Press "Enter" to skip to content

A sign of hostility

July 21, 2026

Not an unusual sighting hereabouts at election time - those Trump signs.  Except one was very different from the other two.  The unusual sign said "MAKE CHRISTIANITY GREAT AGAIN - VOTE FOR DONALD TRUMP." A garland of flowers was woven - photographically - across the top.

"Make Christianity Great Again?"  I damned near lost my breakfast!  For the first time in my long life, I was overcome with a heated desire to grab that sign and rip it to pieces.  Even our dog - Skeezix - could feel my sudden anger as he lifted his leg.

Donald Trump is going to "make Christianity great again?'  Trump?  The guy who had dozens of peaceful protesters tear gassed and shoved off public streets so he could stand in front of a church he doesn't attend, to hold up a Bible (backwards) so he could have a photo op?  That serial-lying, mean-spirited, grossly incompetent and incredibly dangerous human being?  The guy who pays porn stars thousands of dollars to keep quiet about his sexual activities.  Him?

No, my foolhardy and incredibly ignorant neighbor!  No, not him.  Not him ever!  Trying to link that political disaster of a presidential aberration to anything Christ-like is absolutely impossible.  That sign says more about your out-of-touch political knowledge and your lack of understanding of the Christian way of life than trying to show your neighbors your political presidential preference.

Trump has put this nation through dozens and dozens of political indignities, lowering standards in nearly everything he's touched.  Christian?

New evidence of how low Trump will go - and how unlike Christ the man is - came in a conversation between ace reporter Bob Woodward and Trump's "in-over-his-head" son-in-law - the young Jared Kushner.

You don't have to listen to the entire thing.  You need only 30 seconds or so to hear Kushner's - and Trump's - depravity.  Their plan - when our COVID-19 deaths at the time stood around 40,000 souls - was to make a large government push to open everything back up.  Right now!  Schools, businesses, manufacturing, airlines, etc.  Trump would be the self-proclaimed economic booster.  "Open everything up immediately!"  "Things will be O.K.."   But, if - if - coronavirus cases continued to mount, blame governors!  Blame the governors!

That's about the most devious, heinous political thinking I've ever heard.  And I've been around a lot of politicians and a lot of political conversations for a long time.

Imagine.  To please his backers - his political "friends" - he planned to reopen a then-shuttered economy so those folks could profit - no matter how many Americans died - then blame the nation's governors for "acting too soon!"

I've not hidden my feelings about Trump.  From the git-go, he's been a political train wreck, receiving fewer popular votes but winning several key electoral college states.  So, the "winner" became the "loser" while the "loser" became the "winner."

From day one, he's exhibited how lacking he is in leadership qualities; empathy, compassion, knowledge of government, ignorance of the working side of the presidency, how to conduct himself as leader of the world's most powerful nation.

His walk-away from political disasters has mirrored his personal conduct as a private businessman.  If you lose, disassociate yourself from the loss, declare you "won" and go on to some other doomed venture.  Except, in government - especially at the top of government - it doesn't work that way.

The longer he's been in office, the more his dangerous qualities are displayed.  Un-friending some of our historic world partners, ignoring our treaties and other agreements with them, while cozying up to some of the world's worst dictators.  Openly admiring Vladimir Putin and all things Russian while ignoring his own State Department professionals warnings of the extreme dangers represented by Putin.

Now that we've had nearly six years of his version of the presidency, we've come to know him.  Really know him.  His complete ignorance of business and ethics - long-known to people who've had dealings with him over many years - are now known by other world leaders.

And, by us.  The governed.  His ignorance of the office he holds, his "bull-in-the-china-shop" attitude about relationships and world dealings, his lack of understanding the Constitutional roles of the presidency versus the other two branches of government, the inability to relate to regular citizens of this country - all this and more has marked his tenure.

I guess, given the knowledge of Trump's publically-known failings, the danger he poses for all Americans, his abuses of power and seeming lack of common values, combined to set me off when it came to someone publically believing he could have a positive affect in matters of Christianity.  And, I suspect that sign would bring a lot of laughs in the Vatican.  Trump to "make Christianity great again?"

Now that I've had a few hours to calm down, the anger is less.  But, what's left of it is directed at me for forgetting my own Christian values and the tolerance we're expected to have for others.  "Forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Put THAT on a sign in your yard.  In my yard.

