Press "Enter" to skip to content
The coming chaos presidency

The coming chaos presidency

January 18, 2025

It is no coincidence that while news coverage over the last week or so has been focused on the fourth anniversary of the Donald Trump-inspired riot at the U.S. Capitol and the funeral of former president Jimmy Carter that the next president conducted a rambling, shambling news conference where he said he wouldn’t rule out attacking a NATO ally and trolled the country with which we share the longest undefended border in the world.

Trump lives for chaos and distraction. He must be, as Alice Roosevelt Longworth said of her father Teddy, “the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral.” T.R. had a big ego, but also a big brain. He read and wrote books and knew science. Trump knows chaos.

It was completely predictable that his fragile self-image could not tolerate extended days of laudatory coverage of Carter, an American president with more decency and character than the entirety of the incoming administration. Trump had to redirect attention to himself, even if the attention is mostly in the nature of slapping your forehead and muttering, “he said what?”

We’ve seen this show before. The soon-to-be president is a master at dominating the national mind-set. He loves it, as do many of his supporters who think it’s great fun to spin up Canadian, Danish, French and German politicians who are forced to respond to his senseless rants.

Rename the Gulf of Mexico? Why not. Pardon the lawbreaking thugs who took over the Capital at his prompting? Sure. Send the Marines – again – to Panama to reclaim “our” canal? We stole it fair and square, so why not? Make Canada the 51st state? Why not alienate an old ally, our second largest trading partner, that supplies huge quantities of crude oil; cars and car parts; and machinery such as turbines, engines and construction equipment parts. Not to mention the great Canadian maple syrup you can get at Costco.

“We have been so concerned about all the scary things that Trump’s going to do, we forgot he’s also going to do some really stupid things,” said Desi Lydic, a host of the Daily Show.

It has been suggested that Americans should take Trump “seriously but not literally.” Be wise and take him both seriously and literally. He is a psychopath literally capable of anything over the next four years, or whenever he decides to leave office, and most of what he suggests and does will be profoundly stupid and often disastrous.

The only thing more predictable than Trump sending his first born to Greenland to scope out hotel locations is that not a single Vichy Republican, the spineless, gutless, cowering sycophants that have time and again enabled this flawed, ignorant man would raise as much as a limp social media post against his chaos.

They’re frankly too busy trooping to Mar a Lago to kiss his ring … or something, and by week’s end some were saying the Greenland gambit was a totally fine idea.

You can’t help but wonder when the buyer’s remorse will set in. Maybe when he has to actually manage a natural disaster or a foreign crisis. Perhaps when the debt ceiling needs to increase to prevent a government default. Perhaps when bird flu or another public health crisis produces a new “disinfectant” crisis, a signature moment of the first Trump presidency.

Just to remind you: On April 23, 2020, while standing in the White House briefing room for the daily Trump follies during Covid, the then-president rambled at some length about the magic powers of sunlight before going totally off his rocker.

“And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that.”

Bleach manufacturers had to issue warnings. Who knew that many Trump supporters were, well, that gullible?

“It honestly hurt. It was a credibility issue,” said one White House official at the time. “It was hurting us even from an international standpoint, the credibility at the White House.”

Credibility? International credibility? Not with this guy.

Imagine John Kennedy during the tensest days of the Cuban Missile Crisis going on live television to say no, he couldn’t rule out lobbing an ICBM into the men’s room at the Kremlin? (Actually, Barry Goldwater did say something similar, but poor Barry was seen in his day, even by many Republicans, as more than a little dangerous, and Goldwater never got anywhere near the nuclear codes.)

The chaos, the incompetence are the point with Trump, along with clinging to power no matter what.

In true Orwellian fashion Trump largely succeeded this week in rabbit holing January 6. The avalanche of pure, unprocessed bull about the very worst of his behavior in the first term is taking hold. The coming pardons will further serve to erase this dastardly, ugly Trump stain.

