Idaho General Election · November 3, 2026Find polling place

Idaho General Election · November 3, 2026

HJR 4: Constitutional Amendment on Psychoactive Substances

Constitutional amendment referred by the Legislature

Details on HJR 4

Idahoans vote on House Joint Resolution 4 (HJR 4) on November 3, 2026. Records on this page are as of October 3, 2026. Each side is quoted in its own words with a link, and each prominent claim is checked against Idaho law, legislative records and published research.

What HJR 4 asks, and the ballot language

HJR 4 would amend the Idaho Constitution on marijuana, narcotics and "other psychoactive substances." Page 4 of the 2026 Idaho Voter Pamphlet prints this question, which matches Section 2 of the resolution:

"Shall Section 26, Article III of the Constitution of the State of Idaho be amended to provide that only the Idaho Legislature shall have power and authority to legalize the growing, producing, manufacturing, transporting, selling, delivering, dispensing, administering, prescribing, distributing, possessing, or using of marijuana, narcotics, or other psychoactive substances?"

The Idaho Capital Sun reported that a simple majority of votes approves it. Idaho Code 67-453 has the Legislative Council write the meaning statement, which is printed on the ballot, and "a concise presentation of the major arguments advanced by the proponents and opponents," which is published in the pamphlet and other required publications but does not appear on the ballot. The pamphlet statements are prepared by the Legislative Council and are not attributed to any group (Idaho Code 67-453). The pamphlet prints:

  • Meaning: "This proposed constitutional amendment would give the Legislature exclusive authority to legalize marijuana, narcotics, or other psychoactive substances in the State of Idaho."
  • Yes: "A YES vote would give the Legislature exclusive authority to legalize marijuana, narcotics, or other psychoactive substances in the State of Idaho."
  • No: "A NO vote would make no change to Idaho's Constitution, which currently allows changes to Idaho's controlled substances laws using the initiative process."

The meaning, Yes and For statements do not use the word "initiative"; the No statement and the statement against do. The Secretary of State's Initiatives and Amendments page says a yes vote would "remove the ability for citizens to initiate state statutes that would legalize these substances," and a no vote would retain the ability to initiate statutes "that would legalize or decriminalize" them. The word "decriminalize" is not in the amendment or on the pamphlet's HJR 4 page.

The text of the amendment

The pamphlet prints the full text. The current Section 26 contains only the liquor clause, which becomes subsection (1) unchanged: the Legislature "shall have full power and authority to permit, control and regulate or prohibit the manufacture, sale, keeping for sale, and transportation for sale, of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes." The new subsection (2) reads:

"Effective immediately upon adoption by the voters of Idaho, only the legislature of the state of Idaho shall have power and authority to legalize the growing, producing, manufacturing, transporting, selling, delivering, dispensing, administering, prescribing, distributing, possessing, or using of marijuana, narcotics, or other psychoactive substances."

What would change, and what would not

  • What a Yes vote changes. In the Senate State Affairs minutes (March 10, 2025), Sen. Scott Grow "responded that the initiative process could not be used to legalize the use of marijuana in Idaho." The Idaho Freedom Foundation's analysis says the amendment "would prohibit local governments from legalizing such substances, and it would preclude the use of the initiative process to legalize them."
  • Existing statutes. The proponent-prepared fiscal note says the amendment "proposes no changes to existing statutes".
  • Criminalizing, and FDA-approved drugs. Asked whether people could use the initiative to criminalize marijuana, Sen. Todd Lakey "answered that the amendment only applied to the legalization of marijuana." Asked whether HJR 4 affected FDA approval of drugs, Grow "replied it did not" (minutes).
  • Undefined terms. The amendment defines neither "legalize" nor "psychoactive substances," and the Idaho Freedom Foundation notes the second is "not defined in Idaho code." The amendment is not yet part of the Constitution, so no court has applied its words.

