’Alene, who was a member of the on-stage panel, said his “freedom of speech was interrupted” by the heckling, which focused on Republicans’ efforts to limit Medicaid eligibility and cut costs. 

“It’s very ironic to me that those people in the audience, who were asked to be respectful and have a chance to discuss things at a question-and-answer period…interrupted our freedom of speech.” 

HB 240 now heads to the full House.

Senate introduces repeal of Empowering parents

The Senate made quick work of several education-related bills Friday, including by introducing a proposal that would eliminate the Empowering Parents microgrant program.

Sponsoring Sen. Lori Den Hartog, R-Meridian, didn’t discuss the bill during Friday’s Senate State Affairs Committee meeting. But the Senate Majority Leader co-sponsored House Bill 93, which this week enacted a new tax credit program covering private education expenses.

Opponents of HB 93 raised concerns that recipients of the tax credit would be able to double-dip in state subsidies by also claiming Empowering Parents grants.

The Senate State Affairs Committee voted to introduce the bill, paving the way for a future public hearing.

The committee also introduced a bill that would tie some public school funding to student outcomes. The proposal appears to be similar to state superintendent Debbie Critchfield’s unsuccessful outcomes-based funding bill from last legislative session.

Sponsoring Sen. Dave Lent, R-Idaho Falls, said, “Instead of schools that receive more money for doing worse, we’re going to provide a base level of funding and then additional funding on top of that, based on the performance of the students in a couple of areas.”

Meanwhile, the full Senate on Friday approved:

• Senate Bill 1007, which would remove a provision from existing state law that allows school boards to limit public comment to agenda items.
• Senate Bill 1092, which would offer lifetime teaching certificates to educators with at least 25 years of experience.

Committee green-lights alternate qualifications for school administrators

The House Education Committee advanced one other bill Friday

House Bill 295 would allow school districts to hire principals and superintendents who don’t have experience as a certified teacher or administrator. Sponsoring Rep. Dale Hawkins said the “leadership apprenticeship program” would help districts address recruitment challenges, particularly in rural areas. 

“Many districts face increasing difficulties in recruiting school principals and superintendents, leaving critical leadership gaps that impact student success,” said Hawkins, R-Fernwood.

Apprentices would need a bachelor’s degree along with a professional background showing “competency” in an “education-related experience” or a leadership role in government, business, nonprofit or military settings. They would also need to enroll in an administrator leadership program, if they haven’t completed one already.

Currently, to qualify for a standard State Board of Education principal or superintendent endorsement, four years of certificated teaching experience is required, among other benchmarks. 

Lawmakers voted, 9-5, to advance the bill creating the apprenticeship program. 

Andy Grover, executive director of the Idaho Association of School Administrators, testified against the bill. A lack of candidates with standard qualifications isn’t driving turnover among administrators, Grover said. More frequently, administrators leave school districts because of non-competitive pay or “upheaval” around public education in their communities. 

“We have plenty of people with certifications,” Grover said. “…Trying to throw something at it that doesn’t fix the problem does not help it go away.”