The veto of Senate Bill 1359 by Governor Brad Little is disappointing—not just for its outcome, but for what it signals about how decisions are being made.

SB 1359 was a bipartisan effort responding to a clear and growing threat: cryptocurrency kiosk fraud targeting Idahoans, particularly seniors, through coercive and sophisticated scams. Cryptocurrency kiosks are ATM-like machines that convert cash directly into cryptocurrency—and they have become a preferred tool for scammers, enabling the rapid and irreversible transfer of large sums from victims. Once funds are deposited, they are nearly impossible to recover. This fraud is one of the fastest-growing financial scams in the state, with sharp year-over-year increases.

We worked together because fraud does not care about party affiliation—it exploits vulnerability, and too many Idahoans are vulnerable. This legislation followed a deliberate, transparent process. Stakeholders were invited to participate. Input was requested early and often. Concerns were raised, debated, and incorporated where possible. It was how policymaking is supposed to work.

Yet the bill was vetoed after passing both chambers, based in part on concerns that could have been raised much earlier—when they could still have shaped the outcome. That breakdown in timing matters. Good governance depends on engagement during the process, not objections after it concludes.

Equally concerning is the continued reliance on external “freedom scores” and ideological ratings in evaluating legislation. By some of these measures, SB 1359 was labeled as reducing “freedom.” That conclusion is not just questionable—it is irrational.

There is nothing “pro-freedom” about allowing criminals to drain a retiree’s life savings in minutes. And there is nothing “anti-freedom” about requiring clear disclosures, fraud warnings, and reasonable protections designed to stop exploitation before it begins.

If protecting Idahoans results in a negative score from an outside organization, that says more about the scoring system than the policy itself. Freedom includes the ability to live without being defrauded. It includes the expectation that government will act when preventable harm is identified. Reducing it to an ideological scorecard strips it of real meaning.

We would caution against giving undue weight to such metrics—especially when they are disconnected from the real-world impact on Idaho families. Idaho’s policymaking should be guided by Idahoans: by those affected, by stakeholders engaged in good faith, and by elected representatives accountable to their communities.

SB 1359 was a measured response. It did not ban cryptocurrency or stifle innovation. It simply put reasonable guardrails in place to prevent fraud—tools that law enforcement and consumer advocates have been requesting. The alternative is the status quo: continued losses, continued victimization, and limited tools to respond.

We can do better. That starts with a process where engagement happens early, where concerns are raised when they can still be addressed, and where decisions are grounded in real impacts—not abstract ratings or outside pressure.

Bipartisan cooperation made SB 1359 possible. That same spirit should guide how it is evaluated. Because this is not about politics. It is about whether we are willing to act—together—to protect the people we serve.