Ballot initiative for removal of Flock cameras in Pocatello to be launched at Saturday town hall
Published at | Updated at
POCATELLO – People will have the chance to offer their signature towards the removal of a controversial technology from the Gate City at an upcoming town hall meeting.
Attendees of the town hall, scheduled for Saturday, will hear comments from City Councilman Hayden Paulsen and Deflock Idaho organizer Brian McKellar about Flock cameras. Paulsen, who is organizing the event, plans to present a petition to launch a municipal initiative aimed at removing the cameras from the city.
But Paulsen said the town hall is open to anyone, regardless of where they stand on Flock cameras.
“We’re really trying to make it very welcoming to anybody, no matter your opinion,” Paulsen said. “You can come with your protest signs. You can also just come to chat.”
RELATED | Tort claim, vandalized cameras and eastern Idahoans up in arms about Flock cameras
The town hall will be held under the pavilion at Sister City Park, starting at 1 p.m. on Saturday. Paulsen expects it to last for around two hours.
Flock Safety was founded in 2017, and its cameras didn’t reach eastern Idaho until 2024. Pocatello City Council voted to approve the purchase of Flock cameras in December of that year, with Idaho Falls following the next year.
Paulsen was the only Pocatello council member to vote against the approval. Council members Dakota Bates, Ann Swanson and Stacy Satterfield were not on the City Council at the time of the vote, and Mayor Mark Dahlquist had not taken office yet.
RELATED | Are they worth it? Pocatello City Council discusses Flock cameras after public outcry
At the town hall, Paulsen plans to focus his remarks on the basics of what Flock cameras are and how they’ve been implemented in Pocatello. But more than that, Paulsen wants to hear from his constituents.
“You can vent. You can ask questions. We can have a dialogue. Whatever your heart desires,” Paulsen said.
McKellar plans to talk about the capabilities of Flock cameras, what they could be capable of in the future, as well as methods citizens can use to acquire records about them, take legal action against them and push to have them banned. These can take the form of FOIA requests, tort claims or ballot initiatives.
“A lot of (what I’ll speak on is) how to get active. I mean, you can file a tort claim if you want. … Talking to your legislator is another (way). Getting involved in an initiative is another. Just getting people to do anything other than just complain on social media is going to be more helpful,” McKellar said.
In order for Paulsen’s petition to go before the city clerk, it must have 20 verifiable signatures on it. If those signatures are verified, the petition becomes official.
For the petition to officially be adopted as a ballot measure, Idaho code states that it must receive verified signatures from at least 20% of the total number of people who voted in the last odd-numbered election year, according to a write-up from the city of Boise.
EastIdahoNews.com previously reported that 12,770 people voted in the 2025 municipal election in Pocatello. So for Paulsen’s measure to officially make it on the ballot, it would need to garner around 2,554 verified signatures. These signatures would need to be gained within 180 days after it receives an official ballot title from the city clerk.
RELATED | How many precincts flipped during the Idaho Falls and Pocatello runoff elections?
But the City Council must hold a public hearing on the proposed measure after the signature requirement is met. The council would then have the option to adopt the proposed measure without it having to go on the ballot.
But if the council doesn’t adopt the measure, it would go on the November 2027 ballot to be voted on by Pocatello residents. To pass, it would need to earn a simple majority of the votes.
Paulsen told EastIdahoNews.com why he’s opposed to Flock cameras.
“I’ve never known a life without increasing surveillance, and why does it have to be that way? I really disagree that heavy-handed, omniscient surveillance is the answer. I really don’t think it is,” he said.