Ballot Measures and Issue Campaigns

Candidate races have contribution limits. Measure campaigns do not, and they often draw the biggest checks in Idaho politics. They also run on a separate set of rules about petitions, deadlines and what government itself is allowed to say. The deadlines are long and unforgiving, and the most expensive mistakes are made a year before the vote.

The power and the process

Article III, Section 1 of the Idaho Constitution says the people reserve the power to propose laws and enact them "independent of the legislature," and the power to approve or reject acts of the Legislature. The Legislature sets the conditions in Title 34, Chapter 18.

Step	What happens	Statute
1. Filing	Sponsors file the petition with the Secretary of State, signed by at least 20 qualified electors, plus a proposed funding source for the cost of the measure	34-1804
2. Review	The Attorney General issues a certificate of review on the text, then ballot titles; sponsors may revise after review	34-1809
3. Fiscal impact	The Division of Financial Management files a fiscal impact statement within 20 working days, with a summary of no more than 100 words; an update within 10 working days if the text changes	34-1812
4. Circulation	Begins when sponsors have both the ballot title and the fiscal impact statement; ends after 18 months or April 30 of the election year, whichever comes first	34-1802
5. Verification	Signatures go to county clerks by close of business May 1; clerks verify within 60 days, by the end of June	34-1802, 34-1807
6. Filing for the ballot	Verified petitions are filed with the Secretary of State at least four months before the election	34-1802
7. Final fiscal statement	Updated by July 20; summary printed in the voters' pamphlet and on the ballot, and posted by August 1	34-1812

A referendum moves faster. Under Idaho Code 34-1803, verified referendum petitions must be filed no more than 60 days after the Legislature adjourns, and the vote happens at the next biennial regular election.

The circulator rules in Idaho Code 34-1807, tightened by Senate Bill 1377 in 2024, decide whether signatures survive. Circulators must be Idaho residents at least 18 years old. Paid circulators must tell each signer they are paid and by whom, print a declaration of payment and the payer's name on every page, and wear a badge reading "paid petition circulator." A petition circulated in violation of those disclosure rules is void. Electronic signatures are void too. Under 34-1804, each sheet holds one county's signers, and no more than 20 signatures per sheet count. Under 34-1815, a circulator must show the short and general ballot titles before the person signs, and a signature obtained without doing so is void. The statute's other sentence, which makes it unlawful to misstate a petition's contents or fail to disclose a material provision, was struck down in 2001 by the federal district court in Idaho Coalition United for Bears v. Cenarrusa, 234 F. Supp. 2d 1159 (D. Idaho 2001), as unconstitutionally vague and chilling to protected speech, even though it still appears in the online code. The same ruling struck 34-1821(a), the ban on buying or selling signatures, on First Amendment grounds. Money paid to gatherers is public: Idaho Code 67-6612 requires anyone paying $100 or more to signature gatherers to report monthly, by the 20th, starting from the ballot title date, with 48-hour notices for $1,000 or more in the 14 days before the election.

How many signatures, and where: Reclaim Idaho v. Denney

In 2021 the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1110, requiring signatures from 6 percent of qualified electors in every one of the 35 legislative districts. Reclaim Idaho, the group that had run the 2018 Medicaid expansion initiative, and the Committee to Protect and Preserve the Idaho Constitution sued the Secretary of State directly in the Idaho Supreme Court. On August 23, 2021, in Reclaim Idaho v. Denney, the Court held the 35-district rule unconstitutional under Article III, Section 1. The majority opinion treated initiative and referendum as fundamental rights, applied strict scrutiny, and found no compelling state interest and no narrow tailoring. Every justice agreed the law was invalid; one justice reached that result under a different, less demanding test. The Court restored the prior rule, 6 percent statewide and 6 percent in at least 18 districts, and also struck the 2020 law in 34-1813(2)(a) that barred an initiative from taking effect before July 1 of the following year. It awarded Reclaim and the committee their attorney fees. Idaho Reports later reported that the plaintiffs' fees, which the state paid, came to $151,866.

Here is the trap for anyone reading the statute book: the online text of Idaho Code 34-1805 still says "each of the thirty-five (35) legislative districts," because a court ruling does not rewrite printed code. The rule actually applied is on the Secretary of State's initiatives page: 6 percent of total registered voters at the last general election, with at least 6 percent in each of at least 18 districts. Legislators have kept trying. Senate Joint Resolution 101 in 2025 proposed writing the all-districts rule into the constitution itself; it was sent back to committee in March 2025, per the bill history.