“Trump has an audacious goal,” writes Michael Waldman of the Brennan Center for Justice, “to reinterpret one of the most public crimes in history, to wrap it in the gauze of patriotism.” He’s asking us to brainwash ourselves, and many of the gullible seem willing to embrace his utter nonsense.

The clear, cold fact for Trump supporters and the rest of us is simple. He’s back for only two reasons: to stay out of jail and to grift over everything from Bibles to golden sneakers. The Greenland threat, the Panama Canal, the mocking of Canada are all about distracting from the real and profound harm he will do.

Reflect on this: There is no greater contrast in American history than Carter’s exit and Trump’s return. As Pete Buttigieg says of Carter, “He’s this figure who is so respected for a sense of decency – humility, really – from all sides … So the contrast was, of course, not lost on me, as we were thinking about what coming next in Washington.”

Which is to say we ain’t seen nothing, yet.

Figure out how you are going to respond.

(image)

 

Not a SLAPP

Not a SLAPP

January 17, 2025

The first Senate bill of the new legislative session offers something to ponder: The political backdrop and connections of the sponsors as opposed to what the bill actually does, which appears to be highly positive.

Senate Bill 1001 is described by its backers as a freedom of speech measure, but more specifically it provides a mechanism for “swiftly dismissing meritless Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, ensuring public engagement and expression on matters of societal or community interest not stifled by legal intimidation.”

A SLAPP is a legal action, usually undertaken by a well-funded person who has plenty of money to spend on lawyers, to attack someone else for marginal or no good reasons when they speak out on an issue of public concern. Wikipedia describes such suits as “lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.”

SLAPPs are a real problem, in Idaho and nationally, and these sorts of lawsuits have popped up in Idaho in recent years; some have generated statewide headlines.

Laws comparable to this bill are on the books in 34 states and the District of Columbia. Washington, Oregon, Nevada and California have had anti-SLAPP laws on the books for years. The Institute for Free Speech currently gives Idaho an “F” grade on its lack of an anti-SLAPP law.

The new Idaho bill would allow a defendant, within 60 days after a suit is filed, to seek dismissal of the case if it’s not strong enough, and stay actions until or unless the judge concludes the case does pass muster. It’s a simple approach but could choke some damaging legal maneuvers in the meantime. It would be a big improvement over existing Idaho law.

The political positioning of SB 1001’s backers, Nampa Senator Brian Lenney (who also pressed a similar failed measure in the 2024 measure)  and Representative Heather Scott of Blanchard, both Republicans, is a little less clear. Both have been close to a number of the Republican activists and interest groups involved with lawsuits of this kind in recent times.

One of the people caught up in one of those legal conflicts is Gregory Graf, an Idaho blogger and political activist, who has conflicted with some of the people now backing the bill. And he adds, in a detailed online post (at https://idaho.politicalpotatoes.com/p/idaho-needs-good-faith-anti-slapp, and which I won’t try to parse here) about the background of the bill, that, “It’s hard to ignore the irony of Lenney’s sudden interest in curbing the very tool his allies have wielded for years.”

So what about the bill?

Graf made clear he would like to see and would better trust a SLAPP bill coming from a different source, but concluded, “This bill may pass, and if it does, Idaho will finally have protections against SLAPP lawsuits.

As Lenney said in asking for support for the bill, “Good people don’t deserve to get buried for exercising their First Amendment rights.”

That would seem to be the bottom line, even if there are some questions about how and why this one specifically came to be.

There are larger issues here too about how our legal system works: Clearly, there are bugs in the system. The anti-SLAPP laws don’t solve the underlying problems, but they do help protect against some of the worst immediate abuses.

It isn’t perfect (few bills are), and its use probably eventually ought to be expanded beyond the relatively narrow reach it has at present. It does say it should be “broadly construed and applied to protect the exercise of the right of freedom of speech and of the press, the right to assemble and petition, and the right of association, guaranteed by the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Idaho.”

The details should get close legal analysis. But if it’s as described, it’s a good bill and should pass.

(image)

 

A government handout?

January 15, 2025

The fight over school vouchers might be the leading issue going into this legislative session, but the term “vouchers” will have selective use.

