In December 2019, rumors swirled of a novel virus emerging from China. Social media became overwhelmed with frightening videos of people collapsing in the streets and reports of overcrowded hospitals from Guangzhou to Italy. Nobody knew what to expect, but many feared the worst, a repeat of the 1918 Spanish Flu or the medieval Black Death.
The early days of 2020 were marked by confusion and political posturing. When President Donald Trump identified the virus as originating in China, then–House Speaker Nancy Pelosi encouraged Americans to visit Chinatown and give people hugs. Later that year, when Trump promoted the imminent approval of a vaccine under his Operation Warp Speed, Democrats denounced it and vowed never to take the “Trump vaccine.” Yet once Joe Biden took office, it was Democrats who not only rushed to get the shot but also sought to require it for everyone else.
On March 11, the NBA suspended its season after several players tested positive for what was now called COVID-19. On March 16, President Trump announced “15 Days to Slow the Spread,” urging elderly and immune-compromised citizens to stay home and giving broad discretion to state and local health bureaus to protect public health.
On March 25, Gov. Brad Little issued a statewide “stay at home order” and declared a state of extreme emergency:
The stay-home order requires citizens to self-isolate at home if you can, not just if you are sick. This excludes healthcare, public safety and other essential workers as defined in the order. If you are high-risk, avoid leaving home. People can leave home to obtain or provide essential services as defined in the order. Employers that do not provide essential services as defined in order must take all steps necessary for employees to work remotely from home. Grocery stores, medical facilities, and other essential businesses as defined in the order will remain open. Restaurants across the state are being ordered to close dine-in but drive-thru, pick up, and delivery will still be available. Non-essential businesses and services will close their physical locations. This includes bars, nightclubs, gyms, recreational facilities, entertainment venues, convention centers, hair and nail salons, and others not included in the “essential” category as defined in the order. People must limit public transit unless to provide or obtain essential services. People must limit all discretionary travel. People must limit all non-essential gatherings of any number of individuals outside the household. When you go for a walk, run, bike ride, or other outdoor recreation near your home, stay 6-feet away from individuals who are not part of your household.
Communities responded differently. In Eagle, Mayor Jason Pierce and Chief Matt Clifford (now Ada County Sheriff) pledged not to harass citizens for leaving their homes. But in Moscow, police arrested church members for singing hymns outdoors. In Meridian, Sara Brady was arrested for taking her children to a closed park.
The 2020 Idaho GOP State Convention had been scheduled for Boise that summer, but Mayor Lauren McLean’s office refused to allow such a large gathering. Nampa was not as strict, so the convention took place at the Ford Idaho Center, albeit with some social distancing and a smattering of masks.
In hindsight, COVID was not as dangerous as many feared. For most healthy adults, it was comparable to a bad flu (I say that as someone who caught it in autumn 2021). For most children, it was nearly nonexistent. Yet schools closed, sports were canceled, and childhood itself was disrupted.
Those videos of people randomly dropping dead turned out not to reflect reality. The idea that COVID originated in a lab, once dismissed—and even censored—as a dangerous conspiracy theory, is now accepted as the truth. Many who pushed for a draconian government response in 2020 now claim we simply didn’t know enough at the time, and that hindsight is 20/20. They argue that nobody should face consequences for the decisions that were made in the heat of the moment.
Yet many voices warned even then that shutting down churches, private businesses, and the entire economy was dangerously foolish, not to mention grossly illegal. The effects of those shutdowns are still with us today. How many schoolchildren lag behind their grade level due to losing a year or two of instruction? How many small businesses were destroyed while corporations like Amazon and Walmart grew ever more powerful?
Before COVID , Gov. Brad Little was building a reputation for cutting taxes and slashing regulations. Everything changed in 2020, and his stay-home order permanently damaged his standing with Idaho conservatives. Nevertheless, he won reelection in 2022, as many voters chose to forget those chaotic times.
That is our paradox: a small number of citizens want accountability for what happened, while most would rather move on. The question is, where do we go from here?
