The Referendum and the Legislature

The initiative gets most of the attention because it lets voters write a law. The referendum is the other tool in the same 1912 amendment, and it works backward: voters sign to put a new law on hold for a vote, then decide whether it stays. The basics of both tools, and how they differ from a recall, are in lesson 1 and in the short overview at Initiatives and Referendums. This lesson covers the statewide referendum in detail and the long back-and-forth between voters and lawmakers over direct legislation. Local referendums on city and county ordinances are in lesson 6.

What the constitution reserves

Article III, section 1 says the people "reserve to themselves the power to approve or reject at the polls any act or measure passed by the legislature." Voters may demand that vote "under such conditions and in such manner as may be provided by acts of the legislature." That second phrase is why so much of the fight happens in statute: the constitution grants the power, and the Legislature writes the procedure.

The Legislature took its time. According to the Idaho Supreme Court's history in Reclaim Idaho v. Denney (August 23, 2021), a 1915 enabling bill would have required 10 percent of voters in every county for a referendum, with every signature witnessed by a judge or state official. Governor Moses Alexander vetoed it as "fatal" to the new power. Nothing passed until 1933, when a law set the bar at 10 percent of the votes cast for governor statewide. That law lasted 64 years, and three referendums qualified under it.

In 2021 the court held for the first time that the initiative and referendum powers are fundamental rights, so a law that restricts them must pass strict scrutiny. That holding, more than any single statute, frames every change discussed at the end of this lesson.

The statewide referendum, step by step

The referendum borrows the initiative's machinery in Title 34, Chapter 18, with a far shorter clock. The full initiative path, with every deadline, is in lesson 4. These are the steps that apply to a referendum.

Step	What happens	Law	Time allowed
1. Prospective petition	Sponsors file a copy of the petition, setting out the full text of the act, signed by at least 20 qualified electors, with the Secretary of State. The office sends it to the Attorney General.	34-1804(1), 34-1801A(3)	Before or when circulation starts
2. Certificate of review	The Attorney General reviews the petition for form and style. Recommendations are advisory, and the certificate issues whether or not sponsors accept them.	34-1809(1)	Up to 20 working days
3. File for ballot titles	Sponsors file the measure for a short title (20 words or fewer) and a general title (200 words or fewer).	34-1809(2)	Within 15 working days of the certificate; the Attorney General then has 10 working days
4. Title appeal (optional)	Anyone unhappy with a title may petition the Idaho Supreme Court.	34-1809(3)	Within 20 days after the title is filed
5. Circulate	Each signature sheet is attached to a full copy of the act. Up to 20 signatures per sheet count, all from one county.	34-1804(3), 34-1807	Until the filing deadline, less time for clerks
6. County clerk verification	Clerks check each name, address and signature against the voter rolls and certify the count by legislative district.	34-1807(4)	No separate referendum window in statute
7. File with the Secretary of State	Sponsors file the verified petitions.	34-1803	Not more than 60 days after final adjournment
8. The vote	The measure goes on the ballot at "the biennial regular election," the November general election.	34-1803	Next even-year November
9. Proclamation	The Secretary of State canvasses within 30 days, and the governor proclaims the result. An approved referred measure is in force from the date of the proclamation.	34-1813(1)	Within 30 days of the election

Some initiative steps do not apply. The proposed funding source and the Division of Financial Management's fiscal impact statement in 34-1812 are required only "in the case of an initiative petition," per 34-1804(2). A referendum petition carries the text of the act and nothing more. The July 1 effective-date rule the Legislature added to 34-1813(2) in 2020 also applied only to initiatives, and the Supreme Court struck it in 2021.

The signature rule, and a warning about the statute website

Under 34-1805, the same count applies to initiatives and referendums. If you read that section on the Legislature's website today, it says 6 percent of qualified electors "in each of the thirty-five (35) legislative districts." That is the text of Senate Bill 1110 (2021), and it is not the law in force. In Reclaim Idaho v. Denney the Supreme Court declared SB 1110 unconstitutional and held that "the previous version of Idaho Code section 34-1805 is restored": 6 percent of qualified electors at the last general election in at least 18 legislative districts, with a total at least equal to 6 percent of registered voters statewide. The Secretary of State's initiatives page states the 18-district rule. As of October 2026 the Legislature has not rewritten the section, so the printed text and the enforced rule still differ.

For scale: in 2011 the education referendums needed at least 47,432 valid signatures each under the old statewide-only rule, the Spokesman-Review reported. Sponsors turned in roughly 72,000 to 73,000. The district-by-district counts for the current cycle and how clerks check them are in lesson 8.

The 60-day clock

A referendum petition must be filed with the Secretary of State "not more than sixty (60) days after the final adjournment of the session of the state legislature that passed on the bill," and the signatures must already be "verified by county clerks" (34-1803). The phrase about verification came in with House Bill 290 in 2021. So the 60 days covers collection, the trip to every county clerk, verification and the final filing.

