Latest news with #BarbaraEhardt
BBC News
03-07-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
US Supreme Court to review bans on trans athletes in female sports
The US Supreme Court has agreed to review whether state laws can ban transgender athletes from competing in women's and girls' case concerns laws in Idaho and West Virginia, where two transgender students won injunctions from lower courts allowing them to continue competing. How the top court rules could have significant implications across the comes two weeks after the conservative majority court upheld a Tennessee law that bans gender transition care for young people - a ruling that some advocates say delivered a major blow to transgender rights in the US. The Supreme Court will review the cases of Becky Pepper-Jackson, 15, and Lindsay Hecox, 24, who successfully challenged state bans in West Virginia and Idaho by arguing they were was the first state to pass a law prohibiting transgender athletes from competing in women and girls' sports. Two dozen other states have since followed. Ms Hecox, a long distance runner, lodged a legal challenge against the Idaho law in 2020 shortly after it was enacted. She was later granted an injunction by both a district court and an appeals court. State lawmaker Barbara Ehardt, who introduced the law, said at the time of its passing that it would ensure "boys and men will not be able to take the place of girls and women in sports because it's not fair".But in the appeals ruling, a panel of three judges found that the Idaho law violated constitutional rights, and that the state had "failed" to provide evidence that the law protects "sex equality and opportunity for women athletes."West Virginia Attorney General John McCuskey backed the top court's intervention."The people of West Virginia know that it's unfair to let male athletes compete against women; that's why we passed this common sense law preserving women's sports for women," he Block of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is representing the athletes, insisted lower courts were correct to block the "discriminatory laws". "Categorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth," he the Supreme Court decides to rule on the issue will likely impact other states that have similar bans in place. At the federal level, President Donald Trump signed an executive order earlier this year that aimed to ban transgender women and girls from competing on female sports teams. The Supreme Court will hear the challenges during its next term, which begins in October. A hearing date has not yet been set.
Yahoo
09-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
An Idaho lawmaker made a joke of deleting records. It's legal, but should it be?
Idaho state Rep. Barbara Ehardt, R-Idaho Falls, walks away from the lectern after presenting a piece of legislation to the House State Affairs Committee on Jan. 7, 2025, at the State Capitol Building in Boise. (Pat Sutphin for the Idaho Capital Sun) Originally posted on on April 9, 2025 It's not a secret that some Idaho lawmakers delete their emails and text messages — which are public records when they relate to legislation and other official business, according to state law. But they rarely admit it publicly. Rep. Barbara Ehardt bucked this trend last week, in an attempt to bring some levity to a tense House debate over a bill that would restrict diversity, equity and inclusion on college and university campuses. The debate occurred Thursday, the penultimate day of a hectic legislative session. Ehardt, an Idaho Falls Republican who has long opposed DEI, said that she had received text messages from people 'at the universities' who supported Senate Bill 1198. Then she addressed Statehouse reporters who were watching the debate and might want to see the messages. 'I'm gonna delete (them),' Ehardt said with a laugh. 'Don't put in the FOIA request.' Half an hour after the House approved the anti-DEI bill, Idaho Education News hand-delivered a public records request to Ehardt. Too late. The messages were gone. Ehardt later told EdNews that her comment 'was all meant to add a little levity' on the House floor. When asked why she didn't want reporters to see the messages, Ehardt said that the authors may not have expected their texts to be public. 'No one's anticipating that that's going to get shared,' she said. 'Obviously, if I hadn't said anything, nobody would have known.' State law exempts from disclosure personal communications by a member of the Legislature, but communications related to 'the conduct or administration of the public's business' are considered public. In other words, someone who messages a lawmaker about a bill shouldn't expect that it will remain private. While Ehardt's stunt was clearly meant to be funny, it raised a more serious question: Why are lawmakers allowed to destroy public records? Unlike the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which applies to federal agencies, the Idaho Public Records Act doesn't have a retention provision that bars destroying records before a certain period of time. State agencies adhere to a schedule — created by the Idaho State Historical Society — that guides how long various types of records should be retained, and local governments set their own guidelines. But similar rules don't apply to the Legislature. Lawmakers can trash their records at any time, unless someone files an official request to see them. Destroying records after they've been identified in a request would violate the Public Records Act, but Ehardt didn't appear to do that in this case. Still, her decision to delete the texts is a good example of why the state needs more specific retention requirements, said Scott McIntosh, First Amendment committee chairman for the Idaho Press Club. 