Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “Jones”

Here we go again

January 20, 2025

Dorothy Moon, the current chair of the extremist faction of the Idaho Republican Party, proclaimed on election night that: “We’re not ever going to let Reclaim Idaho bring another initiative.” Moon was honked off that the citizen initiative group had just run a third initiative drive seeking reform of Idaho laws.

Reclaim Idaho ran its first initiative drive in 2017 to expand Medicaid coverage for low-income Idahoans, after the Legislature had refused for years to take a 90% federal match to provide for their medical care. Resistance to that initiative was fierce. Raul Labrador, then running for Governor, claimed: “Nobody dies because they don’t have access to health care.” The voters disagreed and approved the initiative in 2018 with more than a 60% vote. It has been a life-saver for about 100,000 Idahoans of modest means and for counties, whose medical indigency funds were stretched to the limit.

Reclaim’s second initiative, the Quality Education Act, forced a special session of the Legislature in 2022, resulting in an increase of $410 million in K-12 educational funding. That would not have happened without Reclaim’s good work.

The third initiative was designed to break the Moon faction’s control over what kind of Republicans get elected in the closed GOP primary. Moon apparently saw no value in allowing voters to speak their mind on the issue, even though they sided with her.

Moon followed up her election-night vow to stop citizen initiatives with an embarrassing word-salad op-ed that confused constitutional amendments, initiatives and referendums. She proposed “raising the threshold for constitutional amendments by requiring signatures from at least 10% of registered voters in 23 out of 35 legislative districts, up from the current 18 districts. This change aims to strengthen the initiative process, creating a higher threshold for addressing statewide Referendums.” Say, what?

The fact is that constitutional amendments are proposed by the Legislature and do not start with signature drives. Initiatives, which make laws, are completely different from referendums, which veto laws passed by the Legislature. If Moon meant that her 10% of 23 district requirement was intended to apply to initiatives, it would be an unlawful limitation on voter initiative rights that would undoubtedly be challenged in court.

Rep. Bruce Skaug and several other GOP right-wing legislators have proposed another unconstitutional restriction on the right of voters to make laws with the initiative. They would require initiatives to get a 60% vote in order to become law, rather than the current majority vote. That would change over a century of Idaho and most certainly invite a lawsuit. If the Legislature needs only a majority vote to make a law, there is no basis to require 10% more for a voter-approved law.

Skaug seems to believe that the initiative system is “broken” because outside interests put a lot of money into the Prop1 campaign, which failed by a substantial margin. The extreme GOP usually tries to make it harder to run initiatives when one is approved or comes close. Now, any outcome brings calls to squelch the initiative rights of voters.

There is a problem with out-of-state money being spent in Idaho elections, but it is not related to the initiative. Rather, about 1.5 million dollars of dirty money from out-of-state interests flowed into Idaho in the 2024 GOP primary election to defeat reasonable, pragmatic Republicans who opposed school voucher schemes.  Skaug might notice that many of his former colleagues–Julie Yamamoto, Matt Bundy, Melissa Durrant, Kenny Wroten, Chenel Dixon and Greg Lanting–are no longer in the House with him. They were viciously attacked and beaten in the primary by out-of-state monied interests. Several good GOP Senators were also defeated–President Pro Tem Chuck Winder, Goeff Schroeder and Linda Hartgen. Even more tainted money flowed into the state against moderate Democrats in the general election. The real money problem plaguing Idaho is that it is being used to push the Legislature ever-further to the far-right fringes.

Rather than taking away the right of Idaho voters to make laws, perhaps Moon’s extremist faction of the GOP could start acting in the best interests of Idaho voters by adequately funding schools, providing health care to less fortunate Idahoans, and dispensing with pointless culture war issues. If the Legislature would govern in a reasonable, responsive manner, voters might not have the need to initiate laws.

 

Invitation to a lawsuit

January 13, 2025

Despite the fact that Article IX, section 5 of Idaho’s Constitution strictly prohibits using public funds for religious education, Idaho’s spendthrift legislators are at it again. They want to shower taxpayer money upon parents who are sending their kids to private schools, which would open the floodgates to subsidizing religious education.