Current law on marijuana and on citizen initiatives

  • Marijuana. Idaho Code 37-2705 lists "Marihuana (marijuana)" and "Psilocybin" in schedule I. The definition of marijuana excludes licensed industrial hemp (0.3 percent total delta-9 THC or less) and FDA-approved drug products containing cannabidiol or nabiximols. Possessing more than three ounces is a felony, and three ounces or less is a misdemeanor with "a fine of not less than three hundred dollars ($300)" for adults (Idaho Code 37-2732(e)). The Idaho Capital Sun reported the $300 minimum was signed February 24, 2025.
  • The initiative. Article III, section 1 says "The people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws, and enact the same at the polls independent of the legislature," under conditions "provided by acts of the legislature." The same section vests "legislative power" in the Senate and House and lets voters demand a referendum on "any act or measure passed by the legislature." Sponsors need signatures from six percent of registered voters statewide and at least six percent of registered voters in each of at least 18 legislative districts (Secretary of State).
  • Amendments. An initiative proposes a law. Article XX, section 1 routes amendments through the Legislature: "two-thirds of all the members of each of the two houses," then ratification by voters.

How HJR 4 got on the ballot

The Legislature's bill page lists HJR 4 as a State Affairs Committee bill with Rep. Bruce Skaug (R-Nampa) as House floor sponsor. The Legislative Council approved the pamphlet statements on June 4, 2026, and they match the text the Sun printed word for word.

  • March 4, 2025. House State Affairs passed it by voice vote, with Reps. Brooke Green and Todd Achilles recorded as no (minutes).
  • March 5, 2025. The House adopted it 58-10-2. The Sun reported the vote was "largely along party lines" and that Rep. Rob Beiswenger (R-Horseshoe Bend) "was the only Republican to vote in opposition."
  • March 10 and 11, 2025. Senate State Affairs passed it by voice vote, with Ruchti recorded no (minutes). The Senate adopted it 29-6-0 on March 11.

The June 4, 2026 Legislative Council dispute over the pamphlet language

The Idaho Capital Sun reported that "Some Democrats objected to the language the Legislative Council approved, but were overruled by Republicans." According to the report:

  • Rep. Ilana Rubel (D-Boise), the House Minority Leader, "wanted to use the original language developed by the Idaho Legislative Services Office" and said: "I have concerns about this amendment. It stripped out a tremendous amount of pretty substantive material that it sounds like was reflective of a substantial amount of public input received by (the Legislative Services Office), and I would strongly prefer that we remain with the original version as drafted by (the Legislative Services Office)."
  • The cut passage "read, in part": "While legislators are supposed to represent the public, they don't always pass laws reflective of public opinion. The initiative allows the public to bypass the Legislature and is therefore an important check on the Legislature's power. However, the proposed amendment would give the Legislature total power over drug legalization." The pamphlet's statement against does not contain this passage.
  • Rep. Josh Tanner (R-Eagle) "made a successful substitute motion to go use the amended language that Rubel opposed."
  • Sen. Melissa Wintrow (D-Boise), the Senate Minority Leader, objected to changes to the language for the proposed amendments and said in a phone interview: "My deepest concern today is that the amount of wordsmithing that was done is a clear indication there was some fear about the truth of what the language was."
  • The meeting. State officials gave "at most" 48 hours of notice, and the meeting "was not recorded or archived." House Speaker Mike Moyle (R-Star) said Council meetings have never been recorded: "Back then, the minutes (of the meeting) were the meeting." He also said, as the Sun summarized, that everything important discussed that day "had already been documented in another public meeting or been subject to a public comment period."

The 2026 cannabis initiatives

Neither is on the ballot: the Secretary of State lists the Idaho Medical Cannabis Act and the Decriminalize Cannabis Now initiative as "Did Not Qualify." The Sun reported the Medical Cannabis Act had at most 58,024 certified signatures against 70,725 needed. The Legislature adopted SCR 127, which says the Act "lacks safeguards to such an extent that it would effectively legalize widespread recreational use of marijuana" and "urges the citizens of Idaho to reject any effort to bring the Idaho Medical Cannabis Act to the ballot" (Senate voice vote March 30, House 58-9-3 on April 1, 2026).

Support for HJR 4

Who is making the case for it

The Statement of Purpose lists Rep. Skaug and Sens. Grow and Lakey as contacts. Testimony in favor at the committee hearings came from the Idaho Freedom Foundation, the Idaho Family Policy Center, Idaho Tough on Crime and individuals (House and Senate minutes). The Senate committee also received written support from Idaho AGC and others listed below. The Ada County and Blaine County Republican Central Committees have reported spending in support.

