No headline

Discussion points presented by some legislators in the Oct. 9 article “Rules review amendment hits ballot” re: a proposed change to our state Constitution, raise concerns. This amendment seeks to remove the governor’s power to veto the Legislatur’s rulings on state agencies’ policies and regulations.

1. Those quoted in the article present the proposed constitutional amendment as if it is only a minor change. However, any alteration of checks and balances, especially the veto power of one branch of government, is a major change.

2. It seems misleading to state that since legislators are elected rather than hired, they will do a better job of representing our interests. The governor’s job is also an elected position but based upon the voters in the entire state, not just in a particular district. While state agency employees are hired, not elected, they don’t have to run for re-election or worry about losing their position every few years; one could argue they are more free, rather than less, to do the right thing.

3. We have a recent good example of the value to all of us of a gubernatorial veto for proper checks and balances in government when Gov. Butch Otter vetoed legislation because it was unconstitutional. If it had not been vetoed by him, that legislation was highly likely to cost Idaho taxpayers thousands of dollars in legal responses to predictable lawsuits at both the state and federal level.

Let’s vote no on HJR5.

MARY PEPPING

Sandpoint