'The decisionmaking process of state legislators is the public's business and should be done in public,' said McIntosh, who is also opinion editor for the Idaho Statesman. 'Deleting text messages cited by a lawmaker during a legislative debate is anathema to the Idaho values of open and honest government.' Journalists and other members of the public often rely on correspondence records to shed light on government work that happens behind closed doors. Here are some recent examples from EdNews: Emails between West Ada School District administrators and trustees exposed internal turmoil after the district told a teacher to remove a classroom sign promoting inclusivity. Messages between Idaho State University President Robert Wagner and House Speaker Mike Moyle, R-Star, revealed that ISU is considering the feasibility of buying a private medical school in Meridian. Public comments on a divisive bill to fund private education using tax dollars showed widespread opposition to the proposal that was ultimately signed into law. On Tuesday, Ehardt declined to share details on the messages, except that they were from people affiliated with multiple universities and they weren't from students. Ehardt said she will retain EdNews' records request, however. 'I did scan and copy and save that for time and all posterity,' she said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Idaho Legislature passes child care deregulation bill with tweaks
The Idaho Legislature passed a bill to deregulate child care centers in hopes of addressing Idaho's child care shortage crisis. (Rebecca Rivas/Missouri Independent) The Idaho House on Wednesday widely passed a bill on a party-line vote to deregulate child care centers in hopes of addressing Idaho's child care shortage crisis. Cosponsored by Idaho Republican House lawmakers Reps. Barbara Ehardt, from Idaho Falls, and Rod Furniss, from Rigby, House Bill 243a heads to Idaho Gov. Brad Little for final consideration. The House already widely passed an earlier version of the bill, despite concerns from child care advocates about the bill repealing state-set minimum child-to-staff ratio standards and instead allowing child care centers to set their own ratios. But last week, the Idaho Senate amended the bill to reinsert the state's minimum child-to-staff ratios standards, but loosen them. Then the Senate passed the amended bill on a 25-10 vote. 'We sent over a pretty gosh darn good bill to the Senate. And they sent us over, well, kind of a good bill,' Ehardt told House lawmakers on Wednesday. The Idaho House on Wednesday passed the bill on a 55-7 vote, with opposition from all seven House Democratic lawmakers present; the other two House Democrats were absent, along with six Republican lawmakers. The bill would still preempt local governments from having more stringent child care regulations than issued by the state, by repealing a provision in Idaho law that allowed stricter regulations in city or county ordinance. Idaho House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel, D-Boise, said she appreciated the bill would no longer remove state-set child-to-staff ratio standards. But she called the bill 'a full-frontal attack on local control.' 'The only training requirements right now here are provided at the city level. There are trainings that somebody in the facility has to be CPR certified, that they have to … undergo certain certification and certain training,' Rubel said on the House floor. 'All of that is eviscerated still under this bill.' Even after the amendments, many child care advocates still oppose the bill — worrying that loosening regulations will risk harm to kids. 'Idaho already is among the weakest states for child care licensing standards in the country, and any rollback of regulations or increase of child to staff ratios is a potential risk to children in child care settings,' Idaho Association for the Education of Young Children's external relations director Sheralynn Bauder told the Sun in a written statement before the House vote. 'We oppose any policy that weakens protections for children and undermines quality early learning providers who utilize best practices.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Idaho's existing child-to-staff ratios are the 41st loosest in the nation, compared to all 50 states and the District of Columbia, a report by Idaho Voices for Children found. In other words, Idaho's existing state-set child care standards let individual staffers care for more children at a given time than most states. If the new bill passes, Idaho would have the 45th least stringent child-to-staff ratios in the nation, Idaho Voices for Children Executive Director Christine Tiddens told the Sun in an email. 