Proposed Marijuana and English language State Constitutional amendments are on Idaho’s ballot

IDAHO (KIFI) – Two House Joint Resolutions are on the Idaho midterms ballot for next week's election. Both resolutions limit the abilities of voters to create initiatives and raise questions about how necessary items are to move from statutes to State Constitutional law.

Local News 8 spoke with political expert Ryan Sargent, lead government relations specialist at Idaho State University, about the implications of both proposals.

House Joint Resolution 4 - Marijuana amendment

The Vote Idaho website describes the resolution as outlined below:

“Shall Section 26, Article III of the Constitution of the State of Idaho be amended to provide that only the Idaho Legislature shall have power and authority to legalize the growing, producing, manufacturing, transporting, selling, delivering, dispensing, administering, prescribing, distributing, possessing, or using of marijuana, narcotics, or other psychoactive substances?”

The Idaho Legislature proposed this constitutional amendment, meaning it received a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate before the item went to voters for ratification.

While the resolution is based around marijuana and narcotic drug policy, the root of controversy lies in the ability of voters to make their own initiatives.

If the resolution passes, the ability to govern psychoactive drugs would lie solely in the hands of lawmakers. Voters would no longer be able to proceed with an initiative process for proposals dealing with these drugs.

"It would be exclusively the right of the Idaho Legislature to make laws about marijuana, other narcotics or anything psychoactive," Sargent said.

Idaho has passed two other proposals similar to HJR 4 in the last ten years. In 2022, the voters allowed only legislative bodies to call special sessions. In 2016, the people reserved the right for the Legislature for administrative rules. Both were "inside baseball" kind of amendments which had little effect on constituents.

Idaho already has some of the strictest controlled-substance laws in the nation. Regardless of if the ballot item passes, Idaho policy on marijuana and narcotic drugs remains the same.

"Their [the Legislature] basic argument has been that that power should reside exclusively with the Legislature because they're the ones that hold hearings," Sargent said. "They're thinking about the long-term effects of changing drug policy...[The Legislature thinks] that [power] should remain with the Legislature, so that if drug policy ever changes, it's done under that framework."

With drug use policy in mind, HJR 4 at its core is a proposal that passes all power on those policies to the Legislature. Opponents of the resolution argue that power lies with the people and it is their right to create initiatives on issues, including psychoactive drugs.

House Joint Resolution 6 - English language amendment

The Vote Idaho website describes the resolution as outlined below:

“Shall Article X of the Constitution of the State of Idaho be amended by the addition of a new Section 8, to provide that the English language shall be the official language for the state of Idaho, and to further provide that, except as required by federal law, English shall be used in all public proceedings, public documents, public instruction, and any other public acts of any public institution in the state of Idaho?”

The constitutional amendment would enshrine English as the state's official language. Idaho has already recognized English as the state language through a statute passed in 2007. HJR 6 would change the legal framework to place that item into the Constitution, making the policy more difficult to change in the future.

A vast majority of laws we think of as presiding aren't in the State Constitution – they're statutes. Sargent explained a statute may be changed in one of two ways: the Legislature can run a bill that is signed by the governor, or changes can be imposed through a citizen initiative.

As a piece of the Constitution, the item would need a two-thirds vote from both houses in the state Legislature to amend. Citizens themselves cannot start a petition on a constitutional policy. In this way, HJR 4 and 6 are similar in that they remove the right of voters to make an initiative on a particular issue.

"The Legislature brought this forward by a pretty wide majority that think establishing English in the Constitution is important and should be long lasting," Sargent said. "[It's] similar reasoning as to when it was put into statute in 2007, which is that it's a common language, provides unity, gives clear expectations of how to receive and give information."

Some opponents think the amendment is unneccessary, since Idaho already recognizes English via the statute, and they argue the language is far more vague in the proposal. There are certain exemptions in the 2007 statute that ensure public safety and some instruction is offered in other languages. Opponents argue it will be a legal question if those exemptions still exist with the wording of the amendment.

Vote Idaho and the amendment itself say English would be mandated to use in all "public instruction" except as required by federal law.

"HJR 6 specifically says that public proceedings, state documents and instruction have to be in English," Sargent said. "Proponents of it are very clear that it won't affect foreign language classes or anything like that, leaving exemptions for when federal law requires things to be offered in other languages."

Opponents say those exemptions are not as clear or widespread as what is established in the 2007 statute. They're expecting the courts themselves to have to figure out what the amendment says. When lawmakers move to pass something from a statute to a constitutional amendment, the language and framework is usually changed from the original policy.

"The Legislature and proponents of this amendment believe that defining English as the official language is so important that the legal framework needs to be protected at a constitutional level," Sargent said.

Importantly, Sargent says, the Supreme Court has been undeniably clear that citizens have rights to an interpreter if they don't speak English, and no one may be convicted in a trial without an interpreter, etc. Proponents of the resolution have also been clear that English Second-Language Learners (ESL) in public institutions will still have accommodations.

In 2025, President Trump signed an executive order making English the official language of the nation. Currently, 30 other states in the U.S. have state languages, including English, Hawaiian and others. Twenty-one of those states have their state language in statute, while nine have it in their Constitutions.