Here is the grift. The US Supreme Court has twice ruled that if, and only if, states enact a program to subside private education, they must also make program money available for religious schooling. In the latest case, Carson v. Makin, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “A State need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.” The proponents of using public money to finance private and religious schooling totally ignore the words of the Chief Justice. Roberts’ words are a warning regarding the religious consequences of using public money to subsidize private education. So-called “school choice” legislation is a workaround to evade and subvert Article IX, Section 5.

Any scheme to divert taxpayer funds to subsidize private education, whether it is called a school voucher, a tax credit, a school choice payment, a savings account, or whatever else, would necessarily result in subsidization of religious schooling, in direct violation of our Constitution. Indeed, most of the public subsidy would go to religious education. There is solid evidence that about 91% of 2024 subsidy recipients across the country attend religious schools. That would likely be the case in Idaho.

Every legislator was fully advised on January 6 of the unconstitutionality of these subsidy schemes. If they write one into law, it will be a knowing and deliberate violation of the Idaho Constitution and an invitation to a lawsuit.

Idaho’s constitutional framers made it an overriding responsibility for the Legislature to properly fund the public school system, both for the instruction of Idaho kids and for the construction and maintenance of school buildings. They undoubtedly believed that future legislatures would honor that constitutional mandate, but our recent Legislatures have consistently failed on both counts.

Idaho consistently refuses to adequately fund the instructional side of public education.

Every state bordering Idaho provides more funding per student, giving their kids a competitive advantage over Idaho students. The most recent NEA report (2023-24) ranked Idaho 51st in the country with $9,808 per-student spending. Montana ranked 32nd with spending of $15,323 and Wyoming was ranked 14th with $22,032.

In 2005, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled  that the Legislature had utterly failed to fulfill its obligation to fund the construction and maintenance of school buildings, improperly placing the lion’s share of that burden upon local property taxpayers. Unless facilities funding is dramatically increased by the Legislature this year, school districts will either have to try educating kids in substandard, sometimes hazardous buildings, or hit up local property owners with hefty school bonds.

If legislators fork over $50 million tax dollars to pay the religious school expenses of primarily wealthy parents whose kids are not presently enrolled in public schools, that money will undoubtedly reduce the public school appropriation by a comparable amount. Subsidy programs have a voracious appetite, which will cause program spending to skyrocket, which will severely impact spending for public schools, which will make the state a prime target for a new school funding lawsuit.

Rural kids would bear the brunt of school choice schemes. Twenty-seven of Idaho’s 44 counties have zero or one private school. Just 3 counties–Ada, Canyon and Kootenai– have over 63% of private school kids in the state. What possible benefit would public school kids in rural Idaho receive from a voucher law, particularly if it resulted in their school district receiving less funding from the state?

Several religions in Idaho operate religious schools and quite a number do not. The lion’s share of subsidy recipients attend religious schools. Subsidy payments would allow those religions to advocate principles of their faith with public money. This would place churches that do not operate schools in a disadvantageous position. For instance, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has a strong and historic presence in the State of Idaho. Church members have been stalwart supporters of public education, but the church does not operate a system of religious schools. Many Mormon communities are located in rural areas around the state. Mormon public school patrons would suffer disadvantages in a subsidized system–no public funding for church members and a diminution of support for public schools that their kids attend.

Unfortunately, Governor Little has given in to the out-of-state dark money interests and in-state tax-and-spenders. What next? Giving taxpayer money to favored churches?

 

The judge shortage

January 6, 2025

Very few well-qualified lawyers have applied for Idaho district court positions in recent years. District courts handle trials of felony cases, as well as all types of civil cases affecting the lives and property of individuals and businesses.  Putting these disputes in the hands of judges without substantial experience is risky business.

The problem of recruiting experienced candidates for positions on our district courts has reached crisis proportions. Periodic surveys disclose that quite a few smart, capable, middle-aged lawyers, both men and women, are interested in serving in a judicial position. However, the low pay is always named as a substantial roadblock. Almost any seasoned lawyer would have to take a pay cut of well over 50% to be a judge.

