Idaho’s “bathroom bill” requires schools to prohibit students from using bathrooms or locker rooms that don’t align with their biological sex and to provide accommodations for those unable or unwilling to do so.
Idaho’s “bathroom bill” requires schools to prohibit students from using bathrooms or locker rooms that don’t align with their biological sex and to provide accommodations for those unable or unwilling to do so.
BOISE — The House Education committee recommended the passage of the “bathroom bill” on Wednesday, although several members expressed concern about its civil penalty.
SB 1100a, which has been amended to allow an exemption for coaches to enter locker rooms of the opposite sex with their teams during sporting events, requires schools to prohibit students from using bathrooms or locker rooms that don’t align with their biological sex; it requires schools to provide accommodations for those “unable” or “unwilling” to do so.
Under the legislation, minors or their parents could sue schools for up to $5,000 within four years of the incident if the schools failed to prohibit a student from using a facility that didn’t correspond to their sex.
Rep. Ted Hill, R-Eagle, presented the legislation with Idaho Family Policy Center President Blaine Conzatti. The bill had originally been sponsored by Sen. Ben Adams, R-Nampa.
“We want schools focused on teaching students, not fighting culture war battles,” Conzatti said.
Sen. Chris Trakel, R-Caldwell, and his wife, Nicole Trakel, both testified in favor of the legislation. Chris Trakel highlighted the Idaho Republican Party platform, which states the party promotes “measures that respect and protect the biological gender of children.”
Kuna resident Kristi Hardy testified that her son would avoid the bathroom all day because he might be exposed to a transgender student at his school who uses the boys’ facilities. She urged the committee to retain the civil cause of action in the bill, “because that is what speaks to our school district,” she said.
Amy Dundon of the ACLU of Idaho was the lone testifier who opposed the bill. She said it singles out and excludes transgender students and that it wasn’t defensible because the rationale for the state’s interest in the issue relies on “hypothetical problems.”
Rep. Barbara Ehardt, R-Idaho Falls, questioned Dundon on whether she was “dismissing” the fear young women may feel from being exposed to those of a different biological sex.
“I believe that feeling fear is a valid feeling. We’re not talking about men entering women’s bathrooms, we’re talking about trans girls using bathrooms that match their identity,” Dundon said. “... What I’m talking about is ensuring that trans kids have equal protection against discrimination and are able to use the bathrooms that align with their gender identity.”
Rep. Steve Berch, D-Boise, said he liked the bill, but his main concern was the civil penalty, especially because it’s been included in several bills this session.
“I am extremely concerned about this trend of legislation by intimidation and threat of legal action and financial penalty,” Berch said.
He didn’t support the motion to pass it out of the committee but said he may change his vote on the House floor after hearing from committee Chair Julie Yamamoto that school districts had been in favor of the policy.
Rep. Jack Nelsen, R-Jerome, said he was in favor of providing the bill’s guidance to school districts, but the civil aspect was “a nice way to shake down school districts.”
Rep. Dale Hawkins, R-Fernwood, said the cause of action and civil penalty that could be awarded was “trivial.”
“I think that if we make rules where we’re out to protect children, I’m not even sure $5,000 is enough,” he said.
The committee sent the bill to the House on a party-line vote. The bill easily passed the Senate on a 28-7 vote.