We’re more likely to hear terms such as “school choice,” “tax credits,” “rebates” or even “savings accounts” come up in the committee rooms and press briefings. Regardless of the name, it’s all part of the effort to steer public money to private or religious schools.

Rod Gramer, an advocate and former president of Idaho Business for Education, uses another term. “It’s the biggest government handout in history,” he says, and one that is aimed for helping rich folks get money for sending their kids to private schools.

“There is nothing conservative about vouchers,” he says.

Politically, there appears to be strong sentiment is some form of vouchers. Gov. Brad Little has endorsed a tax credit that will provide $50 million to those seeking education alternatives. Gramer, a longtime journalist and native Idahoan, blasted the governor for pandering to the right – at the expense of Idaho’s constitutional obligation for public education.

Tax credits, or other measures, may not raid the public-school budget, but they can chip away at the general fund that underwrites everything else. Gramer says that Arizona, a voucher-friendly state, is cutting programs and facing close to a billion-dollar deficit as a result of its financial boost to the private schools.

Reviews in Arizona are mixed. Former Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, in a recent visit to the Gem State, had high praise for Arizona’s voucher program. Arizona’s current governor, Democrat Katie Hobbs, has called the program “unsustainable.”

Gramer sides with Hobbs in this dispute.

“The state general fund has only so much money, and we always have been frugal in Idaho. It’s not like we are throwing money at our public schools,” Gramer says. “So, if you have vouchers, it puts the squeeze on the state general-fund budget – and not just for K-12 education. It puts the squeeze on community colleges, higher education, roads and all the things we do on a limited budget.”

Legislators are getting plenty of pressure to provide relief for those fleeing public schools. Ron Nate, a former Eastern Idaho legislator and president of the Idaho Freedom Foundation – which has a generous following among legislators – sees public schools in a negative light.

“For some time, public schools have been indoctrination zones for leftist ideology,” Nate says. “If it’s not sex ed at an inappropriately early age, it’s a course how we should be ashamed of our country’s history. While the teachers are forcing their woke LGBT, anti-white agenda down our children’s throats, their test scores continue to drop.”

Meanwhile, he says, “spending on education continues to go through the roof.”

Education professionals may sneer at Nate’s assessment, but the perception is real. And political leaders are paying attention after seeing a few anti-voucher legislators bounced out of office. Gov. Little, who next year could be looking at running for a third term, doesn’t want to be on the wrong side of this issue.

Gramer agrees that political momentum in Idaho is on the side of tax credits, savings accounts – or whatever the variation is to vouchers. But he’s not convinced that the public stands by the effort. He sees little benefit to rural areas that traditionally have strong identification with the public schools.

“In November, on the night that Donald Trump was elected president, three states (two red states and one purple) rebuffed efforts to use taxpayer money for private schools,” Gramer says.

In political campaigns, there’s plenty of money flowing to candidates who support vouchers in some form. But Gramer, who has followed politics for more than 50 years, has seen some unusual dynamics in national campaigns. Advertisements avoid focusing on using taxpayer money to support private schools over public education.

“Vouchers are never mentioned,” he says. “The ads focus is on candidates who are accused of being soft on border security, or gun control.”

Of course, as Gramer knows, legislative sessions are all about political momentum and the messy process of finding consensus with conflicting bills. With luck, he says, the volume of school-choice plans will collapse under their weight.

But the issue certainly is not going away.

Chuck Malloy is a long-time Idaho journalist and columnist. He may be reached at ctmalloy@outlook.com

 

They ain’t real

January 14, 2025

Some may view the content of what I'm about to say as racist.  I assure you, in the most fundamental way, that's not the case.

But, I've been observing something that's made me look at television's vast advertising power in a different light.

First, a little background.  I don't live in a community with a large Black presence.  Aside from the military and some years in Washington D.C., I've not had a lot of experience with mixed-race living.  Or, thinking - in personal terms - of Black and White.  Until now.

