(Bannock County Press Release, August 21, 2026; Cover Photo Credit: Bannock County)
Bannock County Commissioners Meetings, August 24-28, 2026
Monday, August 24, 2026:
There are no meetings scheduled at this time.
Tuesday, August 25, 2026:
9:00 AM Business Meeting (action items)
11:00 AM Public Hearing for Fiscal Year 2027 Budget and recover 1% of forgone taxes for maintenance & operations for ambulance district (action item)
11:15 AM Public Hearing about New and Increased FY27 Fees (action item)
Wednesday, August 26, 2026:
There are no meetings scheduled at this time.
Thursday, August 27, 2026:
9:00 AM Work Session and Claims Meeting (action items)
The Work Session Agenda will be updated on Monday, August 24, 2026.
Friday, August 28, 2026:
There are no meetings scheduled at this time.
(The information packets for the business meeting and work session can be found at http://www.bannockcounty.gov. Scroll down and click on “Agendas and Minutes” then click on the information packet for the meeting that you are interested in.)
About BOCC Meetings
The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) is comprised of the three elected County Commissioners: Ernie Moser (District 1, Chair), Jeff Hough (District 2), and Ken Bullock (District 3).
The BOCC generally meets twice a week: regular business meetings are on Tuesdays at 9:00 a.m. and work sessions are on Thursdays at 9:00 a.m. Meetings are generally held in the Commissioner’s Chambers at 624 E Center, Room 212, Pocatello, Idaho, unless otherwise noted. Times subject to change within 15 minutes of stated time.
During these meetings, the BOCC may: approve contracts, expend funds, hear testimony, make decisions on land use cases and take care of other County matters, and are open to the public.
(City of Pocatello Press Release, August 21, 2026; Cover image credit: City of Pocatello)
You may notice a new look for yard waste carts around Pocatello. The City of Pocatello Sanitation Department is beginning to replace yard waste carts with new all-brown carts clearly labeled “Yard Waste.”
Previously, yard waste carts looked very similar to regular garbage carts, with the main difference being the color of the lid. This could make the carts easy to confuse. The new all-brown design and clear “Yard Waste” labeling will make them easier for both residents and Sanitation Operators to identify, helping reduce contamination, prevent collection errors, and improve efficiency along yard waste routes.
The new carts are being purchased as part of the City’s annual cart replacement program, which replaces older and worn-out carts. Existing green yard waste carts that are still in good condition will be repurposed for garbage collection by replacing the lids, allowing the City to extend the useful life of its equipment and make the most of existing resources.
Residents with green yard waste carts do not need to request a replacement. Carts will be replaced as needed through the City’s regular replacement program.
Same yard waste service—just a new look!
For questions, contact City of Pocatello Sanitation Services at 208-234-6192.
(Department of War Press Release, August 21, 2026)
The Department of War released its Fiscal Year 2025 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military [last Friday].
The Department remains committed to preventing sexual assault and sexual harassment, and continues to confront and counter harmful behaviors, provide victim assistance, and strengthen command climates.
“Dignity, respect, and discipline are foundational to the warrior ethos and the overall preparedness of the force. Sexual assault and sexual harassment undermine these values, eroding trust and threatening the mission,” said Under Secretary of War for Personnel and Readiness Anthony J. Tata.
“The FY 2025 report underscores our ongoing commitment to maintaining high standards, protecting our people, and building a unified, ready, and lethal fighting force,” added Tata.
Required by Congress, the Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military presents critical statistics, trend analyses, and updates on the Department’s ongoing efforts to prevent and respond to sexual assault and sexual harassment in the military. The FY 2025 report incorporates findings from the 2025 Workplace Experiences Survey – a congressionally mandated assessment measuring the prevalence of unwanted sexual contact, sexual harassment, and sex discrimination across the force.
It shows that the prevalence of unwanted sexual contact among active-duty Service members decreased from FY 2023 – the last time that the Workplace Experiences Survey was administered – to FY 2025. The estimated rate of unwanted sexual contact for active-duty men decreased from 1.3% to 1.0% and the estimated rate of unwanted sexual contact for active-duty women decreased from 6.8% to 4.3%. Based on these rates, the Department estimates that 20,492 Service members experienced some form of unwanted sexual contact in FY 2025, which is 8,500 fewer personnel compared to FY 2023.
Likewise, the FY 2025 report shows that the prevalence of sexual harassment within the active-duty force decreased between FY 2023 and FY 2025. The estimated rate of sexual harassment for active-duty men decreased from 5.8% to 4.4% and the estimated rate of sexual harassment for active-duty women decreased from 24.7% to 17.5%.