The salary concern came front and center in 2022 when the Legislature gave every state employee, except for judges, a 7% cost-of-living pay increase. Idaho judges were already at the bottom of the national pay scale. Comments in the Legislature indicated that the denial of a pay raise was in retaliation for the Idaho Supreme Court’s decision striking down a 2021 bill that would have essentially made it impossible for voters to use their constitutional power to conduct initiatives and referendums.

Some legislators have done everything in their power in these last two sessions to make district and appellate court positions unappetizing–trying to politicize the Idaho Judicial Council selection process, trying to limit or totally do away with a useful retirement option and trying to force contested elections, among other things. Those discouraging efforts have been remarkably successful in reducing the number of highly-qualified candidates who apply for district court positions.

The crux of the problem is that candidates for the district court must have ten years of legal experience–just when talented lawyers start climbing the compensation ladder. Not many of them would opt for a district court position without assurance of a favorable and reliable compensation package.

The current annual salary for district judges is $155,508 or $77.76 per hour for a 40-hour work week. Most of those judges find it necessary to devote 60-80 hours per week to adequately handle their workloads. Seven deputies in the Idaho Attorney General’s office are paid more on an hourly basis than district judges. The Legislature routinely hires lawyers in private practice to represent it in litigation on specific issues at rates exceeding $400 per hour. The district court pay level may seem high to many folks, but lawyers who take cases to court are paid much more for their work. Hiring judges is kind of like getting any other good or service, the cheapest is not usually the best. To get good value, we must generally pay a bit more.

The other judges in our judicial system are also seriously underpaid. The annual pay of Supreme Court Justices is $169,508, which equates to $81.49 per hour, comparable to the pay rate for those seven deputy AGs. Court of Appeals judges are paid $161,508, or $77.65 per hour, and magistrate judges receive $147,508, or $70.92 per hour. Those salaries all need to be increased, but the real crisis is in the district judge ranks. The appellate courts have not been as seriously impacted because those positions are more sought-after for a variety of reasons. Magistrate judge openings currently produce numerous qualified applicants, partly because magistrates do not face election contests.

The solution to the scarcity of seasoned lawyers seeking district court positions is obvious–the Legislature must substantially increase judicial salaries. In the last legislative session, the Supreme Court put forth a bill calling for a 25% increase in judicial salaries over a four-year period–!0% the first year and 5% in each of the next three years. After that, salaries would be set by a nonpartisan citizen commission, just like legislative salaries are handled. It is a worthy proposal.

Idahoans can do a big favor for the courts, and themselves, by vigorously supporting such legislation during the next legislative session. People have much to lose if our courts are deprived of trial judges who understand and can competently decide difficult suits involving the rights of individuals and businesses. Legislators need to know that penny-pinching on judges will endanger the rights of all Idahoans.

 

Remembering Dan Chadwick

December 30, 2024

When I learned of Dan Chadwick’s handling of a truancy case in Payette County, not long after I took office as Attorney General in 1983, I was greatly impressed.  The case produced headlines across the country. Dan was a deputy county prosecutor at the time and he resolved the case by exercising a firm but reasonable approach. I decided he would be just the person to act as legal counsel to Jerry Evans, who was then the State School Superintendent. Dan excelled in that job, which was just part of his record of distinguished public service, right up until he passed away this year on April 23.

In 1985, I tapped Dan to serve as Chief of my Intergovernmental Affairs Division.  For the next five years Dan and his staff provided legal advice to practically every unit of local government throughout the state, as well as a large collection of independent state agencies and commissions. He listened to the concerns of elected and appointed officials of every political persuasion and helped them stay in compliance with the law. His advice likely saved hundreds of thousands of tax dollars over those years.

His reputation as a highly competent attorney and administrator resulted in his selection in 1991 as Executive Director and General Counsel of the Idaho Association of Counties (IAC), a position he held for 27 years until his retirement in 2018. Dan was not a showboat who generated headlines, but he was well known as a go-to problem-solver among officials at all levels of government in Idaho. He was a trusted spokesman for county officials on so many issues, including opposition to unfunded mandates, advocating for state funding of county public defenders and improving county policies and practices for risk management, juvenile corrections, property taxes, substance abuse and mental health.

