Previous posts described an attempt by the ACLU to have the short and long titles of the anti-gay Idaho Citizens Alliance changed to reflect the discriminatory effects. The titles appear on petitions and could appear on the Nov. 94 ballot if the ICA gathers over 32,000 signatures by July 94. FROM the Idaho Statesman Wednesday, August 4 1993 **reprinted without permission** HIGH COURT ACCEPTS ANTI-GAY INITATIVE TITLES Justices approve titles, but say the initative itself raises "serious questions." By the Associated Press and Statesman staff. The Idaho Supreme Court on Tuesday certified the ballot titles Attorney Genery Larry EchoHawk wrote for the proposed anti-gay initiative, rejecting challenges rom both supports and opponents of the measure. But two justices -- Byron Johnson and Stephen Bistline -- made clear in a brief concurring opinion that the court's unanimous decision should not be viewed as a rejection of the substance of the attack on the initaitve by the American Civil Liberties Union. "There are serious questions concerning the vagueness of some of the terms of the proposed act," Johnson wrote. "If the initative is successfull, I will be prepared to address challenges to the act." George Patterson, chairman of the Idaho ACLU chapter's legal committee, said he wasn't surprised by the court's "practical, rather than principled" decision. The concurrences by Johnson and Bistline, he said, were more encouraging. "They represent two-thirds of the maority needed to declare this initiative unconstitutional. And we will be back to challenge its constitutionality," Patterson said. He said he expects the initiative to follow in the footsteps of Colorado's anti-gay Amendment 2, which was declared unconstitutional last month by that state's high court. Kelly Walton, who organized the Idaho Citizens Alliance and launced the initative campaign, called the court ruling a major victory. "If the ACLU had been successful, that would have cost us a lot of votes," Walton said. "We got what we wanted. The only reason I appealed was to counterbalance the ACLU. I'm glad the court decided to see through the dog and pony show." The Supreme Court decision ended the pre-election legal battle over the initative that would prohibit granting minority status to homosexuals -- what initiative supporters call special rights. The state does not recognize homosexuals as a minority now. The proposal also would ban same-sex marriages, which are not legal in Idaho now, and prohibit the expenditure of public money in any way to portray homosexuality as acceptable. It would allow private sexual conduct to be considered as a factor in public employment. The initiative has been condemned by most public officals and state Democratic Party as fostering hatred and divisiveness. The State Republican Party has declined to take a position on it. In its campaign to head off a public vote on the initiative, the ACLU attacked as insufficient or unfair both the short and long ballot titles the attorney general provides to summarize ballot issues. It wanted the title to flatly say the initiative was intended to discriminate against homosexuals. --30--