Posts published in “Jones”

Attorney General Labrador is embroiled once more in a conflict-of-interest lawsuit. He is now accused of using his position to bias voters against Proposition One, the initiative designed to strike Idaho’s total abortion ban. The proponents of the initiative took him to court last year, claiming he had written deceptive ballot titles for the initiative. The Idaho Supreme Court ruled that the short title was improper and ordered Labrador to revise it. He is now accused of misleading voters with confusing language about the effect of their vote.

Regardless of how the Court rules, the crux of the problem is Labrador’s glaring conflict of interest. His primary objective in office has been to rack up political points by trying to stamp out abortion in every form. He fought against a federal law requiring emergency care for pregnant women in crisis. He fought to criminalize doctors who refer women out of state to obtain abortion care. That did not end well because after two years of litigation, he agreed he was wrong. The State had to pay $400,000 in attorney fees for his obstinance. He teamed up with a Christian Nationalist group, Alliance Defending Freedom, in a Texas lawsuit to ban Mifepristone and Misoprostol, two drugs used for early termination of a pregnancy. That suit was dismissed for being filed in the wrong state, so he joined a similar suit in Missouri to limit Mifepristone.

And that is just a taste of Labrador’s bias. He has fully embraced the 2026 Platform of the Idaho Republican Party. Article14 of the Platform says: “human personhood begins at the moment of fertilization…the act of abortion is murder…We support the criminalization of all murders by abortion within the state’s jurisdiction.” That includes “persons conceived in rape and incest.” That’s about as far-reaching as you could get. No wonder the proponents of Prop One are skeptical of the ballot language. Idaho’s abortion laws are among the strictest in the country. But Labrador’s over-the-top enforcement of them has endangered women and caused about 35% of Idaho’s doctors who practice obstetrics to leave the state or quit practicing.

With that track record it should have been clear to him that he had a clearcut conflict of interest in characterizing the effect of a vote either way on Prop One. Every lawyer in the state, including government lawyers, must avoid conflicts of interest. Yet, Mr. Labrador has a solid track record of engaging in that prohibited conduct. He famously took legal action against two of his own client agencies–the Department of Health and Welfare and the Idaho Board of Education– and was removed from both cases by two different judges for his obvious conflicts of interest.

Another lawsuit brought against Labrador by proponents of the Open Primaries Initiative claimed that he wrote biased ballot titles for that measure. The Supreme Court agreed that the titles were misleading and ordered him to rewrite them. The situation could have been avoided if Labrador had recognized his evident conflict of interest. He came out publicly against that initiative beforehand and had no business drafting the titles.

During my eight years as Idaho Attorney General, conflicts occasionally arose. It was not only unethical to ignore a conflict but easily addressed by obtaining unbiased counsel to handle the matter. For instance, in 1986 state Sen. Jim Risch insisted on running an initiative to establish a state lottery after I told him it required a constitutional amendment instead of a mere initiative. His initiative was approved by the voters but challenged in court. I concluded it would be a conflict to defend the lawsuit. Instead of ignoring the conflict, I deputized a reputable Boise law firm, Hawley Troxell, to defend the suit on a pro bono basis. Labrador should have recused himself from writing the Prop One description because of his obvious conflict. Idaho’s respected Secretary of State could have done an unbiased job on his own.

Violating conflicts of interest rules can result in substantial embarrassment to the violator, as Mr. Labrador learned last year. Ever since Idaho obtained statehood in 1890, the Attorney General has served as a member of the State Land Board, but also as legal advisor for the Board. Last year, for the first time in Idaho history, the Board voted to obtain independent counsel. Ouch! That had to hurt. Labrador found himself on the short end of a 4-1 vote.

Labrador claimed the Board did not want to be told “no” on various issues. The dramatic change was more a matter of trust. Those closest to us usually know us best. If a client cannot trust its lawyer, or the lawyer engages in unethical conduct, the client has the right to go elsewhere for legal representation.

 

It is not likely that most Idahoans would support the State of Idaho becoming a permanent host for one-third of America’s nuclear waste. But that will be our lot if Governor Little signs a Host Agreement with the US Department of Energy (DOE) for establishment of a Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Center (NLIC) at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). The Governor claims that Idaho will not be the permanent resting place for the waste, but common sense and history tell us otherwise.