The case supporters make, in their words

The pamphlet's statement for the amendment says: "Decisions about legalizing marijuana, narcotics, and other psychoactive substances are too important to be made lightly. The proposed amendment would ensure that any proposal to legalize these dangerous substances would go through the legislative process."

  • Rep. Bruce Skaug, House floor, March 5, 2025: "It's time for Idahoans to proactively decide the state's fate relative to marijuana, psychoactive substances and narcotics," Skaug said. "I'm asking that we let our state go on the offense" (Idaho Capital Sun).
  • Sen. Scott Grow, March 11, 2025: "Too many legislatures across this nation have sat back and just waited as initiative after initiative would come after them, until they finally overwhelm it and overwhelm the legislature," Grow said. "We are acting because that's our responsibility" (Idaho Capital Sun). He cited Article III, section 24: "The first concern of all good government is the virtue and sobriety of the people, and the purity of the home."
  • Sen. Todd Lakey. The committee secretary's summary says he argued "that the Constitution provided full authority with the Legislature and not with the initiative process" (minutes).
  • Four Idaho law enforcement and prosecutor associations, February 2025: "it is important that Idaho take a stand against this alarming trend that endangers our way of life" (Attachment 2).
  • Idaho Farm Bureau Federation, March 3, 2025: "when it comes to matters as important as determining the state's drug policy, it is best established through the normal legislative process rather than through initiative" (Attachment 2).
  • Idaho Freedom Foundation, March 3, 2025: "The initiative process could be used to modify Idaho code in ways that will harm our quality of life and undermine traditional values" (analysis).

Fact check: claims by supporters

These are the three claims supporters make most prominently, from the pamphlet statement and the sponsors' testimony. Verdicts are ACCURATE, ACCURATE BUT INCOMPLETE, MISLEADING AS WORDED, NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, INACCURATE and DISPUTED, which means the evidence points both ways or the answer depends on an interpretation no court has given. The opposition's three claims get the same treatment below.

Claim 1: Any proposal to legalize would go through the Legislature, with hearings and recorded votes

Voter Pamphlet, page 4, statement for the amendment (prepared by the Legislative Council): "Public hearings would be held on the proposal, where law enforcement and people whose lives have been damaged by drugs would be able to testify. Legislators would carefully consider each proposal and would be publicly accountable for their votes."

Verdict: ACCURATE that only the Legislature could legalize and that final votes are recorded. ACCURATE BUT INCOMPLETE as to hearings, a prediction the record cannot settle. "Carefully consider" is not a checkable fact.

The record.

  • Hearings. The Legislature's testimony guide says: "The committee Chairman determines when it is scheduled for a hearing. Public testimony is permitted at most committee meetings." It also says: "All committee action on Administrative Rules and legislation that has been assigned a bill number is conducted in open session." The amendment does not require a hearing.
  • Recorded votes. Article III, section 15: on final passage "the vote shall be by yeas and nays upon each bill separately, and shall be entered upon the journal."
  • HJR 4's own hearings. Robert Gillis of Idaho Tough on Crime "shared his personal story as a peace officer in Los Angeles after marijuana was legalized there," Kyle Brown "shared his personal story of overcoming drug addiction," and Joseph Evans of Kind Idaho testified against (Senate minutes).

What the claim leaves out: nothing in the amendment requires a legislator to introduce a bill or a chair to schedule one. The statement names law enforcement and people harmed by drugs as witnesses; people who favor legalization, like Evans, can testify too. Committee votes on HJR 4 were voice votes with only some members recorded by name.

Claim 2: Legalization increased drug use, especially among youth, and marijuana is stronger

Senate State Affairs minutes, March 10, 2025, summarizing Sen. Todd Lakey (the secretary's summary, not his verbatim words): "He noted the increased level of THC in today's marijuana and the harmful effects it caused. Legalization increased the number of users of drugs, especially among youth."

Verdict: ACCURATE as to potency in seized marijuana. ACCURATE BUT INCOMPLETE as to young-adult use. DISPUTED as to youth use.

