City of Challis v. Consent of the Governed Caucus
Idaho Supreme Court
1DissentJ. Jones, Chief Justice
I dissent because I am unable to agree with the Court’s conclusion that Article VIII, section 3 of the Idaho Constitution requires a vote of the people for the maintenance or modernization of an existing city water system. The framers of the Idaho Constitution were thrifty people, concerned about the possibility of county and city governments incurring unnecessary debt, but they were also practical people who looked to the future. They hoped and expected that cities in Idaho would grow, that municipal services for those cities would necessarily expand, and that such services would require…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Dunbar v. Board of Commissioners of Canyon CountyIdaho Supreme Court · 1897
- Hickey v. City of NampaIdaho Supreme Court · 1912
- Asson v. City of BurleyIdaho Supreme Court · 1983
- City of Boise v. FrazierIdaho Supreme Court · 2006
- City of Idaho Falls v. FuhrimanIdaho Supreme Court · 2010
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.