Television, more than any other medium, has its difficulties from an advertiser's point of view.  But, also, it has powerful impact.  Yes, it reaches a vast audience.  Still, one of its drawbacks is the difficulty of using TV for targeted viewing.

Radio has Black-oriented stations.  And Cuban and Mexican and many others.  All aimed at specific target audiences.

While there are TV stations that try to do the same thing, they are few and far between.  My small community lies within the mass market coverage of one of the West's larger cities.  Yet, we're not served by an ethnically-oriented TV station trying to reach a single ethnic market.  Radio, yes.  TV, no.  And, that's true in most of the other parts of the continental U.S. as well.

Recently, it seems, in more and more commercials, there'll be - by design - one or more Black actors.  No matter the product.  No matter the ad campaign.  There will be a Black inclusion.  And, that inserted Black presence seems to be growing with advertisers.

If there are, say, three guys doing something together on television, one will be Black.  If the national ad depicts a baby shower, at least one woman will be Black.  If teens are the subject, same thing.  And, on and on.

I'm not sure why this is.  It may be sponsors - from Campbell's soup to Chevrolet - are trying to show their soups/cars are good for people of all races.   Kind of a crazy thought, I know.  But, that's all I can come up with.

Here in our Western states, White is, by far, the dominant race.  Look at your church - your service club - your favorite dining spot - the staff at the grocery store.  On a daily basis, most of us just never come into contact with someone who's Black.

Maybe that's why the inclusion of Blacks in so many television ads seems unreal to me.  While there may be such representations in social or business affairs in other parts of America, around here, not the case.  We have few mixed communities and, as a result, we don't usually have racial interactions.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with such interactions.  We just don't have them.

While TV ads mostly depict Whites and Blacks, another racial group is growing at a rapid rate.  Hispanics.  And, in our neighborhood, most of us can have regular interactions with members of that group.

For us, it's yard workers, for example.  Nearly all we've come in contact with.  Hard workers who do excellent work.  Starting to see some in local culinary, food service, wineries/vineyards, sales and other professions. Many bringing the flavors of their former home country to their new settings.  And, they are most welcome.

Sometimes I wish those ads were our "mirror" image.  That we did have such excellent inter-racial relationships on a regular basis.  That we did have brothers and sisters in our everyday life that brought their own heritage and style.

As I stated at the outset, I don't mean anything racist in these words.  Not a one of 'em.  And, there may be places in our world, where the racial mix of characters portrayed in those multi-racial commercials represents real life.

Just not around here.

 

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?

 

It’s about the money

It’s about the money

January 10, 2025

The standard Idaho political rhetoric speaks of “school choice” - which sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? - and in his state of the state speech, Governor Brad Little added to that with the descriptor “education freedom.”

The suggestion underlying that language is that public education is somehow oppressing Idahoans, that what’s being pursued here is the ability to pursue non-public school options for education. That construct is a crock. Idahoans, like people in other states, have and always have had the ability to educate children in private schools or at home. The choice is and has been theirs. That’s unchanged. And no one is talking about changing it.

So what is “school choice/education freedom” about?

It’s about the money. Watch the money, in the session ahead, as legislators prepare to shift a large chunk of it - the debate likely will center on how much and when, more than if it happens - away from public schools to, well, somewhere else.

After all, roughly half of the general fund budget in Idaho (and across most states this is more or less true) goes to education, and that’s not all the money schools get. This is a large pile of money, and some people out there salivate at the thought of taking a personal or corporate bite out of it. It’s not that there’s no concern about actual, you know, learning among these people; some no doubt are committed to doing something better.

But a moment’s reflection should tell you it’s not that simple. Remember the old saying, that if someone tells you it’s about the principle of the thing, it’s probably about the money.

In his state of the state, Little - who may recognize the school voucher train coming hard at him from the legislature, which rejected past voucher plans but likely won’t this session - proposed spending $50 million “to further expand education options.” He said he will “ensure there is oversight” and “prioritize first and foremost our public schools.” (Don’t be fooled: Money used for vouchers or related programs is money that isn’t being spent on public schools.)