The Trump Administration’s grand plan for promoting nuclear energy and handling nuclear waste originated with Project 2025, which was Trump’s blueprint for remaking America in his image. Russell Vought, Trump’s budget director, was a chief architect of Project 2025. It initially called for the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada to become the permanent nuclear waste dumping ground. Trump distanced himself from that recommendation because of concerns raised by Republican officials in Nevada. Idaho’s Republican officials don’t seem to mind having the Gem State become a final resting place for the waste, or perhaps they don’t have the courage of their Nevada counterparts.

The recently announced proposal to greatly expand the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) is exciting. In order to become a Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Center (NLIC), Idaho merely needs to agree to take and store one-third of the nuclear waste generated across the country. The documents released by Governor Little extol the virtues of the plan, but I was unable to find a significant element in the sheaf of papers. There is no mention of where the water will come from to fuel the fantastic growth of the INL.

The Governor does say at page 14 of his plan: “Idaho is prepared to identify sources of readily accessible on-site water supplies capable of meeting industrial-scale needs, including cooling systems for reactors and reprocessing facilities.” However, it is not clear to many who are familiar with the water demands currently being made upon the East Snake River Plain Aquifer (ESPA), where those sources might be. The wording– “industrial-scale needs”--implies a lot of water. The Governor should identify those “readily accessible” water supplies to ease the concerns of Idaho water users.

Most water observers understand that the ESPA is greatly overburdened already, creating bitter conflicts over its declining water supplies. As Dan Davidson, a career water manager, succinctly put it, “Idaho does not have enough water.” He correctly says that the ESPA “remains at historic lows” and that this year’s “record water demand, drought conditions and depleted water availability are red flag warnings.” Water users are continually fighting over allocation and usage of Snake River waters, resulting in numerous curtailments of water for many users.

The US Department of Energy (DOE) entered into a Water Right Agreement with the State of Idaho in 1990. As Idaho Attorney General at the time, I signed that agreement along with former Governor Cecil Andrus. The Agreement set the terms and quantity of the INL’s water rights. The Agreement was approved by the Adjudication Court. In order to increase its water usage, as contemplated by Governor Little’s plan, INL must acquire a new water right, which would come at the expense of existing uses. That might cause the agricultural community to rise up in righteous anger.

Many Snake River water right holders have had their water usage curtailed in recent water shortage years, but the DOE has asserted that the State does not have “any right to curtail or otherwise administer DOE’s adjudicated water rights” at the INL. A recent decision by the Director of the Idaho Department of Water Resources found that this was a matter to be decided by the Adjudication Court. The State planned against such a claim years ago, so INL is likely to lose the claim that it should have its full water right while all other water users have their water curtailed.

Page 39 of the Governor’s plan throws another fly into the ointment. It says: “While water rights on-site are sufficient for current operations, precise management will be critical as NLIC activities increase water demand. The state anticipates significant adoption of sustainable water practices such as recycling and non-water cooling technologies for data centers to mitigate demand on the aquifer.” So, despite the uncontested fact that the ESPA is already significantly over-appropriated, there are plans for data centers? The Governor did state it in the plural.

One does not have to be an expert to understand that data centers require massive amounts of electricity and water to operate. The public is starting to awaken to the fact, as shown by two laws enacted by the Legislature this year. Rep. Stephanie Mickelsen’s House Bill 911 protects electric ratepayers from higher bills resulting from large electricity users like data centers. Rep. Britt Raybould’s House Bill 895 protects against excessive water grabs by data centers. We can’t allow data centers to cause electric rates to skyrocket for the general public or to impinge on the water rights of farmers, businesses and consumers. There must be clearcut requirements for data centers to be wholly responsible for their own electric and water usage.

The unfortunate thing is that data centers at the INL may not be subject to state and local control under the Governor’s plan. The Trump administration has been pushing to locate data centers on federally controlled property for this very reason.