The clock runs from sine die, not from the day the governor signs. A law signed in early March gives sponsors more calendar time than one signed on the last night. The 2011 sponsors used every day of it: the session adjourned April 7, 2011, and they delivered 125 boxes of verified petitions to the Capitol on June 6, which is day 60.

Emergency clauses and the referendum

Article III, section 22 says no act takes effect until 60 days after the session ends, "except in case of emergency, which emergency shall be declared in the preamble or in the body of the law." Idaho Code 67-510 sets the default effective date at July 1 or 60 days after the session, whichever is later. An emergency clause skips the wait. The Supreme Court has treated the Legislature's declaration of an emergency as giving the law immediate effect, citing Idaho State AFL-CIO v. Leroy (1986) in its 2021 opinion.

Idaho's constitution has no exception for emergency laws. It reaches "any act or measure passed by the legislature," and the record shows emergency laws going to the ballot:

• 2002. House Bill 425 repealed the term limits voters adopted in 1994. It declared an emergency and took effect February 1, 2002. A referendum petition qualified on May 14, 2002, and the measure appeared as Proposition 2. The long ballot title describes "H425, Session Law 1, effective February 1, 2002."
• 2011. Senate Bill 1108, the teacher contract and bargaining law, took effect on signature, March 17, 2011, for most of its sections. It was referred and appeared in 2012 as Proposition 1.

What the emergency clause changes is timing. The law operates during the 60 days, during verification, and for the many months until the November vote. For a law passed in an odd-numbered year, that can be about 19 months.

Does a referendum petition suspend the law?

Not in practice. The Idaho Constitution has no clause suspending a law once a referendum is filed. The last sentence of 34-1803 says a referred measure "shall take effect and become a law when it is approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon, and not otherwise," which can be read to mean a referred law waits for the vote. The way Idaho has run its referendums points the other way: H425 was in effect from February 2002 through the election, and the 2011 education laws were in force while the referendums were pending. Reporting before the 2012 vote, StateImpact Idaho explained that the three laws "would remain on the books" if voters approved them and would be repealed if voters rejected them. This lesson found no Idaho appellate decision deciding the question directly. Anyone planning around a referred law should ask the Secretary of State's elections division how it treats the law in the meantime.

Every statewide referendum since 1936

The Secretary of State's initiative history page lists seven referendum entries from 1936 to 2012, one of them covering three propositions on the 2012 ballot. No statewide referendum has reached the ballot since.

Year	Law referred	Yes	No	Result
1936	Two percent sales tax (HB 76, 1935)	68,728 (47.7%)	75,468 (52.3%)	Law rejected
1966	Three percent sales tax passed by the 1965 Legislature	156,109 (61.2%)	99,048 (38.8%)	Law approved
1986	Retention of the right-to-work law	208,248 (54.0%)	177,069 (46.0%)	Law approved
2002	H425, repeal of term limits (Proposition 2)	203,005 (50.2%)	201,116 (49.8%)	Repeal approved; term limits stayed repealed
2012	S1108, teacher contracts and bargaining (Proposition 1)	277,102 (42.7%)	371,224 (57.1%)	Law rejected
2012	S1110, teacher performance pay (Proposition 2)	272,939 (42.0%)	376,689 (58.0%)	Law rejected
2012	S1184, school funding, laptops and online courses (Proposition 3)	215,800 (33.3%)	432,667 (66.7%)	Law rejected

Source: Idaho Secretary of State, Idaho Initiative History. Percentages as listed by the office. The 1966 and 1986 measures appear in its table as single referendum questions.

Two things stand out. A "yes" vote on a referendum keeps the law, so the 2002 result confuses people: the short title spoke of "reinstating term limits," but the long title made clear that rejecting H425 would restore them, and a narrow majority voted to approve H425. And referendums tend to come in bursts after big, contested sessions. The 2012 votes followed the 2011 session that passed the three education bills, which the Supreme Court's 2021 opinion calls the so-called "Luna Laws" after the state superintendent who championed them. The 2012 ballot pages list the Idaho Education Association as sponsor of the first two referendums and a parents' committee, Idahoans for Responsible Education Reform, as sponsor of the third.

Attempts that did not qualify are part of the record too. After SB 1110 passed in 2021, a committee circulated a "Referendum to approve or reject an act increasing the geographic signature requirement," and the Secretary of State lists it among 2022 measures that did not qualify. The same committee joined the court challenge that ended the law.

When the Legislature changes what voters passed

Once voters approve an initiative, it is an ordinary statute. In Luker v. Curtis (1943) the Idaho Supreme Court held that initiative laws stand on an "equal footing" with laws the Legislature passes, so the Legislature may amend or repeal them. In Gibbons v. Cenarrusa (2002) the court let the Legislature repeal a voter-passed law immediately by declaring an emergency, as the 2021 opinion summarizes it. The 2021 court reaffirmed the equal-footing rule and turned it around: if the Legislature may set effective dates, so may the people. That is why it struck the 2020 July 1 rule, which, as the challengers argued, gave lawmakers "some eight months after passage," including a full regular session, to repeal an initiative before it took effect.