'Before rushing to dismantle a complex industry and economic driver, elected officials should take a year to study the impact of child care deregulation,' she wrote in an email. That's what she said she's encouraging the governor to do: Veto the bill and, instead, assemble 'a committee of parents, providers, and child safety experts to develop recommendations to address Idaho's child care shortage.' When the bill is transmitted to the governor's desk, he has five days — excluding Sundays — to decide how to act on it. He has three options: He can sign the bill into law, allow it to become law without his signature, or veto it. The bill would take effect July 1. If passed into law, the bill would retain the state's points-based ratio that only allows up to 12-points, determined by kids' ages, per each staff member. But the underlying points for kids would almost all be reduced. Here's how the bill would change Idaho's child-to-staff ratio standards: Each child under 24 months old would remain at two points. Each child at least 24 months old but younger than 36 months would be 1.33 points. That is a decrease from the current 1.5 points in Idaho law. Each child at least 36 months old but younger than 5 years old would be 0.923 points. That is a decrease from 1 point in Idaho law. Each child at least 5 years old but younger than 13 years old would be 0.48 points. That is a decrease from 0.5 points in Idaho law. Kearis Ochs, who owns Whole Child Early Education in Rexburg, told the Sun in an email she was relieved the bill wouldn't repeal child-to-staff ratios, but she said the new system the bill would bring seems 'extremely impractical.' 'Sitting all of the kids down and getting out our calculators is just not going to happen,' she told the Sun. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
07-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Under Idaho bill advancing to House, lawmakers couldn't hold local office simultaneously
Idaho state Rep. Barbara Ehardt, R-Idaho Falls, walks away from the lectern after presenting a piece of legislation to the House State Affairs Committee on Jan. 7, 2025, at the State Capitol Building in Boise. (Pat Sutphin for the Idaho Capital Sun) Idahoans elected to state or federal offices — including the Idaho Legislature — would be banned from simultaneously serving in elected city, school or highway district positions, under a bill state lawmakers advanced to the House on Friday. House Bill 362, by Rep. Barbara Ehardt, R-Idaho Falls, would automatically vacate local elected offices that officials hold when they swear into elected federal, statewide, or legislative offices. Ehardt's bill is a modified version of a similar bill she brought last year, House Bill 497. That bill narrowly passed the House, by one vote, but did not advance in the Senate. The Idaho House State Affairs Committee advanced the bill to the House floor Friday. 'This change will ensure that whoever, whatever office we're serving in, we're giving our attention to that office. We are serving … the office in which we're elected, and we are doing the best for that group of citizens — without any weighted or divided attentions,' Ehardt told the committee. Several state legislators have served in local offices while in the Idaho Legislature, which is a part-time Legislature that typically only meets during the first few months of the year. But the new bill offers several exceptions to the automatic vacancy trigger for officials from small communities, such as for elected positions in: Cities with a population of less than 1,000 people; School districts with less than 500 students enrolled; and Highway districts 'located primarily' in a county with a population less than 10,000 people. The House State Affairs Committee's two Democrats — Reps. Brooke Green, D-Boise, and Todd Achilles, D-Boise — voted against advancing the bill. Achilles argued the bill violates multiple constitutional protections and will be challenged in court. If the bill passed, he said the Legislature would lose 'the perspectives of local communities.' 'And by restricting this to certain cities or school districts or highway district based on their size, this creates an unequal application of the law, which violates the Equal Protection Clause — by treating similarly situated office holders differently based on this arbitrary definition of what is a small or a large community,' Achilles said. If passed into law, the bill would take effect July 1, 2026. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
28-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Child care facility de-regulation bill widely passes Idaho House, heads to state Senate
Idaho bill to would let Idaho child care facilities to set their own child-to-staff ratios "appropriate to ensure the health, safety and welfare of all children in attendance" is headed to the state Senate. (Getty Images) The Idaho House of Representatives widely passed a bill to let child care centers set their own child-to-staff ratios. Aimed at addressing Idaho's child care crisis by easing the process to operate child care centers, House Bill 243, is co-sponsored by Idaho Republican House lawmakers Reps. Barbara Ehardt, from Idaho Falls, and Rod Furniss, from Rigby. The bill would repeal age-based child-to-staff ratios for child care facilities in Idaho law. Instead of those standards, determined on a points-based system based on the ages of children in facilities, the bill would allow Idaho child care facilities to set their own child-to-staff ratios 'appropriate to ensure the health, safety and welfare of all children in attendance.' Ehardt said the new standard would be stronger than the current one required under Idaho law, and that Idaho would retain administrative rules in the Department of Health and Welfare focused on a range of safety issues in child care facilities. 'Isn't that ultimately what we want? Because we could have a ratio of kids that were all troubled kids, and or incredibly active kids, or, you know, kids that were very difficult to handle. And that wouldn't meet this standard,' Ehardt said. On the House floor, Ehardt spent several minutes addressing what she called 'disinformation' spread by opponents of the bill. She stressed that the bill would not be eliminating child-to-staff ratios in child care facilities because Idaho regulations would still cap the maximum number of children that can be in facilities, based on their facility type. Idaho House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel, D-Boise, said child care is 'uniquely inappropriate for over de-regulation,' and that the bill 'eliminates most of the state requirements around child safety in these facilities.' 