Ballot measure committees and the money

A committee designated to support or oppose a measure is a political committee under Idaho Code 67-6602. It appoints a treasurer, keeps a separate account and files the same reports as any PAC: monthly in an election year, annual otherwise, and a 48-hour notice for any single contribution of $1,000 or more. Committees for local measures get a small threshold break under Idaho Code 67-6608: a committee designated for a local measure files nothing until it reaches $500 in contributions or spending, then files a catch-up report within seven days.

What it does not have is a limit. Idaho's caps in 67-6610A apply to gifts to candidates, and the Secretary of State's manual says political committees do not designate contributions because they have no limits. The U.S. Supreme Court settled the measure question in Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley (December 14, 1981), striking a $250 cap on contributions to committees formed for or against ballot measures. Three years earlier, in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978), it held that a state could not bar corporations from spending to influence a referendum. So the money flows freely, and the disclosure on Sunshine is what tells voters where it came from.

Proposition 1 (2024): money and the result

The 2024 Proposition 1 would have replaced party primaries with a single top-four primary and used ranked-choice voting in the general election. By mid-October 2024, the supporting committee, Idahoans for Open Primaries, had raised about $2.9 million, about $1.9 million of it from out of state, and had spent about $350,000. Opponents had spent more than $460,000 by then, including about $241,000 from Idaho Rising, a PAC led by the Idaho House speaker, and the Idaho Republican State Central Committee paid for a sign against it, according to an October 17, 2024 Idaho Education News analysis that relied on Idaho Capital Sun reporting. Those are snapshot figures. Over the whole 2024 campaign, Idahoans for Open Primaries raised more than $5.6 million, and independent expenditures supporting the measure topped $4.4 million against about $553,000 opposing, according to the Idaho Capital Sun's October 5, 2026 report.

The vote was not close. The Secretary of State's 2024 general election results show 269,960 yes and 618,753 no. Of the votes cast on the question, that is 269,960 divided by 888,713, or 30.4 percent yes. By mid-October, supporters had raised roughly six times what opponents had spent, and they still lost by more than two to one. Raising more is not the same as winning.

The fight also reached the courts. The Attorney General sued to void the signatures, saying circulators had misled signers about ranked-choice voting. On August 13, 2024, the Idaho Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the petition on procedural grounds, saying the claims had to start in a lower court and that the Secretary of State must accept verified signatures unless a judicial officer finds them invalid, as reported by Boise State Public Radio.

Proposition 1 (2026): the current case

The 2026 ballot carries a different Proposition 1, the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act, which qualified for November 3, 2026, along with two legislative constitutional amendments (HJR 4 and HJR 6) and a state gun advisory question, according to the Secretary of State. As of September 29, 2026, the supporting committee, Idahoans United for Women and Families, had raised about $4.9 million from more than 3,000 donors and spent more than $1.1 million, with about 35 percent of its money from out of state. The opposing committee, Too Extreme for Idaho, had raised about $2.5 million from 83 donors and spent about $169,000, with about 0.2 percent from out of state, according to the Idaho Capital Sun's October 5, 2026 report.

Measure	Side	Raised	Spent	Out-of-state share
2024 Prop 1, by mid-Oct. 2024	Support	About $2.9 million	About $350,000	About 66 percent ($1.9M of $2.9M)
2024 Prop 1, by mid-Oct. 2024	Oppose (several groups)	Not totaled in reports cited	More than $460,000	Not reported
2026 Prop 1, as of Sept. 29, 2026	Support	About $4.9 million	More than $1.1 million	About 35 percent
2026 Prop 1, as of Sept. 29, 2026	Oppose	About $2.5 million	About $169,000	About 0.2 percent

Two reading habits help with tables like this. Compare the same date for both sides, because a committee that saves its money for October looks broke in August. And look at donor count as well as dollars: 3,000 donors and 83 donors describe two very different campaigns even when the totals are within a factor of two.

Local bonds and levies

Most measure campaigns in Idaho are local: a school bond, a library levy, a fire district override. Under Idaho Code 34-106, a bond, levy or other ballot question goes on one of two dates, the third Tuesday in May or the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, and the ballot language must reach the county clerk by 5 p.m. on the tenth Friday before the election. City initiatives and referendums are voted on in November of odd-numbered years. Debt needs a supermajority: Article VIII, Section 3 of the Idaho Constitution requires two-thirds of voters for a county, city, school district or other subdivision to take on debt beyond the year's revenue.