Finally, the FY 2025 report shows that reporting of sexual assault incidents by active-duty Service members increased from 25% in FY 2023 to 33% in FY 2025. The Department continues to encourage greater reporting to connect warfighters with vital restorative care and enable leadership to hold offenders appropriately accountable.
The Department remains focused on strengthening prevention and response activities and ensuring that Service members can operate with confidence and maintain absolute focus on the mission.
The FY 2025 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military is available at https://www.sapr.mil/.
August 19, 2026 (Cover Image Credit: Gem State Chronicle)
How Should Idaho Pick Its Judges? Judicial selections throughout the country
By: Brian Almon
Brian Almon
[Last Tuesday], Gov. Brad Little selected Judge Jason Scott of Idaho’s Fourth Judicial District to succeed retiring Justice Richard Bevan on the Idaho Supreme Court. Bevan, who currently serves as chief justice, steps down on October 30; his fellow justices have already chosen Justice Robyn Brody to take over as chief. The governor was given three names by the Judicial Council, which is made up of nine members, including the sitting chief justice. Scott will be up for election in 2030, and if tradition holds, he will likely run unopposed.
Longtime readers may recall my 2025 article “Voting For Justice,” in which I laid out how Idaho’s judicial elections have become an exercise in theater: only one sitting Supreme Court justice has lost a contested race since the 1940s, and only one sitting justice has even been challenged since 2000. Four of the court’s five current members reached the bench through gubernatorial appointment rather than a contested election.
Today, I want to go further and ask what alternatives Idaho might have. The other 49 states and the federal government have their own methods for filling judicial vacancies, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. Ballotpedia lists eight major methods for filling judgeships:
Idaho has a sort of hybrid method for electing judges, though Ballotpedia lists us as having purely nonpartisan elections. Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges are elected to six-year terms, while district judges serve four-year terms. Magistrates—the judges who handle traffic tickets and other minor issues—are appointed by commissions overseen by district judges and then face retention elections. Voters are asked whether to retain the magistrate, and the only options are “yes” or “no.”
However, should a vacancy occur at the district level or above, the Judicial Council forwards three or four names to the governor, who then selects one. That person serves the remainder of the term and then stands for election in his or her own right, often unopposed. That means that, in practice, Idaho is much closer to an appointment method than simply nonpartisan elections.
The Judicial Council, which controls which candidates reach the governor’s desk, is made up of nine members: the sitting chief justice, plus eight others—a district court judge, a magistrate judge, two lawyers, and four non-attorney members—each appointed by the governor and subject to Senate approval. However, the judge seats are, in practice, controlled by the Supreme Court, and candidates for the lawyer seats are nominated by the Idaho State Bar Commission.
This is very different from the way our federal government works. Federal judges are appointed by the president of the United States and confirmed by the Senate, and they serve life terms. This is meant to insulate them from the political process by ensuring that they neither have to face a direct election nor feel pressure from an executive for renomination. Citizen oversight of the federal judiciary, then, is indirect, through the elected president and senators.
Idaho could adopt the federal system and give the governor authority to appoint anyone qualified for a judgeship, with Senate approval. Rather than being limited to a handful of names submitted by the Judicial Council, the governor could choose from among the thousands of Idahoans qualified to serve as a district judge or on the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court. That candidate would then face tough questions in the Senate Judiciary & Rules Committee and then a vote of the whole Senate. Imagine Sen. Brian Lenney asking pointed questions of a prospective Supreme Court justice in a public hearing!
Of course, it’s possible that Idaho voters would balk at taking away even the pretense of voting for judges and justices. Another option would be the Texas model: full partisan elections at every level of the judicial branch. Judicial candidates run just like legislative and executive candidates: in a partisan primary, with the winners advancing to the general election. Candidates in this system are forced to be much more open about their judicial philosophy and how it fits into the modern political context. Parties campaign on behalf of their judicial candidates, just as they do for other candidates.
One effect of partisan judicial elections is that many voters simply vote the party line, and this could result in less-qualified candidates being elected to the courts. However, in theory, voters have complete control over the process. Another potential downside is the influx of campaign contributions into these races. A 2003 paper published by the Federalist Society suggested that plaintiffs’ attorneys have a much larger pool of cash with which to influence judicial elections.
Right now, Idaho seems to exhibit the worst of both worlds. We elect our judges, but most run unopposed, making the process more theatrical than anything else. The governor has authority to fill vacancies, but is given a selection of names that have already been vetted by a small cartel of insiders, and the Senate has very little involvement in the process.