'We talk about vulnerable populations. I don't know what population is more vulnerable than 1 year olds,' she said. 'These — they are very easily injured. They are non-verbal. They can't tell us — they can't identify abuse or problems or neglect. They can't express it to people. … Parents are not coming into these places every five minutes. They're dropping their kid off at 8 a.m. and maybe coming back at 5 p.m.' Rubel said the bill totally eliminates ratios, which she assumed Idaho created for child care facilities because 'something really bad happened.' 'That's why they put in ratios, to make sure that there is adequate supervision in this incredibly delicate population, who can be so easily injured, who can choke on something in the blink of an eye if they're not being watched — and if there aren't adequate people to follow,' she said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The bill would also repeal a provision in Idaho law that allowed local regulations on child care facilities to be more stringent than standards in state law. In floor debate, Ehardt said Idaho is one of four states that allows cities to 'over-regulate,' and that city 'over-regulation' on day cares has 'shut many of them down.' 'There is a direct correlation — if you look back through the years — on the regulation, the decrease in day cares and the increase in costs, ' Ehardt told House lawmakers. 'Costs have systematically risen and skyrocketed because of the lack of child care.' Ehardt declared a conflict of interest on the House floor because she must abide by child care regulations because she works at Apple Athletic Club, which she said runs a preschool program. The Idaho House passed the bill on a 54-15 vote Thursday, with one lawmaker absent. The bill now heads to the Idaho Senate, where it could receive a committee hearing before a possible vote on the Senate floor. To become law, Idaho bills must pass the House and Senate, and avoid the governor's veto. Ehardt, on the House floor, said big day care centers, who she said are most opposed to the bill, can still use whatever child-to-staff ratios they want. 'One of the main things I heard in the testimony — parents were demonized,' Ehardt said, calling the legislation another example of a 'parental rights bill.' 'Because we trust our parents. … What we were hearing is that really 'it's government that has to dictate everything you do, because government knows best,'' Ehardt said. 'We're talking about our kids, and we're talking about … who's going to love them, who's going to watch them, and protect them.' Rep. Josh Wheeler, R-Ammon, agreed Idaho does and should trust parents. But he said parents 'need to be given the information about these self-determined ratios with some of the facilities.' 'I just feel like this bill is in its infancy,' said Wheeler, who was among five Republican House lawmakers to vote against the bill, along with all nine House Democrats. Under the bill, facilities shall comply with their child-to-staff ratios and make those ratios available to parents and guardians. Furniss, a cosponsor of the bill in the Idaho House, called deregulation 'the Idaho way.' 'Money does not solve this crisis, but deregulation will solve this crisis,' said Furniss, saying Idaho has more than doubled funds for the child care system but has seen providers decline by 10%. Rep. Marco Erickson, R-Idaho Falls, supported the bill, calling it 'common sense legislation' and will 'benefit our local communities.' 'I have a lot more faith in our families than what we've been seeing exhibited in … these debates,' Erickson said. Idaho Voices for Children Executive Director Christine Tiddens told the Idaho Capital Sun she opposed the bill in committee, saying she couldn't find out the effect of eliminating child-to-staff ratio standards 'because no other state or developed nation that licenses child care has attempted anything like this before.' 'We did find plenty of research showing that if ratios become too flexible, children experience increased rates of injuries and death,' Tiddens told the Sun in an email, saying she shared these concerns with lawmakers in a House committee hearing on the bill. 'Considering that Idaho already ranks last in the nation for childcare regulation, why would we roll back childcare ratio and supervision requirements even more?' Tiddens told the Sun. 'Stripping these key safety standards opens the door to operators and bad actors who cut corners to save costs. And in childcare settings, cutting corners results in babies being put in harm's way.' In an interview after the bill passed the House, Ehardt told the Sun state regulators would maintain their role in child care facility regulation — using existing safety regulations that the new bill wouldn't touch. Having only one staff-member-per-18-kids isn't a safe ratio, she said, and 'wouldn't fit this standard. 'If that's the way somebody starts to operate, then there would be grounds — they would not be meeting the law. And that could then be grounds for revocation of a license,' Ehardt told the Sun. And she stressed that facilities can still maintain as much regulation as they want. 'To be honest, I don't even see that as a bad thing. I really don't. … It won't even hurt them, in my opinion, for business — because the people who couldn't go there, couldn't go there because of cost,' Ehardt told the Sun. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
