Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “Uncategorized”

The Idaho water giveaway candidate

The Idaho water giveaway candidate

September 27, 2024

Idaho has a limited water supply, and hanging onto - and carefully using - what it has is among the most pertinent topics for Idaho’s leading public officials, both as a matter of politics and policy. But the details, and breadth, of the threat to Idaho water users are worth bearing in mind.

Governor Brad Little spoke on September 23 about a report developed by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, which is seeking more information about how the states use their groundwater.

The Council said “in many parts of the country, the quality of groundwater has become so poor that it seriously impacts the health of communities that rely on it. This is especially true for farming and Tribal communities with no other access to potable water. Groundwater is managed locally, with best practices that vary from state to state,  but there is an opportunity to develop and scale approaches to restore clean water in every community.” Which is true, and also a fact that groundwater sources sometimes cross state boundaries (as the Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer does in Idaho).

The Council was speaking only about gathering technical data; no specific changes or expansion of federal activities were proposed.

Little and Lieutenant Governor Scott Bedke said in response that, “Management of water is a state issue. We do not invite or welcome the involvement of the federal government in making decisions about this precious resource."

The point that states should maintain general control over water, which in some ways even is written into federal law, is valid. But while the Council report was described on the governor’s website as a “groundwater grab,” it isn’t. Wariness about federal involvement is appropriate, but specifics matter. Without federal reclamation projects, for example, there would be no Magic Valley.

If control of water is a major concern for Little and Bedke, as it should be, they should have been rocked by comments by not just an advisory council but by the Republican nominee for president.

At a press conference in Rancho Palos Verdes, California, on September 13, Donald Trump said: “You have millions of gallons of water pouring down from the north, with the snow caps and Canada, and all pouring down. And they have, essentially, a very large faucet, and you turn the faucet, and it takes one day to turn, and it’s massive … and you turn that, and all of that water goes aimlessly into the Pacific. And if you turned it back, all of that water would come right down here and right into Los Angeles.”

Translating from Trumpspeak: He is proposing to take the Northwest’s water and send it to California. Okay, this is a fantasy. There is no “faucet” and no water diversion system now exists that would even allow this to happen, and if one were built the project might take decades. Tricia Stadnyk of the University of Calgary, said of Trump’s remarks that, “It’s somebody that doesn’t fully understand how water works and doesn’t understand the intricacies of allocating water not only between two countries but also for the environment.” To say the least.

Still, Trump said that if he is elected, he would do it. It would be Trump Administration policy.

For generations, Idahoans have been concerned about the idea of California reaching up to the Columbia River system and piping its water down to the big-population centers of the southwest, drying large parts of Idaho (and Washington and Oregon too, for that matter). Now a major-party nominee for president is proposing, explicitly, to do exactly that.

This is not just gathering information. This is not a study. This is an actual literal proposed water grab.

And what has been the reaction to that devastating water proposal from Idaho’s public officials?

Crickets.

It’s quite a contrast from the state’s reaction to the Biden Administration study. Wonder why that is?

 

Idaho women for Harris

September 18, 2024

Idaho is as red as it gets on the electoral map, but you’d never know that from the turnout at the iconic Egyptian Theater in downtown Boise on the August night that Vice President Kamala Harris accepted her party’s nomination.

The enthusiastic convention crowd in Chicago had nothing over the group gathered in Boise. No doubt there were more than a few wearing Chucks (shoe style) and pearls, which are part of Harris’ fashion attire.

“It was the next best thing to being at the convention,” said Betty Richardson, a former U.S. attorney and Democratic congressional candidate who along with Louise Seeley is heading a group called Idaho Women for Harris-Walz.

As Richardson tells it, enthusiasm for the Harris-Walz ticket is through the roof. It’s especially high after President Biden bowed out of the race. Richardson was among the Democrats who knew that a change at the top of the ticket was needed after Biden’s stumbling debate performance in June. What she didn’t know was how much the interest would grow in the aftermath. This quiet little group of about 10,000 attracted more than 3,000 more members since Biden dropped out. And there’s even more interest in the wake of Harris’ debate performance.