Or at least that’s the governor’s opening move. One floor above in the Statehouse, a crop of voucher-adjacent measures is arising, with many possible price tags. One of them, backed by two legislators in top leadership positions, would offer $5,000 tax credits for students who attend school other than the public kind. Spending on this is said to be limited to $50 million.

Last month, one of the co-sponsors of that measure, Representative Wendy Horman, faced off at an event sponsored by the Idaho Falls City Club against Rod Gramer, former president of Idaho Business for Education, which has opposed vouchers. Gramer pointed out that once voucher payments in other states have begun, they have sometimes exploded, as in Arizona and Indiana. He said, “Out-of-state billionaires and their front organizations never stop pushing vouchers until they have universal vouchers with no income limit and no accountability.”

Horman said that the legislature would have to approve any future increases. That would be true, but it was true in Arizona and Indiana too.

Something in this area, or maybe more than one option, feels like a slam dunk to emerge from the legislature, a probability signified by a big pro-voucher event held just hours before the launching of this year’s session, by the Mountain States Policy Center.

There are complexities, of course. Much of the national discussion about vouchers (incoming President Trump last year proposed a federal voucher program) has centered on schooling options for lower-income or special needs students; the Idaho options seem not to focus on those areas. And there’s the geographic difficulty, that many Idaho students live far from the nearest private school option, or maybe near only one that might not be a good choice.

Follow the money.

 

(image)

Who are these guys?

January 9, 2025

Well, I’m sure you’ve realized by now that the Idaho legislature is in session.

I forgive you if you haven’t.

Most Idahoans don’t even know who represents them in the legislature. I know this from experience.

Prove me wrong. Say out loud, right now, your Idaho legislators by name.

I did this cheap parlor trick at a luncheon where I was asked to speak at when I served in the Idaho legislature. It was a “Day at the Capitol” for Idaho physicians, sponsored by the Idaho Medical Association. At the time, there were three physicians in the legislature. Now there are none. Maybe I’m to blame.

The docs in the room had some gripes and some issues, and the two veteran legislator doctors who spoke before me did a good job of laying out the political landscape so these doctors could know what to expect from certain bills. At the time, Medicaid Expansion was the big issue, and it was going nowhere. The two old veterans did a good job explaining why. I took a different tack.

“Okay, so you guys want to make a change in policy in this state.” I stood up and started walking amongst the round tables with rubber chicken on their plates. I got into my football rallying mode.

There were some quiet nods, but no “Hell yeah!” from anyone. So, I damped down.

“Medicaid Expansion makes sense to you, to me, and our two previous speakers. It makes sense for our counties, our hospitals, our patients. But as they have told you, our legislators don’t see this sense.”

My less aggressive tone got less slumps and more attention. So, I went stronger.

“So, who needs persuasion? It’s not me. It’s not my veteran fellow legislators. It’s your representatives.”

I posed to the woman to my right. “Name your representatives and senator.” She gave me a blank look. “Where do you live?” She told me. I named them for her. I asked the next guy. He was blank too. The fourth guy knew one of his three legislators.

“If you want to have any influence on this process you have to have a relationship with the person representing you. You should have their phone number in your contacts. You need to meet with them in the summer, when they are not down here in Boise, and let them know what is important to you.” I sat down. Since then, no doctor has run for the legislature. I don’t know if I helped anybody do this work.

Healthcare is a big part of Idaho’s economy. More, it’s a big part of our communities, our culture. There are plenty of wacko doctors out there, and it seems the wackos like to run for office. Maybe it’s not all my fault we have little healthcare representation in our Capitol.

But we have representation as the State Constitution and law requires. But who are these guys?

I can name all my legislators. And I can tell you which have been in the local news. One has been at forums and responded to questions from local reporters. Two have not. Two of the elected representatives who vote for me in the Idaho statehouse have avoided public comment.

I didn’t vote for any of them. But they represent me. They vote for me.

I feel like Butch and Sundance after they robbed the Harriman rich guy’s train. They are running from a pack of paid hunters they can’t shake. “Who are these guys?”

