Political Science Paper on Annexation
"No man is good enough to govern another man without his consent."
Abraham Lincoln
In the late 1990's the city of Boise annexed about 8,000 county residents in the Boise "area of impact". Idaho Code 50-222-1 grants Idaho cities absolute unilateral municipal annexation, it is apparently the only state to do so.
In "Classifying State Approaches to Annexation" (Source: Center for Urban Policy and the Environment by Indiana University-Purdue University) Table A2 states: "In 1997, 14 states required Approval by both city and those in
territory of proposed annexation. 28 states required or allowed approval in area to be annexed (an increase of 8 from 1990) and "Municipalities that operate under municipal determination annexation laws and a commission type of government are most likely to succeed in expanding corporate limits to protect municipal revenues." The annexation of the 8,000 may not have been so much for environmental or wise planning as much as it was to fatten city coffers and facilitate developers' plans.
Although most of the residents may already have power, water and other services, they now must pay more for them by addition of city franchise fees. They also pay higher property taxes and gain little but the privilege of saying that they live inside the city. Prime mini horse ranchettes can no longer be sold as such because the city's prohibitions on livestock would apply once the property is sold.
Citizens were being drafted into a city without so much as a thank you. The people being annexed protested, but found that Idaho's state law left them virtually no recourse to the forced annexation. A group of citizens in the area annexed and others in the area of impact (who would be the next to be annexed) chose to endeavor to change the law. This is the story of the protracted battle which continues even as this is written.
"...a dictatorial approach is not how a democracy works." Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne, State of the State Address, Jan. 17, 2000
The first bill HB 538 was introduced in the 2000 session and passed the House Local Government and Taxation committee but was defeated by only a few votes on the House floor, largely due to the efforts of the Association of Idaho Cities (AIC) , the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry (IACI), the Boise Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, the Building Contractors Association (BCA) and Realtor Associations who saw reform as a hindrance to development aims and profit margins. The specter of the return of annexation reform may have affected some legislative elections as one committee chair had said she
was going to retire but changed her mind and just as suddenly two other candidates appeared in time to get onto the printed ballot, but both dropped out well before the election. The reform candidate lost, some votes had gone to the candidates that had dropped out. Capitol insiders claim that the AIC had prodded the incumbent to run again so as to retain control the next time the issue arose. Round One ended in defeat and with a TKO after the bell.
Two bills were introduced in the 2001 session of the Idaho Legislature, one proposed by the people, SB 1151, sponsored by Rep. Tillman (Boise) the other SB 1167 proposed by a coalition of (basically the same) actors, Rep. Gagner (Idaho Falls), the AIC, the Idaho Association of Realtors, and an assortment of developer, mayors and others to whom unfettered annexation would be profitable both in power and influence as well as in dollars. The Idaho Statesman gave considerable coverage to the issue, albeit somewhat one-sided, and even issued an editorial entitled "Anti-annexation bill is a bad idea that won't go away"(2/6/01). The bills followed the usual format, an initial committee review, the issuance of an RS number, a first reading, and then into the Senate Local Government Committee wherein great controversy ensued over the fact that so many citizens came to voice their opinions that the hearing had to be moved to the Gold Room, and still not all were allowed to
speak. It should be noted that one committee member owned property that he wanted annexed, but those in between his land and the city were opposed and he stood to benefit from failure of the SB 1151 and success of SB 1167. The senator did not recluse himself, nor did the Senate leadership review the ethical questions. Perhaps the most entertaining episode of the hearing was when Sen. Frasure questioned Realtors Association lobbyist Alex Lebeau as to the consensus of the Realtors in their opposition to SB 1151 and their support of SB 1167. Mr. Lebeau testified that the vast majority of Realtors were in agreement. Sen. Frasure admonished Mr. Lebeau telling him that he himself (Sen. Frasure) was a Realtor and not only was he not in agreement, but that he knew quite well that a large number of Realtors were not in such agreement, that the consensus Mr. Lebeau spoke of was strictly that of the association officers, not the membership. Sen. Frasure also asked those in attendance who were representatives of corporations, developers, cities and lobbyists who were for SB 1167 to stand, approximately eight or nine stood. He then asked the same question for those opposed and one stood. Then he asked citizens in favor of annexation to stand, none did, then he asked those citizens opposed to annexation to stand and nearly 100 stood.
I myself testified against the cities's bill and for the people's bill, addressing the consent issue. However, the people's bill was held in committee and the cities's bill passed the committee, only to die in the House Local Government and Taxation committee.
Round Two, the 2001 session, ended in a draw.