Richardson says members are encouraged to engage in discussions, and they are not shy about doing so. The presidential race is the dominant topic, with postings exploding with support for Harris and Walz. There also are discussions ranging from the serious, such as capital gains taxes, to the more silly side – such as “debate Bingo,” which was quite popular during the historic Harris-Trump encounter.

This is one group that is having plenty of fun, judging by the variety of postings. As Richardson tells it, “Not all of the members are Democrats. Republicans and independents are involved. Some are life-long Republicans who are fed up with the direction of the Republican Party.”

The lion’s share of members are from Boise and Meridian, with fair in the larger cities such as Nampa, Idaho Falls, Coeur d’Alene and Pocatello. Richardson estimates that 4,000 live in rural areas – the heart of “Trump country” in Idaho. Since the group is “private,” there’s no danger of Trump-supporting husbands or fellow church-goers finding out. Yes, there still is sensitivity to those things in Idaho.

I know a little something about that game. The first race I followed was 1960, with John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. My father was a strong-minded Republican, and Nixon was the only candidate worth talking about in our Osburn household. I found out many years later that my mother, who pretended to back Nixon, ended up voting for Kennedy. Today, women in Idaho who can’t stand Trump have an outlet through Richardson’s and Seeley’s group.

The issues are clearcut, according to Seely. “It’s about women’s health care and we are watching our rights dissolve, whether pregnant or not. I don’t understand why a woman would be voting for this kind of control. We are losing so much and will continue to lose if we don’t get out and vote for the right people. And that’s not just voting for Democrats. It’s (supporting) Republicans who have not drunk the Kool-Aid from the MAGA and IFF (Idaho Freedom Foundation) here in Idaho.”

Richardson says Idaho’s group is the second-largest group in the country on a per-capita basis (with North Carolina being No. 1. “We’ve created a community where people have meaningful conversations. We have a wide range of political experience, with some who have been involved all their lives. For others, this is the first time.”

The group, which has “sister” organizations throughout the country, has adopted Nevada, one of the battleground states that will decide the election. And there are forces in the Gem State who are available to send text messages, make phone calls, write postcards and knock on doors. Richardson and Seeley say the group is available to help in other states as well.

Richardson, a veteran of political campaigns, doesn’t expect the Harris-Walz ticket to carry Idaho. But the final tally might end up closer than expected, and the group’s influence could carry over to some legislative races.

We’ll see what happens on Nov. 5.

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

 

Close and closer

September 10, 2024

If things keep going the way they are now, we're going to have the closest Presidential election in decades.

This month's well-respected national Pew poll showed 46% favoring Kamala Harris and 45% DJT.  A single percentage point difference with a margin of error of 3-4-percent.

Backers in both camps talk of a "breakout moment" but no one has been able to define such.  Or do such.  We just keep waiting.

As if that weren't enough to keep worriers worrying, Trump has already begun beating the "election integrity" drums,  threatening to challenge November results in each state.

Used to be - before things went all electronic - you voted, then went home to watch the results.  Now, you vote, go home and wait for the challenges to come in.

Elections are meant to pick winners.  And, they do.  Most of the time. But, the challenge process has been more active of late.  Challenges, in some places, have dragged the process out for weeks.

Most election rules allow for challenges to this-and-that.  And, for the most part, that's been a good thing.  Making sure results are accurate.  Keeping the voting process on the right track.

But, we've seen - all too many times - challenges that were "off the wall."  Just meant to stir things up rather than assure results were accurate and that the rules were followed.   That could be what we see nationally in November.  Challenges here and there just for the sake of challenging.  Casting doubt.  Just for the hell of it.

Some of Trump's followers have already promised doing just that.  If they do, we'll be waiting for the final count long after November 5th.

Trump's ever-present, dour countenance continues.  His disruptive presence will hang around, no matter the outcome in November.

While Republicans have long produced a plethora of candidates in nearly all elections, Democrats have struggled to keep up.  Their bench of candidates-in-waiting has been noticeably thin in some places.  Typically, in Idaho, for example, as in nearly half the 2020 races for the Idaho Legislature, Republicans ran unopposed.