 

Limiting court terms

July 20, 2026

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

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

Justice Thomas has had almost 35 years to build up a record of bad behavior, including the acceptance of more than $2.4 million in “gifts” since 2004 and the refusal to comply with simple disclosure requirements. During his 20 years on the Court, Justice Alito has become increasingly arrogant, politically motivated and intolerant of sound jurisprudence. Chief Justice Roberts has done his level best during his almost 21-year tenure to remove all limits on campaign contributions. He has consistently resisted efforts to place reasonable ethical restraints on the Justices.

All of this has resulted in an historic drop in public confidence in SCOTUS, which constitutes a serious danger to the rule of law in the United States. These longest-serving Justices make a compelling case for dramatic reforms to this vitally important American institution.

There are any number of things that Americans could demand to restore honesty, competence and impartiality to SCOTUS but many of them–a rational appointment process and an enforceable ethics code–are unlikely to happen with the current make-up of Congress. However, a SCOTUS term limit, which has strong public support and might help keep the Justices from misbehaving, would be a great place to start. Recent polling indicates more than 70% public support for term limits for these unaccountable officials.

There has been an increasing tendency of Presidents to appoint people in the infancy of their legal careers in hopes they will serve until they draw their final breath--sort of a cradle-to-grave system. By removing the incentive to appoint youngsters who would serve until they die, a term limit would likely result in the appointment of older, tested, more-experienced lawyers or jurists. Some of the most qualified lawyers and judges are effectively excluded from consideration simply because politicians want appointees to serve as long as possible. The last four SCOTUS appointments were ages 49-51.

Some term-limit naysayers tell us the US Constitution calls for the lifetime appointments of SCOTUS members. In other words, Justices may serve throughout their entire lifetime unless they commit some sort of serious infraction. However, there is an easy answer. Don’t limit their tenure, but merely change their status from full-time active Court members to “senior” members once they have reached the term limitation. Many states, like Idaho, provide that a cadre of senior justices can fill in when an active justice recuses on a case. Senior justices also participate on court committees and help with proceedings in the state’s lower courts.

Congress can and should enact legislation to limit SCOTUS members to a maximum term of active service of 15 years and then switch them to senior status where they could remain as long as they wish. That would give SCOTUS a group of senior Justices who could step in and serve by random selection when an active Justice recuses on a case or is unable to act because of illness or whatever else. The senior Justices could also be deployed to reduce backlogs in crowded US Circuit Courts of Appeal around the country, as well as serving on various Court committees. The senior Justices would still receive full pay while continuing to provide service beneficial to the court system. That would be a small price to pay for the substantial benefits to be received.

It is time to end the system that fosters a cradle-to-grave SCOTUS membership. A term limit would open up the possibility for older, more experienced lawyers and jurists to serve on the high Court. Presidents would no longer have an incentive to pick less experienced youngsters to serve for numerous decades. There are too many well qualified individuals who would be a real credit to SCOTUS and the rule of law, were it not for the sad fact that they are deemed ineligible because of their age. Periodic turnover would be a good thing. The longer a Justice sits in the ivory tower of the Court, the greater the likelihood of losing touch with the real world.

 

Oregon elections are plenty secure

Oregon elections are plenty secure

July 19, 2026

When Dennis Richardson was elected Oregon secretary of state, on the same day and party ticket as Donald Trump first was elected president, he moved quickly to look into a subject Trump talked about then and ever since: Voter fraud and election corruption.

The following February, Richardson reported what he found in the Oregon voting system: Some areas for improvement, but generally a system that works well and cleanly. Once a skeptic of the Motor Voter registration system, he had revised his view, saying it “actually has strengthened us in some ways.”

He warned against unfounded claims of voting problems because “it causes greater distrust of the government. … I want to make sure that the citizens of the state can trust their (voting) system.”

Richardson did not stop looking for bugs in the system, however, and he found some. In September 2017, he reported his office had found 54 possible instances of voter fraud, across Oregon, in the previous year’s general election — in an election where 2,051,448 ballots were cast, or about 0.002%. And those were simply questionable votes. Upon investigation, nearly all cases were found not to merit criminal charges.

