Posts published in “Jones”

Political fearmonger Greg Pruett has been trying to scare voters away from the Open Primaries Initiative (OPI) with the preposterous claim that it will bring gun control to Idaho. Pruett makes a living by frightening voters with fake threats to gun rights for the purpose of electing extremists to public office. It is also his personal meal ticket.

Pruett, who operates a variety of propaganda outlets (all of which have “donate” buttons), admits that the OPI is not a direct threat to gun rights. He claims it’s an indirect threat because it will “make Idaho more like California.” What Pruett is really concerned about is the fact that the OPI will break the stranglehold that his extremist allies have over who gets elected to public office. He is an integral part of an unsavory alliance–the extremist branch of the Republican Party, currently ruled by Dorothy Moon, and the Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF), which is funded with out-of-state dark money--that has turned Idaho into a culture war battlefield.

The alliance supports extremist candidates and uses scorched-earth campaigns to defeat traditional, reasonable Republicans in the low-turnout closed GOP primary. Pruett’s job is to frighten voters into supporting extremist candidates by making false gun control claims against their opponents.

Gun owners should take Pruett’s outlandish claims with a large grain of salt. The Idaho Constitution contains a strong prohibition against gun controls. Article 1, Section 11, proclaims: “The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged.” That cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment, which would require a two-thirds vote of each House and then a majority of Idaho voters. That will never happen.  Numerous gun protections are contained in our statute books, including a 2014 law that prohibited a wide range of gun restrictions. The vote was unanimous.

With every possible gun protection on the law books, it would be impossible to chip away at the gun rights of Idahoans. But that has not stopped Pruett from claiming the gun sky is falling and that he must have lots of money to stop it. He has been reduced to pushing for gun laws that most Idahoans don’t want–guns in schools, the right of gun-toting private militias to march around town and preventing local governments from keeping guns out of certain sensitive venues. Now, he is making the easily-debunked claim that the OPI will cause gun control.

The fact is that Pruett has no use for initiatives. He has called for “abolishing the ballot initiatives in Idaho.” He opposed the 2018 Medicaid expansion initiative and the 2022 initiative to increase education spending. Pruett and his allies desperately want to kill the right of the people to enact their own laws. The closed GOP primary has produced non-responsive Legislatures that dwell on culture war distractions, while ignoring issues important to the people–schools, roads, property tax reform, water and the everyday nuts and bolts of running a government. The Pruett bunch thrives on discord.

Pruett contends that Idahoans must be armed to the teeth to fight off the many evils he sees in our state.  He warns, among other alarming dangers, that the “forces of Satan have mobilized against the forces of God” and that “God-hating liberal activists now believe they can normalize pedophilia.” His answer is for people to arm themselves to the teeth and “defend liberty or die trying.” If you go to the gregpruett.com website, you can easily find his “donate” button, which will keep you alive in the apocalyptic battle.

Voters will likely see several Pruett front organizations during the fight over the OPI leading up to the November election. His Second Amendment Alliance, which has partnered with Ammon Bundy, has a “donate” button. So do his Keep Idaho Free site, which is concerned about Satan and guns; his extremist Idaho Dispatch publication; and his Freedom Bros podcast with his old IFF pal, Dustin Hurst. Lots of opportunities for the gullible to financially support Pruett’s pocketbook.

But voters can rest easy. There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that the OPI will cause gun control. Neither will it cause warts or male pattern baldness. It will only cause good government in the Gem State.

Ukraine’s recent cross-border attack on Russia highlights a serious problem in its ability to defend against Vladimir Putin’s genocidal war. The U.S and its NATO allies recognized the grave threat that the war posed against their collective national security interests and correctly responded by supplying weapons to the beleaguered nation. Senator Jim Risch has repeatedly said that Putin’s war poses a serious threat to America’s national security. He told columnist Chuck Malloy: “If we abandon Ukraine and throw in the towel…there will be major consequences.” Getting out of Ukraine, “I believe, would set up the largest arms race that the planet has ever seen.”

