BOISE — A Senate committee has advanced a bill requiring universities, correctional facilities, and domestic violence shelters to restrict access to bathrooms and sleeping facilities to members of the opposite biological sex.
The bill would allow people to sue facilities if they encounter someone in violation of the bill.
Senate State Affairs Committee members Wednesday voted on party lines to send House Bill 264 to what’s known as the amending order, in which senators may submit amendments to the bill to be voted on.
Bill sponsor Rep. Barbara Ehardt, R-Idaho Falls, said the bill is to protect women and girls from being assigned dorm rooms with transgender women. She asked members to send it to the amending order to add clarification that male corrections officers could enter a facility designated for women and girls.
Ehardt co-presented the bill with Sara-Beth Nolan, legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, an Arizona-based conservative Christian legal advocacy group.
Under the bill, anyone who encountered someone of the opposite sex in one of these facilities would be able to sue the entity if that entity provided permission for that person to use that restroom or changing room or “failed to take reasonable steps” to prohibit their access.
Someone would also be able to file a lawsuit if they had been assigned to share sleeping quarters with someone of the opposite sex.
Of the 14 people who testified, there were two in support and the rest opposed.
Many of those who opposed specifically had concerns about the part of the bill related to university restrooms and enforcement.
The bill requires “every restroom, changing room, or sleeping quarters within a covered entity that is designated for females or males shall only be used by members of that sex. No individual shall enter a restroom, changing room or sleeping quarters that is designated for females or males unless such an individual is a member of that sex.”
Multiple women with short hair and who are tall expressed concern they would be questioned for using women’s restrooms at events such as football games or concerts at university stadiums.
“This bill does not protect me, and it targets and hurts my trans friends and neighbors,” Elizabeth Nelson said.
Multiple testifiers questioned the need for the legislation.
Boise resident Beverly Sherman said that despite her “limited exposure” to transgender people, she opposed the bill because of concerns over enforcement.
“I have no problem sharing facilities with any woman, trans or otherwise,” Sherman said. “They use one stall, I use another. I never see another person’s genitals, so why is this needed?”
Nampa resident AlexaLynne Fill held up photos of a number of people who appeared to be men and asked committee members, “which bathroom would this person belong in?”
She said all of the pictures were of people assigned female at birth and would be “forced into ladies restrooms.”
Fill said if she were forced to use men’s rooms, she would feel threatened based on experiences she’s had.
Carl Warmouth, of Christian-advocacy group the Idaho Family Policy Center, said the group supported the bill for its protection of women, especially in prisons.
Thad Butterworth, chairperson of the Ada County GOP, also supported the bill.
Several testifiers questioned how biological sex would be verified or how entry to bathrooms would be policed.
Committee Chairperson Sen. Jim Guthrie, R-McCammon, asked what the process would be under the bill if someone was suspected of being in the wrong facility.
Nolan, of the Alliance Defending Freedom, responded that a facility could ask the person.
“Nothing in the bill requires a body check,” she said.
Senate Assistant Minority Leader James Ruchti, D-Pocatello, said he had concerns over how the bill would be enforced, and if police would be asking “invasive” questions. He also opposed the wording of the bill, which seemingly prevented college students from inviting someone of the opposite sex into their dorm rooms.
“We’re becoming morality police for young people on college campuses,” Ruchti said.
Adams responded that the bill “isn’t about morality, this is about safety.”
Ruchti was the only no vote on the motion to send the bill to the floor with a recommendation that it pass.
Guido covers Idaho politics for the Lewiston Tribune, Moscow-Pullman Daily News and Idaho Press of Nampa. She may be contacted at lguido@idahopress.com and can be found on Twitter @EyeOnBoiseGuido.