In 2020, the Legislative Fiscal Office reviewed vote by mail in Oregon and found the state attorney general’s office (which handles cases of voter fraud) “obtained 38 criminal convictions for voter fraud out of the 60.9 million ballots in Oregon elections cast over a 19-year period. That amounts to a rate of .00006%. These figures demonstrate that voter fraud is exceedingly rare in Oregon, and is no more widespread in vote by mail elections than it is in polling place elections.”

For some Oregonians — and other people around the country — all this still doesn’t feel quite right. Getting ballots through the mail, and sending them out that way (though many people, myself included, prefer to use one of the state’s ballot boxes) somehow intuitively doesn’t seem very secure, not in the same visible way filled-out ballots are when quickly dropped in a locked box at a polling place in front of poll workers.

The Trump administration has piled on, implicitly accusing many states, Oregon among them, of failing to keep people who shouldn’t be voting from casting ballots.

Across the border in Idaho, state officials like those in Oregon have declined to provide to federal officials some sensitive voter information. That has led to federal legal action, and as in Oregon threatening letters were sent from the Trump Department of Justice. In Trump-supportive Idaho the attorney general’s office replied with the rebuke, “Stop threatening your friends in Idaho.”

Evidently, threatening states which voted against Trump would be less objectionable, although Oregon (like many other states) has also objected strongly.

Intuitive or not, the Oregon voting process is secure.

Bear in mind that most election administration happens at the county level. Clerks in Oregon’s 36 counties are most directly responsible for distributing ballots and counting those returned, and the process is handled by local people. The secretary of state, who does have responsibility for overseeing election processes, is mainly concerned with ensuring the counties are acting properly. That’s worth remembering: Any claim that elections have been corrupted is really an accusation that all our county clerks have been — and there’s no evidence of that.

The statewide system seems robust. Each ballot has a unique bar code, and they are tracked through the system. (During election periods, voters can obtain notices from the state about when their ballot was received by county officials, and where it is in the system.)

The 2020 legislative audit said “There are numerous processes built into Oregon’s vote by mail system to ensure integrity, including unique barcodes to track ballots, signature verification to prove voters’ identities, and election security plans filed by county elections offices. Vote by mail also leaves a paper trail that can be audited. In fact, two academic studies have concluded that the election results in vote by mail elections are generally more accurate than the election results in polling place elections.”

Cyberattacks are always a threat, but so far the system seems well protected (and regularly reviewed), and the core counting and related processes aren’t linked to the internet.

On the back end, the initially-reported election results are rechecked in several ways. Since 2008 the state has overseen after-election audits which include human hand counts to verify the accuracy of the machine counts. Many other states take similar steps, and around the nation the results have been generally the same: Mistakes are rare.

To be human-made and human-operated is to be less than perfect. But the babble from the beltway notwithstanding, Oregon’s mechanisms for voting come remarkably close.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

A campaign to define

A campaign to define

July 17, 2026

What is the abortion initiative, really?

How Idaho voters answer that question will decide the fate of the new abortion-related initiative that may dominate Idaho politics in the next three and a half months.

After not just a few years but decades of Idaho Legislatures passing anti-abortion laws, Idaho voters this year will have a chance to speak to it directly. They have consistently re-elected legislators who passed those laws, but was that the reason for that support or just a by-product? We’ll soon find out.

The group Idahoans United for Women and Families collected 110,000 petition signatures to get their initiative on this November’s ballot. The petitioning rules are complex and daunting; another initiative effort this year, on cannabis, fell short. The high bar can help advocates win in November, since they’ve already had to put together a major campaign. But it’s no guarantee, as backers of a ranked choice initiative found in 2024 when it crashed at the polls with less than a third of the vote in favor.

An initiative needs a simple majority - 50% of the vote plus one - to pass.

Some polling has found majorities of Idahoans opposed to the current Idaho abortion regime, which is one of the most draconian - a nearly complete ban - in the nation. In January, a Boise State University poll found “Idahoans’ support is generally high– 61% of respondents supported the initiative if given the proposed name, while 59% of respondents supported it if the name was omitted. … While there is little difference between samples for Republicans (45% with name compared to 47%), 90% of Democrats and 66% of Independents supported the initiative if provided the name, while 94% of Democrats and 60% of Independents supported the initiative if the name was omitted.”

Idaho will be one of several states (Nevada, Virginia and Missouri are others) with abortion issues up for consideration in November. One study of abortion measures from 1970 to 2024 showed choice-backed measures winning 71.4% of 21 ballot issues, and life-backed measures 27.3% (out of 44).