The record.

  • Potency. The National Institute on Drug Abuse says: "Between 1995 and 2022 the delta-9 THC potency (strength) in illegal cannabis products seized by law enforcement quadrupled from 3.96% to 16.14%."
  • Overall use. A systematic review of 61 studies (2023) found "mixed findings, including some evidence of negative consequences of legalization (such as increased young adult use, cannabis-related healthcare visits, and impaired driving) and some evidence for minimal impacts (such as little change in adolescent cannabis use rates, substance use rates, and mixed evidence for changes in cannabis-related attitudes)" and concluded: "Overall, the existing literature reveals a number of negative consequences of legalization, although the findings are mixed and generally do not suggest large magnitude short-term impacts."
  • Youth. A JAMA Pediatrics study (2017) found past-month use rose more among 8th and 10th graders in Washington than in states that did not legalize, with no significant differences among 12th graders in Washington or in any of the three grades in Colorado.

What the claim leaves out: the studies cover recreational marijuana laws in other states, not Idaho and not "drugs" generally. NIDA's potency figure tracks seized illegal cannabis from 1995 and does not isolate an effect of legalization.

Claim 3: Oregon decriminalized, and the Legislature reversed course in 2024 because of the results

Senate State Affairs minutes, March 10, 2025, summarizing Sen. Scott Grow (the secretary's summary): "Senator Grow cited the example of Oregon who passed an initiative decriminalizing these drugs in 2020. As a result of the increase in overdose deaths, rampant homelessness, and open air drug dens, the Legislature reinstituted penalties for the possession of hard drugs in 2024."

Verdict: ACCURATE as to the sequence of 2020 and 2024. This page tests the sequence and the cause only. DISPUTED as to cause: peer-reviewed studies disagree on overdose deaths, and none cited here measured homelessness or public drug use.

The record.

  • The initiative. The Oregon Health Authority says: "In November 2020, Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 110."
  • The 2024 law. The Oregon Legislature's summary of House Bill 4002: it "Increases penalties for unlawful possession of a controlled substance on September 1, 2024."
  • Overdoses. A JAMA Psychiatry study (2023) of the first year after Measure 110 concluded: "This study found no evidence of an association between legal changes that removed or substantially reduced criminal penalties for drug possession in Oregon and Washington and fatal drug overdose rates." It ran through March 2022.
  • Other research. A 2023 Journal of Health Economics study found that decriminalization "caused 182 additional unintentional drug overdose deaths to occur in Oregon in 2021." A 2024 JAMA Network Open study found a positive crude association with fatal overdose rates, but after adjusting for the spread of fentanyl "there was no longer an association between decriminalization and overdose mortality in Oregon."

What the claim leaves out: The Oregon Health Authority describes Measure 110 as a program "to decriminalize possession of small amounts of controlled substances" (OHA); the activities HJR 4 lists include growing, manufacturing and selling. Whether "legalize" in HJR 4 reaches decriminalization is not stated in the amendment. The JAMA Psychiatry study covers only the first year and only fatal overdoses.

Who is paying for the campaign for HJR 4

The Secretary of State's Sunshine independent expenditure reports, as of October 3, 2026, include two reports naming HJR 4, both with the stance "Support":

FilerDateAmountPurpose and payee
Ada County Republican Central CommitteeAugust 31, 2026$313.48Literature, brochures, printing; Cre8 Studios LLC
Blaine County Republican Central CommitteeSeptember 23, 2026$484.00Newspaper and other periodical advertising; McShane LLC

Together they total $797.48. Each committee also filed an HJR 6 (English as the official language) row with the same date and amount, and the rows do not say whether one expenditure covered both measures.

Opposition to HJR 4

Who is making the case against it

Sen. James Ruchti (D-Pocatello), Rep. Rubel argued against it, Rep. Achilles questioned it and voted no in committee, and the Idaho Democratic Party's State Central Committee voted to oppose it, according to a release posted September 28, 2026. Joseph Evans of Kind Idaho testified against it in both committees. The Marijuana Policy Project, a national organization, urges a No vote on its Idaho page, and Orenda Peterson of Compassionate Idaho wrote a letter to the Coeur d'Alene Press urging one.

