Constitutional amendments to be decided
|
|
October 13, 2012 |
Idahoans are being asked this general election
to decide on two proposed amendments to the
state constitution, to to clarify an existing
provision of Article X, the other to add a new
section to Article I, the declaration of rights.
Article X: Public Institutions, Section 5
establishes the state board of correction,
comprised of three members appointed by the
governor, along with the responsibilities of
that board.
If approved, Senate Joint Resolution 102 would
add a single word to Section 5, one of clarity.
Under the current section, the state board of
corrections is given control of the state's
penitentiaries and of all adults on probation or
parole within the state of Idaho.
SJR 102, if approved, will add an important
word, "felony," to make it clear that the board,
and thus the state's, control over is limited to
those on parole or probation for felony
offenses; juveniles and those on probation for
misdemeanors would be supervised, as most are
now, by the counties.
Those in favor say the amendment would preserve
local control of the misdemeanor probation
process by clarifying that the state's role is
limited to felony offenders, while counties have
supervision authority over misdemeanor
probationers.
Those opposed say that amendments to the
Constitution should be made only for major
issues of interest to the state or in the event
of a constitutional crisis and that the section,
as currently written, preserves the statewide
uniform felony probation system, but does not
address possible different misdemeanor probation
treatment among judicial districts.
Article I, Section 1, of the Idaho Constitution
establish what are considered the inalienable
rights of each of us. There are sections
covering the guarantee of religious liberty, the
right of habeas corpus, freedom of speech, the
right to keep and bear arms and the rights of
suffrage.
House Joint Resolution would add a 23rd Section
to Article I, this one establishing among our
inalienable rights the right to hunt, fish and
trap.
Don't get too excited, if approved, it won't do
away with seasons, tags or licenses. Rather, it
would establish hunting, fishing and trapping as
the state's preferred method of wildlife
management.
If the proposed amendment is approved by a
majority of the Idaho electorate, Article I,
Section 23, will read:
"The rights to hunt, fish and trap, including by
the use of traditional methods, are a valued
part of the heritage of the State of Idaho and
shall forever be preserved for the people and
managed through the laws, rules and
proclamations that preserve the future of
hunting, fishing and trapping. Public hunting,
fishing and trapping of wildlife shall be a
preferred means of managing wildlife. The rights
set forth herein do not create a right to
trespass on private property, shall not affect
rights to divert, appropriate and use water, or
establish any minimum amount of water in any
water body, shall not lead to a diminution of
other private rights, and shall not prevent the
suspension or revocation, pursuant to statute
enacted by the Legislature, of an individual's
hunting, fishing or trapping license."
Proponents say the proposed amendment will
preserve Idaho's sporting heritage and preclude
the threat of bans on certain types of hunting
and fishing.
Opponents say the amendment isn't necessary
because the rights to hunt, fish and trap are
not threatened and are already protected by law
and that Idaho Department of Fish and Game's
wildlife management decisions could be
constitutionally challenged we4re this amendment
approved. They also fear it would limit laws to
ban inhumane or unsportsmanlike hunting and
fishing practices.
To get on the ballot, both measures had to be
approved by two thirds of the membership of the
Idaho legislature.
To amend the constitution, each proposal needs a
simple majority of voters to mark their ballot
"yes."
|
|
Questions or comments about this
article?
Click here to e-mail! |
|
|
|
|