It is no easy feat to work effectively with 132 headstrong county commissioners and over 260 other elected county officials for such an extended period of time and still be respected by the great majority of them. Dan pulled it off by actually listening to concerns and then working hard to find a solution. Former IAC President, Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson, was right on point in saying: “Dan’s retirement brings us to the end of an era that cannot be equaled. His contributions have been immeasurable.”

Dan was also known and respected by his peers in the National Association of Counties (NACO). When word of his passing spread, tributes from NACO members and officials came in from across the country. A number attended Dan’s memorial service to show their respect for their friend and former associate. Paul Beddoe, a NACO legislative affairs director was quoted in a Chadwick tribute in NACO’s May publication: “He taught me that in lobbying, you never make a permanent friend, and you never make a permanent enemy. You have to treat people with respect and if you just have a disagreement or a tough conversation, don’t take it personally. You can come back and work together on something with those folks on another issue.” That certainly epitomized Dan’s approach.

Last year, Dan told me that he was a firm believer in Thomas Jefferson’s saying: “The government closest to the people serves the people best.” Dan said those in local government positions “use common sense to take care of problems,” while state legislators often choose to “micromanage local affairs and impose one-size-fits-all, statewide solutions for every perceived problem.” Amen!

Although he did not often talk about it, likely because of security concerns, Dan served as a linguist in the US Air Force during the Cold War, learning Serbo-Croation and working with the National Security Agency and intelligence community to protect US interests in that volatile region. He was a decorated patriot.

Following his retirement from IAC, Dan and his lovely wife, Michele, a former County Commissioner for Gem County, operated a government consulting firm. Dan also served as attorney for several cities. I rarely have known a couple so devoted to one another. They demonstrated that there is such a thing as a match made in heaven.

I was privileged to have known Dan. Like the Boy Scout motto, he left his place on the Earth, the State of Idaho, much better than he found it. We sorely need many more dedicated public servants like Dan Chadwick.

 

Two kinds of cases

December 23, 2024

Two headlines in the December 11 issue of the Idaho Capital Sun caught my attention because they typified Raul Labrador’s track record during his two years in office.

While Labrador promised to represent the interests of the people, he has utterly failed to do so. The first headline proclaimed: “Judges in Oregon, Washington, block Kroger-Albertsons supermarket merger.” The second headline said: “Appeals court considers next step for emergency abortion care in Idaho.” In the first instance, Labrador chose to sit out a case that would have increased the grocery bill of Idaho families in areas where Fred Meyer and Albertsons compete for customers. In the second, Labrador has spent an inordinate amount of time trying to prevent women with dangerous pregnancies from getting life-saving care in Idaho emergency rooms.

When the Kroger-Albertsons merger was announced in October of 2022, the anti-competitive implications of the first- and second-largest traditional grocers combining was obvious. It was practically a no-brainer that competition would suffer and grocery prices would rise. In March of 2023, Labrador’s office indicated that he was reviewing the deal. The US Federal Trade Commission and 8 states, including Oregon, Nevada and Wyoming, filed suit against the grocers, claiming that the merger would increase grocery prices in the areas where the two companies competed head-to-head. That was certainly the case in significant portions of the State of Idaho. A US Senator from another neighboring state, Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee, strongly opposed the merger. Washington and Colorado filed separate state lawsuits to stop the merger.

Labrador failed to lift a finger to protect Idahoans from the rising food prices that would have resulted from the merger. On December 10, the US District Court Judge handling the FTC suit halted the merger, ruling that it would harm consumers with rising prices. The Washington state court judge handling that state’s case ruled that it would lessen competition and violate Washington’s consumer protection laws. It would, likewise, have violated Idaho’s protection consumer laws. Although Labrador failed to take any action, Idaho consumers benefited from actions taken by surrounding state Attorneys General.