None of which necessarily predicts an Idaho result. What will the voters here do?

My estimate: It depends on what voters think they are voting on. How is the measure commonly described? What do voters think it will do, most basically?

The Iduhoans United measure self-describes: “This statute upholds a person’s rights to make their own decisions based on their own values, health care needs, and circumstances - free from the fear of external pressures or punitive consequences to them or their health care provider. The act supports a person’s right to reproductive freedom and privacy, protects the confidential nature of the patient-provider relationship, and secures a person’s right to make their own health care decisions without government interference.”

A statement from the Idaho Republican Party (which has declared war on the initiative, even pressuring legislators already to repeal it next session) outlines what the opposition will look like:

“The same measure that covers contraception and miscarriage care also legalizes abortion—even up to nine months as long as a provider says a delay might harm a woman's health.” Actually, no: The initiative draws a specific line at viability other than for a medical emergency.

“The initiative doesn’t reinstate any specific past Idaho statute. It creates new statutory language whose practical limits go far beyond what was allowed under Roe v. Wade. This is not going back to Roe. This is going past it.” It does create new language intended to overwrite existing law, but the thrust of it is not identical but similar to the regime under Roe, whether you like that or not.

“This initiative creates a broad ‘right’ to sexual libertinism with no age limit. It could be interpreted to conflict with parental rights and prohibit the protection of children.” The first is nowhere in the initiative; and finding rights restrictions for parents and children in a measure so specifically aimed at expanding them amounts to,(to be over-generous), a really creative interpretation.

“Idaho law protected both mothers and preborn life from the very beginning—starting after we became a territory in 1864. It was Roe v. Wade that was extreme and unprecedented.” Roe was a change all right; whether it was extreme or unwarranted would be a matter of individual opinion.

“Proposition 1 claims to protect conscience rights for physicians, but leaves out churches, pregnancy centers, faith-based providers, and more.” The initiative would have no effect on those other groups as far as expression of conscience is concerned.

So, what’s the initiative about? The best answer, as both the advocates and critics have suggested, lies in reading this short four-page document. The vote may hinge on how many people do.

 

Honor flights

Honor flights

July 15, 2026

Honor Flight Boise is scheduled to make its inaugural trip to the nation’s capital Oct. 3-5, and Patrick Teixeira – a World War II veteran – says he can hardly wait.

He will join about 25 other war veterans, from World War II to Vietnam, giving them an opportunity to see the memorials and share experiences.

The 97-year-old Army veteran has gone most of his life, not thinking about rewards that went with military service. Most of his post-war focus was on raising five kids, all of whom are living happily. But now he thinks he has earned this trip down memory lane, and those associated with Honor Flight fully agree.

“People should remember World War II,” he said. “I don’t think there is anybody who is left from the World War II era who say were there at the beginning (he was in Hawaii when Pearl Harbor was attacked on Dec. 7, 1941) and cleaned up at the end (at Hiroshima).”

He was 12 years old on that fateful day in 1941, but he wasn’t thinking about the magnitude from his mountainside viewpoint.

“I was thinking, ‘Whoa, look at the fire,’” he said. “At 15, I tried to enlist, but I was refused because I was too young. But I wanted to enlist and do my part.”

He took a civilian job at Pearl Harbor and successfully enlisted for a three-year stint when he was 17. He was honorably discharged in 1949.

Honor Flight Boise, which serves counties in Southwest Idaho (HonorflightBoise.org), is one of three hubs in Idaho. The Southeastern Idaho group, based in Pocatello (HonorFlightidaho.org), will have its inaugural flight on Sept. 1-2 for nearly 50 veterans. The Inland Northwest Honor Flight, based in Spokane and includes North Idaho (inwhonorflight.org), has been in operation since 2009. More than 3,000 veterans have gone to the nation’s capital over those years and about 100 are scheduled to fly out Oct. 13-14.

The cost of the flights are not cheap, and the three nonprofits are on their own as far as raising funds. Julie Crider, executive director of Honor Flight Boise, estimates it will cost $100,000 for its trip.

Photina Haumschilt, the board president and executive director of the Eastern Idaho Honor Flight, says Anheuser-Busch, is paying for the veterans to take the flight. From there, the organization relies on private donations and money raised from an annual fundraiser called “Legacy of Honor.”