Unfortunately, we have conditioned our aid on the unreasonable restriction that U.S. supplied equipment and munitions may not be deployed on Russian soil. We have gradually loosened the restriction, but have usually made known just how far Ukrainian operations can extend into Russian territory. The Russians have no such restrictions. We should lift all restrictions on our aid, allowing the Ukrainians to strike any targets in Russia that Putin uses to support his war. And, we should start supplying Ukraine with longer-range weaponry to take out those targets.

I’ve personally witnessed the folly of restrictions like we have imposed on Ukraine. While flying a nighttime recon mission in Vietnam on June 27, 1969, I observed a sizable North Vietnamese Army (NVA) unit just over the Cambodian border from Tay Ninh Province, where I was stationed. As we approached the border in a single-engine “Bird Dog” spotter plane, the pilot and I saw over a dozen lights just a stone’s throw over the border. When we got about half of a kilometer from the location, all the lights disappeared. As we moved away, they reappeared. We turned back toward the border a couple of times with the same result.

That, plus the fact that the NVA was in full control of the border areas, confirmed that it was an enemy unit. My heavy artillery battalion could have eliminated it in minutes, safeguarding the lives of U.S. troops and our South Vietnamese partners. The restrictions made that impossible.

The NVA unit need not have worried about disclosing its location because it was well known by all concerned that U.S. forces were strictly prohibited from firing upon communist forces located in Cambodia. The restriction gave the NVA a valuable advantage in the war, narrowing the dangers it had to plan against. It took good advantage of the policy, maintaining numerous facilities just over the border from Tay Ninh Province, knowing they could not be disturbed by American forces. The NVA could attack at will and simply return to their Cambodian sanctuary where they could not be touched.

It made no sense to let NVA forces know of our self-imposed combat restrictions during the Vietnam War. Nor does it make sense now to publicly impose unreasonable restrictions on U.S. aid to Ukraine. The policy has hamstrung the Ukrainian war effort and resulted in needless loss of lives. Ukraine’s cross-border attack has already caused chaos for Russian forces. Our removal of the aid restraint will dramatically expand the battlefield and complicate Putin’s efforts to subjugate the Ukrainian people.

The Ukrainians suffered many more needless casualties as a result of the unconscionable six-month delay by the U.S. House of Representatives in providing critical war supplies. Three Members of Idaho’s Congressional delegation understood the urgent need for the $61 billion aid package and voted for it.

Unfortunately, Rep. Russ Fulcher has not figured out that America is on Ukraine’s side. He supported the six-month delay and then voted against the aid when the issue was finally brought up for a vote on April 19. He and the extremists in control of the House did Putin a great favor by holding up the war supplies that the Ukrainians so desperately needed. The Republicans for Ukraine group gave Fulcher an “F–Very Poor” grade on its Ukraine report card as a result of his repeated refusal to support this important U.S. ally. Because he refuses to support the important national security interests of the United States, it is time for voters to call him home.

Those promoting schemes to use Idaho taxpayer money to pay for private and religious schooling appear to be gearing up for a decisive push in the 2025 legislative session. A variety of out-of-state, dark-money groups helped to defeat several home-grown Idaho legislators who were dedicated to improving Idaho’s public schools. Those defeats may have frightened Idaho’s Governor and Superintendent of Schools to buy into the schemers’ plans to raid the Idaho treasury to benefit private and religious schools.

Several extremist groups poured about $1.5 million into the closed GOP primary this year, targeting reasonable legislators who opposed using tax revenues for private and religious schooling. Several outstanding legislators who stood up for public education were defeated in nasty, truth-deprived campaigns. With the apparent defeat of about 6 opponents of voucher programs, those wanting to saddle taxpayers with the cost of private education seem to be smelling blood in the water on the issue.

