Changing the Constitution

Changing the U.S. Constitution takes three-fourths of the states. Changing Idaho's takes two-thirds of the Legislature and a majority of voters, so Idaho voters see proposed amendments on many general election ballots. Some are housekeeping. Some reshape power, like the 1912 amendments that created the initiative and referendum.

This lesson covers the rules in Article XX, how courts have read them, what has passed and failed, and the two amendments on the November 3, 2026 ballot, told through the official text, ballot questions and Legislative Council statements. The goal is not to tell you how to vote. It is to make sure you know exactly what you are voting on.

What Article XX actually says

Article XX has four sections. You can read each one on the Legislature's site: Section 1, Section 2, Section 3 and Section 4.

Section 1: the legislative route

Any amendment or amendments to this Constitution may be proposed in either branch of the legislature, and if the same shall be agreed to by two-thirds of all the members of each of the two houses, voting separately, such proposed amendment or amendments shall, with the yeas and nays thereon, be entered on their journals, and it shall be the duty of the legislature to submit such amendment or amendments to the electors of the state at the next general election, and cause the same to be published without delay for at least three times in every newspaper qualified to publish legal notices as provided by law. Said publication shall provide the arguments proposing and opposing said amendment or amendments as provided by law, and if a majority of the electors shall ratify the same, such amendment or amendments shall become a part of this Constitution.Idaho Const. art. XX, sec. 1

Break that into its working parts:

• Who proposes: either house, by joint resolution (HJR or SJR).
• The vote: two-thirds "of all the members" of each house, not of those present: at least 47 of 70 House members and 24 of 35 senators. An absence counts like a no.
• When voters decide: at the next general election, not a primary or special election.
• Publication: at least three times in every qualified legal newspaper, with arguments for and against. Voters approved that "every newspaper" requirement in 1974 (SJR 118, approved 64.5 percent), according to the Secretary of State's amendment history.
• Ratification: "a majority of the electors." The next section explains how courts read those words.

The governor has no role: no signature, no veto. Both 2026 resolutions went from the Legislature straight to the Secretary of State.

Section 2: one question per amendment

If two or more amendments are proposed, they shall be submitted in such manner that the electors shall vote for or against each of them separately.Idaho Const. art. XX, sec. 2

This guards against logrolling: packaging a popular change with an unpopular one. Voters twice refused to loosen it: SJR 7 in 1966 (48.2 percent yes) and SJR 3 in 1968 (46.6 percent yes), per the Secretary of State's records.

Sections 3 and 4: a convention

Whenever two-thirds of the members elected to each branch of the legislature shall deem it necessary to call a convention to revise or amend this Constitution, they shall recommend to the electors to vote at the next general election, for or against a convention, and if a majority of all the electors voting at said election shall have voted for a convention, the legislature shall at the next session provide by law for calling the same; and such convention shall consist of a number of members, not less than double the number of the most numerous branch of the legislature.Idaho Const. art. XX, sec. 3

Section 4 adds that anything a convention produces "shall have no validity until it has been submitted to, and adopted by, the people." Notice the different voting standard: a convention call needs "a majority of all the electors voting at said election," which is a higher bar than Section 1's "majority of the electors." That difference mattered in 1896.

Idaho voters have rejected a convention call. In 1918, SJR 2 asked whether to hold a convention to revise or amend the Constitution, and it lost with 31.1 percent yes (1892 to 1918 history). In 1970 the Legislature put a fully revised constitution on the ballot as SJR 122, and voters turned it down, 75,138 yes to 145,066 no (1960 to 1978 history). The 1890 document, amended piece by piece, is still the one in force.

How Idaho courts police the process

An earlier casualty: a 1908 court-reorganization amendment (HJR 3) passed with 52.3 percent but, per the Secretary of State's history, was "voided by Court decision, 1908, non-compliance w/requirements for amending constitution."

What has passed and what has failed

The Secretary of State's Initiatives and Amendments page links amendment history tables with vote totals from 1892 through 2018, and lists the results of later amendments. A sample:

Year	Measure	What it did	Result
1912	SJR 12 and SJR 13	Created the referendum and the initiative (Art. III, Sec. 1)	Both approved (76.4% and 71.9%)
1916	SJR 1	Prohibited manufacture and sale of liquor (Art. III, Sec. 26)	Approved, 71.9%
1934	SJR 5	Gave the Legislature power to regulate liquor (Art. III, Sec. 26)	Approved, 61.4%
1934	HJR 7	Simple majority vote on initiatives (Art. III, Sec. 1)	Defeated, 49.3%
1982	HJR 7	Removed voter disqualifications, including the old anti-Mormon language (Art. VI, Sec. 3)	Approved, 65.7%
2012	HJR 2	Right to hunt, fish and trap (Art. I, Sec. 23)	Approved, 70.3%
2014	HJR 2	Legislative oversight of agency rulemaking	Defeated, 49.4%
2016	HJR 5	Legislature may approve or reject administrative rules without a veto	Approved, 55.5%

Sources: amendment histories for 1892 to 1918, 1920 to 1938, 1980 to 1998 and 2000 to 2018. More recently, voters approved the 2020 HJR 4, the 2022 SJR 102 (letting the Legislature convene itself in special session) and the 2024 HJR 5 (only U.S. citizens may vote); the Initiatives and Amendments page lists all three as passed.

