Legal Challenges and Real Histories

The rules in the earlier lessons are only half the law. The other half is what the Idaho Supreme Court has said about them, and that half has grown fast: six significant initiative decisions between 2019 and 2026. This lesson takes them in order, adds the trial-court fights over signatures, and ends with the record of what Idaho voters have actually done with the initiative since 1938. It goes deeper than the overview in course 27 and the money-focused account in course 46 lesson 7. For how the Legislature has amended or repealed passed measures, see lesson 5.

How measure cases reach the courts

The Idaho Constitution, Article III, section 1 says the people reserve the power "to propose laws, and enact the same at the polls independent of the legislature," and the power to approve or reject acts of the Legislature, both "under such conditions and in such manner as may be provided by acts of the legislature." Nearly every case turns on the tension in that sentence: the power belongs to the people, and the Legislature writes the conditions.

Cases arrive by four doors:

• Ballot title appeals go straight to the Idaho Supreme Court within 20 days after the title is filed (Idaho Code 34-1809(3)).
• Constitutional challenges to an initiative may be brought in the Supreme Court by any qualified elector any time after the certificate of review (34-1809(4)).
• Refusals to file go to district court by mandamus within 10 days, in Ada County for statewide measures (34-1808); recall refusals have a parallel rule (34-1715).
• Original writs of mandamus and prohibition under Article V, section 9 of the constitution, which the court used in 2025 and 2026 to review fiscal impact statements and yes-or-no statements even though those statutes say nothing about judicial review.

Standing is looser here than in most cases. In both Reclaim Idaho (2021) and the 2026 yes-or-no case, the court applied "relaxed standing," which lets a party sue over an urgent possible constitutional violation that would otherwise go unaddressed. In 2026 the court reasoned that if the measure's own sponsor could not challenge ballot language because every voter shares the harm, it was "difficult to identify who could obtain meaningful review."

Dredge Mining (1968): reasonable and workable

For more than 50 years the leading case was Dredge Mining Control-Yes!, Inc. v. Cenarrusa, 92 Idaho 480 (1968). The Secretary of State's initiative history shows why the name is apt: the 1954 initiative to regulate dredge mining passed with 85.3 percent, the largest margin of any Idaho initiative. In the 1968 case, as the 2021 Reclaim Idaho opinion describes it, the court upheld a statutory scheme it called "restrictive and perhaps cumbersome" as "reasonable and workable." It did not treat the initiative as a fundamental right. The 2021 opinion says that test had not been applied since.

The 2021 opinion also gives useful history. The Legislature passed enabling legislation in 1915 that Governor Moses Alexander vetoed, and nothing followed for about 18 years. The 1933 law set signatures at 10 percent of the votes cast in the last governor's race with no geographic rule. Under that law, which lasted until 1997, 24 initiatives and three referendums qualified for the ballot. The Secretary of State's history table confirms the same count.

The Medicaid expansion challenge (2019)

Voters adopted Proposition 2 in November 2018, expanding Medicaid eligibility, by 365,107 to 237,567, or 60.6 percent (Secretary of State history). Brent Regan, then chairman of the Kootenai County Republican Central Committee and board head of the Idaho Freedom Foundation, petitioned the Supreme Court to strike it, arguing that tying eligibility to federal law delegated Idaho's legislative power to the federal government. On February 5, 2019, in the case the 2021 Reclaim Idaho opinion cites as Regan v. Denney, the court upheld the measure 3 to 2 in an opinion by Chief Justice Roger Burdick, Ballotpedia reported. The majority reasoned that accepting the argument would make many Idaho statutes that refer to federal law unconstitutional, and that if federal funding changed, Idaho would have to legislate in response. What the Legislature did with the program in its 2019 session is covered in lesson 5.

Reclaim Idaho v. Denney (2021): the fundamental-rights case

In 2021 the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1110, requiring initiative and referendum signatures from 6 percent of qualified electors in every one of the 35 legislative districts, up from 18. Reclaim Idaho and the Committee to Protect and Preserve the Idaho Constitution sued Secretary of State Lawerence Denney in the Supreme Court, joined by a separate petition from an individual voter, which was dismissed for lack of standing. The Speaker, the Senate President Pro Tempore and the Legislature intervened to defend the law.

On August 23, 2021, the court struck it (opinion; news report). The holdings:

• The standard. Justice Gregory Moeller's majority held that the initiative and referendum are fundamental rights reserved by the people, so laws restricting them get strict scrutiny. The state had to show a compelling interest and a narrowly tailored law, and it showed neither.
• The district rule. All five justices agreed the 35-district requirement in 34-1805(2) violated Article III, section 1. The court restored the prior rule: 6 percent statewide plus 6 percent in at least 18 districts.
• The effective date. The court unanimously held unconstitutional 34-1813(2)(a), added in 2020, which barred an initiative from taking effect before July 1 of the following year. The opinion reasoned that "independent of the legislature" covers the power to enact as well as to propose, and the delay crossed into that substantive right.
• The separate opinions. Justice John Stegner concurred, disagreeing only on the individual voter's standing. Justice Robyn Brody would have kept the Dredge Mining test, but found both laws failed it too; she wrote that the 35-district rule gave each district a veto, a "tyranny of the minority," the Capital Sun reported.
• Fees. Reclaim Idaho and the Committee received attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine.