One young op-ed writer has suggested that debate over school vouchers was the cause of those defeats, saying that “voters rewarded pro-school choice candidates.” He specifically pointed to the defeat of House Education Committee chair Julie Yamamoto of Caldwell. There was no principled debate in her election contest. Yamamoto was defeated by a constant drumbeat of falsehoods and negative claims over the course of a year. Nasty pamphlets distributed by paid door-knockers falsely claimed Yamamoto supported porn in school libraries. Additionally, her opponent was an Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) darling and we all know the IFF wants to do away with public schools.

The other public school supporters were defeated by scurrilous campaigns and also by the fact that the closed GOP primary strongly favors the most extreme candidates.

Speaking of the IFF, one of its go-to favorites, Branden Durst, published an op-ed supporting almost every variety of taxpayer-funded private and religious schooling. We may remember how Durst almost destroyed the West Bonner County School District last year. The school patrons rose up and tossed him out.

Chris Cargill, the head of the IFF’s sister group, the Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC), was also out with an op-ed touting private education. It should be noted that both organizations are part of the far-right State Policy Network, which is funded by dark-money interests throughout the country. MSPC is part of the infamous Project 2025, which Donald Trump says is too radical for him.

Cargill claims that it is just fine under the Idaho Constitution to force taxpayers to fund private and religious schools. He is dead wrong. The Idaho Constitution specifically prohibits state money from being used to support religious education. The U.S. Supreme Court has provided school voucher proponents with a backdoor around the prohibition, but the backdoor only works if a government decides to provide program support for private schools generally.

According to Chief Justice John Roberts: “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.” So, a state can refuse to spend taxpayer money on religious schooling by simply refusing to subsidize any private schools. Idaho lawmakers are well aware of that fact and will assuredly face a lawsuit in court if they try to use the backdoor approach.

Some of our state officials appear to have been spooked by the defeat of several voucher opponents and have weakened their stance against throwing public funds into private schools. Debbie Chritchfield, Idaho’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, has hinted that she and Governor Little are working on a voucher plan. The Governor has said he would only support a plan that “does not draw resources away from public schools.” No such plan has ever been invented so, unless he breaks his word, he will oppose the pipe dream of the voucher cheerleaders.

Idahoans know that public schools are the heart and sole of most communities in the state. I don’t believe they will buy the voucher schemes being hyped by IFF, MSPC and Project 2025, but that is a story for another time.

Idaho’s Don Quixote has found another windmill to tilt. Attorney General Raul Labrador has just hauled off and, once again, sued one of his own clients. This time, Labrador is suing Secretary of State Phil McGrane, trying to force McGrane to do something that he can’t do under Idaho law–kill the Open Primaries Initiative (OPI). To make matters even worse, Labrador is also trying to defend McGrane in the lawsuit. That appears to be a serious conflict of interest.

The Idaho Supreme Court was likely surprised when it saw the papers Labrador filed on behalf of McGrane. The Court issued an order on July 28, demanding that Labrador show why he should not be disqualified from representing McGrane. It gave him one day to make the showing. Such an order is almost without precedent.

Labrador has a glaring conflict of interest under ethical rules that all Idaho lawyers are required to follow. Simply put, a lawyer cannot represent both sides of a lawsuit, especially where the lawyer is personally interested in the outcome. Labrador’s political future hinges on defeating the OPI. He wants to keep the closed Republican primary because it strongly favors him and the Party’s other extreme candidates.

Ever since the Republicans closed their primary in 2011, extremists have routinely eliminated reasonable, traditional Republicans in the low-turnout primary election. Labrador, Idaho GOP chair Dorothy Moon and other extremists know that allowing all Idahoans to choose their elected officials will end the extremists’ grip on power.

In his court filings, Labrador tries to justify the use of his own lawyers to defend McGrane by claiming he has implemented “ethical screening procedures.” Pardon me, but Labrador is personally suing McGrane and he is deeply invested in the outcome of the case. His lawyers on both sides of the suit are smart enough to know who pays them. And they know the boss desperately needs to win the case. Apparently, none of them had the courage to tell Labrador there was no legal basis for his lawsuit.