Two patterns stand out. Amendments fail, sometimes by a hair: the 2014 rulemaking amendment lost 49.4 to 50.6 percent, and a different version passed in 2016. And Article III, Section 26, which HJR 4 would amend, has been rewritten before: prohibition went in by 1916 vote, and the 1934 text giving the Legislature "full power and authority to permit, control and regulate or prohibit" liquor replaced it.

This lesson gives no total count of amendments: no official source we found states one.

Who writes the words voters see

Three different sets of words reach voters, and each has a different author.

1. The amendment text and the ballot question. Both are written into the joint resolution itself and adopted by the two-thirds votes. Section 2 of each 2026 resolution states the exact question.
2. The statement of meaning and purpose. Idaho Code 67-453 directs the Legislative Council to write "a brief statement setting forth in simple, understandable language the meaning and purpose of the proposed amendment and the result to be accomplished." That statement is printed on the ballot.
3. The arguments for and against. The same statute requires "a concise presentation of the major arguments advanced by the proponents and opponents ... designed to represent as fairly as possible the arguments." The Council may take suggestions from the public, but "no recognition shall be given" to whoever submitted them. The arguments go in the voter pamphlet, not on the ballot.

The Council must file these at least 120 days before the election. For 2026, the Legislature's proposed amendments page set that deadline at July 6, 2026, and invited public suggestions through May 15, 2026. The Council adopted the statements at a June 4, 2026 meeting. News coverage by Idaho News 6/KBOI and the Idaho Capital Sun reported that members debated and revised the staff drafts before approving them: for HJR 4 they rewrote the statement of meaning and shortened the opposing argument, and for HJR 6 they changed "would" to "could" in much of the argument language.

Initiatives differ: the Attorney General and Secretary of State jointly write their yes and no statements under Idaho Code 34-1810. In an opinion issued September 4, 2026, and replaced by a substitute opinion filed September 6, 2026, the Idaho Supreme Court ordered those rewritten for Proposition One, the initiative on this ballot, because they failed to "clearly and concisely" convey a vote's effect, then approved the revised statements 4 to 1 (Idahoans United for Women and Families v. McGrane, Docket No. 54406-2026, substitute opinion). It shows ballot wording can be tested in court.

The 2026 amendments: HJR 4

Quotations below come from the resolution (HJR 4 text) and the Secretary of State's 2026 Idaho Voter Pamphlet, pages 4 and 5.

How it got to the ballot

The House State Affairs Committee introduced HJR 4 on February 28, 2025. The House adopted it 58 to 10 (2 absent) on March 5, and the Senate adopted it 29 to 6 on March 11. It was delivered to the Secretary of State on March 14, 2025 (bill history). Both votes cleared the two-thirds bar.

The ballot question

Shall Section 26, Article III of the Constitution of the State of Idaho be amended to provide that only the Idaho Legislature shall have power and authority to legalize the growing, producing, manufacturing, transporting, selling, delivering, dispensing, administering, prescribing, distributing, possessing, or using of marijuana, narcotics, or other psychoactive substances?HJR 4 (2025), Section 2; 2026 Idaho Voter Pamphlet

The new language

HJR 4 keeps the 1934 liquor sentence as subsection (1), renames the section "Power and Authority over Intoxicating Liquors and Psychoactive Substances," and adds:

(2) Effective immediately upon adoption by the voters of Idaho, only the legislature of the state of Idaho shall have power and authority to legalize the growing, producing, manufacturing, transporting, selling, delivering, dispensing, administering, prescribing, distributing, possessing, or using of marijuana, narcotics, or other psychoactive substances.HJR 4 (2025), Section 1

The Legislative Council's statement (printed on the ballot)

This proposed constitutional amendment would give the Legislature exclusive authority to legalize marijuana, narcotics, or other psychoactive substances in the State of Idaho.Legislative Council, 2026 Idaho Voter Pamphlet, p. 4

What your vote does, in the pamphlet's words

• Yes: "A YES vote would give the Legislature exclusive authority to legalize marijuana, narcotics, or other psychoactive substances in the State of Idaho."
• No: "A NO vote would make no change to Idaho's Constitution, which currently allows changes to Idaho's controlled substances laws using the initiative process."

The arguments, as the Legislative Council wrote them

For: "Drugs destroy lives, tear apart families, and threaten the safety of our communities. Decisions about legalizing marijuana, narcotics, and other psychoactive substances are too important to be made lightly. The proposed amendment would ensure that any proposal to legalize these dangerous substances would go through the legislative process. Public hearings would be held on the proposal, where law enforcement and people whose lives have been damaged by drugs would be able to testify. Legislators would carefully consider each proposal and would be publicly accountable for their votes."

