Idaho’s Transparency Laws - Built to Fail
A decade of legal battles highlights INTENTIONAL gaps in Idaho’s transparency promises
For a decade, Idaho’s transparency laws have failed the very people they were written to protect. Citizens who ask for public records are met with stonewalling, inflated fees, and denials. Even the law’s promise of open meetings falls flat, with minute-taking requirements so bare that the official record often tells the public almost nothing. The result is the same: a permanent fog over government decisions, unless someone is willing to spend months and thousands of dollars fighting their own government in court. On paper, the laws sound clear. The Public Records Act declares that all records are “presumed open” and agencies must respond within three to ten working days. But the fine print reveals the flaw: no independent body exists to enforce these laws. If officials withhold records or require exorbitant fees, citizens have only one option: to file a lawsuit in District Court. For most families, that fight is out of reach.
Why it Matters
The cases tell the story. In 2019, Caldwell resident Ray Moore tried to obtain records from the Middleton School District. He was met with delays and a $3,000 bill for “staff time.” He sued, and Judge Thomas Whitney ordered the district to release the records, calling its tactics “deliberate” obstruction and noting the district had offered no evidence to justify its denials. The district apologized and promised training. Promises, however, are not enforcement. That same year, Ada County withheld documents about a racetrack deal for more than forty days, blaming a “technical glitch.” A judge later ruled the excuse was frivolous and ordered the county to release the records. But those rare victories only highlight how few citizens can endure the fight.
Most citizens never make it that far. Melissa Davlin of the Idaho Press Club has admitted that even her organization has had to leave denials unchallenged “simply because we don’t always have the funds, the time or the resources.” Moore represented himself because hiring a lawyer would have cost $6,000. Agencies know this. They deny requests knowing most citizens cannot fight back. That is not openness. It is legalized stonewalling.
The Legislature has made matters worse. In 2020, lawmakers exempted their own correspondence and “working notes,” ensuring that lobbyist emails and backroom deals are hidden from public view. Today, Idaho’s public records law contains more than 100 exemptions. Each one is sold as a “minor fix.” Together they form a fortress against accountability.
Meanwhile, Idaho’s Open Meeting Law is no better. Agencies must keep “minutes,” but the law requires only a skeletal outline of topics and votes. Substantive discussion often disappears into a vague line. The result is the same: with barren minutes and no effective access to records, citizens are denied their right to observe and participate in government.
State officials point to manuals, trainings, and the “Transparent Idaho” website as evidence of progress. But no website replaces the right to inspect the actual records of government. Transparency without enforcement is theater.
Journalists are fighting back. In 2024, a coalition launched the Idaho First Amendment Alliance to fund lawsuits and train reporters. “We want to show that Idaho journalists are serious about government transparency,” Davlin said. The goal is simple: stop agencies from escaping scrutiny through delay and denial.
The courts remain the only backstop, but a shaky one. Judges have ruled again and again that the law “means what it says.” But forcing citizens to drain their savings on legal fights is no system at all. Idaho’s transparency depends not on law but on the stubbornness and pocketbooks of those few willing to challenge secrecy.
Other states prove Idaho’s failures are not inevitable. In Connecticut and Pennsylvania, citizens can file quick, low-cost appeals and get binding orders for disclosure without hiring a lawyer. Colorado caps staff-time fees so agencies cannot price the public out of access. Iowa requires government to pay attorney fees when it loses and allows repeat violators to be removed from office. These are not radical ideas. They are practical models of governments that treat transparency as a duty, not a burden.
Idaho deserves the same. It should create an independent appeals body with power to order records released. It should cap staff-time fees statewide, guarantee public-interest waivers, and require agencies to pay attorney fees when they lose. And it should reform open meeting law to require real minutes that capture the substance of what is said. Until then, Idaho’s transparency laws will remain a promise on paper and a failure in practice.
Bonus Content
Points & Counter Points
Point: Broad disclosure would overwhelm agencies with requests and distract from their primary duties.
Counterpoint: Government exists to serve the public. Handling requests is not a distraction, it is part of accountability. Other states manage high volumes without collapsing.
Point: Fees for staff time ensure that taxpayers aren’t footing the bill for burdensome requests.
Counterpoint: Taxpayers already fund these agencies. Charging them again to see how their money is spent is double taxation — and a tool for blocking access.
Point: Lawsuits are an appropriate safeguard. If someone truly cares about the records, they can take the issue to court.
Counterpoint: For most citizens, the cost of litigation is prohibitive. Justice that only the wealthy or stubborn can afford is not justice at all.Point: Sensitive communications, such as legislators’ correspondence or working notes, must remain private to allow candid debate and protect relationships with constituents and lobbyists.
Counterpoint: Shielding “working notes” hides backroom deals. Transparency does not prevent candid debate — it prevents secret influence from replacing public deliberation.Point: Meeting minutes need only document votes and outcomes. Full transcripts would be unnecessary, costly, and confusing for the public.
Counterpoint: Vague outlines erase the context of decision-making. Citizens deserve to know why decisions are made, not just final tallies.Point: The “Transparent Idaho” website already provides extensive information in a user-friendly way.
Counterpoint: Curated websites are no substitute for access to raw records. What is left out is often as important as what is included.Point: Delays are sometimes unavoidable due to technical issues, staff shortages, or the complexity of requests.
Counterpoint: Excuses like “technical glitches” often mask obstruction. Deadlines exist precisely so agencies cannot hide behind delay tactics.Point: Excessive openness could expose the state to legal risks, privacy violations, or misuse of sensitive information.
Counterpoint: Public records laws already contain specific exemptions for privacy and security. Expanding secrecy beyond those narrow areas undermines trust without improving safety.Point: Idaho’s balance of openness and confidentiality protects efficiency while still providing public access.
Counterpoint: Idaho’s “balance” is tilted almost entirely toward secrecy. With more than 100 exemptions, accountability has been carved away piece by piece.Point: Calls for reform are unnecessary. Idaho’s system works — agencies comply, courts intervene when needed, and citizens have access.
Counterpoint: If the system worked, citizens would not face $3,000 bills, 40-day delays, or a maze of exemptions. Other states have proven better systems. Idahoans deserve the same.
References
Brown, C. (2024, March 12). Journalists launch Idaho First Amendment Alliance to strengthen transparency. Idaho Capital Sun. https://idahocapitalsun.com
Davlin, M. (2020, December 21). Press Club wins lawsuit against Idaho over public records denials. Idaho Press. https://www.idahopress.com
Idaho Code § 74-104(10) (2020).
Iowa Code § 22.10(3)(c) (2019).
Idaho Press Club v. State of Idaho, No. CV01-20-7869 (Idaho Dist. Ct. 2020).
Moore v. Middleton School District, No. CV14-19-XXXX (Idaho Dist. Ct. 2019).
Russell, B. (2019, September 25). Judge rules Ada County violated public records law in Les Bois case. Idaho Statesman. https://www.idahostatesman.com
65 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 67.1101 (2019).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-72-205(6) (2019).
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-206 (2019).
Or. Rev. Stat. § 192.324 (2019).
Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.520 (2019).