Local legislators react to Giddings’ behavior during ethics hearing

IDAHO FALLS – Now that the House Ethics and Policy Committee has recommended that north Idaho Republican Rep. Priscilla Giddings should be stripped of one of her committee assignments for acting in a manner “unbecoming” a legislator, several local lawmakers are weighing in on the decision.

The panel, which is comprised of three Republicans and two Democrats, made the recommendation at the Idaho State Capitol in Boise on Tuesday, the second day of a public hearing, in which Giddings was the subject of two ethics complaints by about two dozen lawmakers for sharing links to a far-right blog in April that included the name, photo and personal details about a 19-year-old legislative staffer who accused former Lewiston Republican Rep. Aaron von Ehlinger of raping her.

RELATED | Ethics committee recommends punishment for Rep. Priscilla Giddings

Before the hearing on Monday morning, Republican Rep. Ron Nate of Rexburg was the main speaker at a rally on the steps of the Idaho Capitol in support of Giddings. During the event, Nate said Giddings was “being targeted by the House leadership and by the political left.”

‘A model of integrity’

“Rep. Priscilla Giddings is a model of integrity and a top-flight legislator,” Nate said during the rally. “Her chief political opponent, House Speaker Scott Bedke, is the first signer on the bogus ethics complaint this morning.”

Nate noted Bedke and Giddings are both running for lieutenant governor and suggested Bedke’s involvement in the complaint is a conflict of interest, and he should recuse himself. He also said that claims that posting a link is an ethics violation “is a threat to free speech for all legislators.”

During day two of the hearing on Tuesday, Committee Member Wendy Horman, a Republican from Bonneville County, said that Giddings had not announced her bid for lieutenant governor at the time of the ethics complaint. Furthermore, the Idaho Capital Sun reported Bedke’s involvement in signing the complaint was not an attempt to target Giddings because he did not announce his candidacy until June.

“I believe Rep. Giddings does have a free speech right to do that, as she asserted in her very thorough, detailed response to the committee,” Horman said during the hearing. “What’s in question for me is her judgment and intent in doing so. Just because we can do something, doesn’t mean we should. And it still means the whole truth should be told, even if there might be consequences.”

In an email to EastIdahoNews.com Tuesday, Nate explained the purpose of the rally and his motivation for defending Giddings.

“We wanted to draw attention to the House’s broken Ethics Committee process, which is targeting one of Idaho’s strongest conservative legislators,” Nate said. “We are colleagues in the Idaho House, and we are good friends who share similar values and are not afraid to fight hard for the people of Idaho.”

During the hearing on Monday, Giddings denied the allegations of conduct unbecoming a legislator and blamed the ethics hearing on the “woke cancel culture movement.”

Nate praised Giddings’ response during the hearing, saying it was “powerful and compelling.”

“If the committee had read the response in full and with open minds, I’m sure they would have come to a different conclusion,” he said. “She deserves appreciation for her great service to our nation and to our state. Instead, because she is a strong conservative, running for office against the speaker, she became the target of this woke, cancel-culture smear campaign. Idaho citizens deserve better than what the House committee came up with today.”

‘I’ve never seen behavior that bad’

But not every legislator feels the same way. We spoke with several local legislators who signed the ethics complaint.

Marco Erickson, a Republican representative for District 33 Seat B, which includes the northern part of Idaho Falls, says Giddings’ claims that the hearing was an attempt by the woke cancel culture to target her is “absolutely not true” because the complaint had bipartisan support.

Erickson echoed what several committee members publicly implied — that there might not have been a hearing if Giddings would have simply apologized for the post and said it was a mistake, rather than doubling down.

He says he was a little shocked by the panel’s recommendation that Giddings be stripped of one of her committee assignments and feels the penalty should have been much stiffer.

“I would have expected her to be censured. I’m not sure what a committee assignment has to do with (her actions),” he says.

James Ruchti, D-Pocatello, also says that an apology from Giddings would have gone a long way in this case. He says her actions were a “grievous mistake” and would have likely still had a strong response from the ethics committee even with an apology. But in the end, Ruchti says everything would have been OK if she had treated the process and members of the committee with respect.

Ruchti, who is also an attorney with Ruchti and Beck Law office in Pocatello, says if he had a client who behaved the way Giddings did during a legal proceeding, he would have severed the relationship.

“You cannot treat a tribunal that way … and I’ve never seen behavior that bad,” says Ruchti.

Ruchti says he would have liked to see a stronger outcome against Giddings, but he respects the committee members and says they have a difficult job.

He says he is disappointed in Gidding’s behavior, especially considering her background as an Air Force pilot. Ruchti says none of her claims were based on fact, and he doesn’t take her words seriously.

“It didn’t have to happen, and that 19-year-old deserved better from the House of Representatives and its members,” Ruchti says, referring to the victim. “There are groups in the House who like to use these opportunities to get attention … and further their own ambitions. I’m hoping that people in Idaho are starting to realize that things need to change, that we need serious people representing them in the Legislature and in elected office. We’re on a bad path right now, and this was indicative of that.”

It’s unclear when the House vote will happen, but it could be any time before the Legislature’s next session begins in January. If the House agrees with the ethics board, she would be off the House Commerce and Human Resources Committee but remain on the Agricultural Affairs and Joint Finance-Appropriations committees.