The code has not caught up. As of October 2026, 34-1805(2) still prints the 35-district rule and 34-1813(2)(a) still prints the July 1 rule, with no amendment since. Since the ruling, the Legislature's attempts to restore stricter distribution rules have run as constitutional amendments, which would change Article III itself rather than legislate under it: SJR 101 (2025) would have written a 6 percent requirement in each district into the constitution itself, and it was sent back to committee on March 27, 2025.

Ballot language: three fights in four years

The Attorney General writes ballot titles (34-1809), the Division of Financial Management writes fiscal impact statements (34-1812), and the Attorney General and Secretary of State jointly write the statement of what a yes or no vote means (34-1810(1)(b)). Since 2023 every one of those has been rejected by the court at least once.

Open primaries titles (2023)

On June 30, 2023, Attorney General Raúl Labrador's office assigned ballot titles to the initiative that became 2024's Proposition 1, a top-four primary with ranked-choice general elections. Idahoans for Open Primaries and Reclaim Idaho challenged them on July 10. On August 10, 2023, in an opinion by Justice Colleen Zahn joined by every other justice, the court threw them out, the Capital Sun reported. "Nonparty blanket primary" was not a commonly used term and could prejudice voters. The short title said the measure would "require" ranked-choice voting in general elections, which the court found inaccurate. The court questioned whether "open primary" was as precise as "top four primary." It did not write new titles. It ordered the office to deliver them by 4 p.m. the next day, awarded the challengers attorney fees, and refused to extend the May 1 signature deadline to make up for lost time. The 2026 opinion cites this case as Idahoans for Open Primaries v. Labrador, 172 Idaho 466 (2023), and as the source of the substantial compliance standard.

The abortion rights initiative's title and fiscal statement (2025)

In Idahoans United for Women and Families v. Labrador, 175 Idaho 708 (2025), the court held that the Attorney General's short ballot title and the Division of Financial Management's fiscal impact statement for the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act did not substantially comply with their statutes, while the long title did. It issued writs directing revision, kept jurisdiction, and later approved the revised versions, as the court's 2026 opinion recounts. The court reviewed the fiscal impact statement through its original writ power, even though 34-1812 is silent on judicial review.

The yes-or-no statements (2026)

After the measure qualified on July 13, 2026, the Secretary of State and Attorney General gave the sponsor their joint yes and no statements on August 24, by which time the voters' pamphlet was already at the printer. The sponsor sued on August 27. In Idahoans United for Women and Families v. McGrane, Docket No. 54406-2026, Justice Moeller wrote for the court on September 4, 2026, with a substitute opinion on September 6. The court:

• rejected the argument that it had no power to review because 34-1810 grants no appeal, holding its authority comes from Article V, section 9;
• rejected separation-of-powers and sovereign immunity defenses;
• held that a yes-or-no statement may describe the measure's substance but does not have to, and that if it does, it must not "materially misstate or obscure" the main legal consequences;
• found the yes statement left out the measure's separate right to reproductive freedom and privacy and blurred its protections for providers, and found the no statement misstated current law, for example by saying abortion is allowed "to protect the life of the mother" when the statute says "to prevent the death of the pregnant woman";
• barred the original statements, gave the officials until 5 p.m. on Saturday, September 5 to submit new ones, and declined to dictate wording, while noting a simple formulation would be permissible.

The officials submitted revised statements on time. The sponsor objected. The court overruled the objection and approved them for the November 3, 2026 ballot. Justice Zahn dissented from that last step: she would have held the revised no statement noncompliant because it introduced the term "preborn children," which appears in neither the abortion statutes nor the other ballot materials, and described only one aspect of current law. No party received attorney fees, because the question was one of first impression.

The three cases share a pattern. The court reviews the officials' words for substantial compliance, not for the best wording; when the words fail, it sends the job back with a deadline; and it keeps jurisdiction to check the second try.

Fraud claims about signatures

Proposition 1 (2024)

In 2024 Attorney General Labrador asked the Supreme Court to void the open primaries signatures, alleging that circulators misled signers, and argued the initiative violated the single-subject rule. On August 13, 2024 (in an opinion amended August 14), in a unanimous decision by Justice Brody, the court dismissed the petition without oral argument, the Capital Sun reported. It called the fraud allegations serious but said they had to be decided first in district court, and held that the single-subject claim would not be ripe unless voters approved the measure. The 2026 opinion cites it as Labrador v. Idahoans for Open Primaries, 174 Idaho 1034 (2024).

The Attorney General refiled in Ada County. On September 5, 2024, District Judge Patrick J. Miller denied his motion for summary judgment, finding no evidence that ballot titles were missing from the petitions, noting the short title appeared in large type on every signature sheet, and writing that the record "actually negates the idea" of false statements to thousands of signers, the Capital Sun reported. The measure stayed on the ballot and lost in November, 269,960 to 618,753 (2024 canvass).

