State lawmakers clash with Idaho cities -- this time, over discrimination

Sarah Cutler, The Idaho Statesman on Jan 29, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

BOISE, Idaho — For years, the city of Sandpoint in Idaho’s Panhandle had an ordinance that said everyone could enjoy the “full benefits of citizenship” and equal opportunity “regardless of sexual orientation” or “gender identity/expression.”

The city defined the latter term as a “gender-related identity, appearance, expression or behavior of an individual regardless of a person’s assigned sex at birth.”

In November, Sandpoint repealed that rule. Among 13 cities in the state that had such laws, it was the first to make such a decision.

But if a new bill at the Idaho Legislature moves forward, it likely won’t be the last.

Rep. Bruce Skaug, a Republican, on Wednesday proposed a bill to block cities and counties from imposing anti-discrimination ordinances that go beyond what state law protects. The bill, which the committee voted to introduce for a full hearing, would “preempt burdensome local ordinances” and allow the attorney general to sue local governments that don’t comply with the law. Businesses, property owners and residents could also sue.

Idaho prohibits discrimination in employment, housing and education based on race, color, religion, sex, age, disability and national origin, according to the bill’s statement of purpose. It does not guard against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Skaug made an economic case for his proposal, which was written by the Idaho Family Policy Center, a conservative Christian lobbying group.

“Local government antidiscrimination ordinances are frequently weaponized to coerce persons engaged in business to choose either to violate their sincerely held moral, philosophical and religious beliefs or to leave the market altogether,” the bill says.

Opponents called the bill an example of government overreach.

“When the state strips local leaders of the ability to respond to issues and protect their residents, it isn’t preserving neutrality — it’s government overreach at best,” said Mistie DelliCarpini Tolman, the Idaho director for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, in a statement. “In places across Idaho, locally elected officials are ready and willing to stop discrimination, and this bill blocks them from doing exactly that.”

“That isn’t small government,” she added. “It’s a uniform denial of basic protections that tells LGBTQ+ Idahoans and other marginalized residents that their safety and dignity don’t matter.”

Bellevue, Boise, Coeur d’Alene, Driggs, Hailey, Idaho Falls, Ketchum, Lewiston, Meridian, Moscow, Pocatello and Victor have local anti-discrimination ordinances that include sexual orientation and gender identity, according to a news release from the Idaho Family Policy Center. The center said it aims to protect the beliefs of business owners who don’t want to participate in events such as same-sex wedding ceremonies and Pride festivals.

“We call on the Idaho Legislature to rein in these rogue local governments by ensuring that these local anti-discrimination ordinances align with state law,” its statement reads.