Local Initiatives and Referendums

Most of what people want to change locally is a city or county ordinance: a fee, a spending rule, a ban, a permit requirement. Idaho gives local voters the same two tools the state constitution gives statewide voters, but through statute, with lower stakes in signatures and higher stakes in subject matter. More local petitions fail because the subject is off limits than because they run short of names. This lesson builds on the statewide steps in lesson 4 and the referendum in lesson 5. How cities and counties pass ordinances to begin with is in Local Ordinances.

Where the local power comes from

Article III, section 1 of the constitution speaks of acts "passed by the legislature." For decades, local direct legislation rested on statutes and on each city's or county's own ordinance. In Weldon v. Bonner County Tax Coalition (1993), for example, the Supreme Court read the county's own referendum ordinance, which covered acts "passed by the legislative body of Bonner County," together with the state framework.

The Legislature replaced that patchwork. House Bill 216 (2015) added 34-1801B for cities, and every city ordinance setting initiative or referendum procedures became void on July 1, 2015. House Bill 568 (2018) added 34-1801C for counties, voiding county procedure ordinances on July 1, 2018. Both sections open the same way: each city or county "shall allow direct legislation by the people through the initiative and referendum," following Chapter 18 with listed changes. If a city's code still has an old initiative chapter, it has no force.

In 2026, House Bill 959 added 34-1801D for fire protection districts and ambulance service districts. It covers one subject only: an initiative "to increase or decrease the property tax budget of the district." The bill's statement of purpose says it pairs that voter power with a higher cap on budget growth for fast-growing districts, from 8 to 15 percent when new construction and annexation cover the cost, now written into 63-802. The initiative section took effect July 1, 2026.

The three local procedures side by side

Rule	City (34-1801B)	County (34-1801C)	Fire or ambulance district (34-1801D)
Plays the Attorney General role (review, ballot titles)	City attorney	County prosecuting attorney	Prosecuting attorney of the county where the district office is
Plays the Secretary of State role	City clerk	County clerk	District clerk
Who may sign	Qualified electors of the city	Qualified electors of the county	Qualified electors of the district
Signatures needed	20% of qualified electors voting in the last general city election (November, odd year)	20% of those voting in the last general county election (November, even year)	20% of those voting in the most recent general district election held in November of an odd year
District spread	None; 34-1805's statewide count and distribution rule does not apply
Signature deadline	Earlier of 180 days after the ballot title or April 30 (to the city clerk); May 1 or 180 days (to the county clerk)	Earlier of 180 days after the ballot title or 180 days before the election	Earlier of 180 days after the ballot title or April 30; May 1 or 180 days to the county clerk
Verification	County clerk, 60 calendar days
Governing board may adopt instead	Council, within 30 days of notice, after a hearing with 7 days' published notice	Commission, same	District board, same
Election date	Tuesday after the first Monday in November, odd years	Nearest May or November date under 34-106(8)	Tuesday after the first Monday in November, odd years
Vote to pass	Majority of votes on the measure	Majority	Same share as a budget override under 63-802(1)(h): 66 2/3%
Referendum on an ordinance	Prospective petition within 60 days of publication (50-901)	Within 60 days of publication (31-715)	No referendum; initiative only
Excluded	Bond elections; local zoning legislation	Bond elections; zoning legislation	Bond elections

Source: the three sections as of October 2026. Circulators for all three must be Idaho residents at least 18 years old.

What carries over from the state process, and what does not

Local measures use the statewide forms in 34-1801A with appropriate changes, a 20-signer prospective petition filed with the clerk, the attorney's advisory review and certificate, and short and general ballot titles. A title challenge goes to the district court in the county, not the Supreme Court. The local clerk prepares a voters' pamphlet under 34-1812A through 34-1812C.

Two statewide pieces drop out. The sponsor's proposed funding source and the fiscal impact statement prepared by the Division of Financial Management do not apply to "a city or county ballot initiative" (34-1804(2) and 34-1812(7)). Local sponsors still have to show signers the short and general titles under 34-1815.

Effective dates also differ. Under 34-1813(2)(b), a city or county initiative may name an effective date earlier than July 1 of the next year, but no earlier than the mayor's or commission's proclamation of the result. With no date in the petition, it takes effect July 1 of the following year. The 2021 Supreme Court ruling that struck the statewide July 1 rule did not address this local subsection, so sponsors who want a law to start promptly should write an effective date into the measure.

What local voters may not do by petition

Zoning and bonds: excluded by statute

34-1801B(22) says the city section "does not apply to any local zoning legislation including, but not limited to, ordinances required or authorized pursuant to chapter 65, title 67," the Local Land Use Planning Act. 34-1801C(21) says the same for counties. Both exclude bond elections. Zoning changes must go through the act's notice, hearing and decision process, covered in Zoning and Rezones. Bonds go on the ballot only by vote of the governing board, and most need two-thirds of voters under Article VIII, section 3 of the constitution.

The zoning line came up in Kootenai County in 2021. Residents in Post Falls and Rathdrum filed similar "Responsible Growth Management Plan" initiatives to limit how many and how dense the residential and hotel developments the cities could approve each year. Both cities rejected them, the Coeur d'Alene Press reported on April 15, 2021, citing the Local Land Use Planning Act and Title 34, Chapter 18. The Rathdrum city clerk concluded the measure conflicted with zoning law; a sponsor argued it dealt with building permits, not zoning. The disagreement shows where the hard cases are: a measure can be written about permits, utilities or growth rates and still be zoning in substance.