2002: The actors in this act were the same as the years before. Although the gladiators had agreed to a gentleman's agreement to review each other's bills before introduction, the cities's bill (SB 1335) was not seen by Rep. Tillman until early February at its introduction. Tillman introduced SB 1334 and after the usual regimen, both bills were to be heard in the Senate Local Government Committee. Although it is possible that the issues of term limits, school funding and the budget cutbacks consumed much of the newspaper space allotted to local politics, the paper printed little on the issue of
annexation, save small reports as to the current status. During my own testimony (a replay of 2001), Sen. Frasure asked if we had ever been asked to work with the opposition to compromise on a bill that all could live with. My reply was that we had never been consulted or asked to work with them. Sen. Frasure then asked for, and got, a consensus to continue the hearing while the two sides met to work out differences. The representatives of SB 1335 agreed to meet with us at an appointed time and place. Accommodations were provided by the AmeriTel Inns to use their corporate boardroom, refreshments were supplied and the reform proponents arrived on, or ahead of time.
I replied that in Federalist 48, Madison wrote that "The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex." Rep. Callister then asked me how many states allowed unfettered annexation by cities, I replied that no two states have exactly the same annexation laws, but that Idaho is among only two or three states in not providing for consent. The committee voted to hold HB 670 and forward SB 1391 to the full House with a do-pass recommendation.
SB 1391 was amended a couple of times along the way, in the Senate as well as in the House, resulting in the "SB 1391 aa" title by the time of its final passage. These were relative minor changes that affected the manner in which the mechanics of the bill would be administered.
In the House, Rep. Sali (Kuna/Meridian/Boise) proposed an amendment that would have kept many of the positive aspects of the bill, such as property buyer notification of being in an "area of impact" and other needful provisions, but would have established a true "consent" wherein citizens would be amply notified of annexation proposals and given an opportunity to protest and arrange for a vote. The amendment was defeated 35-34 with Speaker Bruce Newcomb casting the tie-breaking vote.
Upon return to the Senate for the final approval, it passed 28-2-5 and on March 15th, SB 1391 was enrolled and sent to the Governor for signature or veto.
The Citizens for Annexation Reform soon began an active campaign to pressure the Governor to veto the bill. The primary issue is that the cities, in their haste to make the bill more "palatable" to the legislators and the public had referred several times within the bill to the people being annexed as having given "consent", apparently taking a key phrase from my speech of the previous session. This then became an issue addressed by the Idaho State Attorney General who wrote that should the courts determine that "consent" means "one man, one vote", the bill would be rendered unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the statement of the Attorney General had come too late to be taken seriously by the legislators eager to go home, having spent all the people's money and their own energies.
Sufficient demand was made and the Governor's staff agreed to arrange a meeting wherein the Governor would discuss the issue with the reformists. On March 19th the group met with Mr. L Michael Bogert of the Governor's legal staff who apologized that the Governor was unavailable but that he would meet with us and report to the Governor his findings. Mr. Bogert was attentive and courteous and asked the questions a truly impartial aide would have asked. His fact finding uncovered the facts that Idaho Code currently requires a vote on the moving of other political boundaries such as school districts, fire districts and sewer districts where taxes are affected; that SB 1391 merely uses the phrase "consent" as a cosmetic to cover the true expansion of the powers of the cities to annex; and that the group will, if the Governor signs the bill into law, take the matter to the courts for a determination of the meaning of "consent". Mr. Bogert was helpful in his recommendations that all those representatives who voted for Rep Sali's amendment be contacted and asked to contact the Governor with a request to veto SB 1391 as being fundamentally flawed. He suggested as well that all reform-minded citizens begin an active campaign to contact the Governor as well with a veto request.
Mr. Bogert was given a complete history of the legislative efforts and he promised to review them at length with the Governor. It was noted that those who voted against meaningful "consent", those who voted to repeal term limits and those who voted to limit the ability of citizens to foment initiatives are virtually the same people in each vote (save for one or two exceptions) and that these are all being targeted by term limits proponents and others for defeat in the upcoming primary elections. A large turnover might bode well for reform efforts.
At the time of this writing the veto pressure efforts have begun and are becoming more organized.
KIDO Radio (AM 630) has returned Doug Raper to the air 4pm to 7pm starting this week, having been a very vocal proponent of annexation reforms last year and the year before, it is expected that he will assist in "expanding the scope of conflict" and rouse the listening public to call and email the Governor and their representatives demanding a veto. It has been alluded to by capitol insiders that the Governor will veto the bill, but only there being sufficient protestations to support a plausible veto which the proponents might understand. Failing to secure a veto, this bill will contested in court.
Note: Governor Kempthorne signed the bill into law on March 27th. It is expected that this bill will be challenged in the courts. Failing that, the new Legislature of 2003 will be of an entirely different makeup and will likely be receptive to modifying SB 1391 to ensure proper consent voting.
"The right to vote is not just any ordinary right, it is the essential, defining ingredient of a democracy." Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist.
The end of Round Three bell has not yet rung.