Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “Day: May 18, 2026”

Idaho’s own civil war intensifies

May 18, 2026

The civil war between the two factions of Idaho’s Republican Party has heated up with the approach of the May 19 primary election. The outcome of the contested GOP races will determine the political direction of next year’s Legislature. If the far-right extremist faction gets the most seats, Idaho will experience another chaotic session of mindless budget cutting and culture war legislation. If the more reasonable and pragmatic faction prevails, Idaho may return to a period of responsible problem-solving governing.

Senator Jim Guthrie of McCammon has become a focal point of the GOP warfare. Guthrie has been heavily targeted by Attorney General Labrador and his fellow extremists for standing up and speaking out for his constituents in District 28. Labrador has publicly endorsed his opponent, David Worley, a disgraced National Guard officer.

In response, Idaho’s Governor, Lt. Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, and Superintendent of Public Instruction, representing the more reasonable GOP faction, have voiced strong support for Guthrie. The five constitutional officers praised Guthrie’s “conservative, common-sense leadership” and advocacy for fiscal responsibility, agriculture, public safety and rural communities.

Guthrie’s campaign has gotten substantial support from a wide range of agricultural and business interests, as well as fellow legislators. It was not uncommon in past elections for incumbent legislators to support or oppose other candidates for legislative office. This election has seen a troubling new development where incumbents employ political action committees (PACs) to target or support other candidates. The obvious purpose is to build personal empires in the Legislature.

Rep. Josh Tanner, who brought chaos to the budget writing process as co-chair of JFAC, the budgeting committee, is in charge of a PAC with $200,000 to spend on legislative races. The money was gifted to his Idaho Summit PAC by Joe C. Russell of Boise. Tanner can parcel the money out as he wishes. Contributions can be made in any amount he sees fit because the $1,000 contribution limit does not apply to PACs.

The 36-18-1 PAC set up by Rep. Jordan Redman, a hardline culture warrior, is of much greater concern. Redman appointed his father, a former Idaho legislator, as chairman of the PAC. Redman has contributed $350,000 to the PAC, which has heaped sizable donations upon other extremist candidates, some of whom are targeting sitting legislators. Worley has gotten $15,883 from the PAC to fuel his scorched-earth campaign against Sen. Guthrie. Sen. Jim Woodward, an outstanding legislator from District 1, was surprised that his culture warrior opponent got $5,632 from the Redman PAC. He said he thought he had a working relationship with Redman, “but it’s obvious, at this point, we don’t.” Redman’s ploy will grow the toxic legislative atmosphere.

The Redman PAC has showered over $40,000 on extremist candidates seeking to defeat incumbent members of the Idaho House. The incumbents are all part of the GOP’s reasonable faction. Rep. Ben Fuhriman of District 30B and Rep Mark Sauter of District 1A, both of whom are effective and conscientious legislators, have been targeted by the Redman PAC.

The PAC has directed $16,478 to District 6A candidate Colton Bennett, an extremely far right candidate. Redman donated $17,383 to Rep. Kyle Harris in District 7A, $14,699 to Rep. Barbara Ehardt in District 33A, $15,374 to Rep. Steve Tanner in District 13B $13,751 to Rep. Tanya Burgoyne in District 29B and $16,732 to Rep. Chris Bruce of District 23A. The Redman PAC gave $16,732 to far-right extremist Rep. Elaine Price to fuel her mean-spirited campaign against Christa Hazel. Hazel is a remarkable person who played a key role in stopping the MAGA faction’s war against North Idaho College.

Unless there is proof of campaign coordination between these legislative PACs and their candidates, they might not violate the law. However, PACs were originally envisioned as a way for individuals with shared interests—such as members of a labor union or employees of a corporation—to pool their voluntary contributions to support political candidates. They were not intended to provide a means for individual contributors, like Joe C. Russell or Jordan Redman, to skirt the contribution limit that applies to everyone else. While a PAC is not subject to contribution limits, it violates the law when it coordinates with a candidate on campaign matters. With the close proximity of Redman, the Redman PAC and its culture war recipients, there is the distinct smell of impropriety.

However, there is an added unsavory element in the Redman arrangement. While Redman could not personally contribute more than $1,000 to any candidate, he is using the PAC as a conduit to get around the limit. He is clearly directing the money to his extremist friends by routing it through the PAC. Redman has admitted as much in a report in the Kootenai Journal that includes these quotes– “I’m supporting primary challengers”; “If the legislators I’m targeting;” and “I should also be clear about who I’m backing.” If this is not an unlawful dodge, it should certainly be made so by corrective legislation.

