Idaho ballot measure · November 3, 2026

Idaho HJR 6, explained

English as the official state language in the constitution. A ballot measure is a yes-or-no question put directly to voters — no candidate is involved, and the wording on the ballot is the wording that becomes law. This page shows that wording first, then what it actually changes.

The official wording

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?

This is what appears on the ballot. Everything below explains it.

What it actually means

English has been Idaho's official language by statute since 2007. This amendment would put that in the state constitution and add a requirement that English be used in public proceedings, public documents, public instruction and other public acts of public institutions, except where federal law requires otherwise. Federal law includes Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires ballots and voting information in some minority languages.

If you vote YES

A new Section 8 of Article X of the Idaho Constitution would designate English the official language of the state.
Except as required by federal law, English would have to be used in all public proceedings, public documents, public instruction and any other public acts of any public institution in Idaho.
The existing statute, Idaho Code 73-121, would be unchanged; the constitutional provision would sit alongside it.
Idaho would become one of ten states with an official language in its constitution; 30 states designate English as an official language in some form.

If you vote NO

English would remain Idaho's official language under Idaho Code 73-121, which has been in force since 2007 and which supporters and opponents agree is more detailed than the proposed amendment.
There would be no constitutional requirement that public instruction or public proceedings be conducted in English.
Federal requirements, such as Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, would apply either way.
The Legislature could still change the statute by ordinary law, rather than needing another statewide vote.

The numbers that matter

Cost of publishing the measure in the voter pamphlet: up to $300,000

Why supporters say YES

"The amendment could encourage non-English speakers to learn English to be able to better participate in public life. This could promote unity and create a stronger sense of community and shared identity. Non-English speakers would still have language assistance for critical government services, because that is required by federal law. The amendment could promote social cohesion without endangering anyone. The amendment could promote cost-efficient government by limiting the resources spent on communications in languages other than English."
— Official argument in favour, Idaho Voter Pamphlet
"This is a resolution that essentially says that language matters. It speaks to who we are as a nation. It binds us together as a people. It ties us to our history, our heroes and our heritage."
— State Sen. Brian Lenney (R-13)

Why opponents say NO

"The amendment is unnecessary because state law already makes English the official state language. The existing law is better than the amendment because the existing law is much more detailed. For example, the law allows public schools to teach foreign languages to interested students. The amendment, by requiring that all public instruction be conducted in English, might not allow this. The amendment could create social division by signaling to non-English speakers that they are unwelcome in the state and their communities."
— Official argument against, Idaho Voter Pamphlet
"The reference to 'public instruction' causes me to oppose it because people who are unable to speak English have to be taught in their language until they are familiar with English."
— State Rep. John Gannon (D-17A)

What’s genuinely uncertain

Whether the phrase "public instruction" would affect foreign language teaching or instruction for English learners is genuinely disputed; the official argument against raises it, the amendment's text does not address it, and no court has construed the wording.
The amendment is not a straight party-line question: Sen. James Ruchti (D-29) supports it, saying the language "was not restrictive of other languages being used in… official government operations," while other Democrats oppose it.
Sen. Melissa Wintrow (D-19) objected to the cost of putting it to voters: "It's pretty clear that English is our official language, and now we're going to spend $300,000 to put it on the ballot — when we are struggling to pay the bills." The fiscal note says that cost would be incurred anyway if any other measure qualified for the same ballot, which several did.

The bottom line

Whether to move Idaho's existing English-language designation from statute into the constitution and attach a use requirement to it; supporters frame it as a statement of shared identity and a limit on translation spending, opponents say the statute already does the job in more careful terms and the amendment's wording could reach into classrooms.

One neutral sentence describing the tradeoff — not a recommendation.

Sources:ballotpedia.org voteidaho.gov

Checking it against the official text

The Idaho Secretary of State publishes the certified measures and, in most states, an official voter guide with fiscal notes. That is the authoritative version. Everything here is an explanation of it, not a substitute for it.

Confirm this with the official source

Your ballot is determined by your election authority, not by us. Verify your registration, precinct, and sample ballot at Idaho Secretary of State.

Other measures on the Idaho ballot

Candidates on the same ballot

Everything on the Idaho ballot →