POCATELLO — A committee working to repeal Pocatello’s non-discrimination ordinance is seeking a recount in a close May vote that kept the law in place.
The Vote Yes Pocatello committee applied on Monday for a recount of the votes that were cast in 20 of Pocatello’s 39 precincts on May 20, along with early and absentee votes, according to Bannock County election officials.
Vote Yes Pocatello representatives confirmed Monday that they made the request and are planning to release additional information about their decision later this week.
Ian Service, Bannock County’s chief civil deputy prosecutor, said that once the committee’s application is approved, the county clerk will issue an order and the recount will have to take place within 10 days.
“It will be the same (procedure) as election night,” Service said, adding that they will recount the votes in each of the requested precincts.
Vote Yes Pocatello representatives had to pay $100 for every precinct they wanted recounted, Service said, adding that they will have to pay additional costs and submit another application if they decide they want recounts in any other precincts.
May’s vote on Proposition One asked city residents to determine whether or not the controversial ordinance meant to protect members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community from discrimination should be repealed. There were 4,943 people who voted to keep the law in place, while 4,863 people voted to rescind it.
Although the vote was close, it didn’t qualify for an automatic recount under Idaho law since the 80-vote difference was greater than .1 percent.
The non-discrimination ordinance, which city officials adopted a year ago, prevents discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations based upon a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. And supporters say the law protects people from losing their jobs or homes simply because they are members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.
Although Vote Yes Pocatello representatives have said they agree that all people should be treated fairly and respectfully, they believe the ordinance goes too far and actually takes away rights from citizens.
They feel the law makes business owners choose between their personal convictions and their professions, threatens people with fines and jail time for following their personal beliefs, and uses subjective and ambiguous language to blur the lines of gender in a way that could abuse the privacy rights of women and children.