The ballot must also do arithmetic. Idaho Code 34-913 requires an official statement on every bond question with the purpose, principal, interest rate, total repayment, estimated annual cost to the taxpayer, payoff period and existing district debt. A 2024 amendment, House Bill 574, added that if the statement mentions guaranteed state tax relief money, it must say the year that money is scheduled to expire. The annual cost line uses a set formula: ((bond total / taxable value) x 100,000) / duration.

Section 34-913(5) reaches past the ballot. Any mass communication a taxing district sends to 20 or more voters about its bond, and any poster, website or social media post it puts up, must include the interest rate, total repayment, annual cost, payoff period and existing debt. If a court finds the district failed to comply, it must declare the result invalid. Levies have a parallel rule in 34-914.

Public money and public resources

The Public Integrity in Elections Act, Idaho Code 74-601 through 74-606, says public funds, resources or property may not be used to advocate for or against a candidate or a ballot measure. Under 74-603, "advocate" means to campaign for or against, and does not include factual information stated in a neutral way: cost of the debt, purpose, condition of the buildings, election date and location. "Resources" include staff time, equipment, software and facilities.

A public entity or its staff may	It may not
Publish an objective statement of the measure's purpose and effect, including cost per taxpayer (74-605(5))	Spend public money on "Vote yes" mailers, signs or ads (74-604(1))
Encourage people to vote, neutrally (74-605(2))	Use district email, websites, copiers or staff hours to campaign (74-604(2))
Hold factual information sessions and post the 34-913 disclosures	Offer college extra credit to influence a student's vote (74-604(3))
Let officials and employees campaign on their own time with their own money (74-605(1), (3))	Coordinate a private committee's campaign using public resources
Make public facilities available to political parties on equal terms when open to the general public (74-603(5))	Favor one side with access the other side does not get

Penalties run up to $250 for a violation, $1,500 for a knowing one, and $2,500 for a second knowing violation within 12 months, under 74-606. The Attorney General enforces the Act against state agencies and county prosecutors enforce it against local ones. One exception, added in 2024 by Senate Bill 1376: a sitting Idaho legislator may personally use public property or resources for correspondence and legislative recordings to advocate for or against an initiative or referendum, though not for travel or candidate advocacy.

How this rule applies to school districts, public universities, teachers, students and booster clubs is covered in lesson 12.

One wrinkle is worth knowing. The Act defines "ballot measure" as constitutional amendments, bond measures and levy measures. Initiatives and referendums are not on that list, even though the 2024 legislator exception refers to them. How the definition applies to a public entity's statements on a citizen initiative has not been settled in any decision we found. Contact the Secretary of State's elections division or the county prosecutor before a public body spends anything on one.

The Act has teeth locally. In May 2023, the Bonneville County Prosecutor filed civil complaints against Idaho Falls School District 91's former superintendent and its spokesperson, alleging that district posters, postcards and bookmarks promoting a $250 million bond for the November 2022 election, which voters rejected, were advocacy paid with public money. One bookmark read "Our students need modern, safe, and secure schools." The prosecutor sought fines totaling $375. In December 2023 the case settled: the complaint against the spokesperson was dismissed, the former superintendent's $250 fine was paid with money that was not the district's, and no one admitted wrongdoing. The district's records showed nearly $90,000 in legal fees from July through October 2023, according to Idaho Education News. The fight over one bookmark's adjectives cost far more than the fine.

Questions and answers

The questions sponsors, committee treasurers, school boards and voters raise most about measure campaigns. Gift-by-gift answers, including petition and polling place questions, are in Who Can Give to Whom: Questions and Answers.

We are five neighbors who want to put a county question on the ballot. Do we have to register before we spend a dime?

Yes, once you organize as a group to support the measure. A person or group designated to support or oppose a measure is a political committee at any dollar amount under Idaho Code 67-6602. For a local measure, 67-6608 lets the committee hold off on reports until it reaches $500 in contributions or spending, then file a catch-up report within seven days. Register on the Sunshine portal when you form, so the clock is never a surprise.

Can a corporation or union give unlimited money to our measure committee?

Yes. The caps in 67-6610A apply to candidates, and the U.S. Supreme Court struck down limits on contributions to ballot measure committees in Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley (1981). Every gift above $50 for the year is itemized with name and address, and any single gift of $1,000 or more triggers a 48-hour notice. Foreign nationals remain barred under 67-6610D.

Can I sign a petition online or by email?