Oregon does somewhat better, even attracting a goodly number of third Party names on the ballot.  While Idaho is stridently Republican, Oregon leans more to a true two-party presence with a generally good mix to pick from.  There are more contested races, top to bottom.

Oregon, which has been considered "purple" for a long time, has been shifting slightly leftward and can reasonably be called a "Robin's egg" shade of blue.  Idaho, at the same time, has been consistently a deeper shade of "red."

How much faith one puts in polling differs considerably.  But, it really doesn't mean much this far out when candidates are still running neck-and-neck.  You'll see more meaningful results a couple of weeks before November five.

But, it's going to be really tight this time.  Which means you'll need more popcorn.  Better lay in a stock.  And, another log for the fire.

 

United for Biden to united for Harris

United for Biden to united for Harris

July 26, 2024

From an outside point of view, you can understand how this will look, which may be a little strange.

After all, the 27 delegates Idaho will send to the National Democratic Convention – the number isn’t especially large, partly because Idaho is a small-population state and partly because it doesn’t elect a lot of Democrats – who were chosen at the state party’s convention, were prepared to vote for incumbent President Joe Biden.

Until he withdrew from the race. Within only a day or so, they shifted as if in a military drill, in favor of Vice President Kamala Harris.

Hours after that was locked into place, Idaho Democratic Party Chair Lauren Necochea released a statement saying: “Idaho Democrats are united in our support of Kamala Harris as the next President of the United States.”

All this in a state where, in contrast to a number of blue states where the Democratic organization is tightly constructed, Democrats tend to be, shall we say, a bit less precision-drill.

It has the appearance of puppetry and of behind the scenes management. .

But you don’t have to wade into very deep weeds to see how this change in presidential candidate support – in Idaho as in other states – almost had to play out more or less as it has.

The Democratic delegates were united behind Biden up until earlier this month in part because he was the only real choice in the party by the time the party’s delegate-selection process kicked in. Two or three minor names were out there, but Biden nearly had the Democratic field to himself. (It was quite a contrast even to the Republican field this year, where Donald Trump was the clearly dominant figure but opponents like Ron DeSantis and Nikky Haley, though losing decisively, were much more than minor or unknown contenders.)

The single-dominant candidate scenario is the way it works, typically the rule and not the exception, with incumbent presidents and their parties. That’s how it happened with Donald Trump in 2020.

What’s new this year is the Biden dropout, so late in the campaign season, the kind of late campaign development that has never happened before in the nation’s history.

So how to select a replacement nominee, at such a late stage?

Much of the national punditry  seemed enamored of some kind of mini-primary or contest – the “thunderdome” scenario, in which a bunch of leading national figures from the Democratic party might rise up and campaign, albeit briefly, for the nomination. But that would only ever happen if multiple major candidates emerged to participate. As a matter of practical reality, it couldn’t happen, because no one but Kamala Harris would have available the organization and money and background of campaigning around the country, needed to make it work. No other candidate could possibly put together a national presidential campaign in the time available. A year ago, yes; at this point only weeks ahead of the general election, no.

In the hours and days after Biden’s announcement, Harris simply was the only contender to join in, and the only one with the practical resources to make a candidacy work.

In fact, even now others could try entering the race if they really wanted to. All they’d have to do would be to line up support from at least 300 delegates – a reasonable measure of some serious support within the convention. But absolutely no one has made any move toward doing that, other than Harris. Don’t hold your breath waiting for someone to do it.

So with Biden out, where else other than Harris were those Idaho delegates – and others around the country – going to go?

This may sound as if they were backed unwillingly into a corner, and I don’t mean to suggest that. The support for Harris within the party overall seems genuine and specifically within Democratic circles in Idaho (and yes, they do exist) as well. I talked with a number of Idaho Democrats in the days after the Biden-Harris switch, and all  seemed pleased with the change and optimistic about it.

Yes it looked a little odd. But that doesn’t mean it was.