In 2022, Reps. Mike Moyle and Greg Chaney sponsored House Bill 782, which would have overhauled the Judicial Council and judicial appointment process. It would have increased the council’s membership from seven to eleven, given the governor more leeway in appointing members to the council, reduced the terms for judges and justices from six to four years, explicitly allowed the governor to reject the list of candidates from the Judicial Council, and added more public transparency regarding the Judicial Council’s deliberations.
H782 passed both chambers but was vetoed by Gov. Brad Little. In his veto letter, the governor said he agreed with many provisions of the bill but wanted more time to examine the ideas with relevant stakeholders.
The Legislature came back in 2023 with Senate Bill 1148, carried by Sen. Abby Lee, who was the floor sponsor for H782, and Rep. Bruce Skaug. This much more limited bill increased the Judicial Council to nine members, gave the governor the ability to choose from a slate submitted by the Idaho State Bar rather than allowing the Bar to directly appoint members, allowed the governor to ask for additional nominees from the Judicial Council, and increased public transparency. This bill passed both chambers overwhelmingly and was signed into law by Gov. Little.
That same year, Sen. Lee introduced Senate Bill 1157, which would have denied senior status to judges who resigned before the end of their term. It was sent to the amending order by the Senate Judiciary & Rules Committee and never taken up. Sen. Phil Hart introduced similar legislation in 2026 that also failed to reach the floor.
If you could snap your fingers and change the way Idaho selects judges, which method would you choose? Which method do you think would have the support of the people and their elected representatives? Judges and justices make up the third branch of our state government and have enormous power over policy, the structure of our society, and our daily lives. It’s important to ensure that these judges are men and women of good character who have a deep understanding of and respect for the law and the traditions of our civilization, and who resist ephemeral political pressure. What’s the best way to accomplish that?
If you have ideas, share them with your legislators, especially with those who sit on the Senate and House judiciary committees. The only way things change is if enough people demand it.
Brian Almon is the Editor of the Gem State Chronicle. He also serves as Chairman of the District 14 Republican Party and is a trustee of the Eagle Public Library Board. He lives with his wife and five children in Eagle.
Editor’s note: This article originally appeared in the Gem State Chronicle. I encourage our readers to visit their website and consider subscribing. Find this and other informative articles at the Gem State Chronicle here: About – Gem State Chronicle
Fall is not just time for harvest. It’s a season of fresh starts: squeaky tennis shoes, new backpacks, sharpened pencils, and a particular mix of nerves and hope. As Idahoans, we believe in new beginnings. We believe effort matters, that showing up counts, that you can build something better than what you started with — as long as you’re willing to do the work.
This is one reason Idaho remains near the top in the nation for safety, for growth, and for people wanting to raise their kids here. We’ve stayed close to the basics — strong families, personal responsibility, and a shared sense that freedom comes bundled with responsibility, not instead of it.
In Idaho we understand that the family is the first and best institution for raising the next generation. The 2026 Idaho Republican Party Platform puts it plainly: “Families, not government programs, are the best way to properly nurture and protect our children.” Love, responsibility, and accountability are essential. The same platform grounds the whole of Idaho’s political philosophy in one line from its preamble: “The protection of individual rights is upheld when personal responsibility for behavior is exercised.”
That’s the basic lesson we depend on every classroom in this state to teach a six-year-old: your choices have consequences, your work has value, and you don’t get to skip the hard part and keep the reward. It’s the lesson a healthy family teaches, generation after generation. And it’s precisely the lesson that left-leaning progressives are determined to erase.
A different philosophy is on your ballot
Across the country, and even here another philosophy competes for our acceptance – a “society owes me” mentality: the idea that consequences of personal choices are injustices someone else should pay for, that the traditional family is oppressive, and that “freedom” means freedom from accountability. It’s a philosophy that promotes sexual liberty at all costs and sees children, marriage, and even biology itself as obstacles to personal autonomy.
This philosophy is on your ballot this November in the form of Proposition 1. Prop 1’s bent toward codifying “sexual freedom” with no personal accountability is evident from the outset. Look beyond the title and you find one of the most radical pro-abortion laws in the country — creating a “right” to abortion on demand well into the third trimester of pregnancy by redefining “viability” as the point at which a baby can survive without medical help. Contrary to some claims, Proposition 1 isn’t a return to Roe v. Wade. It’s considerably more radical than Roe ever was.
The further you read, the more Prop 1 obliterates personal responsibility. Ironically, while Prop 1 is being sold as a pro-doctor measure, it stamps out Idaho’s longstanding physician-only requirement — a basic safeguard that says abortion can only be performed by an actual doctor — replacing it with a vague “health care provider” standard that would allow staff at Planned Parenthood’s front desk to dispense abortion pills. Parental consent is gone too: under Proposition 1, a young girl could obtain an abortion without her parents ever knowing. And the providers themselves are specifically shielded from legal accountability — making it difficult to hold anyone responsible when “reproductive healthcare,” an ambiguous term that includes much more than abortion, goes awry. Prop 1 erases safety and accountability at every turn, impinging our ability to protect women and minors from sex-trafficking and abuse.