This is not the only important issue for Idahoans that Labrador has failed to address. When a serious water dispute arose earlier this year between Magic Valley water users and upstream water right holders, the Attorney General failed to take a leadership role in trying to resolve it. Previous Idaho AGs–myself, Echo Hawk, Lance and Wasden–had used our legal expertise to weigh in on water disputes that threatened the lifeblood of segments of the water community. It took so much of my time that I wrote a whole book about it–”A Little Dam Problem: How Idaho almost lost control of the Snake River.” Labrador should have actively engaged in trying to resolve the dispute. Thankfully, the Governor and Lt. Governor stepped up to help fashion a compromise in his absence.

The abortion care headline mentioned above dealt with Labrador’s continual effort to block emergency room care for women who develop life-threatening pregnancy conditions. A federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), requires most hospitals to provide stabilizing care to people who arrive with a medical emergency. Labrador has taken the position that Idaho’s total abortion ban does not conflict with the requirements of EMTALA and has tried to sell that position to the federal district court in Idaho, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS). None of them have bought his argument.

Idaho law says a doctor can perform an abortion that is “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” Labrador claims that language means the doctor can perform an abortion if deemed necessary to save her life. There is a huge difference when the doctor can be sent to prison by making the wrong call. How close to death’s doorstep must the woman be for the doctor to abort the fetus under the letter of the law? Labrador claims the doctor is safe if he or she acts in good faith. Yet, when doctors have stated they need to send women out of state to get necessary emergency care, Labrador claims they are liars, not acting in good faith.

Labrador’s crusade may all be in vain because SCOTUS accidentally leaked an opinion on June 26, ruling against Labrador by a 6-3 vote. The Court quickly withdrew the opinion and, instead, sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit, which resulted in the second December 11 headline mentioned above. Idahoans can vigorously differ on whether or when a non-emergent abortion can take place, but most Idahoans would be in agreement with the SCOTUS opinion, favoring the EMTALA position over Labrador’s skewed view of the law.

 

The Jordan legacy

December 16, 2024

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, the Trump-appointed oligarchs tasked with cutting federal expenditures, have a daunting task ahead of them. This so-called “DOGE” duo has vowed to slash about $2 trillion in governmental spending, even though there was only $1.7 trillion in “discretionary” spending in the FY 2023 budget. About half of discretionary spending is for national security. Interest on the debt and mandatory programs like Social Security and Medicare, accounted for $3.8 trillion in last year’s budget. That means mandatory programs are now at risk with the $2 trillion target.

The budget review may be a worthy undertaking because there is undoubtedly substantial waste built into every US budget. Recommendations made by the two should be considered by Congress and the new Administration, but that’s where problems will likely arise. To get to the amount targeted, it is almost certain they will recommend cutting into safety net programs. Although the DOGE duo and Trump claim a President can unilaterally implement their recommended cuts, the US Constitution and the legacy of my former boss, Senator Len Jordan, won’t permit Trump to do it.

In 1972, during his last year in the Senate, Jordan was fed up with President Nixon’s impoundment of funds for water projects that Congress approved for Idaho and other states. That is, Congress would pass bills to authorize and fund the projects, but Nixon would refuse to make the expenditures. Jordan correctly pointed out that Congress holds the Nation’s purse strings under the US Constitution and when the law calls for specified expenditures the President cannot refuse to spend the money. The President must execute the laws, not defy them.

On October 13, 1972, Jordan gained passage of an amendment to a bill limiting the national debt to $250 billion (it’s now over $36 trillion). The amendment restricted Nixon’s ability to impound funds appropriated by Congress. I accompanied Jordan on the Senate floor to assist with the debate. He argued, “If ever the day comes when the Congress surrenders its control, or even part of its control over the purse strings of this Nation, on that day the Congress will have reduced itself, by self-immolation, to the ashes of sterility.” That made an impression on his Senate colleagues.

