Court Opinion

ID: 9797577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:24:31.60721+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:57:16.684119
License: Public Domain

TROUT, J.
CONCURRING IN THE RESULT OP PARTS II B and C.
I concur in all but Parts II B and C of the Court’s opinion and concur in the result of those sections. I write only to point out that at least parts of Davidson’s proposed initiative are properly characterized as “legislative” matters and are therefore appropriately the subject for an initiative. Further, Davidson is not entitled to attorney fees because he is a pro se litigant. See Bowles v. Pro Indiviso, Inc., 132 Idaho 371, 377, 973 P.2d 142, 147 (1999).