Separately, the League of Women Voters of Moscow lists an October 21 talk on HJR 4 by Luke Mayville of Reclaim Idaho. The listing does not say who wrote its description of HJR 4, and it does not say the League or Reclaim Idaho urges a vote either way.

The case opponents make, in their words

The pamphlet's statement against the amendment says: "The people are as capable of making good, careful decisions about drug policy as legislators are."

  • Rep. Ilana Rubel, House floor, March 5, 2025: "All that this [resolution] does is it's stripping the power of the people, should the people of Idaho ever reach that level where they are so desperate to get medical cannabis legalized that they are willing to leap through the astonishing hurdles that have already been set in their path for a ballot initiative" (Cannabis Business Times).
  • Sen. James Ruchti, March 11, 2025: "We have been clear in the Constitution that all political power is inherent in the people, and we have been clear that the people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws and enact the same at the polls independent of the Legislature. We should respect the people" (Idaho Capital Sun).
  • Rep. Todd Achilles, House committee, March 4, 2025: "If the intent here is to stop the initiative process, but this still needs to go to the voters for approval, aren't we asking the same question ... just in the opposite direction?" (Idaho Press).
  • Idaho Democratic Party, September 28, 2026: "The measure would give the Legislature sole authority over certain issues, taking that power away from voters" (release).
  • Kind Idaho (Joe Evans), before the House vote: the resolution "harkens back the era of prohibition" (Cannabis Business Times).
  • Compassionate Idaho (Orenda Peterson), September 6, 2026: "A 'NO' vote preserves the citizens' right to propose and vote on initiatives regarding these matters" (Coeur d'Alene Press).
  • Marijuana Policy Project, page updated September 2, 2026: "This effort is a far overreach - robbing Idahoans of their ability to make their own decisions" (MPP).

Fact check: claims by opponents

These are the three claims opponents make most prominently, from the pamphlet statement and the party and campaign statements, checked on the same scale and by the same standard. Most of the opposition's prominent claims are about the amendment's legal effects, so they are checked against the Constitution, statutes and committee record rather than outside research.

Claim 1: The amendment takes power away from the people by ending their ability to pass drug legalization laws by initiative

Voter Pamphlet, page 4, statement against the amendment (prepared by the Legislative Council): "The Idaho Constitution says that all political power belongs to the people. But the proposed amendment would take power away from the people by getting rid of their ability to pass drug legalization laws on their own through ballot initiatives."

Verdict: ACCURATE as to the initiative to legalize. The Constitution's wording differs slightly from the paraphrase.

The record.

  • The Constitution. Article I, section 2: "All political power is inherent in the people."
  • The effect. Grow told the Senate committee the initiative "could not be used to legalize" marijuana (minutes), and the Secretary of State's page says a yes vote would "remove the ability for citizens to initiate state statutes that would legalize these substances."
  • Other subjects. Asked by Ruchti about other exceptions to the initiative, Grow replied that "exceptions had not been made in other areas" (minutes).

What the claim leaves out: the amendment reaches legalization, not an initiative to criminalize marijuana (Lakey, minutes). Article III, section 1 also vests "legislative power" in the Legislature, and the people vote on this amendment themselves.

Claim 2: The amendment is unnecessary because the Legislature could amend or repeal a law the people passed

Voter Pamphlet, page 4, statement against the amendment (prepared by the Legislative Council): "The amendment is also unnecessary because if the people did ever pass a poorly considered law legalizing drugs, the Legislature would have the power to amend or repeal it."

Verdict: ACCURATE as to the Legislature's legal power. "Unnecessary" is a judgment the record does not settle.

The record.

  • Same legal weight. A 1997 Attorney General certificate quotes the Idaho Supreme Court that the initiative power "did not give any more force or effect to initiative legislation than to legislative acts" (Luker v. Curtis, 1943).
  • Past changes. The Attorney General's 2001 certificate says Idaho's term limits law was "adopted by voter initiative in 1994." The Legislature passed H0425, which "Repeals Idaho's term limit law," in 2002; the governor vetoed it and the House (50-20) and Senate (26-8-1) overrode the veto.
  • Political reality. Idaho Republican Party chair Dorothy Moon: "If the vote comes in at a 70% on any of these initiatives, I think the legislature would be very apprehensive to try to override it" (KIVI, December 20, 2025).