Nixon’s forces furiously opposed the amendment, but the Senate approved it and passed the bill. The House passed a watered-down version, which Nixon signed. The spark Jordan lit that day resulted in passage of more comprehensive legislation, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, two years later. That Act prevents the President from withholding appropriated funds unless both houses of Congress consent. Trump and his DOGE duo have vowed to ignore the Act, but that may be easier said than done.

If the work of the DOGE duo is intended to limit deficit spending and the troubling increase in the national debt, Senator Jordan had advice that could help. He told me that the government must live within its means. There are two components–revenue and expenditures. If the expenditures deemed necessary exceed expected revenue, the government is obligated to raise taxes to prevent deficits. That was Republican orthodoxy back then. Republicans always decried deficit spending and the consequent increase in the national debt. They now heartily embrace both, refusing to tax the ultra-wealthy to pay for programs Congress approves. Oligarchs like the DOGE duo pay little or no federal tax. It is strange that the DOGE duo is not charged with identifying tax breaks that do not serve the national interest and which have impoverished the national treasury. Just look at the $7.8 trillion that Trump added to the national debt during his first term. Present-day Republican orthodoxy has abandoned fiscal sanity.

The long and short of it is that Jordan left a legacy that can frustrate a President’s design to unilaterally withhold funding that has been lawfully approved. Jordan had the courage to stand up to a President he believed was acting in violation of the law. If the DOGE duo recommends slashing vast amounts of spending, we may see a replay of the impoundment fight. The US Interior Department just announced the award of $849 million for western water projects that include Idaho. If the DOGE duo targets federal monies intended for Idaho, will Idaho’s Congressional delegation have the courage to call foul?

 

The voucher vultures

December 9, 2024

The voucher vultures are circling the Idaho treasury, expecting to soon have government approval to gorge on money paid into the treasury by hard-working Idahoans. They want the money to be used to subsidize the private/religious education  of about 36,000 Idaho kids who don’t go to public schools. If the state subsidized the education of all of those kids at $5,000, each, it would be a $180,000,000 hit on the treasury. The money would come directly out of the public school appropriation. The rural areas where no private/church schools exist would be especially hard hit.

The voucher vultures are a collection of out-of-state, dark-money groups that want to weaken the nation’s public schools for the benefit of private/religious schooling. Dark money donors include two Texas Christian-nationalist billionaire preachers, Farris Wilks and Tim Dunn, who managed this year to defeat conservative Republicans in rural Texas who have strongly opposed school voucher schemes. Wilks and his brother are known to Idahoans for buying and closing off vast tracts of land in our Valley County.

This year the dark-money groups defeated a number of Idaho legislators in the closed GOP primary who opposed subsidizing private/religious schooling. That shook Governor Little and School Superintendent Critchfield to the extent that they started talking “school choice," which translates to using gobs of public money to subsidize private/religious education.

It might be noted that this would be a direct violation of Idaho’s Constitution. And, by the way, it is also a violation of the Idaho Republican Party Platform, which states on page 2 that, “taxpayers shall allow the government only the money necessary to provide Constitutionally specified functions.” Nothing in the Idaho Constitution specifies that taxpayers must pay for private/religious instruction.

Be that as it may, there is a strong chance that our extremist Legislature will pass some sort of subsidy legislation in the 2025 session. There is a likelihood that the Governor will lament this travesty, but allow it to become the law of Idaho, despite the fact that Idaho’s public school trustees overwhelmingly oppose the idea.

So, what can Idahoans do to stop the private/religious school raid on the Idaho treasury? There are actually two viable alternatives that can stop the raid–litigation and Idaho’s infrequently-used voter referendum. I will publicly outline the litigation strategy at a later date. This column deals with the referendum strategy.

Those who have lived in Idaho for over a decade may remember that Idaho voters used their constitutional power of the referendum to defeat three detested education laws back in 2012. The so-called “Luna Laws” were vetoed by a substantial majority of voters that year in a referendum election. I believe that the people would similarly defeat a bill requiring all taxpayers to pay the education expenses of a small minority of Idahoans who do not presently send their kids to public schools.

The Baptist News reports that voters in Colorado, Kentucky and Nebraska rejected private/religious school raids on their respective state treasuries this year. An expert quoted in the news report said, “Vouchers have never survived a direct vote by voters.”

