Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Public Policy newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (June 22, 2020, 5:10 PM EDT) -- An Idaho ballot measure campaign seeking an income tax increase to fund education has asked a federal court to slash the state's signature requirements by two-thirds due to the novel coronavirus pandemic.
The Idaho Capitol in Boise. Supporters of a ballot measure toward an income tax increase allege that state officials violated the group's rights by refusing to ease signature requirements amid the pandemic. (AP)
Little and Denney argued Thursday that Reclaim Idaho's requests for more time to gather petitions and obtain electronic signatures would impose administrative burdens on the state. In response, the campaign said reducing the number of required signatures would result in "minimal" challenges for Idaho officials.
Idaho normally requires petitioners to collect signatures equal to 6% of the number of the state's registered voters in the last general election, and 6% of registered voters at that time in at least 18 legislative districts, according to court documents. Reclaim Idaho asked the court to reduce those thresholds to 2% and only require that threshold in six districts, which would lower the signature requirement to 18,352 from 55,057.
"Perhaps this elegant solution is the best. It is fully supportable by the diligence Reclaim has shown in its collection of over 33,000 signatures before the pandemic changed the world," the campaign said in its brief. "It addresses the state's violation of Reclaim's First Amendment right and requires no action on the part of the state."
The ballot question, called the Invest in Idaho initiative, would ask voters to raise the top income tax rate to 9.925% from 6.925% on taxpayers, trusts and estates with taxable income of $250,000 or more, or $500,000 or more for married couples. If approved, it would also increase the corporate income tax rate to 8% from 6.925%. The new tax rates would take effect Jan. 1, and it is estimated that they would raise $170 million a year, which would be earmarked for education.
Reclaim Idaho alleged its constitutional rights to gather signatures for the initiative were violated by the governor's March 25 stay-at-home order, which lasted through the April 30 deadline, and by the officials' not permitting them to gather electronic signatures. The campaign has also asked the court for an additional 48 days to gather signatures and to allow petitioners to obtain electronic signatures.
The officials argued Thursday that the court should deny the campaign's request because they didn't hinder Reclaim Idaho's petition drive. Little and Denney said the campaign chose to start its signature-gathering efforts about six months before the deadline, when they had 18 months to do so, and therefore no state action prevented them from obtaining the requisite number of signatures.
In rebuttal, the campaign said Little and Denney were ignoring "the reality of how initiative drives expand as the deadline approaches." Reclaim Idaho has previously told the court that it was on target to fulfill the signature requirement when the pandemic hit, saying it was ahead of the pace of its 2018 Medicaid expansion ballot drive.
Regardless of when the petition drive started, Reclaim Idaho said Sunday that the officials' argument also "relies on the dubious notion that a citizens' initiative movement is not entitled to the deadline provided by law."
Reclaim Idaho also acknowledged that the state's timeline for administering the question for the ballot would be compressed if the court ruled in the campaign's favor, but said those burdens wouldn't be as severe as the officials have claimed.
A hearing for the case is scheduled for Tuesday.
Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday. A representative for the state attorney general's office, which is representing Little and Denney in the case, previously told Law360 that the office does not comment on pending litigation.
Reclaim Idaho is represented by Deborah Ferguson and Craig Durham of Ferguson Durham PLLC.
Little and Denney are represented by Robert A. Berry and Megan A. Larrondo of the Idaho Office of the Attorney General.
The case is Reclaim Idaho et al. v. Bradley Little et al., case number 1:20-cv-00268, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.
--Editing by Robert Rudinger.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