(image)

The appeal of authoritarians

June 1, 2024

(NOTE: This column was filed before a New York City jury on Thursday returned guilty verdicts on 34 felony charges against Donald Trump.)

Well, it isn’t as though we haven’t been warned.

Some of us, believing that common sense — even common decency — would ultimately prevail, continue to expect the best in the face of the worst. The good old USA has been through a whole lot, they say, and we’ll get through this.

Others, believing their political opponents are always wrong and seething with anger at the changing faces of their country, talk of “derangement syndrome.” They are willing to pass off former President Donald Trump’s vulgar threats to judges, insults to women, “Muslim bans,” “Mexican rapists” and unhinged suggestions that a gulp of bleach could end a deadly pandemic. His boast that a third term, the Constitution notwithstanding, is part of his plan doesn’t faze them.

Still others believe our courts will enforce the rule of law against our authoritarian and his lawless acolytes, even as he stood outside his courtroom mouthing the endless lies of a lifelong con man who promises to pardon the men and women convicted of mounting an insurrection to overturn an election he lost. He knows democracy works on the honor system and he has none.

Some contend the old man in the White House is the problem. President Joe Biden is too feeble, too liberal, a destroyer of some idealized vision of America that never was and never will be. It’s all about the economy, they say. But after a prolonged pandemic that our authoritarian mishandled with deadly consequences, the U.S. economy is doing quite well.

As The Washington Post’s Catherine Rampell notes: “In reality, the U.S. economy has been growing consistently for nearly two years, even after accounting for inflation. By virtually every benchmark, in fact, we’re exceeding growth expectations. The U.S. economy has been outperforming other advanced economies. We’re also doing better than pre-pandemic forecasts had situated us by now, both in terms of gross domestic product and the number of jobs out there. This generally isn’t true elsewhere in the world.”

But those are facts, not the hard liquor of grievance that powers authoritarian politics.

It’s not as though Trump hasn’t told us he plans to be a dictator — only for a day he confidently proclaims — and such talk is easy for some to dismiss, but only if you don’t listen to the detailed plans for his second term. He’s really not going to destroy the nonpartisan civil service, is he? Those mass deportations and internment camps are just campaign season talk, aren’t they? Withdrawal from NATO: Can he do that? Wholesale pardons? Surely not.

Sure he provides a platform for white nationalist racism and posts a video saying all liberals will die when he’s back in power, but that’s just the way he talks, right? Claims of total immunity? Not to worry. The courts won’t let anything really, really bad happen, will they?

He talks of “human scum” and tells supporters he will deport all the pro-Palestinian protesters while courting Wall Street and Big Oil with promises of more tax cuts and more warming of the climate. But he was good for business, wasn’t he? At least his tax cuts worked for the people who frequent his golf courses.

Trump has outsourced his plans for another term, such as they are, to the Heritage Foundation, which has produced “Project 2025,” an ultra-right-wing manifesto that proposes to be the playbook for an authoritarian American state: Eliminate public education, white Christian Nationalism, further restrict abortion, deport millions and institute a loyalty test for anyone in the federal government. The “project” is our “Mein Kampf” for the 21st century.

Of course, it’s not like he has any real plan to improve anything. But that’s not the point, is it? He makes some of us feel really good by saying outrageous things and giving a middle finger to all the old complications of democracy. He speaks for me, some say, when he speaks of hatred and revenge and attacks a “crooked” legal system that strangely is best exemplified by his Supreme Court, which reeks of the entitlement, arrogance and elitism that his supporters believe he’ll eviscerate.

After promising to destroy 50 years of established law concerning abortion, he now has no straight answer about whether he’d support a national ban or how he feels about contraception. Testimony at his recent trial confirmed he didn’t wear a condom with the porn star, so perhaps we have his views on the subject.

As Marianne Levine wrote in The Washington Post: “In under 48 hours this week, Donald Trump’s social media account promoted a video featuring a term frequently associated with Nazi Germany and later removed it. He suggested he was open to states restricting access to contraceptives and then walked that back. He falsely accused President Biden of being ‘locked & loaded’ to ‘take me out.’ And in between, he was in court as his legal team rested its case in his ongoing criminal trial.”