Sixty-five percent of voters in deep-red Kentucky voted against school vouchers. The measure was voted down “in each and every one of Kentucky’s 120 counties.”

Those who realize that subsidizing private/religious schools will mortally wound Idaho’s public school system must begin gearing up for a referendum vote on any legislation that would break Idaho’s education budget. It’s time to take on the out-of-state voucher vultures who are pushing for control of the nation’s educational system.

 

Volunteers and party bosses

December 2, 2024

When I was going to law school in Chicago during the mid-1960s, Mayor Richard Daley was the undisputed boss of the Democratic Party in Cook County. Candidates had to be anointed by Daley if they hoped to win in the primary election. Those who won the Democratic primary were practically guaranteed to win in November. Once elected, candidates were expected to carefully toe the party line in order to keep their offices. I remember thinking at the time that independent-minded Idahoans would never descend to the depths of bossist politics.

But, politics in Idaho have dramatically changed in recent years, mostly because the Republican Party chose to close its primary election to all but registered members in 2011. That allowed an extreme branch of the GOP to grab power and it has increasingly tightened its grip on the Party ever since. The Party, now controlled by Dorothy Moon with the malign assistance of a number of dark money groups, resembles the old Daley political machine–anointed extremists defeat reasonable, problem-solving Republicans in the closed, low-turnout GOP primary and then coast to victory in November. They maintain their offices by carrying out the dictates of the party bosses. Even statewide officers often bend to the dictates of the political bosses.

About two years ago, former Republican House Speaker Bruce Newcomb, a charter member of the reasonable branch of the GOP, got together with Luke Mayville of Idaho’s all-volunteer Reclaim Idaho voter initiative group, to get rid of bossism in Idaho politics. The plan was to run an initiative to get rid of closed party primaries in the state and ensure that those elected in the general election had majority support from the entire electorate–Republicans, Independents, Democrats, whatever. As we know, that initiative, Prop 1, was handily defeated by the Moon forces on November 5.

There are any number of explanations for the defeat of Prop 1. The large turnout for Donald Trump likely played a part–the yes vote of 30.4% on Prop 1 was exactly the same as the 30.4% for Kamala Harris. The open primary part of the initiative consistently polled over 50% leading up to the election, but the ranked-choice part was a new concept and the subject of repeated false attacks by Moon’s GOP. Prop 1 lost, due to misinformation and fear of the unknown.

Moon and her allies contended that Prop 1 would turn Idaho into a liberal bastion, which was preposterous. Prop 1 was modeled after the Alaska initiative that was first used in that state’s 2022 election. It was well received by Alaskans, although the party bosses there hated it and set up an initiative this year to repeal it. The Moon forces claimed it was a disaster and would be repealed by Alaskans. In fact, they liked it and voted to retain it. Incidentally, Alaska voters replaced their Democratic Congresswoman with a Republican and replaced two Democratic House members with Republicans. Alaska has not become a liberal bastion, but its politics have become more civil and pragmatic.

Even though Prop 1 lost, there is much to be thankful for in this Thanksgiving season. I’m thankful for the 2,000 unpaid signature gatherers who braved the elements to gather 97,000 signatures to get the initiative on the ballot. AnnMarie Johnson and all of those who helped to raise well over $1 million from within the state are also to be thanked and, of course, those contributors. It was a herculean effort that brought people together across Idaho to accomplish a worthy goal. The campaign brought the bossism issue front and center, even though the proposed solution was voted down. The issue won’t go away until bossism is eliminated in the Gem State.

The coalition of good-government groups that came together to support Prop 1 may find themselves cooperating on future measures to improve representative governing in Idaho. Reclaim Idaho, North Idaho Republicans, Veterans for Idaho Voters, Mormon Women for Ethical Government, Take Back Idaho and a number of other groups deserve thanks for their intrepid work. Many young people proved themselves to be effective supporters and spokespersons for this good government measure. I suspect we may see some of them, like Hyrum Erickson from Rexburg  and J.D. Gould from Buhl, trying to make Idaho a better place to live.