Sen. Dan Foreman has long sought to examine Idaho’s COVID response. On Wednesday he finally had the chance, as his COVID-19 Response Study Committee met for the first and only time. The committee considered whether Gov. Little’s actions in 2020 were legal and constitutional. Its agenda included:
Did the closing of houses of worship by the Governor violate state code and/or the U.S. or state constitutions?
Did the closing of businesses by the Governor violate state code and/or the U.S. or state constitutions?
Did the Governor’s order of a statewide quarantine violate state code and/or the U.S. or state constitutions?
Did the Governor’s continuance of the declared state of “Extreme Emergency” beyond ninety (90) days violate state code?
Did the establishment by the Governor of the Coronavirus Financial Advisory Committee (CFAC) to partly manage federal Covid funding violate state code and/or the state constitution?
Did the Governor’s extension of the “State of Emergency” beyond Sixty (60) days violate state code?
At the outset, Rep. Barbara Ehardt moved to expand references from “the governor” to “the governor, the executive branch, and the State of Idaho.”
I was in the room for the hearing, and live-posted on Twitter. Here are a few clips, courtesy of my friends at Citizens Alliance of Idaho:
During the hearing, the committee voted to affirm that closing churches and businesses violated constitutional rights. Sen. Foreman noted that LSO staff confirmed the “Extreme Emergency” ended before ninety days, so that question was moot. The committee also agreed—unanimously this time—that using CFAC to distribute federal funds likely violated the state constitution, since appropriations must go through the Legislature. But members tabled the final item, citing ambiguity about how long a governor can extend an emergency.
The relevant state statute for a state of emergency declaration is found in Idaho Code 46-1008:
A disaster emergency shall be declared by executive order or proclamation of the governor if he finds a disaster has occurred or that the occurrence or the threat thereof is imminent. The state of disaster emergency shall continue until the governor finds that the threat or danger has passed or the disaster has been dealt with to the extent that emergency conditions no longer exist, and when either or both of these events occur, the governor shall terminate the state of disaster emergency by executive order or proclamation; provided, however, that no state of disaster emergency may continue for longer than thirty (30) days unless the governor finds that it should be continued for another thirty (30) days or any part thereof.
In 2020, Gov. Little, with advice from Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, interpreted that to mean that he could renew the emergency declaration every thirty days.
I read it as saying he can renew it once after the initial thirty days, but I’m not a lawyer. Fixing this ambiguity should be a top priority for the Legislature next year.
Indeed, Rep. Ehardt moved for the committee to draft a resolution calling for a new committee to take an in-depth look at Title 46, Chapter 10 in its entirety, which lays out emergency provisions available to Idaho government. While it sounds almost farcical—a committee voted to support the creation of a new committee to examine a subject—wholesale changes to our laws should come slowly and deliberately, rather than haphazardly.
The committee’s report will be submitted to the Legislature when it comes into session next January. What happens next? The committee did not vote to propose any form of sanction, so there’s no telling what could come of the report. Many conservatives have long hoped for sweeping indictments of government officials who made the decisions that infringed upon our rights. While I’m not sure how plausible that course is, this report puts into the public record a finding that our government abrogated our constitutional rights using a public health emergency as an excuse. At the very least we should see an effort to tighten up our laws.
On a higher level, however, the COVID era is a reminder that leaders will often sidestep the law in times of crisis. “Sovereign is he who defines the exception,” as Auron MacIntyre likes to say. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus without authorization and called up troops to invade the South—actions beyond his constitutional authority—yet history remembers him as one of our greatest president. History is written by the victors, and laws are only as strong as the people entrusted to enforce them. That’s why we must elect leaders firmly committed to protecting rights, hold them accountable, and, when necessary, step into the arena ourselves.
Our government’s actions during COVID acted as a wake-up call to millions of conservatives who had essentially ignored politics up until that point. They realized that getting involved in government is not optional if we want to protect our liberties. On the other hand, the 2022 primary was a wake-up call for me. Despite the influx of conservatives into politics after the COVID lockdowns, a majority of voters—even among Republicans—simply wanted to move on. I don’t know if we will ever fully hold accountable those who shut down our society, but we can and must do everything possible to ensure such an abuse of power never happens again.
Never forgetti.
There is no forgiveness without repentance, and many of these same "experts" would repeat exactly how they did should the opportunity arise again.