Bill Description: Senate Bill 1122 would redefine “terrorism” and “terrorist” and create new definitions for “domestic terrorism” and “domestic terrorist” in Idaho law.
Rating: 0
NOTE: When considering the potential implications of new laws, it is important to consider not just how the law might be best used or interpreted, but how it might be misused or abused by those who have little interest in protecting individual liberty. Particularly when it comes to crime and punishment, extreme care must be taken to narrowly tailor each law to prevent its misapplication.
NOTE: Senate Bill 1122 was amended in the Senate to change the wording regarding the federal designation of a terrorist organization. The changes made by the Senate amendment are indicated in the analysis below. Because most of the concerns outlined in this analysis centered around the federal designation, and the revised terminology meaningfully clarifies the process, the rating has been updated from (-2) to (0).
Does it violate the spirit or the letter of either the U.S. Constitution or the Idaho Constitution? Examples include restrictions on speech, public assembly, the press, privacy, private property, or firearms. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the protections guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution or the Idaho Constitution?
Senate Bill 1122 would amend Section 18-8101, Idaho Code, to redefine “terrorism” and “terrorist” and create new definitions for “domestic terrorism” and “domestic terrorist” in Idaho law.
Under this new definition, "terrorism" would mean:
"Activities that are done in cooperation with any federally designated international terrorist organization that threatens or appears to threaten foreign terrorist organization, as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1189, that threatens the sovereignty of another state or the United States of America; are within the geographical boundaries of the state of Idaho; and either
A "terrorist" would be defined as "a person who pleads guilty to or is found guilty of terrorism as defined in this section."
Similarly, "domestic terrorism" would be defined to mean:
"Activities conducted within or that take effect within the geographical boundaries of the state of Idaho that are done in cooperation with any federally designated international terrorist organization that threatens or appears to threaten foreign terrorist organization, as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1189, that threatens the sovereignty of Idaho or the United States of America; are a violation of Idaho criminal law; and either
A "domestic terrorist" would be defined as "a person who pleads guilty to or is found guilty of domestic terrorism as defined in this section."
While parts of these definitions may be reasonable, others could be used to ensnare individuals who are simply passionate about political issues.
The first problem is the phrase "in cooperation with any federally designated international terrorist organization" because (in addition to the federalism issues discussed below) there is no definition of what constitutes cooperation. If the Biden administration decides to designate all of Russia as a terrorist organization and an Idaho citizen brings a printout of an article from the Russian media outlet RT to a city council meeting, could he be considered acting "in cooperation with" a terrorist organization? Similarly, would someone who shares YouTube videos or retweets content from a foreign organization disliked by the federal government risk falling under this definition?
The second problem is the way the use of "or" in these definitions equates entirely different types of actions. On one hand, there are "violent acts" involving the "use of weapons of mass destruction," while on the other are "threats" that "influence" policy.
What constitutes a threat can often be a matter of perspective, and broad statements about potential future events (e.g. "This is the kind of thing that leads to revolution") can be categorized as threats by people who resent the observation.
A serial retweeter who makes unappreciated observations about human nature at a city council or school board meeting could unintentionally find himself arrested for "domestic terrorism" under the definitions contained in this statute, even if that is not the intent of this legislation.
While there is still some risk of overreach under this definition, the risk has been at least partially mitigated by the amendment to the bill that clarifies the process by which the federal government can designate an organization as a foreign terrorist organization.
(0)
Does it violate the principles of federalism by increasing federal authority, yielding to federal blandishments, or incorporating changeable federal laws into Idaho statutes or rules? Examples include citing federal code without noting as it is written on a certain date, using state resources to enforce federal law, and refusing to support and uphold the Tenth Amendment. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the principles of federalism?
Senate Bill 1122 would define both "terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" in part as activities "done in cooperation with any federally designated international terrorist organization that threatens or appears to threaten the sovereignty of another state or the United States of America."
The federal government has a troubling history when it comes to such designations, to say the least, and there is nothing preventing future designations from being even more dubious.
Idaho should not define crimes based on federal designations, especially unknown future designations that may run counter to the beliefs and policies of the state of Idaho.
The definition of a "foreign terrorist organization" could be improved by limiting it to those organizations already designated as such, on the date the bill was adopted. In that way, the Legislature could be sure that it approved of all the federal government's designations. The Legislature could update the date in future years if it agreed with future federal actions.
(0)
