Opinion ID: 2585220
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Commission Shall Reconvene to Adopt an Alternative Plan

Text: While we deem it appropriate only to hold that L66 is unconstitutional, `[w]here an appellate court reverses or vacates a judgment upon an issue properly raised, and remands for further proceedings, it may give guidance for other issues on remand.' Urrutia v. Blaine County, 134 Idaho 353, 359, 2 P.3d 738, 744 (2000) (citation omitted). In the present case there will need to be further proceedings in order to adopt a legislative redistricting plan that will pass constitutional muster and we thus set forth the following to guide in that process. First, we note that Idaho Code § 72-1501(2) provides: A commission formed pursuant to paragraph (1)(b) of this section shall be reconvened if, prior to the next general election, a court of competent jurisdiction orders the plan adopted by that commission to be revised. I.C. § 72-1501(2) (2000) (emphasis added). The plain meaning of the word reconvene is that the same commission that adopted L66 should be responsible for adopting an alternative plan prior to the next general election. This also makes it appropriate for this Court to address one of Petitioners' other claims that Dean Haagenson was not eligible to serve on the Commission because they argue he was a lobbyist and is thus precluded from service by Idaho Code § 72-1502. This code section, however, only prohibits registered lobbyists from serving on the Commission for one year from the time that he or she was a registered lobbyist. When statutory language is clear, the courts must interpret the statute as written. In re Permit No. 36-7200 v. Higginson, 121 Idaho 819, 824, 828 P.2d 848, 853 (1992). As evidenced by an affidavit of Ben T. Ysursa, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Haagenson has not been a registered lobbyist for over one year, so he is not prohibited from serving on the Commission when it reconvenes.