Gibbons v. Cenarrusa, 140 Idaho 316

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court considered a petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition challenging the legislature’s repeal of an initiative-based term-limits law. The court held that the dispute was ripe, Ronda Gibbons had standing, and the Secretary of State was a proper respondent. It further held that the Idaho Legislature could repeal the initiative and declare an emergency making the repeal immediately effective, denied the requested writs, dismissed the petition, and awarded costs but no attorney fees.

Holdings

1. The dispute was ripe because the repeal directly affected the impending primary election and election officials, candidates, and the public needed a prompt determination of the governing law.
2. Gibbons had standing because the repeal affected her campaign by allowing an opponent to run who would otherwise be ineligible under the Term Limits Act; the Court did not need to resolve Almgren's standing.
3. The Secretary of State was a proper respondent because Idaho law designates that office as the state's chief election officer and authorizes it to issue directives and assist county clerks in applying election laws.
4. Consideration of the petition was appropriate notwithstanding potential proceedings in district court, because prompt statewide resolution was necessary to permit an orderly primary election and avoid inconsistent results.
5. Once an initiative has been enacted as law, the Legislature may amend or repeal it because an initiative law and a legislative enactment are on equal footing.
6. The Legislature may make its repeal of an initiative immediately effective by declaring an emergency; the repeal was not limited to the ordinary effective-date schedule.
7. Article III, section 22 requires that an emergency be declared in the preamble or body of the law, but does not require the Legislature to define or explain the emergency.
8. The Secretary of State was not entitled to attorney fees.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the dispute over the effective date and constitutionality of H.B. 425 was ripe for judicial review before the primary election.
2. Whether Gibbons or Almgren had standing to challenge the repeal of the Term Limits Act.
3. Whether the Secretary of State was a proper respondent and had authority to issue directives and instructions to county clerks concerning election-law compliance.
4. Whether the Idaho Supreme Court should exercise original jurisdiction and issue a writ of mandamus or prohibition despite the availability of potential county-level proceedings and the timing of the petition.
5. Whether the Idaho Legislature may repeal a law enacted by initiative and make that repeal immediately effective by declaring an emergency under Article III, section 22 of the Idaho Constitution.
6. Whether Article III, section 22 requires the Legislature to define the emergency in the body or preamble of the law rather than merely declare that an emergency exists.
7. Whether the Secretary of State was entitled to attorney fees.

Disposition

dismissed