Against: "The Idaho Constitution says that all political power belongs to the people. But the proposed amendment would take power away from the people by getting rid of their ability to pass drug legalization laws on their own through ballot initiatives. The people are as capable of making good, careful decisions about drug policy as legislators are. The amendment is also unnecessary because if the people did ever pass a poorly considered law legalizing drugs, the Legislature would have the power to amend or repeal it."

Context that helps you read it

• Current law. Marijuana is in Schedule I (Idaho Code 37-2705). The fiscal note says HJR 4 "proposes no changes to existing statutes."
• The provisions each side cites. The sponsors' statement of purpose quotes Article III, Section 24 ("The first concern of all good government is the virtue and sobriety of the people"). The opposing argument rests on Article I, Section 2 ("All political power is inherent in the people").
• The initiative power it touches. Article III, Section 1 says "The people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws, and enact the same at the polls independent of the legislature." The pamphlet's No statement describes HJR 4 in relation to that power. For how the initiative works, see Lesson 6.
• Recent initiative attempts. The Secretary of State lists two 2026 cannabis initiatives (the Idaho Medical Cannabis Act and the Decriminalize Cannabis Now Initiative) that did not qualify for the ballot, and medical marijuana initiatives that did not qualify in 2020, 2022 and 2024 (Initiatives and Amendments).
• How the state's election site summarizes it. The Secretary of State's Initiatives and Amendments page describes a yes vote as also removing "the ability for citizens to initiate state statutes that would legalize these substances." That web summary is not the Council statement and is not on the ballot, so name your source when quoting either.

The 2026 amendments: HJR 6

How it got to the ballot

The House Ways and Means Committee introduced HJR 6 on March 7, 2025. The House adopted it 59 to 8 (3 absent) on March 13, and the Senate adopted it 30 to 5 on March 25. It was delivered to the Secretary of State on March 26, 2025 (bill history).

The ballot question

Shall Article X of the Constitution of the State of Idaho be amended by the addition of a new Section 8, to provide that the English language shall be the official language for the state of Idaho, and to further provide that, except as required by federal law, English shall be used in all public proceedings, public documents, public instruction, and any other public acts of any public institution in the state of Idaho?HJR 6 (2025), Section 2; 2026 Idaho Voter Pamphlet

The new section

Section 8. ENGLISH THE OFFICIAL STATE LANGUAGE. The English language shall be the official language for the state of Idaho. Except as required by federal law, English shall be used in all public proceedings, public documents, public instruction, and any other public acts of any public institution in the state of Idaho.HJR 6 (2025), Section 1

Article X is titled "Public Institutions." Its current sections cover state institutions, the seat of government and state prisons (Article X index). Section 8 would be new.

The Legislative Council's statement (printed on the ballot)

This proposed constitutional amendment would designate English as the official state language. All official speeches, meetings, and other proceedings of state and local governments, such as city council meetings and jury trials, would be conducted in English, and instruction in public schools would be provided in English. All documents of state and local government entities would be published in English. However, the amendment would allow languages other than English to be used when required by federal law.Legislative Council, 2026 Idaho Voter Pamphlet, p. 5

What your vote does, in the pamphlet's words

• Yes: "A YES vote would designate English the official state language of Idaho."
• No: "A NO vote would make no change to Idaho's Constitution, which currently does not designate an official state language."

The arguments, as the Legislative Council wrote them

For: "The amendment could encourage non-English speakers to learn English to be able to better participate in public life. This could promote unity and create a stronger sense of community and shared identity. Non-English speakers would still have language assistance for critical government services, because that is required by federal law. The amendment could promote social cohesion without endangering anyone. The amendment could promote cost-efficient government by limiting the resources spent on communications in languages other than English."

Against: "The amendment is unnecessary because state law already makes English the official state language. The existing law is better than the amendment because the existing law is much more detailed. For example, the law allows public schools to teach foreign languages to interested students. The amendment, by requiring that all public instruction be conducted in English, might not allow this. The amendment could create social division by signaling to non-English speakers that they are unwelcome in the state and their communities."

Context that helps you read it

Idaho already has an official-language statute. Idaho Code 73-121, added in 1986 and amended in 2007, declares English "the official language of the state of Idaho." The two texts differ in a way worth laying side by side:

Question	Idaho Code 73-121 (statute, now)	HJR 6 (proposed constitutional text)
Declares English official?	Yes	Yes
Exceptions	When required by the U.S. or Idaho Constitution or federal law or regulation; law enforcement or public health and safety needs; public schools under State Board of Education rules; colleges and universities; tourism and economic development; terms of art and proper names; library foreign language collections and services	"Except as required by federal law"
Who can change it?	The Legislature, by passing a bill	Only another constitutional amendment approved by voters

How a court would reconcile the statute's broader exceptions with the amendment's single exception, if HJR 6 passes, is a question no Idaho court has answered. The pamphlet's opposing argument raises it; the supporting argument emphasizes that federally required language help would continue. Report it as an open question, not a settled result.

After November 3

Counties canvass returns within nine days (Idaho Code 34-1205). HJR 4 takes effect "immediately upon adoption by the voters"; HJR 6 states no effective date. The Legislature's online Constitution is updated each July 1, so cite the resolution text until a ratified change appears there.