A blessed Thanksgiving for all of them. And, while I’m at it, a good Thanksgiving, also, to all of my fellow Idahoans, including the bosses who opposed Prop 1.

 

Misreading the tea leaves

Misreading the tea leaves

November 25, 2024

The extremist branch of Idaho’s Republican Party, presided over by Dorothy Moon, has been feeling its oats after the 2024 elections. They defeated a number of reasonable, problem-solving Republicans in the May primary and made a few gains in the general election, but they may be misreading the tea leaves. Those leaves point to a growing dissatisfaction with fake culture-war issues amongst a large swath of Idaho voters, including many traditional Republicans. American history demonstrates that extremism loses its luster with the passage of time. A number of factors point to a return to reason.

The Moon faction of the GOP has partnered with dark money groups, like the Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) and Idaho Family Policy Center, to drive Idaho politics to the farthest rightward fringes. Moderate Republicans, who are actually interested in addressing serious problems, are primaried by extremists who win votes by stoking fear and outrage over non-existent culture war problems—CRT, DEI, ESG, harmful books, gun control, sex change surgery at schools, you name it. They have succeeded in purging a number of Republicans dedicated to serving the public interest.

The Moon faction has been emboldened to the extent that it has engineered the defeat of a reasonable Republican, even when it resulted in a Democratic victory. IFF operatives have been chortling at their recent success in defeating Laurie Lickley, a conservative Republican candidate from Jerome.  IFF supported an “independent” spoiler candidate, who drew enough GOP votes to defeat Lickley. That resulted in the re-election of Senator Ron Taylor, a well-regarded Democrat. Moon’s radicals won’t hesitate to purge those who refuse to strictly comply with their extremist dictates.

The next extremist target is Hyrum Erickson, a Republican precinct committeeman from Rexburg. Hyrum is a remarkable young man–an accomplished lawyer, a legislative assistant to former Senator Larry Craig, a current Commissioner on the Idaho Human Rights Commission and an engaged member of his community. Hyrum became an effective spokesman for Prop. 1, which threatened the stranglehold that Moon and her cronies have maintained over the Republican Party with the closed GOP primary.

Bryan Smith, IFF’s vice chair and the Idaho GOP’s National Committeeman, is demanding that Erickson be censured for speaking out in favor of Prop. 1. He claims Erickson must be disciplined “for aiding and abetting Democrats, leftists, liberals, socialists, communists and the like in their efforts to destroy” the Republican Party. Smith seems to believe that only communists could support ranked choice voting, despite the fact that his and Moon’s party used a variety of ranked choice methodology earlier this year in its presidential preference caucus.

A caucus works by conducting multiple rounds of voting where the candidate receiving the fewest votes in each round is eliminated until one candidate receives a majority of the vote. The ranked voting method was also used by the U.S. Senate Republicans in choosing their new majority leader earlier this month. It’s hard to see this as creeping communism. In fact, communists are well known for eliminating party members who fail to scrupulously follow the party line. It would appear Smith wishes to adopt the purge mentality favored by the communists. Any rational political party would welcome an articulate and energetic person like Erickson into its ranks, instead of purging him.

Now to the tea leaves that I mentioned earlier. Despite extremist efforts to purge GOP ranks of Party members who like to think for themselves, there has been a growing resistance to that type of bossism. Senator-elect Jim Woodward courageously challenged an extremist clone in the GOP primary and won by reason, honesty and hard work. Extremist candidates bent on destroying North Idaho College were tossed out on their ears by the concerted effort of local citizens in Kootenai County. Stehanie Mickelsen employed courage and hard work in winning reelection against two extremists after telling Smith and his hard-right pals to take a hike when they tried to censure her. A number of other reasonable Republicans in eastern Idaho won their races by standing tall for their constituents, instead of caving in to the extremists.

There are definite signs that the tide is turning against extremists who have nothing to offer except meaningless culture war issues designed to win votes by stoking fear, anger and division. The people want public officials who will work to solve societal problems, instead of creating them.

[image]