I know there are issues that are coming up before the legislature that I care about. I don’t think I have much influence on their vote.

I don’t think they would listen to me.

And that right there is the end of this representative democracy. I will try harder. I wish they would too.

 

Change works, sometimes

January 7, 2025

As we age, one of life's hardest lessons to deal with is change.  Seniors can have a hell of a time with it because change often means leaving behind comfortable habits and beliefs created over many decades.  Re-education, it seems, is unlearning or leaving behind something you know - or even feel - so you can accept the new.  The different.

One example for me was when "Newsweek" magazine ended its print edition after more than 80 years of continuous publication.  I'm a former employee of the Post-Newsweek Corporation when it was in its heyday with newspapers, radio/television stations and the legendary newspaper and magazine.  The boss was Katherine Graham, a brilliant and legendary person.  When you could put "Post-Newsweek" in a byline or on a resume, you got attention.

But now, change.  Damned change!  Starting in 2013, "Newsweek" went digital - like Slate and Huffington Post. The corporate decision to go digital was probably a good one.  A necessary one.  But, I miss the ink-and-paper weekly that was.  Now the digital version is gone, too.

On another change, I'm being forced into a mental corner on a political issue.  Like the magazine change, this one may seem unimportant - even esoteric - but it's not for me.  Because it means change for all of us in the fundamental way we decide who's going to run our national government.

That issue is term limits, which I oppose.  For very sound reasons.  Former Idaho Gov. Cecil Andrus - a friend and former employer whose political judgments I had great faith in - put his position this way: "It may be necessary to break the rules of incumbency that allow politicians to reward themselves with privileges no other citizen receives.  Job security."

Another political pro, whose counsel I value - Dr. Norm Ornstein of American University.  He noted gridlock, unbridled anger and stalemate in congress when he said "Political euthanasia may be the only way to end it."

In other words, everybody out!  Over a period of two or three elections. Under term limits, replace 'em all.  The good and the bad.  Cleanse the place from wall-to-wall and gradually seat 535 new ones.  Stagger terms so there is continuity and some institutional memory.  But do it!  Guarantee fresh blood and new ideas coming from the people at each election.  No more career politicians.

It sounds good.  You can make a workable model on paper.  But the hurdles to make such a basic change in our national and state governance are many.

The most difficult to overcome would be a change in our federal constitution.  Congress - made up entirely of the people you are trying to replace - would have to approve it.  You'd need a two-thirds majority of states to adopt it.  Next,  the same sort of administrative/political steps in approving changes to the 50 state constitutions.  Or, conversely, you could start in the 50 states, then tackle the federal document.  Nearly impossible either direction.

All of that would take years.  Maybe so many years no one now alive would live to see it completed.  No easy task.  You'd have to get an overwhelming show of national public support, create many new entities to carry the message and assure the proper changes are made, then find office seekers willing to participate in their own demise.

Hardest of all would be dealing with the politicians who would have to put a gun to their own heads.  And an end to their own careers.  Many years ago, the wise, late Rep. "Mo" Udall (D-AZ) told me "You've got to keep in mind everybody back here got here by learning the rules and winning by them.  Don't look for winners to change the rules."

And, therein may lie the Achilles heel to this whole term limits business.  Much as a lot of people - right and left - would like to implement it, they may be just barking at the moon because of the legal requirements it would take to chance the Constitution.  I've never forgotten Udall's words.  Those who would make term limits their passion should remember them, too.

While admitting the system needs change - and even agreeing in principle term limits could lead to something positive - I think of the good works of a guy like Andrus as four-term Idaho governor and the Carter Administration's Secretary of the Interior.  When you term limit a Marjorie Taylor-Green, you also lose a legacy-creator like Andrus.  And the "Mo" Udall's.

Facing the huge task and costs of changing the electoral system - and with the certainty that you'd probably shut out some new and very bright minds with much to contribute to our national gain - I'm still hearing the idea of change.  But, maybe we're just not quite up to making the trade-offs.

 

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.