EDITORIAL: The government wants another expensive, less effective program. What else is new?

The Idaho Legislature is reviving a bill that would fundamentally alter how public notices reach citizens — and not for the better. House Bill 166, sponsored by Representatives Jeff Ehlers and Josh Tanner, proposes moving legal notices from newspapers to a government-run website, a change that raises serious concerns about transparency and public access to vital information.

Let's talk numbers. In Ada County, with a budget of $372 million, current legal notice costs amount to just $72,000 — a mere 0.019% of the total budget. The "savings" would amount to 14 cents per resident. Meanwhile, the state would need to spend $500,000 on infrastructure improvements just to implement this system. When “government efficiency” costs more than it saves, it's worth asking why we're pursuing this at all.

We've seen this story before: What starts as a supposedly streamlined government solution inevitably morphs into a bureaucratic labyrinth. New positions will need to be created, maintained, and funded. IT systems will require constant updates and maintenance. What's pitched as something simple inevitably expands into a complex web of administrators, coordinators, and managers — all funded by taxpayer dollars. Meanwhile, newspapers have handled these notices for over a century with remarkable efficiency, driven by market forces to keep costs low and accessibility high.

The stark contrast in readership between private and public platforms also tells a story. Idaho newspapers' websites draw 1.3 million readers monthly, while the state controller's website attracts just 17,000 — a 76-fold difference. Private enterprise has already created an efficient, accessible system at idahopublicnotices.com, funded entirely by newspapers with no cost to taxpayers. Why would Representatives Ehlers and Tanner push to replace this effective system with a government-run alternative that reaches fewer people and expands government bureaucracy?

This brings us to a troubling question: What's the real motivation here? When public officials push legislation that makes information harder to find while costing taxpayers more money, we must question their intentions. Are there certain notices they'd prefer didn't reach quite so many eyes? Public notices cover everything from pending litigation to water rights, from foreclosures to estate notices — they're crucial information that directly affects citizens' lives and rights.

The bill's supporters might argue that digital is the future, but newspapers already provide both print and digital access, along with permanent archiving that ensures records are preserved for future generations. The current system offers the best of both worlds: immediate digital access and permanent historical records, maintained by private enterprise that has refined this process over more than a century.

Representatives Ehlers and Tanner owe their constituents an explanation. Why push for a more expensive, less effective system that would make public notices harder to find? The public deserves better than a solution in search of a problem.

To find contact info for your representative, go to: https://legislature.idaho.gov/house/membership/

To find contact info for your senator, go to: https://legislature.idaho.gov/senate/membership/