The upshot is that the State should not rush headlong into signing a binding agreement to take one-third of the nuclear waste in the country unless and until there is a clear and binding agreement as to how the INL will obtain the supplies of water and electricity to fill its substantial and increasing needs, without jeopardizing the rights of existing water users and ratepayers. It would not be asking too much for the DOE to commit in writing that it will not use a declaration of national security necessity to get around existing state laws.

Back in the early 1990s, Idaho’s former Attorney General and Lt. Governor, Dave Leroy, was a very lonely nuclear waste salesman. During his three years (1990-93) as United States Nuclear Waste Negotiator, he wandered the country and beyond, trying to find some state, tribal or territorial government willing to become the nation’s nuclear waste repository. He was treated as a pariah. The New York Times reported Leroy as saying that all the people with whom he needs to negotiate will not be caught dead talking to him. My, how times have changed. Now, five states, including Idaho, are begging to be one of three repositories of high-level nuclear waste in exchange for undefined and unfunded future benefits.

According to the US Department of Energy (DOE), the country has more than 90,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants and about 90 million gallons of radioactive waste from the nation’s nuclear weapons program. That makes it easy to calculate Idaho’s one-third share of the nuclear waste pie. There is no indication of the benefits to be bestowed on the three states and absolutely no money available in the federal till to pay for them. It’s all a matter of faith. Perhaps it is better stated that Idaho and the other states are being asked to buy a nuclear waste pig in a poke–just commit up front to take the waste and the feds will tell you the payoff sometime down the road.

The proposal to make Idaho a “Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus” was apparently initiated with Governor Brad Little’s issuance of Executive Order 2025-06, which established the Idaho Advanced Nuclear Energy Task Force last September. The Task Force includes about 20 Idaho luminaries–the Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Director of the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and a variety of others. They worked together to formulate a proposal to the DOE. Idaho was picked as one of the five finalist states. They all signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with DOE to negotiate a Host Agreement “for the acceptance of out-of-state used nuclear fuel, spent nuclear fuel, and high-level radioactive waste.” The word “temporary” appears nowhere in the MOU.

If Idaho is selected as one of three repositories, we will start receiving nuclear waste from around the country and will undoubtedly start searching for another location dumb enough to act as a permanent dumping ground. Let’s be honest, it will even be a tougher job than that which confronted Dave Leroy those many years ago. Governor Little fantasizes that Utah might be willing to take the nuclear waste from Idaho, but that is a pipe dream. Why would Utah take the waste if it does not get the commensurate benefits that are being dangled to attract the three repository states?

The fact is that no other state or tribal government will take any finalist’s third of the waste. All three will become the de facto final repositories for existing waste, as well as the 2,000 metric tons per year that DOE expects to be generated in the future.

That being the case, Idahoans should ask some searching questions and get some firm commitments from the federal government before blundering into a Host Agreement that will be legally binding upon the State. Where and how will the waste be stored? What will be its effect on the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer? What safeguards will be imposed by the federal government? Exactly what projects will Idaho receive at the INL in exchange for being a permanent repository, and how will funding be guaranteed?

All branches of the federal government must provide binding funding and safeguard guarantees because it would be too easy for disputes to arise between agencies, as well as current and future Congresses and Presidents. Our current Senators, Risch and Crapo, as well as Congressman Mike Simpson, are cheerleaders for the Task Force nuclear waste plan. The plan originated with Donald Trump. If Idaho is to become a final dumping ground for the nation’s nuclear waste, there must be some sort of hefty trust fund established and funded to back up the promises and guarantees.

These are just a few of the questions that must be answered before Idaho buys into this nuclear waste pig in a poke. Don’t get me wrong. I have been a steadfast supporter of the INL since my Valley High School class took a field trip to the INL in the late 1950s. Both the State and Nation should support its pioneering work into the future. However, all Idahoans have an unqualified right to express their opinion and communicate their concerns to the proponents of this loosey-goosey proposal.

 

Idaho’s Attorney General told us on March 31 that he and 23 other GOP state attorneys general were going to school the US Supreme Court on the issue of birthright citizenship. Even before the thirteen colonies gave birth to the United States, we have regarded all children born on American soil to be citizens, except for those of diplomats. That principle was written into the Constitution of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment, which was adopted in 1868. It has been the law of the land ever since.