That is not an Idaho family value. It’s sexual-freedom-without-responsibility ethos taken to its most consequential extreme — the belief that an individual of any age, including minors, should be able to act entirely free of any obligation, free even of the ordinary checks — a doctor’s judgment, a parent’s involvement, legal accountability — that responsibility usually requires. Prop 1 leaves society holding the bag with no recourse, including Idaho’s generation yet-unborn and the families left out of “reproductive health care” decisions.
Choosing the fresh start that builds a bright tomorrow
As families settle back into the routines of the school year — alarms before dawn, packed lunches, homework at the kitchen table — it’s worth remembering that the basics that help families run well also make a state worth living in: accountability instead of excuses, family instead of dependency, and the conviction that real freedom is inseparable from responsibility. Proposition 1 undermines all of that — safety, accountability, even a parent’s basic right to know — in exchange for a twisted version of “freedom” that answers to no one. That’s not a new beginning. It’s a recipe for deep-seated pain and societal disaster.
Vote no on Proposition 1 November 3rd. Safeguard an Idaho that understands and lives the kind of freedom that lasts.
Julianne Young is a Bingham County Mom who loves faith, family, and freedom; a former state representative; founder of the nonprofit Idaho Family Strong; regional coordinator for Idaho Chooses Life; and 2nd Vice Chair of the Idaho State GOP.
(Idaho Fish and Game Press Release, August 17, 2026)
As wildfire activity continues across Idaho, hunters preparing for upcoming seasons should be aware of potential impacts to their hunting areas and know what options are available if a fire affects their hunt.
Idaho Fish and Game is monitoring wildfire activity. The department may temporarily close Fish and Game-owned lands when necessary or coordinate with other state and federal agencies — Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and Idaho Department of Lands — to protect public safety or support firefighting operations. Hunters should stay informed about closures and restrictions in the areas where they plan to hunt by watching for updates and press releases from their local Fish and Game region.
NOTE: Hunters, however, should not assume that a wildfire or temporary closure means their hunt will be canceled or their season will be changed.
In most cases, Fish and Game does not close an entire hunt or change a season because of a temporary wildfire closure. Most wildfires do not affect an entire hunt unit, elk zone or controlled hunt unit for the entire duration of a hunt. Hunters whose planned hunting area is affected by fire may have a few options.
Consider another part of the hunt area
A fire or temporary closure may affect only a portion of a hunt area. Hunters should check current fire restrictions and closures and consider hunting another portion of their hunt area that remains open and accessible.
Before heading into the field, hunters should make sure they understand which lands are open and any fire-related restrictions that may apply. Restrictions can vary by location and can change as wildfire conditions develop.
Consider hunting later in the season
If fire activity or a temporary closure affects a hunter’s preferred area at the beginning of a season, another option may be to wait until later in the season. Many fire-related closures are temporary. If the fire is contained and restrictions are lifted while the season remains open, hunters may still be able to pursue their hunt later in the season.
Hunters should continue monitoring Fish and Game updates and local fire information throughout the season.
Controlled hunt tag options for resident hunters
Resident hunters who have drawn a controlled hunt and determine that wildfire impacts will prevent them from hunting their intended area have additional options if their controlled hunt tag season has not started.
Before a controlled hunt begins, hunters may exchange a controlled hunt tag for a general season tag. Controlled hunt fees are not refunded as part of the exchange.
All controlled hunt tag exchanges must be completed at an Idaho Fish and Game Regional Office.
Hunters considering an exchange should contact or visit a Fish and Game Regional Office for information about their specific circumstances and available options.
Stay informed before heading into the field
Wildfire conditions can change quickly, and a hunting area that is open one day may be subject to restrictions or closure later. Hunters should check for the latest information before each trip into the field.
Fish and Game regional offices will provide information about closures and other changes affecting Fish and Game-managed lands through regional updates and press releases.
Hunters should also remember that fire restrictions and land closures can apply differently depending on who manages the land. Hunters are responsible for knowing the restrictions that apply wherever they are hunting.
The most important thing for hunters is to stay informed, remain flexible, and follow all fire restrictions and land closures. A wildfire does not necessarily mean a hunt is lost. In many cases, hunters can find another open portion of their hunt area or wait until later in the season when conditions improve and restrictions are lifted.
NOTE: Beginning July 1, 2026, rules related to eligibility for license and tag refunds and rainchecks have changed. Please visit our refund webpage for more information.