The question is old. In Gumprecht v. City of Coeur d'Alene (1983), the Supreme Court took up "whether local zoning ordinances may be enacted or amended in Idaho through an initiative election," in a dispute over a measure to limit building heights near Lake Coeur d'Alene, as later opinions describe it. Later decisions cite Gumprecht for the rule that the Local Land Use Planning Act's procedures are exclusive. Today the statute answers the question directly.

Legislative versus administrative

Even outside zoning and bonds, Idaho courts have long held that direct legislation reaches legislative acts only. Perrault v. Robinson (1916) addressed whether a local referendum could reach a decision about operating a Sunday movie theater. In Weldon (1993), voters tried a referendum to reject the commissioners' budget and levy decision and an initiative to cap county property tax revenue. The court held that neither could be used to reject or implement the county budget process, because the budget process is set by the state's County Budget Law and is not an "act" or "measure" of the county: "The Coalition does not seek to reject or propose law, but a process."

The working test, drawn from cases in Idaho and other states and laid out in the dissent in Keep the Commandments, asks:

• Does the measure adopt a new policy (legislative) or carry out one already adopted (administrative)?
• Does it state a general rule for the public, or deal with one piece of a larger program already in place?
• Does the decision call for specialized municipal expertise of the kind usually left to staff and the governing board?

The majority in that case said there is "no bright line rule," so these questions are guides, not a formula.

When a court will hear the dispute: Keep the Commandments

In 2004 the Boise mayor and council moved a Ten Commandments monument from Julia Davis Park to a church. A group, the Keep the Commandments Coalition, gathered signatures for an ordinance to return a similar monument to the park, along with a second monument quoting Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. The city clerk verified 10,721 signatures, enough to qualify. The council refused to put it on the ballot, calling it an administrative act, and asked a court to agree. The district court did.

The Supreme Court reversed in City of Boise City v. Keep the Commandments Coalition (2006). It did not decide whether the measure was legislative or administrative. It held the question was not ripe before the election and said the petition "qualifies for the ballot." It overruled Weldon, Gumprecht and Perrault "to the extent" they conflicted, which means to the extent they let courts stop a qualified measure before the vote. The majority compared it to a bill: a court would not interrupt the Legislature while it considers a bill, and it would not interrupt "the consideration of a properly qualified initiative." If the measure passes, its validity can be tested then. A dissent argued the case was ripe and the proposal was administrative.

The court has kept to that line statewide. In Labrador v. Idahoans for Open Primaries (August 14, 2024), it declined to rule before the election on a single-subject challenge to the 2024 primary election initiative, citing Keep the Commandments and saying the issue was not ripe until voters approved it. Two cautions apply at the local level. The statutes now exclude zoning and bonds by name, which may give a clerk or council firmer ground to refuse at the start. And a measure that is plainly outside the section's scope is different from one whose legality is merely disputed.

Real local measures

The Boise library and stadium measures of 2019 show the local process working start to finish. A citizens group, Boise Working Together, circulated two initiatives requiring a public vote before the city committed large sums to a new main library and a sports stadium. Ada County Clerk Phil McGrane validated 5,698 signatures on the library petition and 5,610 on the stadium petition, BoiseDev reported on May 30, 2019. On the November 5, 2019 city election date, voters approved Proposition 1 (library) with 69 percent and Proposition 2 (stadium) with 75 percent, according to Ballotpedia. Its summary says Proposition 1 requires a vote before the city spends $25 million or more on library development and Proposition 2 before it spends more than $5 million on a stadium project.

Measure	Year	Place	What happened
Referendum and initiative on county budget and property tax cap	1992 to 1993	Bonner County	Supreme Court held the budget process could not be referred or initiated (Weldon)
Ordinance to return a Ten Commandments monument to a park	2004 to 2006	Boise	10,721 verified signatures; Supreme Court ordered it on the ballot (Keep the Commandments)
Votes required before large library and stadium spending	2019	Boise	Qualified with about 5,600 to 5,700 signatures each; passed with 69 and 75 percent
Growth management plans limiting development approvals	2021	Post Falls and Rathdrum	Rejected by the cities as conflicting with land use law

Measures that are not initiatives

A lot of what voters see on a local ballot was put there by a board, not a petition. Readers often mix them up, and the rules differ.

Ballot question	Who puts it on the ballot	Vote to pass	Where to read more
School, city or county bond	The governing board	Two-thirds for most general obligation debt (Article VIII, section 3)	Levies and Bonds; school districts
School supplemental or plant facilities levy	The school board	Set in Title 33 for each levy type	Module 60
Taxing district budget override under 63-802(1)(h)	The district board	66 2/3 percent	63-802
Fire or ambulance district budget change	Voters by petition (34-1801D) or the board	66 2/3 percent	34-1801D
Forming, dissolving or annexing to a district	Petition and election under each district's own statute	Varies by district law	The district's chapter of Idaho Code
Recall of a local officer	Voters by recall petition	See lessons 2 and 3	Recall: who and why

School districts, highway districts and most special districts have no general initiative procedure in Chapter 18. Residents who want a school district to change policy work through board meetings, trustee elections and recalls. Ballot language for any county or district question must reach the county clerk by 5 p.m. on the tenth Friday before the election under 34-106(8). What districts may say about their own measures is in What Districts May and May Not Say.

Lawmakers have debated giving voters more of a petition role in taxing district budgets. In 2023, House Bill 273, to let a property tax budget be reduced by initiative or referendum, passed the House 36 to 33 and went no further in the Senate, and House Bill 247, for property tax reduction by city or county initiative, was printed and not advanced. The 2026 fire and ambulance district law is the first to pass.