Labrador got honked off when I wrote an opinion piece saying he was dead wrong. He responded with a column charging me with “credibility problems.” I’ll let readers make their own decision on that. However, even the rightward leaning Supreme Court did not buy the Labrador argument. Once again, those who gained US citizenship by having been born on American soil can rest easy. We have not heard a word from him about that spectacular loss or how much he spent on his wild goose chase.

Labrador is at it again with a July 23 Facebook post celebrating the 43,000 arrests made by ICE in June. He proclaimed that “every one of those arrests is a win for the person who’s been waiting their turn in line to immigrate legally.” That is not necessarily true because ICE has notoriously been arresting people who are citizens or otherwise legally present in the United States.

A Mexican national, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, who had lived in Houston for over 35 years, built a successful business, sent three sons to college and was waiting to get legal status, was killed by an ICE officer on July 7. He was not the person being targeted by ICE and was apparently not suspected of wrongdoing, but that did not seem to matter. His only offense was appearing to be Hispanic. A case of racial profiling.

Joan Sebastian Duran Guerrero, a food delivery driver from Columbia, was shot dead by an ICE officer in Biddeford, Maine, a week later. He was legally in the country, had a Social Security card and was not a target of ICE’s large dragnet. He, too, received the death penalty because of his looks. Guerrero’s executioner was a mentally troubled individual with a history of violence.

We have sort of gotten used to ICE’s brutal tactics. After all, Renee Good and Alex Pretti were killed by ICE agents in January. We have seen the bystander videos, which indicate the shootings were completely unjustified. ICE stonewalled the local prosecutors for months, only turning over evidence of the shootings on July 13.

It may be difficult for local authorities to prosecute ICE agents who perpetrate violent acts against immigrants and their supporters so long as Donald Trump controls the US Department of Justice. However, once a new president is elected in 2028, a new administration may be able to bring the perpetrators to justice. Thugs take heed!

Labrador may be misreading the mood of the public on the brutal tactics of ICE. We were told early on that ICE would target “the worst of the worst.” That was fine with many people, but it turns out that the ICE deportation machine is sweeping up substantially more law-abiding immigrants than dangerous criminals. In fact, an increasing number of detainees do not have any criminal history.

Focusing on Idaho, for years we’ve had a fairly stable population of about 35,000 undocumented immigrants. Most are here performing work that Idahoans will no longer do–working the fields and milking cows. Others are performing work where there are not enough workers to meet the demand–construction, child and elder care, landscaping and the like. Many have established community roots. They are our friends and neighbors. Their kids grow up as citizens and enrich our state.

We have witnessed the abusive tactics of ICE in Wilder, Idaho, where its agents and a host of supporting law enforcement swooped down on a festive crowd of over 500 people gathered to watch horse races. The purported objective was to arrest 4-5 people suspected of gambling, but the agents manhandled hundreds of attendees without grounds to suspect them of criminal activity. Children were zip-tied and frightened for no legitimate reason. Other than the 4-5 suspected gamblers, the only crime of the hundreds of others appeared to be their Hispanic heritage. There was no public statement from Labrador about the propriety of this obnoxious operation.

However, he has expressed full support for the 2026 Republican platform, which states: “We oppose supporting illegal aliens by way of free access to housing, healthcare, technology, voting rights, or an unearned path to amnesty…” Undocumented folks do not qualify for such benefits. On the other hand, the workers contribute substantially to the support of governmental programs.

A creditable calculation determined that they paid $96.7 billion in federal, state and local taxes in 2022, of which $70.9 million were paid in Idaho. $59.4 billion went to the federal government, with $25.7 billion going to Social Security taxes and $6.4 billion going to Medicare taxes. They are barred from receiving benefits from both programs.

My unsolicited advice to the Attorney General is to get your facts straight before badmouthing the people who put food on your table. And don’t stand silent while ICE targets people just because of their Hispanic heritage. Everyone in Idaho deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.