Late petitions and recall counts

Signature lawsuits more often concern counting than fraud. In 2026 the medical cannabis sponsor sued Minidoka County to count nearly 900 signatures delivered just after close of business on May 1, and lost on June 18, 2026. It later chose not to challenge the statewide disqualification. In 2021, recall supporters won a mandamus order in Bonneville County to count rejected signatures on a recall petition against an Idaho Falls School District 91 trustee. Lesson 8 has both cases.

The Legislature's side, 2024 to 2026

After Reclaim Idaho, efforts to change the initiative process moved in three directions, none of which has changed the signature rules so far:

• Statutes on signature review. House Bill 652 (2024) would have added a public review period and more time to remove signatures; it passed the House and stalled in the Senate. House Bill 501 (2026) would have required circulators to be qualified electors; it passed the House 65 to 0 and stalled in the Senate. Lesson 9 lists them.
• Constitutional amendments. SJR 101 (2025), the all-districts amendment, was recommitted. HJR 4, approved by the Legislature for the November 3, 2026 ballot, would give the Legislature exclusive authority to legalize marijuana, narcotics and other psychoactive substances and remove citizens' ability to initiate such laws, according to the Secretary of State's initiatives page. It needs a simple majority.
• A governor's veto. House Bill 85 (2025) proposed letting the governor veto certain voter-approved initiatives, subject to a voter override. It was printed and referred to committee with no further action.

The fiscal side did change: Senate Bill 1117 (2025) now requires an updated fiscal impact statement when a sponsor modifies a measure after review. Those who back tighter rules point to rural voters' voice and to fraud risk; those who oppose them point to the 2021 ruling and the strict scrutiny it requires. The court has so far ruled only on the statutory route.

Notable statewide measures, 1936 to 2026

From the Secretary of State's initiative history, the current initiatives page and the 2024 canvass. Percentages are of votes cast on the measure.

Year	Measure	Subject	Yes	Result
1936	Referendum 1	Two percent sales tax (HB 76, 1935)	47.7%	Law rejected
1938	Initiative 1	Idaho Fish and Game Commission Act	76.0%	Adopted
1954	Initiative 1	Regulate dredge mining	85.3%	Adopted
1958	Initiative 1	Right to work	49.4%	Defeated
1966	Referendum 1	3 percent sales tax passed in 1965	61.2%	Law approved
1974	Initiative 1	Sunshine Law for political funds and lobbyists	77.6%	Adopted
1978	Initiative 1	Limits on changing property valuations or taxes	58.3%	Adopted
1986	Initiative 1	State Lottery Commission	60.0%	Adopted
1986	Referendum 1	Retention of the right-to-work law	54.0%	Law approved
1994	Initiative 2	Term limits for federal, state, county, city and school officials	59.4%	Adopted
1996	Initiative 3	Approval of agreements to receive radioactive waste	37.5%	Defeated
2002	Initiative 1	Tribal video gaming machines	57.8%	Adopted
2002	Referendum 1	The Legislature's repeal of term limits	50.2%	Term limits remain repealed
2006	Initiative 2	Restrict eminent domain and regulatory takings	23.9%	Defeated
2012	Referendums 1, 2 and 3	Teacher contracts, performance pay, school technology and online courses	42.7%, 42.0%, 33.3%	All three laws rejected
2018	Initiative 1	Historical horse racing	46.2%	Defeated
2018	Initiative 2	Medicaid expansion	60.6%	Adopted
2024	Proposition 1	Top-four primary and ranked-choice general elections	30.4%	Defeated
2026	Proposition 1	Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act	Pending	On the November 3, 2026 ballot

The 2024 percentage is 269,960 / (269,960 + 618,753) = 269,960 / 888,713 = 30.4 percent. The 2002 referendum shows how the label can confuse: a yes vote approved the Legislature's repeal, so 50.2 percent yes meant term limits stayed repealed. In 2020 and 2022 no citizen initiative reached the ballot; the 2022 Quality Education Act was withdrawn, and the Secretary of State lists eleven other 2020 and 2022 initiative and referendum proposals that did not qualify.

Pictures, Numbers and Infographics

Figure	Number	Source
Statewide initiatives decided by Idaho voters, 1938 through 2024	31 on the ballot, 15 adopted (48 percent); plus 7 referendums on legislative acts	Secretary of State initiative history and initiatives page
Signature threshold for the 2026 cycle	70,725 valid signatures (6 percent of 1,178,750 registered at the 2024 general), plus 6 percent in at least 18 of 35 districts	2024 canvass; Ballotpedia; Idaho Capital Sun
2024 Proposition 1 money and vote	Supporting committee raised more than $5.6 million; independent spending more than $4.4 million for and about $553,000 against; 269,960 yes, 618,753 no	Idaho Capital Sun, Oct. 5, 2026; 2024 canvass

Under the 1933 signature law, which lasted 64 years until it was rewritten in 1997, 24 initiatives reached the ballot and 12 passed. From 1998 through 2024, including the years since the 18-district rule arrived in 2013, 7 reached the ballot in 27 years and 3 passed. That is about 3.75 initiatives a decade before (24 / 6.4) and about 2.6 after (7 / 2.7). The decade chart shows the spread.