Podcast Episode: A New Chair with Rep. Bruce Skaug

Producer Ruth Brown sits down with Rep. Bruce Skaug, the new chairman of the House Judiciary, Rules & Administration Committee, to discuss the issues that will come before the committee this session, which range from execution procedures and judicial appointments to gender-affirming care for transgender minors and mandatory minimums for drug crimes.

Editor’s note: This conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.

Ruth Brown, Idaho Reports:

Hello and welcome to the Idaho Reports podcast. I’m producer Ruth Brown. Today I’m joined by Rep. Bruce Skaug. Thanks for joining me.

Rep. Bruce Skaug, R-Nampa:

My pleasure.

IR:

So this year, you’ll be taking over the Judiciary, Rules & Administration Committee in the House. What do you anticipate coming through this year?

Skaug:

Well, Ruth, I have quite a long list. So you tell me where to start or stop, but I’ll just go through a few things right now.

First, there’s probably going to be a fentanyl bill. Right now, we have difficulty in prosecuting fentanyl trafficking because of the way the statute is worded. We’re going to add that in, or somebody is going to add that in, with a mandatory minimum sentence.

I won’t tell you that amount yet, but that’s coming before our committee. It may start in the Senate and may start in the House. I think that’s important for our law enforcement and our protection of these people who are dying because of the fentanyl in our state.

IR:

House Speaker Mike Moyle has mentioned possible changes to the Judicial Council, so I wanted to run that by you as well. That was an issue last year. What do you see coming before your committee regarding the Judicial Council and possible changes?

Skaug:

There was a group that got together over the summer of different backgrounds and stakeholders, as people like to say — I’ve never been a fan of that word, by the way — but the stakeholders got together and they have a bill that they want to present that I haven’t seen yet. I read about it in the attorney magazine, the Advocate. It sounded good, but we will see what comes of it.

We’re probably going to change how we choose judges by the end of this session, and I believe the governor will sign some bill this time. He vetoed the last one. As chairman, I’ll be judicious and just see what comes before me. I won’t push one way or the other.

IR:

You are an attorney, though. I think you well recognize some of the complications around finding qualified and willing judges. What’s your stance on it? Do you believe judges should be elected, or appointed the way they are through the Judicial Council?

Skaug:

I speak as an individual representative, not for my committee when I say this. I would like to see some elections, a little bit more and a little more often. But I like the idea of perhaps the governor being able to choose whoever he likes and then have it okayed by the Senate. They have to confirm. That’s what I would like to see. But that’s a little different than the bill that’s probably going to come before me.

IR:

Fair enough. Last year, the committee had to amend some regulations around the chemicals used in executions by lethal injections. In December, the Idaho Department of Correction was unable to carry out an execution because they couldn’t obtain those lethal injection chemicals. What are you anticipating coming through your committee, or what would be your stance on amending the methods of executions performed in Idaho?

Skaug:

No one has spoken with me about what is going to happen this year on that bill. I’m meeting with IDOC Director Josh Tewalt and we’ll discuss that very thing this week. I am open as an individual legislator to other methods of execution that are historically humane that we’ve done in this state in the past.

IR:

I did a lengthy story on that recently. We have used the firing squad in the past. But even when it was legal, I believe, the last several individuals to be executed were still executed by lethal injection. But that’s becoming more and more problematic, I think, for correctional departments to carry out.

Skaug:

It is becoming more difficult, and that’s why individually, as a legislator from District 10, I would support firing squad as an option.

IR:

What else do you anticipate coming through your committee?

Skaug:

Human trafficking is a significant problem in our state. I live in Mayberry, I don’t run in that part of the world. But human trafficking, it is very real in our cities right here in this valley, in the eastern part of our state, in the northern part of the state, where young people are trafficked — underage and adults — from Portland, Seattle, there’s other city I forgot the name of, from the Boise Valley every 10 to 15 days. We know about it, but our prosecutors can’t prosecute these cases against the traffickers — the pimps, is the vulgar term — but the traffickers, because of the way the statute is currently written. We need to reword that statute to make it easier for prosecution and to better understand the terminology that needs to be there.

There is a bill coming forward. I believe Rep. Jaron Crane, R-Nampa, is going to bring that bill. I just saw a draft of it. I like what I see so far, the changing of the definitions. It’s something that I believe our prosecutors and our police want to do because right now they can make arrests, but they can’t get the prosecution done successfully. It’s very frustrating to law enforcement.

IR:

What else? I see you’ve got a list there.

Skaug:

I do have a list. Mandatory minimums. There’s going to be a push, I understand, from different lobbyists to eliminate some mandatory minimums on criminal sentencing. And then there’s also a push to put in some mandatory minimums on some things like fentanyl. So I will be judicious and see what comes before me. But there is going to be a quite a push from different lobbyists in different directions to try to eliminate mandatory minimums and give more discretion to the judges on the sentencing.

IR:

For clarity, there are mandatory minimums regarding some violent crimes, but then there are mandatory minimums regarding drug crimes. Do you know if the target on removing minimums would be for drug crimes?

Skaug:

My understanding is the target is for drug crimes, and those are often listed as nonviolent. But really, look at the fentanyl. If you’re a dealer and you are killing people, that’s a violent crime to me. So I want mandatory minimums. I speak individually, not for my committee. I want mandatory minimums on fentanyl. I’m open to discussion on some of the others though, we’ll just see what comes before us.

IR:

Today as we speak it is January 16th. Idaho Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard Bevan is set to deliver his State of the Judiciary on January 18th. What are you hoping to hear from the chief justice?