Three episodes show how this plays out.

Term limits, 1994 to 2002

Voters adopted term limits for federal, state, county, city and school district offices in 1994 with 59.4 percent. The Legislature passed H425 to repeal them in January 2002. Governor Dirk Kempthorne vetoed it on January 31, 2002. The House overrode 50 to 20 the next day, and the Senate followed 26 to 8, CBS News reported, making Idaho the first state to repeal its term limits law. Party leaders quoted in that story said local officials were never meant to be the target and that the limits cost experience in rural areas that struggle to fill local offices. Term limits supporters said lawmakers had ignored the voters and took the repeal to referendum, where it survived by 1,889 votes out of more than 404,000.

Medicaid expansion, 2018 to 2019

Proposition 2 in 2018, an initiative to expand Medicaid eligibility, passed with 60.6 percent. In 2019 the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1204, which Governor Brad Little signed on April 9, 2019, effective immediately. Its statement of purpose lists what supporters called "sideboards," including a work, education or volunteer requirement, an option for some people between 100 and 138 percent of the poverty line to stay on the insurance exchange, managed care, and a program review in 2023. Supporters said the changes kept costs in check and matched other programs. The initiative's backers said they changed what voters had approved. The 2019 court challenge to the expansion itself is covered in lesson 10.

The 2012 education laws

This case ran the other direction. The Legislature passed the laws, voters rejected all three, and the laws were repealed. The equal-footing rule means the Legislature could pass similar provisions again later; a referendum rejection does not bar the subject forever.

Changing the rules of the process itself

Lawmakers who favor tighter rules say a measure that becomes law with no committee hearings should first show support across the state, including rural districts, and that petition drives need guardrails against fraud and confusion. Sponsors and groups who oppose the changes say each new requirement makes the people's power harder to use, and point to how few measures have qualified under the stricter rules. The table records what was tried and what happened.

Year	Proposal	Outcome
1915	Enabling law: 15% per county for initiatives, 10% per county for referendums, signatures witnessed by officials	Vetoed by Governor Alexander
1933	10% of the votes for governor, statewide	Law until 1997
1984	Raise the threshold to 20%	Vetoed by Governor John Evans
1997	6% of registered voters, including 6% in 22 of 44 counties	Law; county rule struck in federal court (2001 district court, affirmed 2003)
2013	Senate Bill 1108: 6% in at least 18 of 35 legislative districts	Signed April 1, 2013; in force today
2019	SB 1159 and trailer bill HB 296: SB 1159 set 10% in 32 districts, 180 days to gather, fiscal impact and single-subject rules; HB 296 would have changed it to 270 days and two-thirds of the districts	Vetoed by Governor Little, April 5 and April 9, 2019
2020	HB 548: initiatives take effect no earlier than July 1 of the following year	Law; struck in 2021
2021	SB 1110: 6% in all 35 districts, emergency clause	Signed April 17, 2021; struck August 23, 2021
2021	SB 1150: signatures must be gathered inside Idaho	Vetoed May 18, 2021
2021	HB 290: clerks must verify signatures; electronic signatures void	Law, effective April 19, 2021
2023	SJR 101: constitutional amendment for 6% in every district	Senate 27 to 8; failed in the House 39 to 31
2024	SB 1377: paid circulators must disclose pay and wear badges	Law, effective July 1, 2024
2024	HB 652: monthly submission and 90-day verification for statewide measures	Passed the House 49 to 20; went no further
2025	SB 1117: final, updated fiscal impact statement by July 20 for a measure that qualifies; argument deadline moved from July 20 to July 31 and rebuttals from August 1 to August 10	Law, effective July 1, 2025
2025	SJR 101 (6% in every district), HB 2 (higher threshold), HB 85 (governor's veto over voter-approved initiatives, with voter override)	SJR 101 cleared committee, went to the amending order and was sent back to committee; HB 2 and HB 85 went no further after printing
2025	HJR 4: only the Legislature may legalize marijuana, narcotics or other psychoactive substances	Adopted by both houses; on the November 3, 2026 ballot
2026	HB 501: circulators must be qualified electors; paid circulators' badges must name the payer	Passed the House 65 to 0; referred to Senate State Affairs and went no further

HJR 4 is the first proposal on this list to put a subject off limits for the initiative. The Secretary of State's summary says a "yes" vote would remove the ability of citizens to initiate statutes legalizing those substances, and a "no" vote keeps it. Because it is a constitutional amendment, the decision belongs to voters on November 3, 2026; the governor has no role. Supporters say drug policy needs the hearings and amendments only the Legislature provides. Opponents say voters should keep the power to decide any subject. The result was not known when this lesson was written.