Linda Peters, board secretary for Inland Northwest, says a golf event and gala (casino night) are the major fundraising events. From there, she says, “We beg for it … we have amazing volunteers.”

And what a way to honor veterans as America celebrates its 250th birthday. World War II and Korean War veterans are dwindling in numbers and many of the Vietnam veterans have bitter memories about their homecomings.

“I’ve heard so many stories, and some are reluctant to make the honor flights because of that, said Haumschilt. “I know of one who remembers the smell of being pelted with rotten tomatoes and a head of cabbage being thrown to his head.”

Receptions are far different with the honor flights, she says.

Peters says she’s been on a about a dozen flights. “I love it. My heart is in it. It’s such a humbling experience, and such a pleasure to tell them what they have done and what their service has meant to us.”

Crider is a native and former resident of San Diego, where the military is part of the community’s lifeblood. Her husband, Clark, served 20 years in the Army.

“I’ve watched honor flights in San Diego for 15 years and I’ve seen many military homecomings. I became interested in the Honor Flight program when I was there, and I thought it would be good to start one here when we moved in 2025,” she said. “It’s a labor of love for me, and I will be thrilled when we make this first flight. I think it all will be easier after that.”

And, hopefully, this will be the start of a long tradition.

Chuck Malloy, an Idaho native and long-time journalist and columnist, is a volunteer writer with the Idaho Community Foundation’s Nonprofit Center. He may be reached at ctmalloy@outlook.com

 

Expanding anti-trust

Expanding anti-trust

July 12, 2026

The Trump administration’s take on monopolies, mega-mergers and related activity, among the most important economic actions available to a government, often has been buried under many of the other national headlines in the last year and a half.

But the Oregon attorney general’s office — with counterparts in other states — may be about to launch a significant effort in the area.

The general purpose of anti-trust laws has been “to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keep prices down, and keep quality up.” The laws have often fallen far behind the times, especially in times of rapid technology change, and often leave out concerns other than consumer prices.

Anti-trust enforcement in this country was kick-started here when Congress passed the Sherman Act in 1890, but less known is that some states were working on it even earlier, and Congress voted partly in reaction to them.

Nationally, anti-trust action has trended ever weaker over the last century, and as one analysis from a large law firm working in anti-trust noted, “the transition to the second Trump administration has ushered in a much more favorable antitrust enforcement climate for M&A [mergers and acquisitions].” Friends and allies of the administration appear to get concierge service rather than tough skepticism.

But the feds aren’t the only anti-trust game around.

Most states have anti-trust laws on their books as well, some preceding federal laws and sometimes mirroring them, and many states have been active in enforcing them. That’s not a far reach, either; even the Federal Trade Commission (one of the major national anti-trust enforcers, at least in theory) says on its website, “most states have antitrust laws that are enforced by state attorneys general or private plaintiffs. Many of these statutes are based on the federal antitrust laws.”

In recent years, states increasingly have been banding together to bring major anti-trust actions. Earlier this year, eight attorneys general (led by California’s but including Oregon’s) moved to stop the planned merger of Nexstar Media Group and the broadcast company Tegna,which owns KGW-TV; that fight is ongoing.

In May, five states (again including Oregon) went to court with an attempt to expand their ability to undertake more kinds of anti-trust action.

Oregon was also among the parties in the legal battle against the Kroger-Albertsons grocery merger, which ultimately fell apart. It also was a player in the Live Nation/Ticketmaster case.

Nearly all states have anti-trust law in place; Oregon’s is the simply-named Oregon Anti-Trust Law (in chapter 646 of title 50). One review of state anti-trust laws notes that while it includes provisions against cartels and conspiracy, single-firm conduct and price discrimination, it doesn’t include provisions other states have concerning monopsony (where a single major buyer effectively controls the market), buyer power or interlocking directorates.

The whole area of anti-trust law has been busy enough that the Oregon State Bar has an Antitrust and Trade Regulation Section for members.

Don’t be surprised if a few expansions in Oregon’s anti-trust are proposed in an upcoming session of the legislature.

Legal activity seems about ready to expand. On June 17, Attorney General Dan Rayfield asked the Oregon Legislature’s Emergency Board for permission to hire 16 staffers — five attorneys and 11 other support staff — to triple the capacity of the already-existing Antitrust Division.

