The “Reasonable-Basis & Distinctiveness” Doctrine:
Idaho Supreme Court Re-defines Fiscal Impact Statements and Ballot Title Duties
in Idahoans United for Women and Families v. Labrador (2025)

1. Introduction

Idaho’s initiative process requires two executive-branch actors—the Division of Financial Management (“DFM”) and the Attorney General—to supply voters with neutral background information before signature gathering begins:

• a Fiscal Impact Statement (“FIS”) estimating costs or savings, and
• short and long ballot titles describing the measure.

In the present dispute a reproductive-rights committee, Idahoans United for Women and Families (“IUWF”), challenged DFM’s FIS and the Attorney General’s ballot titles for its proposed “Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act.” IUWF petitioned the Idaho Supreme Court for writs of mandamus (to compel action) and certiorari (to review legality). The Court seised original jurisdiction because delays would jeopardise signature collection for the 2026 general election.

The decision both clarifies the substantive standard—“substantial compliance” anchored in a reasonable factual basis—and expands what must appear in a 20-word short ballot title. Because no prior Idaho case had scrutinised the content of FISs and short titles in such depth, the judgment sets a powerful precedent governing all future initiatives.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Secretary of State: Petition dismissed—he had properly performed ministerial duties.
• DFM & FIS: Writ of mandamus partially granted. The original FIS was void for lack of a demonstrable factual foundation, internal contradictions, and unnecessary legal jargon. DFM ordered to submit a new FIS and sworn declaration within seven days. (The replacement FIS was later approved.)
• Attorney General – Short Ballot Title: Writ of mandamus partially granted. The 17-word title omitted two “distinctive characteristics” (post-viability medical-emergency abortions and provider immunity), violating I.C. §34-1809. A new title had to be filed within seven days. (The revised title was ultimately certified.)
• Attorney General – Long Ballot Title: Request denied; the 193-word description substantially complied with statutory requirements.
• Attorney Fees: Denied to all parties; mixed result meant no prevailing party.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The Court leaned heavily on earlier initiative-procedure cases:

• Idahoans for Open Primaries v. Labrador, 172 Idaho 466 (2023) – adopted the “substantial compliance” test for ballot titles and stressed timeliness; used as the analytical template.
• Buchin v. Lance, 128 Idaho 266 (1995) – coined the “distinctive & comprehensive” requirement; supplied language (“fetus viability”) that re-appears here.
• ACLU v. Echohawk, 124 Idaho 147 (1993) – explained that a short title may capture an initiative’s essence without listing every detail.
• Idaho State Fed’n of Labor (AFL) v. Lance, 75 Idaho 367 (1954) – earliest articulation that short titles must be both “distinctive” and “comprehensive.”
• Beem v. Davis (1918) and progeny – recognised that mandamus lies even when an officer has some discretion so long as a clear legal duty exists.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Jurisdiction & Proper Respondents
   Article V §9 gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs. IUWF satisfied the “no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy” condition because signature collection cannot start until compliant documents are certified. The Secretary of State was dismissed because no breach of duty was alleged.
2. Standard of Review – “Substantial Compliance”
   Borrowing from Open Primaries, the Court held that it will not perfect wording, only police the statutory boundaries. Substantial compliance means:
   • for an FIS – honest, unbiased, factually grounded, clear, concise, and free of unnecessary legalese (I.C. §34-1812);
   • for ballot titles – a short title ≤20 words that is distinctive & comprehensive; a long title ≤200 words that fairly states the measure without argument (I.C. §34-1809).
3. The FIS Failure—Birth of the “Reasonable Basis” Requirement
   a) Lack of factual support: DFM projected ≤$20,000 extra cost yet offered no documentation of prison healthcare expenses and inadequate data for Medicaid.
   b) Internal contradictions: Statement alternated between “costs may occur” and “no expected changes.”
   c) Unclear contextual figures: Reference to the $850 million Medicaid budget muddied the true comparison.
   d) Unnecessary citations: Idaho Code §§20-237B & 56-255 and “Medicaid references” added legal clutter.
   Together these flaws showed absence of “good faith”—now defined as an estimate with a reasonable factual basis rather than speculation.
4. The Short Ballot Title Failure—Expansion of “Distinctive” Test
   The Attorney General’s 17-word title referenced only two of four legal changes, thereby misleading signers. The Court enumerated four “distinctive characteristics”:
   1. pre-viability right to abortion;
   2. post-viability abortions in medical emergencies (health-of-mother standard);
   3. provider-liability protections;
   4. general privacy right in reproductive decisions.
   Omitting (b) and (c) breached the comprehensiveness requirement even though the phrase “fetus viability” was itself acceptable.
5. Remedial Technique—Retained Jurisdiction
   Emulating Open Primaries, the Court refused to impose IUWF’s drafts and instead ordered the public officers to redraft within seven days, with the Court holding the file open for immediate review. This “active supervision” model balances judicial restraint with the electorate’s calendar.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

The judgment crystallises two doctrinal pillars for future initiative litigation:

• Reasonable-Basis Standard for FIS: Agencies must document data sources, assumptions, and methodology. A sworn declaration is now best practice. Pure speculation or “boilerplate zero” estimates violate the statute.
• Four-Corner Distinctiveness Rule for Short Titles: When an initiative alters multiple sectors of law, every distinctive change must appear—even within the 20-word cap. Drafters will need sharper linguistic skills; challengers gain a clearer attack line.

Down-stream consequences include:

• Greater litigation leverage for initiative proponents wanting swift correction of defective statements.
• Heavier evidentiary burden on DFM (and any successor entity) to keep spreadsheets, actuarial tables, agency correspondence, etc.
• Incentive for the Attorney General to consult subject-matter experts during drafting to avoid multiple returns.
• Transferability: Other states with “good faith” or “impartiality” clauses may cite the Idahoans United test when evaluating informational materials.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Writ of Mandamus – a court order requiring a public official to do something the law clearly obligates them to do. It is not about the official’s judgement but about the existence of a duty.
• Writ of Certiorari – a court command to review the legality of an act already done by a lower tribunal or official; usually used to quash decisions taken without jurisdiction.
• Substantial Compliance – not perfection; the document must satisfy the statute’s purpose and provide functional adequacy. “Reasonable factual basis” is now part of that test for FIS.
• Distinctive & Comprehensive Short Title – within 20 words, it must reveal all significant ways the initiative would alter existing law so a signer knows what they are endorsing.
• Fetal vs. Fetus Viability – grammatically different (adjective vs. noun) but semantically equivalent: the stage when the unborn child could survive outside the womb.

5. Conclusion

Idahoans United for Women and Families v. Labrador is now the cornerstone Idaho case on initiative informational requirements. By marrying the equitable power of mandamus with a pragmatic “substantial compliance” yardstick, the Court fortified voters’ access to accurate, neutral information while respecting executive discretion. Going forward:

1. DFM must ground fiscal projections in verifiable data and speak plainly.
2. The Attorney General must ensure every fundamental legal change appears in the short title, no matter how compressed the language.
3. The Supreme Court stands ready to intervene swiftly, retaining jurisdiction until compliant documents are produced.

These twin standards—the Reasonable-Basis Rule for FIS and the Four-Corner Distinctiveness Rule for short titles—will shape Idaho’s direct-democracy landscape and offer a template for other jurisdictions wrestling with similar transparency concerns.