Rep. Steve Berch Newsletter: The whole truth

**Rep. Steve Berch Newsletter - The whole truth**

I am honored to have been re-elected to serve District 15 in the Idaho House of Representatives! It was a contentious campaign marked by a lot of negative advertising by outside groups attacking my integrity, reputation, and voting record.

It didn't work. But their attacks raise an important point for voters to consider. Legislators should not be defined simply by a few "yes" or "no" votes. It's not the vote, but rather the reason for the vote that is most important.

This newsletter takes a closer look at the whole truth behind my votes on the bills that were used to attack me during the 2024 election.

I look forward to serving you for the next two years! If there’s anything I can do to help make any level of government work better for you (city, county, state, other) – whether you voted for me or not – please call me on my personal cell phone at 208-890-9339 or email me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it." data-linkindex="5" style="border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-family: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size-adjust: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(237, 94, 41); text-decoration: underline;">This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

NOTE: You can look up any bill mentioned below by CLICKING HERE.

A closer look

I vote on a bill based on its content, not its title. That’s why I have voted against several bills with good-sounding titles that aren’t so good when you read past the title. In fact, many of these flawed bills are imported from outside Idaho – they’re not even written by Idaho legislators. Here is the whole truth that explains the reason for my vote on the three bills that were used to attack me.

H521 (2020) – Fairness in Women’s Sports Act

I was accused of wanting to “let men play on women’s sports teams.” I don’t support that and never voted for that. It is both false and deceptive to imply that voting against a bill means that you are voting for the opposite of its intent.

I did not support this bill because it took a disturbing and dangerous approach in dealing with this issue. This bill (now law) could require your daughter's genitals to be inspected by a third party and have her undergo genetics testing (at her expense) if someone accused her of not being a girl. This empowers:

a jealous parent of a rival
the coach of another team
a fan in the bleachers
or anyone . . . to subject an innocent, young girl to the humiliation and trauma of having to prove their gender – without any penalty for the accuser making a false accusation. .

This isn't right.

I would support revisiting this five-year-old law, taking into consideration how governing bodies in the sports world are addressing this issue today and make sure athletes are not being put at a clear physical risk or disadvantage.

H406 (2024) – Criminal penalties related to fentanyl

I was accused of supporting Mexican drug lords and open borders by voting against this bill. That is complete nonsense. This bill (now law) could send your teenager to jail for 25 years for a made-up crime (“drugged-induced homicide”). This bill did not adequately distinguish between the criminals who are manufacturing and distributing illegal fentanyl and a teenager being influenced by the wrong people in the wrong place at the wrong time. I would have voted FOR this bill had it simply allowed for judicial discretion. Here’s how I explained my vote at the time:

We must do something about the scourge of illegal fentanyl. But doing “something” doesn’t mean doing “anything.” This bill replaces judicial discretion with prosecutorial discretion. If this bill did a better job of distinguishing between a manufacturer, dealer, trafficker and user of fentanyl, and differentiated between adults and minors, I would have voted FOR it.

One of my conservative Republican colleagues in the House, a respected lawyer, debated this bill for nearly 15 minutes. He went through the bill in great detail, citing a long list of concerns. Despite his compelling arguments against the bill, he closed by saying he’d vote for it because “we have to do something.”

No. We have to do the right thing. I will not vote for a flawed bill to help myself get re-elected, even if the bill’s intentions are good.

H521 (2024) – School facilities funding

I was accused of not supporting public schools. Anyone who has followed my work on the House Education committee for the last six years knows that this accusation is ridiculous. I have consistently been a strong supporter of our public schools. So why would I vote against a so-called “school facilities funding” bill? Because this bill does less than it claims to do and potentially more damage than is readily apparent. Here’s how I explained my vote in a previous newsletter:

This bill supposedly provides $1 billion for school facilities. It does so by borrowing $1 billion over the next 10 years (with interest). I say “supposedly” because the bill places several conditions as to how the money can be spent. The most restrictive condition requires paying off old school bonds before any money can be used to fund current or future facility needs. This doesn’t help school districts needing revenue now to fix or replace school buildings.

This will force most school districts to continue asking voters to approve new school bonds. The reduction in property taxes by paying off old bonds will be lost to pay off these new bonds. In addition, the money needed each year to pay off the $1 billion debt gets taken from the source that funds schools – thus leaving less money available to allocate for schools each year. And none of this takes a downturn in the economy into consideration.

Other items that have nothing to do with school facilities are buried in this 30-page bill. These items include yet another reduction in the income tax rate (that no one was asking for), which will reduce state revenue by $60 million a year. This leaves even less money available to adequately fund education each year. Here’s a list of what’s actually buried in this so-called “facilities” bill:

I have suggested a different approach to funding school facilities: The legislature should review the $5.2 BILLION in revenue it does not collect each year in the form of sales tax exclusions that are never reviewed and never expire. If a review process concluded that only 10% of those exclusions could no longer be justified, that would generate over $500 million in incremental revenue each year. We’d have the $1 billion in two years – without having to borrow money and waste taxpayer dollars on interest payments.

Looking forward

The devil is in the details. I will carefully scrutinize the bills put before me as I fight for the issues you care about. This includes:

Considering the assumptions in a bill that may not hold true or stand the test of time
Understanding the consequences of a bill for scenarios the sponsor didn’t consider
Identifying the things we enjoy and take for granted that might go away
Seeking the advice of professionals whose expertise exceeds my own personal knowledge.

I will continue publishing detailed legislative newsletters during the 2025 legislative session (January through March or April), and periodically during the rest of the year. Please reach out and contact me if you have any questions or concerns. I welcome your input and the opportunity to explain the reasons for my position on the issues important you.