Bill Description: Senate Concurrent Resolution 107 expresses legislative support for local control.
Rating: -1
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 Concurrent Resolution 107 says "the Legislature recognizes the value of local governance and encourages a collaborative approach that respects the ability of cities and municipal governments to make decisions in the best interests of their residents. The Legislature encourages meaningful consultation between state agencies, the Governor, and municipal governments when developing policies that impact local communities. Additionally, the Legislature generally supports efforts to uphold and reinforce local decision-making authority, enabling municipal governments to effectively address essential needs, such as housing, infrastructure, and public safety. Lastly, the Legislature affirms the importance of local control, recognizing that decision-making at the community level leads to effective and responsive outcomes for Idaho residents."
Some of these concepts have useful applications. But other concepts, particularly those under the umbrella of “public safety,” are antithetical to individual liberty and constitutional rights.
The state has a responsibility to protect individuals from manipulators that would regulate firearms, mandate masks or vaccines, or otherwise attempt to curtail fundamental liberties.
The relationship of local governments to the state is not analogous to the relationship between the states and the federal government. The federal government was created by the states and it has only those powers delegated to it by the states and the people. The relationship that cities and counties have with the state is different. Cities and counties are political subdivisions of the state, and they do not (and should not) have the authority to overrule the state, especially in matters dealing with fundamental liberties.
Even in more mundane matters, it is appropriate for the state government to prevent local governments from engaging in excessive regulation or spending.
Idaho law contains a number of preemption laws that prevent local governments from violating rights or imposing onerous regulations. A few examples include laws that prevent local governments from regulating guns, imposing a minimum wage, and banning plastic bags.
Such limitations are appropriate exercises of state authority on behalf of individual freedom, and the state would do well to overturn other local regulations. The state should act to defend individual liberty from infringements by local governments and to reduce the scope and spending of local governments even when those governments may oppose such efforts.
(-1)
