Bill Description: House Bill 885 would tighten restrictions on who can apply for the homestead exemption, apply unequal standards for what activities are deemed acceptable exceptions, link candidacy to the homestead exemption, and apply these changes retroactively.
Rating: -3
Does it directly or indirectly create or increase any taxes, fees, or other assessments? Conversely, does it eliminate or reduce any taxes, fees, or other assessments?
Idaho law offers a property tax exemption known as the homestead exemption, which exempts the first $125,000 or 50% of assessed value (whichever is lesser) from property taxes. Among other requirements, the homestead must be “owner-occupied and used as the primary dwelling place of the owner.”
House Bill 885 would amend Section 63-602G, Idaho Code, to say that a homeowner seeking the homestead exemption cannot have a “similar homestead exemption in any other state in the United States.”
The bill would also require the county assessor to “investigate” if the applicant has “claimed the exemption for another homestead in Idaho or in any other state in the United States.”
It would further amend the section to require that the “residence address associated with a homeowner's Idaho state-issued driver's license number or Idaho state-issued identification card number shall be the same as the address of the claimed homestead property.” The only allowable exception would be if the homeowner could “submit evidence of filing an Idaho individual income tax return in the prior or current calendar year showing the address of the claimed homestead property.”
In general, homestead exemptions are predicated on the property in question being someone’s primary residence, and such a requirement would make it impossible to lawfully claim two such exemptions at the same time. The bill does not define “similar homestead exemption,” however, so if another state had less restrictive requirements (such as including a residence maintained for personal use without a state residency condition), this prohibition could potentially prohibit an otherwise compatible exemption.
Increasing the stringency of these rules could cause some homeowners to lose their exemption, forcing them to pay more in taxes.
(0)
Does it in any way restrict public access to information related to government activity or otherwise compromise government transparency, accountability, or election integrity? Conversely, does it increase public access to information related to government activity or increase government transparency, accountability, or election integrity?
The bill would also add two new provisions related to seeking election to public office.
The first would say that any information disclosed as part of the homestead exemption application process “shall, as necessary, be used to determine a person's residence for purposes of qualifying as a candidate for any elected office under title 34, Idaho Code.”
The second would require that “a person's residence for any declaration of candidacy for elected office is the same as the homestead for which such person has an active exemption pursuant to this section, if an exemption is so claimed.”
While the general merits of these requirements may be debatable, the bill’s enactment clause says “this act shall be in full force and effect on and after its passage and approval, and retroactively to January 1, 2026.”
The final filing deadline for public offices in this election cycle closed at 5:00 PM on March 13, 2026, and this bill was introduced on March 12, 2026. If these provisions explicitly linking the address on “any declaration of candidacy” and the address used for a homestead exemption were to retroactively invalidate someone’s candidacy, it would be too late either for the candidate to correct the matter or for other challengers to enter the race.
(-1)
Does it violate the principle of equal protection under the law? Examples include laws that discriminate or differentiate based on age, gender, or religion or which apply laws, regulations, rules, or penalties differently based on such characteristics. Conversely, does it restore or protect the principle of equal protection under the law?
The bill’s application to those seeking public office applies only to candidates who have or apply for a homeowner’s exemption, even though residency requirements should apply uniformly to all candidates. Those who rent, for example, or didn’t seek an exemption for some other reason would face a different standard for determining residency qualification. The bill effectively creates two classes of candidates, one group potentially disqualified or burdened by the retroactive application (with no realistic opportunity to cure due to closed filing), while the other group is unaffected.
(-1)
The bill includes a provision similar to that found in House Bill 610, introduced earlier this year, which creates a special exception for those serving a religious mission.
The bill would add language requiring an applicant for the homestead exemption to “not live in another state in the United States for more than six (6) months out of the year, unless the homeowner is in active military service or serving a religious mission.”
Religious service can be a noble calling, and the law should not seek to discourage it, but there are many honorable reasons why a homeowner might be absent for an extended period. Temporary relocation for employment, education, or taking care of a sick relative are just some examples.
It is appropriate for the law to recognize that maintaining a homestead exemption should not require the owner to reside there if he or she is away for good cause and intends to return, but creating a special exception for just one such reason while leaving others without a similar remedy is an unequal application of the law.
(-1)