It isn’t as though we haven’t been warned.

“His campaign speeches these days ring with Nazi rhetoric,” The Guardian’s Margaret Sullivan wrote this week, “as he claims that immigrants are ‘poisoning the blood of our country’ and that his political opponents are ‘vermin.’ ”

Trump recently posted a video calling for a “unified Reich.” This language isn’t any longer a mere dog whistle, it is a blaring claxon. And it is working with many of his followers who willingly embrace his brand of American fascism.

To understand the appeal of what has happened one must understand the history of authoritarian movements, as the great British journalist and writer George Orwell understood them in the 1930s and later.

In his famous 1940 review of Adolf Hitler’s manifesto — the aforementioned “Mein Kampf” — Orwell wrote: “The initial, personal cause of his grievance against the universe can only be guessed at; but at any rate the grievance is here. He is the martyr, the victim, Prometheus chained to the rock, the self-sacrificing hero who fights single-handed against impossible odds. If he were killing a mouse he would know how to make it seem like a dragon.”

The appeal of the authoritarian is visceral and very personal, Orwell said, for “Hitler could not have succeeded against his many rivals if it had not been for the attraction of his own personality, which one can feel even in the clumsy writing of ‘Mein Kampf,’ and which is no doubt overwhelming when one hears his speeches. … The fact is that there is something deeply appealing about him. One feels it again when one sees his photographs … a pathetic, dog-like face, the face of a man suffering under intolerable wrongs. In a rather more manly way, it reproduces the expression of innumerable pictures of Christ crucified, and there is little doubt that that is how Hitler sees himself.”

Our authoritarian has, of course, repeatedly compared himself to Jesus.

It isn’t as though we haven’t been warned.

 

On the radar

May 17, 2024

Driving a few weeks ago across back roads in the Magic Valley, I was interested to see a few political signs up already, and several in a top of ticket race many people don’t have on their radar.

To the extent Idaho gets some national attention on the night of the 21st - the night the votes are counted after this month’s primary election - it could relate to one contest, not likely to generate a surprise but significant if it does.

That’s not, as it would have been in years past, the presidential primary: Republicans held caucuses back in March, and former President Donald Trump then received 84.9% of the vote, over contenders who had withdrawn (Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis). That settled the question of who would get how much of the state’s support for the Republican nomination.

Be it noted that the caucus was held at a point when Trump already had the nomination more or less sewn up, meaning there wasn’t a real contest. While he easily won the primary four years ago, when he was running essentially unopposed as an incumbent president, Trump did not win Idaho four years before that, in 2016. The blue ribbon that year went to Texas Senator Ted Cruz; Trump was in second place, about 20 points behind him.

This year, Idaho won’t provide in its primary the Haley percentage some other states have.

So whatever else we learn about attitudes of the state’s Republican voters this year is more likely to come from just down the ballot. Legislative races may tell us a lot, but keep watch too on the numbers in the primaries for the two U.S. House districts.

Not, that is, in the first district, where Republican Russ Fulcher is unopposed in the primary. (In the fall he faces Democrat Kaylee Paterson and two minor-party contenders.)

But do watch the numbers in District 2, where veteran Representative Mike Simpson, first elected to the House in 1998, does have primary competition from Scott Cleveland and Sean Higgins.

Higgins is likely to wind up in third place. He has not been especially visible, and for a congressional candidate has raised little money, often a good tipoff to political strength.

Cleveland is a little different. He ran for the U.S. Senate as an independent in 2022 (losing to Republican incumbent Mike Crapo), pulling 8.4% of the vote - not bad, actually, as independents go - and raising about $104,000, also not bad for an independent.

That independent run is likely to weigh against him this time, as he contends to be a Republican standard-bearer for Congress. The money he has raised so far, roughly in line with the amounts he raised last time for the Senate race, is pretty good for an outsider but way behind what established incumbent Simpson can do and has done.