No. Electronic signatures are void under Idaho Code 34-1807. Signatures must be gathered on paper sheets by an Idaho resident at least 18 years old, one county's signers to a sheet.

We are paying signature gatherers. What do we owe the public?

Each paid circulator wears a badge reading "paid petition circulator," tells signers who is paying, and uses pages that carry the payment declaration and the payer's name, under 34-1807. A petition circulated in violation of those disclosure rules is void. The payer reports under Idaho Code 67-6612 once payments reach $100: monthly by the 20th from the ballot title date, plus 48-hour notices for $1,000 or more in the final 14 days.

Why does the statute book still say all 35 districts?

Because a court ruling does not rewrite the printed code. Reclaim Idaho v. Denney (2021) struck the all-districts rule in 34-1805. The rule the Secretary of State actually applies, posted on its initiatives page, is 6 percent of registered voters statewide and 6 percent in at least 18 of the 35 districts.

Can our school superintendent speak at a Rotary lunch about the bond?

Yes, with facts. The Public Integrity in Elections Act lets public officials state the cost, purpose, building conditions, election date and polling places in a neutral way. On district time the superintendent may not ask for a yes vote. On personal time, with no district resources, the superintendent may campaign like any other resident, under 74-605.

Our district's bond flyer left out the interest rate. Does that matter?

It can. Idaho Code 34-913(5) requires the interest rate, total repayment, annual cost, payoff period and existing debt in any district mass communication to 20 or more voters about its bond, posters and social media posts included. A court that finds the district failed to comply must declare the election result invalid. Levies follow a parallel rule in 34-914.

Who do I complain to if the city uses its newsletter to push a levy?

Local entities answer to the county prosecutor under Idaho Code 74-606, and state agencies answer to the Attorney General. Send a copy of the newsletter, its distribution and its cost if you can get it through a public records request. Complaints, Enforcement and Pitfalls walks through the process.

Hard questions

If a few wealthy donors can fund a measure without limit, aren't measures just for sale?

Money buys signatures and ads. It does not reliably buy votes. In 2024 the open primaries campaign raised many times what its opponents spent, and independent spending for it outran spending against it about eight to one, per the Capital Sun figures above. It still won about 30 percent of the vote, according to the Secretary of State's results. The Supreme Court's reasoning in Citizens Against Rent Control is that a measure vote cannot be corrupted the way a candidate can, because there is no officeholder to owe a favor. The law's answer to big money is disclosure, so voters can weigh who is paying.

Isn't the 18-district rule unfair to the people in the biggest counties?

It is a deliberate geographic test, written to make sure support is not concentrated in a few populous counties. In Reclaim Idaho v. Denney the Idaho Supreme Court struck the 35-district version as too heavy a burden on a right the people reserved to themselves, and left the earlier 18-district rule in place. Sponsors in populous areas carry less weight per signature in the district count, and that trade-off is set by the Legislature within the limits the Court described.

Why should a school district be allowed to spend any money talking about its own bond?

Because voters need the facts, and the district holds them. The Act lets a district publish the cost, purpose and condition of buildings in neutral terms, and Idaho Code 34-913 requires it to print the cost figures. What the Act bars is advocacy. The line is not always easy, as the Idaho Falls bookmark case showed, and it cost that district far more in legal fees than the fine.

Why can a legislator use public resources on an initiative when a school board member cannot use them on a bond?

Senate Bill 1376 (2024) added that exception for sitting legislators' correspondence and legislative recordings about initiatives and referendums, not travel and not candidate advocacy. A legislator's correspondence about a proposed law is part of the job, which is the best case for the exception. The asymmetry is real, and the Act's definition of "ballot measure" does not even list initiatives, which leaves open how the general ban applies to them. That gap is one for the Legislature or a court to close.

Doesn't requiring paid circulators to wear badges just make it harder for citizens to qualify measures?

It adds cost and paperwork, and a mistake can void a petition. Senate Bill 1377 (2024), signed in April 2024 and effective July 1, 2024, was written "to require paid signature gatherers to disclose that they are being paid," which is information a signer can use. The U.S. Supreme Court struck a ban on paying circulators in Meyer v. Grant (1988). Disclosure rules have a mixed record: in Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation (1999), the Court struck Colorado's rule that circulators wear badges showing their names and its rule that sponsors report each paid circulator's name, address and pay, while leaving in place circulator affidavits and the sponsor's report of its own name and total spent on signature gathering. It expressly did not decide whether a badge may be required to say a circulator is paid, which is what Idaho's badge says. Volunteers are untouched by the badge rule.