In 2007, Idaho lawmakers passed a law to make English the state’s official language.
That law, which is still on the books, requires English to be used as “the sole language of government.” But it lists many exceptions to its requirement that government documents be in English, such as for law enforcement or for “public health and safety needs,” to ensure public schools can teach students who are learning English and to ensure colleges and so universities can “pursue educational purposes.”
In this year’s general election on Nov. 3, Idaho voters will decide on whether to amend the state’s constitution to declare English as the state’s official language.
But what isn’t immediately clear, some say, is whether the amendment will end existing exemptions in state law that allow languages other than English to be used by government agencies. The proposed constitutional amendment’s only exception allows the government to use other languages when required by federal law, such as in schools and, in some cases, election administration.
“It’s not entirely clear, honestly, how much it would change things,” said University of Idaho law professor Richard Seamon, who has taught at the school for 30 years.
The proposed amendment, passed by the Idaho Legislature to be placed on the ballot through House Joint Resolution 6 in 2025, calls for English to be used in “all public proceedings, public documents, public instruction, and any other public acts of any public institution of the state of Idaho.”
Here’s what the amendment will look like on your ballot: “Shall Article X of the Constitution of the State of Idaho be amended by the addition of a new Section 8, to provide that the English language shall be the official language for the state of Idaho, and to further provide that, except as required by federal law, English shall be used in all public proceedings, public documents, public instruction, and any other public acts of any public institution in the state of Idaho?”
To pass, the amendment needs support from at least 50% of voters.
In Idaho, an agricultural state with a high population of Hispanic people, some worry that the lack of clarity around the amendment could make it harder for some residents to run their businesses, know what’s going on in their children’s schools or to stay up to date about what’s happening in their communities.
“We see people working very hard to learn English, but learning a language takes time. And someone shouldn’t have to wait until they’re fluent in English to understand critical information — from their child’s school or interacting with local government or understanding information that’s already affecting their family, their health, their safety,” said Mari Ramos, CEO of the Idaho Hispanic Foundation, which helps people learn English and provides other resources.
One lawmaker behind the proposed amendment, Rep. Dale Hawkins, R-Fernwood, said the change is meant to encourage people to learn English.
“One of the things that unites us all as a culture, as a country, as a state, is language. And we see more and more people that are moving to the United States …” he said in an interview. “And what used to be the desired effect, which was assimilation — learn the language, learn the culture, learn the history — those things have slipped away. And we don’t see assimilation anymore. And I believe that if we have a common language, then our culture will survive.”
In Idaho, Hispanics make up about 13% of the state’s population, and the state has welcomed thousands of refugees in recent years. Over the last decade, the state’s Hispanic population grew faster, by 25%, than the state’s overall population, which rose by 10%, according to statistics from the Idaho Commission on Hispanic Affairs. About 11% of Idahoans speak a language other than English at home, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Thirty states have declared English as their official language, according to Ballotpedia. In 2025, President Donald Trump declared English as the nation’s official language in an executive order. Hawkins said lawmakers had worked on the proposed Idaho amendment with the Trump administration.
Amending the state constitution — or undoing an amendment — is a lot harder than passing a state law.
Amendments to the constitution, which can be proposed in the Legislature, require at least two-thirds support in each chamber of the Legislature. Then they go before the voters for ratification. If a proposed amendment receives more than 50% of the vote, it passes.
State laws, on the other hand, face fewer hurdles. Bills only need at least a majority of support in each chamber of the Legislature and support from the governor. And voters don’t get a direct vote.
Several federal laws require local and state governments to provide materials or services in languages other than English, Seamon said. That includes the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, which requires educational agencies to help students overcome language barriers, such as offering English as a Second Language instruction.
The Voting Rights Act also requires certain localities to provide voting materials, including ballots, in other languages in certain circumstances. Five Idaho counties are subject to that requirement, according to a list maintained by the U.S. Department of Justice: Clark, the state’s smallest county in eastern Idaho; Clearwater; Idaho; Lewis and Nez Perce counties. Clark is the only county in the state where “Hispanic” is listed as the “language minority group.” In the remaining counties, “All other American Indian tribes” are the listed “language minority group(s).”
Seamon said he could also see a case to apply the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause to require languages other than English be available in criminal court cases.
The amendment itself doesn’t outline enforcement mechanisms, such as penalties. Enforcement, Seamon said, would likely fall to the Idaho Attorney General’s Office, or to the Legislature in the form of oversight, which could include cutting funds for agencies that are suspected to have violated the amendment.
Seamon thinks questions would likely come up as state agencies attempt to implement the amendment. He isn’t sure that the amendment would override the broader exceptions in state law.
“If it said ‘only English,’ then I think it would clearly, pretty clearly, override these exceptions, and eliminate them,” Seamon said. “But it doesn’t say only … So I think that leaves room for discussion about the extent to which these exceptions will still apply.”
Hawkins said the proposed amendment is written to be more restrictive than the state law on purpose, and that it should override the state law.
“The constitution trumps all things, so I would believe that our state laws would have to conform to what our constitution says,” he said.
Hawkins said whether some of the law’s exceptions would remain, such as the use of other languages by law enforcement soliciting tips to find a missing child or health officials informing the public about an infectious disease outbreak, should be handled on a case-by-case approach.
“Each one of those exceptions would have to be, for lack of a better term, studied and to make sure that we’re not creating loopholes so that we have no effect,” Hawkins said.
Democratic state Sen. Melissa Wintrow, of Boise, opposed the amendment early on. She said she never got a clear answer on her concern that it could wipe out exemptions outlined in state law.
“I’m concerned. I have reason to believe we should all be troubled, right?” she said in an interview. “… Could these reasonable carve-outs be eliminated? And then your kid can’t take a foreign language in high school, which I think is deeply troubling to many people.”
She said she didn’t ask the Idaho Attorney General’s Office for a written opinion on HJR 6’s legal impacts, because she said the office had denied her such opinions in recent years.
In a statement, Attorney General’s Office spokesperson Dan Estes said no lawmaker sponsoring the resolution on the proposed amendment had requested a written legal opinion on it, and he confirmed his office did not issue an opinion on the resolution or proposed amendment. But he said the office still provides such opinions, which are outlined as a duty of the attorney general in state law, including a written opinion that he said that Wintrow received in 2025.
“We regularly provide legislators of both parties oral and written legal guidance, and publish our opinions and advisory letters in our annual report,” Estes said. “What we no longer do is write opinions at one legislator’s request to attack another’s bill or resolution.”
“Legislative Democrats and their allies have spent three years confusing legal counsel with political ammunition,” he continued. “The Attorney General’s duty is to provide legal advice to legislators. They are upset that they can no longer use our office as a tool to fight their legislative battles.”