In all, Simpson, who has swatted back lots of primary challenges over the years including a serious one just two years ago, is unlikely to lose, and it’s not likely to be close.

But the unexpected does happen from time to time in elections, and even if Simpson wins, his percentage could be - depending on the attitudes of the district’s Republican votes - small. If it’s either unusually small or unusually large, some kind of message can be drawn from it.

Why might Simpson be harder pressed this time? It could relate to his uncomfortable relationship with the Freedom Caucus side of the House Republicans, and his overall centrist - in the context of House Republicans - role in the House. Or, if he’s not centrist enough for you, there are two challengers who can serve as a repository for that opposition. This kind of calculus is what can make election analysis so tricky.

Or, of course, Idaho might be more or less ignored by the national news coverage on May 21, and probably you can count that as the most likely outcome.

 

Balancing power in Oregon’s House

Balancing power in Oregon’s House

March 24, 2024

Two years ago, the Democratic majority in the 60-member Oregon House slipped from 37 seats to 35. But could Republicans win a majority this year?

Probably not, though it’s not out of the question: Democrats have more vulnerable state House seats this time than Republicans do.

But Republicans have some statistical vulnerabilities of their own.

All 60 House seats are up for election this year, compared to about half of the Senate. That gives both parties an opportunity to make a significant shift all at once.

Realistically, the chances of that happening are limited. A big reason is that about two-thirds of the members of the House were elected last time by landslides, with a lead of at least 20% of the vote over their nearest competitor, if any. In our polarized world, most Oregon legislative districts are simply out of reach for candidates from the other party.

That includes 21 districts now represented by Democrats, and 18 held by Republicans. The party strength in those areas mostly aligns with party registration. Only four House legislators – all Republicans – represent districts where the other party holds a registration edge.

About two-thirds of Oregon’s House members were elected in races with more than a 20-point margin, normally a marker of not just a personally strong incumbent – which is not always the case – but also of a district where one of the major parties is dominant and nearly invulnerable. And some additional districts, like that of House Majority Leader Julie Fahey in Eugene and retiring Republican Rep. Brian Stout of Columbia City, fall just short of that 20-point mark and would be just about as tough to flip.

But 13 House races were decided last election by fewer than 10 points, and in that range, seats can be relatively competitive. Attention is likely to be focused this year on many of those districts. Incumbents have filed for reelection for nearly all of those seats.

Many are in compact geographic areas east and south of Portland – into Clackamas and Hood River counties – and in and around Salem. Others are in regions that have become politically marginal, such as around Springfield, the Hillsboro-Forest Grove area and the north coast from Astoria through Tillamook. It’s not coincidental that in an area of what looks like the hottest U.S. House race in the state this year, District 5, overlaps a number of these districts.

The good news for Republicans is that nine of those districts are represented by Democrats who won tight races. If Republicans flipped as many as six of those, without losing any of their own, they could control the House.

On March 12, the Evergreen PAC, which supports Republican candidates, released a statement highlighting Republican House candidates “in some of Oregon’s most competitive districts,” with a list that included Districts 7, 19, 26, 39, 40, 48, 49, 50 and 53 that saw many of the closest House races in 2022.

The two closest House races of 2022 both were won by Democrats: Annessa Hartman (District 40, Oregon City), who won by half a percentage point, and Emerson Levy (District 53, Bend), who won by 1.3%. Their districts could be highly competitive again this year. But they do have some advantages, starting with a Democratic edge in voter registration in their districts, and the fact that since this year is a presidential election year, turnout is likely to be higher. That usually provides a small advantage to whatever party has the registration advantage.

The other Democrats with winning margins in the last election within 10%, starting with the closest election, were: Hoa Nguyen (District 48, Portland), Ricki Ruiz (District 50, Gresham), John Lively (District 7, Springfield), Zach Hudson (District 49, Troutdale), Courtney Neron (District 26, Wilsonville), Susan McLain (District 29, Hillsboro) and Tom Andersen (District 19, Salem).