Turning to the legal grounds that Labrador asserts in support of his personal side of the case, let’s just say they are non-existent. The Secretary of State has no legal authority to keep an initiative off of the ballot if it meets all of the requirements for certification. The OPI does and, as a matter of fact, it has already been certified.

Labrador falsely claims that OPI supporters deceived petition signers by concealing the fact that it calls for a general election where the winning candidate will be selected in a ranked-choice process. Every petition contained a detailed explanation of the OPI and how it works. OPI proponents have taken pains to describe how simple it is for voters to rank up to 4 candidates in their order of preference and how that will produce the most highly-regarded winner.

But, speaking of deception, Labrador’s allies in the Legislature are masters at deceptive promotion of legislation. His extremist friends have introduced a profusion of culture war bills and promoted them with the most outlandish claims—libraries are cesspools of filth, teachers are groomers and any number of other deceitful and disgusting accusations. Even though it would be wonderful to bring those tactics to a halt, the courts won’t become involved until any such bill is enacted into law.

Labrador contends that the OPI violates a statute saying that an initiative can “embrace only one (1) subject and matters properly connected with it.” The OPI deals with just one subject–the election process. It is silly to claim that an initiative focused solely upon the election process deals with more than one subject.

Despite all of the deficiencies in Labrador’s lawsuit, the greatest obstacle is the Idaho Supreme Court’s routine denial of challenges to initiatives before they are voted into law. When I was on the Court, we ruled that an initiative can’t be challenged in court until it is approved by voters. If the voters turn it down, that takes care of the matter. If it passes, a challenge might then be made. Idaho’s own Don Quixote should have studied the law before tilting at the OPI windmill. He may end up paying everyone's legal fees.

There has been no shortage in recent days of California political refugees who arrive in the Gem State to “wake up” native Idahoans to a variety of political calamities. One day it is waking us up to the supposed danger that evil librarians pose to the morals of our kids. The next thing you know, they warn us to wake up to the mortal danger of critical race theory, which they have never been able to define or find anywhere in Idaho.

Now, California transplant Morgan MaGill, who works for the extreme-right Idaho Family Policy Center, is awaking us with the claim that the Open Primaries Initiative (OPI) is an evil plot to turn Idaho into California. MaGill says California Governor Gavin Newsome brought the idea for the initiative to Idaho last year. It is passing strange that he would support ranked choice voting in Idaho when he has vetoed the idea in his own state.

The truth is that Idaho’s former GOP House Speaker, Bruce Newcomb, was the earliest proponent of the Open Primaries Initiative in Idaho. He saw it as the only way to break the stranglehold that extremists have on the Idaho Republican Party. Bruce and many traditional Idaho Republicans grew up with a primary system where voters of every political stripe could vote any party ballot they pleased in the primary election. That produced governments where officials worked together for the common good. GOP culture warriors now employ fear and outrage to scare up votes for their own benefit.

Former Governor Butch Otter and many other traditional conservatives support the OPI

because they know it is the best hope for restoring civility and reason to the Republican Party. That means ousting Dorothy Moon and her cronies who use the low-turnout primary election to put extremists on the general election ballot. Almost 90% of the general election winners are actually chosen in the GOP primary in this red state.

The Open Primaries Coalition modeled the OPI after the system that worked so well in Alaska in 2022. All candidates, regardless of party, compete on the same primary ticket. The top four vote-getters move to the general election ticket. In that election, voters select their first choice for each office, but they may also rank the other candidates in order of preference. The candidate receiving a majority in the first vote count wins. If there is no winner, the candidate getting the fewest votes is eliminated from the running. The selections on ballots where that candidate was first choice shift upward a notch (choices 2, 3 and 4, become 1, 2 and 3) and a second count is made. If that count does not produce a winner, a third count will do it. A bonus of the system is that if your favorite does not win, your second choice might.

Alaska voters found the system to be simple. It caused candidates to conduct more civilized campaigns, those elected were more reasonable and pragmatic, extremists with a narrow culture war agenda had a hard time winning and all voters had an actual say in selecting their leaders. GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski said the system worked very well. Similar voting systems have been used in Ireland and Australia for decades.

