Posts published in “Day: March 24, 2023”

Elected officials usually express deference toward the people who put them into office, and why not? Those who hire can fire.

A number - many - of Idaho legislators this year have conveyed very much the opposite, and why not? They probably figure - and may be right - their prospects of getting the boot are remote.

The hook for this thought last week was the lengthy House floor debate of House Bill 339, which was one of the more notable - albeit not heavily headlined - measures of the year.

It called for a ballot issue, “to allow Idaho voters the opportunity to indicate their support or opposition to the question: Should the State of Idaho, the Idaho Legislature, or any state agency direct or appropriate public tax dollars to private K-12 schools, including private religious schools, and for-profit schools? The advisory vote would take place during the November 2024 statewide general election.”

The bill failed 27-43, and I won’t take sides on that. I was drawn into this not by the virtues of the bill but by an argument among legislators related to it.

The sponsor, Lewiston Republican Lori McCann, said the school funding question has come up repeatedly at the legislature, and she (and other bill backers) advised “taking the temperature” of the Idaho electorate about it.

Some opponents to the bill seemed to think, wrongly, McCann was a proposing an initiative that would bypass the legislature. But the idea that legislators should even know or care about the people’s attitude was what drew the strongest response.

Oakley Representative Douglas Pickett spoke glowingly of the wonders of debate in the Statehouse, but “this bill would rob anybody of any opportunity to have the benefit of that conversation.” Pickett expressed direct concern about thinly informed constituents, though he did not indicate that was a problem in voting for legislators. (Of course, in his part of Idaho actual contested races are scarce.)

An ideological gloss was put on this as well. “We are a republic,” Representative Vito Barbieri said: “We’re not a democracy but we're moving in that direction, and that blows my mind.” (Okay.) Remember: The United States and its states are a democracy in a republican form; in the United States these are not separate ideas. A republic not based in democracy is something like, say, Cuba (officially, the Republic of Cuba) or China (the People's Republic of China). Maybe many Idaho legislators would prefer something along those lines.

Is constituent involvement what these legislators really didn't want? With that in mind, this quote (video of which went viral on Twitter) from Idaho Falls Representative Barbara Erhardt jumped out:

“The very first thing I’d submit is that which has very well been crafted [referring to earlier debate], which is, this leads us directly into democracy. And I am opposed to that.”

Some of the Twitter response to this showed what some Idahans might think in response: “We already knew she is opposed to democracy, but I didn't ever think she'd say it out loud so directly.” “Probably the only honest thing she’s said all session. Maybe ever.” “Opposed to Democracy. Just unbelievable.”

Not unbelievable: This is the same group that has voted to virtually eliminate initiatives and curtail voting. It’s of a piece. Whoever they think should be running Idaho, it’s sure not “the people” of the state. Idaho legislators - not all but more than a few - are saying that the public will be emotional and irrational and subject to simplistic argument, while legislators listen to all points of view carefully and soberly and deliver unbiased nuanced decisions. (If you have any familiarity with the sausage-making that is legislating, even in the best of statehouses, I apologize for prompting a gag reflex.)

McCann said in her closing remarks, “I just want to know what is the will of the people of Idaho and I feel like people [in this chamber] are afraid to actually hear what the people want. … I believe strongly in the will of the people.”

Be it noted: She’s not completely alone but definitely in the minority in the Idaho House - and her suggestion of motivation was surely spot on. The question remains: How many more years will the voters of the state put up with it?

(image)