Constitutional amendments to be decided
October 13, 2012
Idahoans are being asked this general election to decide on two proposed amendments to the state constitution, to to clarify an existing provision of Article X, the other to add a new section to Article I, the declaration of rights.

Article X: Public Institutions, Section 5 establishes the state board of correction, comprised of three members appointed by the governor, along with the responsibilities of that board.

If approved, Senate Joint Resolution 102 would add a single word to Section 5, one of clarity.

Under the current section, the state board of corrections is given control of the state's penitentiaries and of all adults on probation or parole within the state of Idaho.

SJR 102, if approved, will add an important word, "felony," to make it clear that the board, and thus the state's, control over is limited to those on parole or probation for felony offenses; juveniles and those on probation for misdemeanors would be supervised, as most are now, by the counties.

Those in favor say the amendment would preserve local control of the misdemeanor probation process by clarifying that the state's role is limited to felony offenders, while counties have supervision authority over misdemeanor probationers.

Those opposed say that amendments to the Constitution should be made only for major issues of interest to the state or in the event of a constitutional crisis and that the section, as currently written, preserves the statewide uniform felony probation system, but does not address possible different misdemeanor probation treatment among judicial districts.

Article I, Section 1, of the Idaho Constitution establish what are considered the inalienable rights of each of us. There are sections covering the guarantee of religious liberty, the right of habeas corpus, freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms and the rights of suffrage.

House Joint Resolution would add a 23rd Section to Article I, this one establishing among our inalienable rights the right to hunt, fish and trap.

Don't get too excited, if approved, it won't do away with seasons, tags or licenses. Rather, it would establish hunting, fishing and trapping as the state's preferred method of wildlife management.

If the proposed amendment is approved by a majority of the Idaho electorate, Article I, Section 23, will read:

"The rights to hunt, fish and trap, including by the use of traditional methods, are a valued part of the heritage of the State of Idaho and shall forever be preserved for the people and managed through the laws, rules and proclamations that preserve the future of hunting, fishing and trapping. Public hunting, fishing and trapping of wildlife shall be a preferred means of managing wildlife. The rights set forth herein do not create a right to trespass on private property, shall not affect rights to divert, appropriate and use water, or establish any minimum amount of water in any water body, shall not lead to a diminution of other private rights, and shall not prevent the suspension or revocation, pursuant to statute enacted by the Legislature, of an individual's hunting, fishing or trapping license."

Proponents say the proposed amendment will preserve Idaho's sporting heritage and preclude the threat of bans on certain types of hunting and fishing.

Opponents say the amendment isn't necessary because the rights to hunt, fish and trap are not threatened and are already protected by law and that Idaho Department of Fish and Game's wildlife management decisions could be constitutionally challenged we4re this amendment approved. They also fear it would limit laws to ban inhumane or unsportsmanlike hunting and fishing practices.

To get on the ballot, both measures had to be approved by two thirds of the membership of the Idaho legislature.

To amend the constitution, each proposal needs a simple majority of voters to mark their ballot "yes."