HB 798 is a narrow Code Cleanup measure that eliminates outdated statutory language tied to securities lending and the State Treasurer’s ability to “continue to invest.” The bill frames the change as housekeeping—identifying the provision as obsolete under the Idaho Code Cleanup Act—and directs its removal from the Idaho Code.
Although short on operational detail, the repeal matters because it changes the written statutory landscape that governs how state actors handle securities‑lending arrangements. Removing statutory text can be administratively simple but legally consequential: it may require the State Treasurer, fund managers, custodians, and contracting counterparties to reassess their authority, contract terms, and internal policies to ensure continuity and legal compliance going forward.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill repeals Section 67‑1210B of the Idaho Code, a provision related to securities‑lending agreements and language about the ability to continue to invest. It includes an emergency clause and takes effect on July 1, 2026.
Who It Affects
Directly affects the State Treasurer’s office and its investment staff, entities that participate in securities‑lending transactions (custodial banks, broker‑dealers and lending counterparties), and in‑house or outside legal and compliance advisers to state funds and public trusts.
Why It Matters
Removing codified language that touches securities lending can create a gap between current practice and explicit statutory authorization or constraints, prompting contract reviews, policy updates, and potential coordination with the Attorney General to confirm legal authority or need for legislative replacement language.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill is a focused repeal tucked into Idaho’s Code Cleanup framework. It instructs codifiers to excise a specific statutory provision tied to securities‑lending arrangements; the legislative preface characterizes that provision as obsolete.
The measure does not rewrite or replace the removed text, nor does it add new regulatory instructions for how securities lending should be conducted.
For day‑to‑day operations, the practical consequence is uncertainty rather than an immediate operational ban. Contracts signed under the prior statutory regime will remain contractual obligations unless the parties agree or a court rules otherwise, but the statutory backdrop that may have supported those arrangements is gone.
That creates two tasks for officials: (1) confirm whether other statutes, existing administrative rules, or common‑law authority already supply the necessary legal basis for lending activity; and (2) audit active agreements and custody arrangements to check for any reliance on the removed provision.Operationally, the Treasury and its investment officers will need to coordinate with custodians, counterparties, and legal counsel to decide whether to give notice, renegotiate terms, or seek legislative clarification. Because HB 798 includes an emergency clause with a specific effective date, that coordination has a compressed timeline: administrative owners should inventory affected contracts and internal policies, estimate any continuity or liquidity impacts, and prepare a legal memorandum on authority to proceed pending any legislative follow‑up.
The Five Things You Need to Know
HB 798 removes statutory text tied to securities‑lending arrangements by repealing Section 67‑1210B of the Idaho Code.
The bill is presented under the Idaho Code Cleanup Act and opens with a legislative intent clause characterizing the provision as obsolete.
HB 798 contains an emergency declaration and sets the act’s effective date as July 1, 2026.
The statute being removed touched on the State Treasurer’s “ability to continue to invest,” language linked to securities‑lending agreements rather than broader investment powers.
The bill does not include transitional provisions, replacement statutory language, or administrative instructions for existing securities‑lending contracts.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative intent under Code Cleanup Act
This section states the Legislature’s intent to streamline Idaho Code by removing obsolete provisions. Practically, that labels the targeted text as nonessential and frames the repeal as housekeeping; it also signals the Legislature’s view that the provision is no longer needed rather than actively harmful. For administrators and counsel, the clause is a cue that the change is intentional and not an accidental omission, but it carries no operational directives or replacement authority.
Repeal of Section 67‑1210B
This is the operative clause that excises the named statute from the Code. Mechanically, the statutory text is removed; the bill does not amend neighboring sections or create cross‑references. The practical implication is legal: any rights, permissions, or constraints that relied solely on that provision lose their codified foundation, which may require agencies to rely on alternate statutory authorities, internal policies, or contract terms to continue securities‑lending practices.
Emergency finding and effective date
The emergency clause declares an immediate need and fixes the effective date at July 1, 2026. That accelerates the timeline for administrative review and any remedial action. For funds engaged in securities lending, the effective date matters because it shortens the window to assess contracts, inform counterparties, and request legal guidance or a legislative remedy if lawmakers intend to preserve some statutory authorization.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State code publishers and legal drafters — the Code becomes shorter and removes language the Legislature has judged obsolete, reducing clutter and potential confusion for future readers.
- Lawmakers and policy staff — the cleanup simplifies the statutory text set that they must monitor and could reduce conflicts caused by outdated cross‑references.
- Entities seeking clearer governance — if the removed provision truly duplicated existing rules, some agencies and funds may benefit from a clearer statement of governing authorities, prompting updated, consolidated policies.
Who Bears the Cost
- State Treasurer’s office and investment staff — they must inventory agreements, reassess legal authority for securities‑lending programs, and expend staff time or outside counsel to manage the transition.
- Custodial banks and lending counterparties — counterparties will face contractual uncertainty and may demand confirmations, amendments, or new guarantees to maintain exposures the Treasurer previously supported by statute.
- Attorney General and agency counsel — legal teams will need to analyze whether other statutes or administrative rules suffice, and to prepare opinions or legislative language to restore express authority if needed.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between statutory housekeeping and legal continuity: removing obsolete text clarifies the Code, but doing so without replacement or transition risks creating uncertainty for ongoing securities‑lending activity — forcing officials to choose between operational continuity under less explicit authority or pausing programs until statutory backing is restored.
The bill cleans code text but leaves open key implementation questions. Most importantly, it provides no transitional rules clarifying whether agreements entered under the repealed provision remain valid or whether counterparty reliance on that language affects enforceability.
That creates a legal and operational gray zone: courts often enforce contracts independently of statutory authorizations, but absent explicit statutory backing, some counterparties may seek renegotiation or refuse to renew arrangements.
Another tension lies in the unknowns about redundancy: if the authority for securities lending exists elsewhere in statute, the repeal will be largely symbolic; if not, the removal could strip an express statutory authorization and force the Treasurer and fund managers to rely on general fiduciary or investment statutes. The compressed timeline created by the emergency clause increases risk because administrative owners have limited time to inventory and remediate affected contracts, and the bill does not allocate resources or set a process for legislative follow‑up.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.