HJR 4 - Grant Legislature Exclusive Authority and Prohibit Citizen-Initiated Measures on Marijuana, Narcotics, and Psychoactive Substances Amendment (2026 Measure)

Bill Snapshot (Quick Facts)

• Bill: House Joint Resolution 4 (HJR 4)

• What it does:
  Asks voters to change the Idaho Constitution so that only the Legislature — not voters — can decide whether marijuana and similar substances can ever be legalized or regulated.

• Status:
  Passed by the Legislature and sent to voters for approval. It will appear on the November 3, 2026 general election ballot for Idaho voters to decide.

What Is This Bill Really About?

HJR 4 is not about legalizing or banning anything right now.

It is about who gets to decide in the future.

If HJR 4 passes:

• Voters would no longer be able to use ballot initiatives to decide these issues.

• Only lawmakers could make those decisions.

The Liberty Questions

Who gains power if this passes?

The Idaho Legislature.

Who loses power?

Idaho voters.

Does this expand or limit voter participation?

It limits voter participation by taking a topic off the ballot permanently.

Can voters change this later if they don’t like it?

Not easily. Once something is added to the constitution, it takes another constitutional amendment to undo it.

Does this move power closer to the people or farther away?

Farther away. Decisions are centralized in the Legislature.

How This Could Be Seen as Expanding Liberty

• Keeps complex policy decisions in the hands of elected officials.

• Creates one clear decision-making path instead of multiple ballot efforts.

• Avoids frequent changes based on election cycles.

How This Could Be Seen as Restricting Liberty

• Removes the public’s ability to decide an issue directly.

• Creates a permanent exception to the voter initiative process.

• Limits how future voters can respond to new information, research, or changing views.

What This Means for Everyday Idahoans

No matter how someone feels about marijuana or drugs in general, HJR 4 changes the rules of participation.

Instead of asking: “Should this be legal?”

The question becomes: “Who should be allowed to decide?”

That shift affects everyone — including people who don’t use these substances at all.

Questions for the Public (With Example Answers)

These are examples, not conclusions — meant to show how people might think through the issue.

Should any topic be permanently removed from voter consideration?

Example answer: Some people may say yes — certain issues are better handled by lawmakers. Others may say no — if voters can amend the constitution, they should be trusted to weigh in on any topic.

Is legislative decision-making enough, or should voters keep a direct option?

Example answer: Legislators represent voters, but representation is not the same as participation. Some Idahoans may feel having both options provides balance.

If voter authority is limited here, what principle should guide future limits?

Example answer: Clear, consistent standards would matter. Without them, voters may worry that more issues could be removed from their reach over time.

Why This Matters Beyond This Bill

HJR 4 is not just about substances.
It sets a precedent.

Once voters accept that one subject is off-limits, the larger question becomes: Who decides which topics voters are allowed to decide at all?