 

The mood of Idaho voters is changing. Regular folks are starting to realize that culture war politicians have no concern about the lives of ordinary people. It is easy to scare up votes with fake fear and outrage. It is a completely different matter for dedicated public servants to dig in and figure out how to help average folks deal with unaffordable housing and healthcare or just put enough food on the table to keep their families healthy.

Voters in the Gem State have seen the danger of placing their fate in the hands of extremists who are more interested in perpetuating their grip on power than solving problems. Culture war legislation does not address any of the real problems facing Idahoans. The outcome of the May primary election demonstrated that Idaho voters have had their fill of those who won’t get serious about making life better for the people. The overall results favored reasonable candidates. The November election promises to be even more challenging for extremists.

The ground is fertile for the top Republican officials on the November ballot to be defeated. The Governor and members of Idaho’s Congressional delegation are in drastic need of replacement. The Governor has essentially given in to the culture war crowd, failing to advocate against their mind-numbing legislation or utilize his veto stamp to kill it. Our entire Congressional delegation is too frightened of the president to perform their constitutional duty to act as a check on harmful executive decisions.

There are good candidates for these offices. But there are too many candidates, both Independents and Democrats, to get the job done. It is time for the candidates running for those offices to wake up and smell the coffee. Those who have little chance of prevailing in a race should stand back so the strongest candidate can have the stage. Political party should not matter, because the platforms of most of the challengers are largely the same. It is a matter of who has the best chance of winning.

Take the Governor’s race. Either John Stegner or Terri Pickens would be a refreshing change from Governor Little. The fact is, though, that if both are on the November ballot, Little will win. I’m not suggesting who should bow out, but it should be the one with the least voter support by the end of August. This year, a candidate must withdraw by September 4. If not, they will appear on the ballot, handing victory to Brad Little.

Todd Achilles, an Independent, has an excellent chance of beating Senator Jim Risch. Greg Casey, a highly influential Republican, tells why in his must-read Lewiston Tribune opinion piece–”As an Idahoan, I cannot be a ‘go along’ Republican anymore.”

David Roth, the Democratic candidate, seems to be a fine fellow. But he lost a 2022 campaign against Senator Crapo by a wide margin (61%-29%). He lost a 2024 campaign against Congressman Simpson, by a margin of 61%-31%. Natalie Fleming is running as an Independent. She is a good person but has less of a chance of prevailing than Roth.

The question is whether Roth and Fleming will step aside and let Achilles, the candidate best positioned to replace Risch, have a clear field. By hanging in there, with no chance of winning, they risk being regarded as spoilers who enabled Risch to have another term to continue his dereliction of duty. Two things are certain–Risch will be forever thankful if they stay in the race, while most Idahoans will be grateful if they withdraw.

There are several candidates running against Congressman Simpson. Ellie Gilbreath, the Democratic candidate, seems the best positioned to succeed, although it will be extremely tough for any of them. There are two Independents, Emre Houser and Tripp Hutchinson, both of whom appear to be short on finances and political knowhow. It would be great if the three could decide who has the best chance of winning and clear the field.

Much the same situation exists in the First Congressional District. The Democratic candidate, Kaylee Peterson, is a remarkable young woman. She has run two unsuccessful challenges against Congressman Fulcher, who is in desperate need of replacement. The situation is further complicated by an Independent, Sarah Zabel, a retired Air Force Major General. She is also a remarkable candidate. I hope they can make a pragmatic decision on who has the best chance of retiring Fulcher.

These challengers have gut-wrenching decisions to make. In my estimation, personal pride and party affiliation should not play a part. With the future of Idaho at stake, the candidates with the least chance of bringing positive change should withdraw and allow the strongest to have the field to themselves.

 

The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has certainly been remaking the American legal landscape in recent years, but not in a good way. The GOP majority has just finished gutting the Voting Rights Act of 1965, has allowed billions more to be spent on political campaigns, and has given a green light to political gerrymandering. The majority seems to regard itself as an unaccountable super legislature. It may well be.

Longevity in these exalted positions of unchecked power often breeds arrogance, a sense of entitlement and the temptation for political activism. We have witnessed too many instances in recent years where SCOTUS members have misused their positions to advance the interests of themselves or their political friends.