What can a voter do to combat this chicanery? First, become informed about the candidates supported by the Redman PAC. A good source of information is the voter guide at Takebackidaho.com. It contains detailed information about candidates in the contested races. Second, vote in Idaho’s May 19 primary election. It is essential for the reasonable GOP faction to turn out in large numbers to vote because this is where most legislators will be chosen. Unaffiliated voters can register to vote in the GOP primary on or before election day. If they would do so, they could help keep some of the culture war extremist legislators out of the next legislative session.

 

Feeling left out of redistricting?

Feeling left out of redistricting?

May 18, 2026

Are you feeling left out of all the gerrymandering action around the country? Are you wondering why the Northwest — even defined broadly — isn’t getting in all the fun of parties redrawing their congressional district maps to do everything they can to wipe out the other side?

It’s just not as easy for the Northwest as in some places. With California already done and gerrymandered, we’re probably going to have to watch most of this action from afar.

To see why, let’s start with the smaller-population states.

Alaska and Wyoming have only one representative apiece, so there are no district lines to redraw.

Montana in this decade regained the second district it once had, and the line between the two districts is new. But it actually resembles the way Montana was split decades ago, with westside and eastside districts. While the approach may benefit Democrats a little more than Republicans, the fact is both districts have been decisively red through this decade. Not much joy for either party there.

Idaho, with two districts, is similar: Both are strongly Republican in a strongly Republican state. There would be no way for Democrats to redraw the lines (even if they were able) to significantly improve their odds. That might change somewhat if the state gains, as it likely will, a third House seat with the next census, but not until then.

Oregon offers a few more possibilities, for Republicans. The congressional map now is what you might call a light gerrymander, designed to give Democrats — who do get the larger share of votes overall —  five out of six congressional districts, rather than the four of six that voting patterns would suggest. But at least one of those districts, the 5th, is closely competitive, and a Republican did win it in 2022.

Early on in the last redistricting process, Oregon Democrats considered a map that might make that fifth district darker blue by splitting the Portland metro area a little more deeply. That theoretically could be revived, but in truth it probably would make little difference now.

And if Republicans abruptly were able to control the Oregon process and design a map of their dreams? By consolidating the bulk of the Portland metro area into two districts, and splitting certain other places like Lane County, they could plausibly develop a map with three Democratic and three Republican districts. Maybe. But Republican control of that sort isn’t in view.

The one state where the party in charge would have a more practical shot at gaining a district — just one at most — would be Washington state.

There, 10 districts now are split between eight Democratic (one of those barely, and recently, Republican) and two Republican, so you wouldn’t expect Democrats to find much room to maneuver. (Republicans, were they able, probably could draw maps splitting the state evenly between the parties).

However, unlikely as it sounds, maps intended to change the Washington split to nine Democrats and one Republican are circulating. Most of the districts look like a thinly-sliced pie centered on Seattle. Portions of strongly Democratic King County (Seattle) would help populate seven or eight of the state’s districts. The only Republican district, number 5, left under this plan would be located in the southeast corner of the state, anchored by Spokane and Walla Walla.

As one sarcastic Facebook commenter said, “You know it’s a good map when downtown Seattle is in the same district as Spokane valley.”

Back to reality: None of that is likely to happen, though it’s not impossible.

There is no path to doing it this year, since Washington state (like Idaho and many other states) uses a bipartisan redistricting commission (established in 1983) to redraw the maps, and it is not scheduled to meet again until after the next census. It could reconvene before then only with a two-thirds vote of the legislature.

Virginia had a similar situation, but its legislature voted to change the state constitution to allow for a temporary redistricting change, which was approved by the voters, and later thrown out in court.

Washington’s legislature would need at least two-thirds of each chamber to approve such a change, and while Democrats have decisive control at Olympia, they’re well short of that mark. Republicans, of course, are far further away from it. Any constitutional change, as in Virginia, also would have to go to the voters for approval.

In January, Washington House Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon of West Seattle proposed a constitutional amendment to allow this kind of congressional redistricting if another state triggered it by redistricting first. The proposal failed to pass, but he warned: “Washington state is not going to just sit by while Donald Trump and his allies in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio seek to rig the US House to lock in a Republican majority.”

The odds probably don’t favor such Democratic supermajorities even in this blue-trending year. But if it does happen, a new map could be on the table. Washington state Democratic Chair Shasti Conrad told the New York Times: “People have been asking, ‘What can Washington do with redistricting?’ They’re seeing other states like Virginia do it, so why can’t we?”

The Northwest isn’t redistricting central. But don’t write it off completely.