News Ticker

Add the words demonstrators denied access to legislative chambers

Add the Words demonstrators marched single file to the third floor of the capitol building in an attempt to gain access to Idaho’s Senate and House chambers Thursday, Feb. 14.

Law enforcement informed participants they could not enter either gallery while wearing “Add the 4 Words Idaho” t-shirts.

Just a week earlier, demonstrators blocked the senate chamber and were charged with trespassing.

“They won’t hear us in committee so we have come to be seen by the lawmakers. We had grandparents, high school students, clergy and they just wanted to be seen,” said Nicole LeFavour, former Democrat senator and Add the Words activist.

According to LeFavour, senate members took extra measures to ensure Add the Words demonstrators could not access the senate gallery.

“The senate locked the senate doors. The pro temp would have to decide that and it’s never done. It’s very, very rare and I don’t remember the senate ever locking people out and I was in the house and senate for eight years,”LeFavour said.

LeFavour said she believes the rule which banned demonstrators from entering the senate or house galleries was created specifically to keep out Add the Words supporters.

“We’ve done protests in the gallery in 2012 and they banned the shirts after we did that,” LeFavour said.

[poll id=”739″]

About Ryan Thorne (0 Articles)
Ryan Thorne was born and raised in the beautiful city of Twin Falls, Idaho. He now lives in Boise where he enjoys being a student at Boise State University. As the Investigative News editor, Thorne is always hot on the trail of the next big story. In his free time, he can be found playing the guitar, reading, or exploring scenic outdoor Idaho. Follow him on Twitter @ryanthorne86 or friend him on Facebook.
Contact: Twitter

1 Comment on Add the words demonstrators denied access to legislative chambers

  1. Just imagine, given any retail establishment with a conservative clientelle (golf shop, luxury car dealership, etc.), how quickly a disgruntled male employee could decimate his employer by simply wearing a dress to work. Is it unrealistic to presume that this type of behavior would be protected under the proposed change? If not, a major problem with "adding the words", is that those "words" threaten to hold employers hostage (with the threat of an uphill legal battle) while their businesses are transformed into platforms for activism, or even sabotage. The interplay between society and an individual's emotions/self-image may not really justify ushering in a brave new world of litigatorial extortion. I sympathize with the people involved, but I can understand why this protest isn't taken seriously — and, in light of their recent behavior in the senate chambers, it's not hard to see why they're now being denied access.

Comments are closed.