That’s a significant collection of realistic targets for Republican candidates who would like to collect the five seats needed for a tie or six to take control of the House. It’s a tall order, though, because all of those districts have Democratic advantages in voter registration.

Republicans, in contrast, have just four seats that were won by 10% or less: Cyrus Javadi (District 32, Astoria), Tracy Cramer (District 22, Woodburn), Jeffrey Helfrich (District 52, Hood River) and Kevin Mannix (District 21, Keizer).

All four of these incumbents are in fragile positions, partly because Democrats hold registration advantages over Republicans in each. Javadi won by 2.5% over a Democrat, but he faces the headwind of a 9.3% Democratic registration edge. Cramer has a more extreme case: a 3.2% win last election, and a 15.1% Democratic advantage. Those four Republicans likely will be top Democratic targets this year.

Of course, the strength of the campaigns of these candidates, and their opponents, has yet to develop. In close contests, that could be decisive and it could decide what the Oregon House will look like next term.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

(image/Oregon Legislature)

 

Farewell to the referendum

Farewell to the referendum

March 18, 2024

From a statement by Jim Jones and Ben Ysursa.

House Bill 652, which is designed to critically wound citizen initiatives in Idaho, will also administer an absolute kill shot to the citizen referendum. For those not familiar with the referendum, it is an infrequently-used mechanism that allows voters to veto a bill enacted into law by the Legislature. Voters can make a law with the initiative or use the referendum to veto a law passed by the Legislature. The reason that the people rarely use the referendum is that the Legislature has set timelines that are nearly impossible to meet. Referendum petitions with the required number of signatures must be submitted to the Secretary of State no later than 60 days after adjournment of the legislative session in which the bill they want to veto is passed. Most of those 60 days would be spent trying to fulfill bureaucratic requirements before signature gathering could actually commence.

The last time voters used the referendum was in 2012, when it was used to veto three unpopular education laws, commonly called the “Luna Laws.” It took a herculean effort to meet all of the bureaucratic requirements and gather the signatures. Approval of HB 652 would render the referendum useless. That, in turn, would result in a successful court challenge of the new law.

There is a serious drafting error in HB 652. One section sets a 60-day public review period in the Secretary of State’s office just for initiatives. During those 60 days, petition signers can remove their signatures from an initiative, which is a constitutional problem in its own right. The next section just assumes that the 60-day public review period applies to both initiatives and referendums–sloppy work.

Regardless of how the signature removal provision applies, it is an unconstitutional burden on the right of voters to use both the initiative and the referendum. The Florida Supreme Court issued a remarkable decision in 2010 that clearly spelled out the danger. The Court’s reasoning applies to both the initiative and the referendum.

The Florida Court said: “These signature-revocation provisions substantially burden the constitutional rights of initiative proponents and initiative signatories by affording initiative opponents an unopposed, definitive opportunity to ‘persuade’ electors to revoke their signatures for any reason and by any means, even illegitimate.”

The Court continued, “the provisions vest rival political action committees with the primary responsibility for drafting, distributing, marketing, and submitting petition revocation forms, and render it practically impossible for initiative proponents to determine whether they have obtained the requisite number and distribution of verified signatures until it is too late to gather, submit, and verify additional signatures.”

The Court concluded: “Placing a signature upon an initiative petition does not signify one's definitive agreement with a proposed amendment or revision; rather, one is merely agreeing that the proposal is worthy of statewide consideration and discourse for a vote at a later date. If an elector simply changes his or her mind in this regard, he or she remains free to participate in public discussion and to vote against the proposal.”

Some proponents of HB 652 argued in the House that the bill would not apply to the Open Primaries Initiative, which is currently being circulated. However, that is a debatable issue because of the bill's troublesome wording. Under current law, a signer may have his or her signature removed at any time prior to the county clerk's verification of the signature. That would occur well before June 30 because that is the deadline for clerks to send their petitions to the Secretary of State. The effective date of HB 652 is July 1 of this year. HB 652 provides that the Secretary of State will have a public review period starting after receipt of the initiative petitions and extending for 60 days, during which signers can request that their signature be removed, even though the signature would have already been certified by the county clerk well before that time. You can bet that opponents of the initiative would then argue that the public review period becomes immediately effective on July 1 and that signers can have their signatures removed from the Open Primaries Initiative for the duration of that period.