MaGill contends that primaries are not elections. Actually, they are elections because Idaho law says they are. They are paid for by all Idaho taxpayers, regardless of party, and everyone should have the right to vote in any of them. The Idaho Constitution enshrines the right of all citizens to vote. It conveys no rights to political parties.

MaGill says a close friend heard of registered Democrats asking for Republican ballots in the May primary. If there is one instance where a registered Democrat voted the Republican ballot, it should be reported to election officials because it is a violation of the law. The contention is obviously unreliable hearsay.

It is a given that the OPI will weaken the hold of MaGill’s employer, the Idaho Family Policy Center, over public policy in Idaho. That is precisely the aim of the OPI–to reduce the influence of culture warriors in Idaho’s government. It will hit the Moon branch of the GOP hard. The Idaho Freedom Foundation and its dark-money supporters hate the initiative. On the other hand, the OPI will allow Idaho's 264,000 unaffiliated voters to finally have a say in who represents them in important public offices. Idaho’s 160,000 veterans will have the opportunity to vote in any election they choose. None of this is a California agenda. It is an Idaho agenda that many Idaho voters want to restore.

Many Idahoans might not know the name, Jannus, Inc., but they may be familiar with some of the outstanding work this remarkable social service nonprofit has performed during its 50 years of serving in the Gem State. It operates a broad range of programs that serve practically every segment of our society–veterans, pre-schoolers, refugees, seniors, the distressed, K-12 students, you name it.

Jannus’ 24/7 Idaho Crisis & Suicide Hotline has dealt with 23,827 contacts from distressed individuals. Its Agency for New Americans oversees Idaho’s highly-regarded refugee program that welcomed 1,270 refugees to Idaho in fiscal year 2022, including 512 from Afghanistan and 329 from Ukraine. Refugees are anxious to achieve self-sufficiency for themselves and their families, and Idaho’s refugee agencies provide temporary assistance to help them reach that goal.

Global Talent is a popular Jannus program, designed to help refugees obtain credentials to practice their profession in their new country. The program recently featured former Afghan military pilots who seek federal certification to fly commercially in the U.S.

Idaho Voices for Children advocates for a variety of programs to help Idaho’s children. When the Legislature turned down $36 million in federal child care funds in 2023, Voices rallied support of legislators from across the political spectrum to restore funding in the amount of $28 million, helping many childcare centers to stay in business. Voices was instrumental in passage of legislation this year to protect children in the state’s foster care system. Senate Bills 1379 and 1380 were approved by overwhelming votes.

Jannus operates early head start centers in North Idaho, the Idaho Out-of-School Network and a number of other well-regarded programs. In recognition of the outstanding work it has done to improve the lives of the 58,821 people it has served, the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce gave Jannus its 2024 Nonprofit Excellence Award.

Imagine the surprise when the ill-named Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) came out with a broadside against Jannus last month, claiming it was “funding handouts for illegal immigrants.” The IFF’s only support for that outrageous claim was that “a video surfaced on social media purporting to show migrants getting off a bus in West Boise.” The author of the IFF screed admitted there was no confirmation the people were illegals or that Jannus’ operations “are driving illegal immigration.” That did not stop them from strongly insinuating that Jannus was using “tax dollars to fund welfare for illegals.”

So it looks like the IFF bullies have found yet another target, besides teachers and librarians, to smear with false allegations. Their game is to gain political and financial support by stoking fear and outrage against innocent targets.

The fact is that some Jannus programs are designed to serve immigrants to the United States, but those served are legal immigrants. Refugees are granted entry into the United States only after extensive background checks. They are granted the right to work in the country and are eager to make their own way. They do receive guidance, language instruction, temporary housing assistance and other necessary support to help them adjust to a new country. They don’t get handouts of taxpayer money.