What the claim leaves out: repeal takes a bill passing both houses and the governor's signature or a veto override; in 2002 it took a veto override. Supporters give a different reason for the amendment: Grow said legislatures elsewhere waited until initiatives "overwhelm the legislature" (Idaho Capital Sun).

Claim 3: The initiative is likely the only path to legal cannabis in Idaho, and the amendment would close it indefinitely

Marijuana Policy Project, Idaho page (last update September 2, 2026): "Especially given the legislature's hostility to cannabis, the citizen initiative process is likely the only path to expanding cannabis freedom in Idaho. If HJR 4 passes, it would amend Idaho's constitution indefinitely."

Verdict: ACCURATE that an initiative could not legalize these substances if HJR 4 passes. ACCURATE BUT INCOMPLETE as to "the only path" and "indefinitely," each a prediction the record cannot settle.

The record.

  • The initiative route. The Idaho Capital Sun reported that for more than 10 years groups tried unsuccessfully to qualify a medical cannabis initiative and that "Medical marijuana advocates also failed to gain any traction with the Idaho Legislature."
  • Changing it later. Article XX, section 1 lets two-thirds of each house propose any amendment, including one changing Section 26, for voters to ratify.

What the claim leaves out: the Legislature already writes Idaho's drug laws and could itself pass a legalization bill under the amendment, and the pamphlet's statement for the amendment says public hearings would be held on any proposal.

Who is paying for the campaign against HJR 4

As of October 3, 2026, the Secretary of State's Sunshine independent expenditure records list no report on HJR 4 with the stance "Oppose."

Sources

Official records and statutes

News reporting

Research

Campaign and organization materials

Page published by IdahoVoters.com. Last updated October 3, 2026. Campaign finance figures and court case status change; this page will be updated as they do.

Frequently asked questions

What does HJR 4 ask voters to decide?
Whether Section 26 of Article III of the Idaho Constitution should be amended so "only the Idaho Legislature shall have power and authority to legalize" listed activities involving "marijuana, narcotics, or other psychoactive substances" (2026 Voter Pamphlet, page 4).
What does a Yes vote or a No vote do?
The pamphlet says a Yes vote "would give the Legislature exclusive authority to legalize marijuana, narcotics, or other psychoactive substances," and a No vote "would make no change to Idaho's Constitution, which currently allows changes to Idaho's controlled substances laws using the initiative process" (pamphlet).
Does HJR 4 change any drug law?
Its fiscal note says it "proposes no changes to existing statutes" (Statement of Purpose). Possession stays a crime under Idaho Code 37-2732; the amendment changes who can legalize these substances.
Could the Legislature legalize marijuana if HJR 4 passes?
Yes. The amendment gives the Legislature "power and authority to legalize" (HJR 4) and does not require it to act. Voters could not do it through an initiative, according to the Senate sponsor and the Secretary of State.
Does it affect initiatives on other subjects?
The text names only legalization of marijuana, narcotics and other psychoactive substances, and Grow said "exceptions had not been made in other areas" (minutes). A League of Women Voters of Moscow event listing's description says some experts argue it would "open the door for lawmakers to continue to limit what topics citizens can vote on" (listing).
What counts as a "psychoactive substance"?
The amendment does not define the term, and the Idaho Freedom Foundation notes it is not defined in Idaho Code (analysis). Cannabis Business Times reported that a lawmaker asking about caffeine during a floor session was told the resolution dealt only with substances that are currently prohibited (second-hand report).
Is a marijuana initiative on the 2026 ballot?
No. The Secretary of State lists the Idaho Medical Cannabis Act and the Decriminalize Cannabis Now initiative as "Did Not Qualify" (VoteIdaho.gov).
Who is funding each side?
As of October 3, 2026, Sunshine lists two independent expenditure reports naming HJR 4, both marked "Support": $313.48 from the Ada County Republican Central Committee and $484.00 from the Blaine County Republican Central Committee. It lists no report marked "Oppose" (Sunshine).