From Speculation to Substantiation: Idaho Supreme Court Demands Evidence-Based Fiscal Impact Statements and Fuller Ballot Titles

Introduction

Case: Idahoans United for Women and Families v. Labrador, No. 52636-2025, Idaho Supreme Court (Jun. 16, 2025).
Parties:

• Petitioner: Idahoans United for Women and Families (“Idahoans United”), the sponsor of the proposed “Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act.”
• Respondents: Raul Labrador (Idaho Attorney General), Phil McGrane (Secretary of State), Lori Wolff and the Division of Financial Management (“DFM”).

Procedural posture: Original action seeking writs of mandamus and certiorari attacking (i) the Fiscal Impact Statement (“FIS”) issued by DFM and (ii) the Attorney General’s short/long ballot titles for the initiative.

The Court dismisses the petition against the Secretary of State, partially grants mandamus relief against DFM and the Attorney General, denies certiorari as duplicative, and retains jurisdiction while ordering both agencies to redo their work within seven days accompanied by sworn declarations.

Summary of the Judgment

• FIS: Held not in substantial compliance with Idaho Code § 34-1812. The Court faults DFM for (1) lack of a reasonable factual basis, (2) internally contradictory and unclear language, and (3) unnecessary legal/technical jargon.
• Short Ballot Title: Partly invalid. Although the phrase “fetus viability” survives challenge, the title omits two of the initiative’s four “distinctive characteristics” (post-viability health exception & provider-liability protections) and is therefore not “distinctive and comprehensive” as required by § 34-1809.
• Long Ballot Title: Approved. It captures the measure’s purpose without prejudice or confusion.
• Relief: Writs of mandamus compelling (a) DFM to file a new FIS plus a sworn declaration explaining its methodology, and (b) the Attorney General to draft a new short title. Court retains jurisdiction to vet the replacements; no attorney-fees awarded.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Idahoans for Open Primaries v. Labrador, 172 Idaho 466 (2023) (“Open Primaries”)
   • Introduced the “substantial compliance” standard for reviewing ballot titles.
   • Established that initiative proponents may invoke original jurisdiction when delays in certification impede signature gathering.
   • In the present case, the Court extends Open Primaries in two directions: (i) applies “substantial compliance” to Fiscal Impact Statements for the first time; and (ii) again retains jurisdiction and imposes strict remedial timelines.
2. Buchin v. Lance, 128 Idaho 266 (1995)
   • Articulated the need for ballot titles to be “distinctive” and “comprehensive.”
   • Served as textual support for equating “fetus” vs. “fetal” terminology.
3. Idaho State Fed’n of Labor (AFL) Petition, 75 Idaho 367 (1954)
   • Earliest exposition that short titles must be both distinctive and comprehensive; repeatedly quoted.
4. ACLU v. Echohawk, 124 Idaho 147 (1993)
   • Used to benchmark whether a short title adequately alerts signers to an initiative’s “chief characteristics.”
5. Mandamus Trilogy (Beem v. Davis (1918); Moerder v. Moscow (1953); Musser v. Higginson (1994))
   • Reinforce rule that even where an official enjoys discretion within a statutory duty, mandamus lies to compel performance that meets statutory minima.

2. Court’s Legal Reasoning

The decision unfolds in three logical stages:

1. Jurisdiction & Justiciability
   • Article V, § 9 gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over mandamus/certiorari.
   • Delay in signature-gathering equals lack of an “adequate remedy at law,” satisfying the extraordinary-relief threshold. This replicates Open Primaries.
2. Standard of Review: “Substantial Compliance”
   • Already in force for ballot titles (Open Primaries), now expressly applied to FISs—creating a new binding precedent.
3. Application to the FIS
   i. Good-Faith Basis: Data exchanged with Health & Welfare lacked correlation; no research with Corrections; no economist declaration—hence “speculation, not estimation.”
   ii. Clarity & Concision: Contradictory statements (“may occur” vs. “no expected changes”) and an $850 million Medicaid reference that adds arithmetic but not clarity.
   iii. Avoidance of Legal/Technical Terms: Bare statute citations (“see I.C. §§ 20-237B, 56-255”) without explanation violate § 34-1812’s plain-language mandate.
   iv. References to “Medicaid and prisoner populations” pass muster because they explain the source of presumed costs.
4. Application to Short Title
   • Phrase “fetus viability” survives because Idaho statutes and earlier cases use comparable language—no inherent prejudice.
   • Nevertheless, omitting two salient features—post-viability health exception & provider-liability shield—renders the title not “distinctive and comprehensive.” Signers would be misled about scope.
5. Long Title
   • Not bound by “common terminology” requirement; within 200 words; fairly neutral; acceptable even with both “fetal” and “fetus” usage.

3. Impact of the Decision

• Elevated Evidentiary Expectations for DFM – The Court insists on a sworn declaration outlining methodology and data sources. Future FIS preparers must compile, document, and be ready to defend empirical underpinnings.
• Expanded “Substantial Compliance” Doctrine – Now expressly governing FIS evaluation, not just ballot titles, providing a uniform yardstick throughout Idaho’s initiative machinery.
• Guidance for Attorney General – Short titles must enumerate all major legal changes, even within 20-word limit; mere “topic” statements are insufficient.
• Procedural Blueprint – Court signals willingness to retain jurisdiction, impose tight deadlines, and require supplemental declarations—offering future litigants a model remedial pathway.
• Political Consequences – • Initiative proponents gain leverage: agencies must act with documented precision, limiting opportunity for covert politicization.
  • Agencies face compressed turn-around times but heavier analytic burdens—expect more resources directed to election-law compliance.
  • For controversial subjects (e.g., abortion, tax policy), expect increased litigation over FIS wording and ballot captions, using the “four distinctive features” analysis fashioned here.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Writ of Mandamus

A court order directing a government official to perform a ministerial (nondiscretionary) duty required by law.

Writ of Certiorari

In Idaho practice, used to review whether an agency or lower tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction while acting in a quasi-judicial capacity.

Substantial Compliance

Not perfect adherence but enough to fulfill the statutory purpose. Think of it as “good enough that the purpose of the law is met.”

Fiscal Impact Statement (FIS)

A short (≤ 100 words) summary plus detailed analysis estimating how an initiative will affect state/local finances.

Distinctive & Comprehensive Short Title

A ≤ 20-word caption on each signature sheet that alerts voters to every major way the initiative would change current law.

Conclusion

Idahoans United for Women and Families v. Labrador sharpens Idaho’s initiative process in three enduring ways. First, it extends the “substantial compliance” yardstick to Fiscal Impact Statements, insisting on data-driven accuracy rather than conjecture. Second, it refines ballot-title drafting: short titles must capture all core legal shifts, not merely the headline issue. Third, it showcases an assertive remedial stance—the Court will police statutory compliance in real time, retain jurisdiction, and demand sworn methodology disclosures.

For agencies, the ruling is a caution: analytical shortcuts invite judicial correction. For initiative sponsors, it is reassurance that statutory safeguards against biased or sloppy summaries have judicial teeth. And for Idaho jurisprudence, it cements a precedent of evidence-based transparency at the intersection of direct democracy and administrative duty.