I had the privilege of serving on the Jannus board of directors for a three-year term after retiring from the Idaho Supreme Court. I can attest that the organization works hard to obtain funding for programs beneficial to underserved segments of Idaho society. That’s why I recently contributed to the Jannus drive for endowment funding as the organization embarks upon its next 50 years.

It is disheartening to read IFF’s false claims about an organization that has done so much good for the people of Idaho. Jannus has truly been a sparkling jewel in the Gem State’s nonprofit crown. Nothing the IFF says can distract from that truth.

Two native Idahoans were featured in news stories during June–one received plaudits upon his departure from this mortal world, the other demonstrated her legal prowess on the national stage. The sad news was the passing of John Peavey, a former state senator who had a substantial impact on Idaho’s environment, water policy and political campaign transparency. The happier news was the impact that Elizabeth Barchas Prelogar has had on cases affecting the rights of women in Idaho and across the nation.

John Peavey, who passed away on June 16, will be remembered for his many contributions to public policy issues in the Gem State, including voter approval of Idaho’s Sunshine Initiative, requiring the reporting of campaign financing.  But, another of his major accomplishments was lighting the fuse that forced the state to take action to improve the administration of its water resources to meet the demands of the future.

Peavey and others filed legal proceedings against Idaho Power Company in the late 1970s, claiming the company was failing to protect its water rights on the Snake River to the detriment of electric ratepayers. That sparked one of the largest water fights in state history, often referred to as the Swan Falls water fight, which was not fully resolved until the late 1980s and which resulted in the adjudication of Snake River water rights in southern Idaho.

Former Governor John Evans and I worked in tandem against the power company forces during that fight to protect the State’s control of Snake River waters. It would take a 376-page book to describe the struggle and that’s why I wrote A Little Dam Problem, which explains it in detail. During the course of the fight, the Governor and I were often critical of Peavey for lighting the match that got it started. In retrospect, it is clear that he did us all a big favor. Several years ago, when speaking about my book at a Hailey Rotary Club meeting, I told John that he deserved great credit for focusing attention on the need for action. It was only because Peavey got the ball rolling, that the State modernized its water law and protected that valuable resource for future generations.

The other distinguished Idahoan in the news was Elizabeth Barchas Prelogar, one of the most important legal figures in the United States. Most Idahoans do not know that the Solicitor General of the United States was born, raised and educated in Boise, Idaho. Nor do they realize that she bested the Idaho Attorney General (AG) in two important abortion-related cases decided by the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in June.

The AG was able to convince the high court in January to temporarily prohibit Idaho doctors from providing care for pregnant women who come to the emergency room with dangerous complications. Under Idaho’s total abortion ban, doctors cannot provide emergency care until the pregnant woman is on death’s doorstep. A federal law required doctors to provide stabilizing care, including abortion, to protect the health of the mother. The AG repeatedly made the false claim that Idaho’s law was exactly the same as the federal law.

When the case was argued before SCOTUS in April, Solicitor General Prelogar was able to convince Justice Amy Coney Barrett and other members of the Court that the AG’s position was a misrepresentation. The Court decided in Prelogar’s favor last month, allowing emergency room care for Idaho’s pregnant women.

Prelogar was also able to convince SCOTUS to dismiss another case that Idaho and other red-state AGs were supporting to ban Mifepristone, a medication used to end an early pregnancy. She pointed out that the doctors who brought the case did not have “standing” (the requisite legal basis) to pursue the case and that studies claiming the medication was dangerous were manipulated and unreliable. Scotus tossed out the case for lack of standing in June, much to the chagrin of the state AGs.

Those who are knowledgeable in legal circles regard Idaho’s Elizabeth Prelogar as one of the best Solicitor Generals ever, a supreme advocate. She certainly has a bright future ahead of her, perhaps as a member of SCOTUS.

Idaho has produced some remarkable leaders. As we bid eternal rest to that influential rancher and politician, John Thomas Peavey, we wish ever greater success to Elizabeth Barchas Prelogar, our Idaho-grown legal star who represents the entire federal government before the nation’s highest court.