HB 652 is an unconstitutional mess and should be put out of its misery in the Senate.

Jim Jones is a Vietnam combat veteran who served 8 years as Idaho Attorney General (1983-1991) and 12 years as a Justice on the Idaho Supreme Court (2005-2017).

Ben Ysursa served as Idaho Secretary of State from 2003 to 2015. He served as Deputy in the office from 1974 to 1976 and as Chief Deputy from 1976 to 2002. He received the Outstanding Administrator Award from the Idaho Republican Party in 1992.

(image/Washington Secretary of State)

 

Party power

Party power

March 15, 2024

It’s a new move in Idaho, this process on the part of some local Republican county central committees to censure elected officials, who have won their party’s nomination in primary elections, on grounds that they inadequately dance to the tune of party officials.

The latest to try this has been the Bonneville County Republican Central Committee. (Social note which may help describe the group’s perspective: Arizona Senate candidate Kari Lake is scheduled to be their Lincoln Day speaker next month.) The Bonneville Republicans last week voted to censure two local Republican legislators, Senator Kevin Cook and Representative Stephanie Mickelson. Leaders in the county organization have been critical of them for a while, though this development takes things to a new level.

Two censures from a Republican committee (whether legislative district, county or state organization), under current rules, can lead to a demand that the elected official, though nominated and elected as a Republican,  “remove Party support and prohibit the use of Republican Party identifiers” in their campaign.

That has the sound of a serious threat, since so many Idaho voters apparently look for those Republican identifiers, and not much more (such as candidate background, qualifications and well-thought-out positions), when deciding how to fill elected offices.

In an opinion piece, Mickelson noted that, “When I ran for office, I needed to secure a majority of votes from over 52,000 people in my district. Now, 20 precinct committeemen on the District 32 Legislative Committee will vote on whether I can call myself a Republican. Of those 20, only nine were elected. The other 11 were appointed.” Which, she asked, ought to have primacy?

Mickelson also said that if a demand actually is made to remove any kind of party support, “Some have suggested they’ll pursue legal action to enforce this decision.” Indeed some have suggested as much, and it would be interesting to see how that would play out in a court of law.

But there’s also a larger question: Who gets to call themselves a Republican, or a Democrat, or something else, for that matter?

Idaho Democrats and other groups of voters haven’t made much of an issue out of it (nor have the minor parties), and the Republicans whose political dominance in the state isn’t in any way immediately under threat, likewise seldom did, until recently. If someone was considered far enough outside the party’s mainstream (however that might be defined), the usual view was that they could be defeated at a primary election.

That approach began to change after 2011 when, after a court decision allowing political parties to limit their primaries to registered members, Idaho Republicans closed their primaries to allow party registrants only. (Other Idaho parties have not chosen that limitation.) Of course, anyone could register as a Republican, so that didn’t completely solve the (perceived) problem of participation by non-true believers.

As the Idaho Republican party structure has been taken over increasingly by more extreme groups, a conflict between the party and its voters started to become almost inevitable. Now we’re starting to see it arrive.

There’s a key question here: Who gets to decide what a real Republican is? This isn’t a one-sided question. A lot of long-time Republican former elected officials have decried the current party leadership - and some of its elected officials - as virtual invaders who have taken the party far away from its roots and meaning. There’s a real dispute about what a real Republican is or should be.

One approach since has been growing imposition of doctrine and dogma, and ever more extreme positions in party platforms and resolutions: You must support all of this, or else you’re not a real Republican.

What’s worth pointing out is how different this is from the historic norm, when the decision of what was a “real” Republican (or Democrat) was left to the people who voted in the primaries, even if that process sometimes was a little messy. Of course, when you have a one-party state, those stakes get higher.

And when that happens, the extremes become more so.

(image/Needpix)