Despite changes, Idaho library bounty bill is still bad legislation | Opinion

What’s the point of taking public testimony if Idaho’s Republican legislators don’t listen to it?

Once again, a majority of people testified against a bill before a legislative committee on Monday, yet the committee voted for it, suggesting that legislators, once again, are not representing their constituents. At least, they’re representing only those constituents they want to hear.

In this case, Republican legislators on the House State Affairs Committee voted to recommend passage of a bill that would allow parents and guardians to sue a library if a child is exposed to “material harmful to minors.”

It’s no wonder most people testified against; it’s bad legislation.

The bill, House Bill 384, is a rewritten version of a bill that passed the House and the Senate last year but was vetoed — rightly — by Gov. Brad Little. The House failed to override the veto.

This year’s version seeks to address Little’s objections by setting a damages limit of $250 and gives a library 30 days to move “objectionable” materials to the adult section.

But there are still a number of problems with the bill.

First, one has to ask why the bill is structured as a private cause of action. Why do legislators (really, the dark money national organizations that are writing these bills) structure this as a bounty lawsuit? It’s because no prosecutor in their right mind would go after any of the books they hate. That would clearly be an unconstitutional overreach of government. So, instead, lawmakers need to frame this as a private cause of action. That way, the threat of a raft of expensive lawsuits — even lawsuits that are certain to fail can be costly to defend — can do the otherwise unconstitutional work of punishing protected speech.

Next, 30 days isn’t enough time for a library district or school board to review a complaint, read the challenged book and make a decision.

Even though the amount is capped at $250, it’s still a bounty, and there are many library districts that don’t have $250 to spare, let alone a couple thousand dollars if many people complain. Library officials testified as well that they’d have to hire lawyers to fight lawsuits brought by anyone who sought to ban a book.

Which leads us to the chilling effect. Afraid of what might or might not offend someone as “harmful” or “objectionable,” library districts more likely will make the decision to simply remove books from their shelves.

This is a slippery slope, and we’ve seen it already, with libraries banning books that clearly have literary and artistic merit and are nowhere near being “pornographic.”

Remember, Nampa school board members banned, among other books, “The Bluest Eye,” “The Kite Runner” and “The Handmaid’s Tale,” depriving Nampa students the opportunity to read great works of literature. Keep in mind that not all students have the privilege or financial ability to purchase books at a bookstore. Sometimes the school library or their town’s local library are the only opportunities to read a book.

We question what this legislation is really all about. We suspect it’s really an attempt to erase homosexuality and homosexual characters from libraries. After all, the legislator bringing this bill, Rep. Jaron Crane, R-Nampa, put as one of his tenets when he was running for office that marriage is between one man and one woman and that it was the government’s job to “protect that union.” We thought we were done with this debate, but apparently not.

Consider, too, that one of the people who testified, Jacquelyn Davidson, Republican precinct committeewoman for the Ada County GOP, said the quiet parts out loud.

Davidson said she supported the bill because she said she had found books at the Boise Public Library “promoting homosexuality and gender dysphoria.”

And there you have it, folks. This is really about erasing the LGBTQ community from library shelves.

Lawmakers can’t legally deem a book “obscene” simply because it “promotes homosexuality.” Of course, simply because a book may have gay characters does not mean it’s “promoting homosexuality.” But aside from that, promoting a set of political beliefs is core First Amendment speech that can’t be sanctioned.

So, for example, legislators would not be able to pass a law that says a book such as “Gender Trouble” by Judith Butler can’t be checked out by minors. But under this bill, a parent could sue a library district if their child comes home with a book with a gay character.

Finally, libraries all over the state already have processes in place to challenge a book and have it removed from shelves. Library district patrons have the opportunity to elect library district board members.

In the end, this is a made-up issue that’s being used to fire up a Republican base that will be voting in a closed Republican primary in a few months. Reasonable Republican legislators should see through the ruse, and so should voters.

Statesman editorials are the unsigned opinion of the Idaho Statesman’s editorial board. Board members are opinion editor Scott McIntosh, opinion writer Bryan Clark, editor Chadd Cripe, newsroom editors Dana Oland and Jim Keyser and community members Mary Rohlfing and Patricia Nilsson.