Skaug:

I like statistics, and I like that Justice Bevan will probably bring us statistics on what is going on with his judges and the courts, because then I can make an objective decision on my bill voting and on the bills that come before my committee. I intend to meet every week with representatives of the courts to discuss what needs to be done and what is going on so we can keep a good understanding of what is happening in our courts. We have tremendous judges in this state, and in my personal view as a legislator, not for my committee, I think they are underpaid. They should have had a raise last year, and they didn’t get even a cost of living raise. So I want to see them get a raise this year, even if if I vote no on everybody else’s raises.

IR:

I believe you have nine freshmen on your committee, which is a little bit more than some of the other committees. But you were a freshman once. What do you think that’ll bring to the committee? How does it change the game?

Skaug:

It’s either nine or ten new people, new freshmen on the committee, and that’s going to be a game changer. I have never chaired a committee before, and in other committees if you look across the names, the chairman can look across the room and get help from another chairman that’s in another committee that happens to be on ours. I only have that in Rep. Barbara Ehardt, R-Idaho Falls, and she may not be there part of the time with her other duties. So I’m going it alone in lots of ways, and we’ll just sort it out. I’m told the chairman can make whatever rules he wants, pretty much. So I’ll just see how that goes. Tomorrow will be our first hearing.

But the new freshmen, an exciting part about is that they’re that all different ages and backgrounds, but they’re eager, ready to go. They want to learn. They’re coming to me and saying, “What do I need to know? How do I do this?” So I think we’ll have good ideas and good people from across the state ready to do good things in our committee.

IR:

What else should I know about the rest of the session? What do you have planned?

Skaug:

What do I have planned?

IR:

Yeah. You never come into it unprepared.

Skaug:

Well, I came into the session planning to run, I think I printed up about 15 bills. A dozen? Somewhere in there, between 12 and 15 bills, my fingers are involved in. But I didn’t know it was going to be a chairman, so I’m passing these bills out left and right, trying to get other people to carry them.

One of those is going to be involved with genital mutilation on children. We want to stop that idea. I do, and most of the House and Senate want to stop that. So I’ll be bringing that bill back soon.

You already know the printed bill to bring in cities or counties that want to not enforce the criminal abortion statute. It’s not just because it’s abortion, but any city or county government that says, “Well, we’re not going to enforce the criminal statutes on felonies,” that leads towards lawlessness, and we can’t have that. So I have a bill that doesn’t criminalize the elected officials, but it does withhold their funds, their sales and use tax funds. So we’ll hold on to that and if they don’t comply, that’s going to go back to the general fund and they will not get paid.

IR:

I want to circle back to something you said about genital mutilation. Are you referring to the ritualistic genital mutilation bill several years ago, or what are you referring to?

Skaug:

No. For a long time, we’ve had the ritualistic prohibition against genital mutilation. But now, that’s also going on with sex change operations on children, with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and those things permanently change that child’s makeup at a young age, before they’re old enough to be making those kinds of decisions. To where they will be forever sterile, and we want to stop that.

We have an interest in the state to protect children, and we have a high interest in protecting the right to reproduce for people. That’s always been, clear back I think to the 1940s in the Supreme Court of the United States. We have a duty to protect those rights of procreation. So, this bill only addresses children. It’s not an anti-trans bill. It is to protect children from these types of things that are going on. The medical science is now much more in our favor that this does more harm to children than we knew even a year ago when this was brought last time. It did pass the House 55-13 last year. I expect it’ll get a hearing in the Senate this year.

IR:

You will receive some pushback regarding that. Do you have the medical associations on board?

Skaug:

Some of the medical associations have been politicized, but I have medical doctors to back this bill up, that it’s better for children to not have these type of procedures at the tender ages that they are happening.

IR:

What about transgender children who have supportive parents?

Skaug:

Well, what about ritualistic genital mutilation with supportive parents? You wouldn’t agree with that and neither would I. So, it’s the same thing. You cannot make these kind of permanent changes to your child by removing healthy bodily organs at this young age. They need to be 18 years old before those decisions are made on their own. I can’t go to a child and say, “Well, we’re going to sterilize you starting at age 13,” and say that’s a good thing. It’s not.

IR:

Does that cover puberty blockers as well, or is this only surgical means?

Skaug:

The final bill is not out, but it does cover puberty blockers. Across the country, it’s interesting, some courts have held the prohibition of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, but not the surgery, and then vice-versa. So we’re getting mixed results from the courts. Whatever we pass, I expect there will be a challenge in the courts. I’m doing my best as an attorney, and I’ve visited with appellate attorneys on the issue, and I think we’ve crafted a bill that will withstand judicial scrutiny.

IR:

That’ll start in House State Affairs, or in your committee?

Skaug:

Well, I’ll let you be surprised.

IR:

Fair enough. Is there anything I haven’t asked that I should keep an eye on this year coming out of your committee?

Skaug:

I’ll just say that our job is to oversee various commissions and boards in Judiciary & Rules. I discovered this year that there are performance reports that the agencies work very hard to produce, and we haven’t been seeing those as a committee. So in the past, the committees would deal with those, and that’s part of our oversight duties. But if we don’t even see those reports, how can we take care of those things and make sure we’re overseeing what the agencies worked so hard to do? So we will be reviewing those with each agency, going through their reports and maybe changing what those reports should have the next year, adding, subtracting things. I’m going to take the oversight part of our committee very seriously over our agencies that we’re in charge of.

IR:

Thank you for your time, Representative Skaug. I appreciate it.

Skaug:

It’s been a pleasure. Take care.

---