That speaks to something more ambitious than the state has seen so far. You can get a sense of that from the source of the funding for the new jobs: Not from state tax funds but from money recovered from losers in anti-trust cases.

In his statement after the funding approval, Rayfield seemed to indicate what he has in mind:.“Grocery bills are skyrocketing, there are fewer choices for things like cable and internet service, and things like tickets to concerts and movies are increasingly out of reach. A big part of the reason is that corporations are being allowed to consolidate unchecked – with no federal oversight. Oregon and other states are now the last line of defense to protect working families and that’s what drove the urgency behind today’s action.”

As a matter of politics, such a mindset is aimed directly at the barely affordable cost of living so many Oregonians experience. The Democratic argument writes itself: The Trump administration won’t do anything meaningful about prices, so we will.

Expect to hear more about this in the months ahead.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

Whither Idaho Democrats

Whither Idaho Democrats

July 10, 2026

While Democrats in Maine struggle with their preferences for the U.S. Senate, Idaho Democrats, for different reasons, are struggling too. They’re having to deal with two big considerations: One short term, one longer term, both focused now on the Gem State race for the U.S. Senate.

The Republican nominee is three-term incumbent Jim Risch. The Democratic nominee is David Roth, who won a contested primary with 64% of the vote.

Roth’s track record up to now is similar to that of most Democratic nominees for federal office in recent decades. In 2024, he received 31% of the vote against Republican Representative Mike Simpson. In 2022, running against incumbent Republican Senator Mike Crapo, he pulled 28.7%. In 2020 he got 34.9% in an Idaho Falls-area legislative race. His percentages have been in a consistent range and comparable to many other Democrats. There’s little reason to think he would much exceed those numbers this time.

The Senate race has a complicating factor in the person of Todd Achilles, a former Democratic legislator who has been running an energetic and evidently well received campaign as an independent. His race is in the mold of several other recent red-state independent candidacies, such as independent Dan Osborn, who took 47% of the vote in 2024 against a Republican incumbent, and is running again now. In his case, this year, the Democratic nominee for the Senate there, Cindy Burbank, withdrew in favor of Osborn.

So, if you’re a voter who would rather not reelect Risch, what do you do? That question has evolved in a spat among Democrats.

Former Representative Larry LaRocco sparked the debate shortly after the primary election when he wrote an essay saying: “the best course for Idaho and the United States would be for Roth to channel the pragmatic decision of Burbank in Nebraska. Roth should drop out of this hopeless and biennial cause, endorse Achilles for the U.S. Senate and ask the Idaho Democratic Party to do the same. This unselfish act would allow Idaho to have a fully funded, fully debated, fully visible and fully engaged campaign for the U.S. Senate.”

There’s been some pushback on the idea that Achilles would be a stronger general election candidate than Roth, and both sides can cite some polling to pitch their case. In truth, it’s speculative, since Idaho hasn’t had an independent candidate for the Senate like Achilles before, so we can’t be sure how well he will do. (Polling results have conflicted.) The argument is between the upside prospect of another Osborne against another near-certain Democratic overwhelming loss.

LaRocco’s main point is that the largest chance of a non-Risch win in November lies in an opposition unified behind Achilles. He argued that Roth should drop out to allow that opposition to coalesce, and that more candidates would surely benefit Risch. He is right about that.

Roth has declined to withdraw. In his own online post, he made a variety of arguments, such as that when he ran for and won the Democratic nomination, he did so with the clear intent of staying into November. In other states (as in Nebraska), Democrats have prepared for the independent possibility by nominating candidates who said in advance they would drop out. He also pointed out issues disagreements with Achilles.

Roth’s statement also included the suggestion that the Achilles candidacy really represents a lack of faith that in Idaho, Democrats can win a major race.

Here we have a very large point to consider. Democrats have not won an Idaho race for the U.S. Senate since 1974, for the U.S. House since 2008, for governor since 1990, and for any other statewide race since 2002. Democrats have held only about a fifth of state legislative seats since the early 90s.

The question becomes reasonable: Is the Democratic brand in Idaho simply too torched, too untouchable (for whatever reason) to succeed anymore in this state? Is it too toxic for any person, however wonderful they may be or how bad their opponent, to succeed electorally (outside of Boise and a few other places) in Idaho anymore? Is some very new approach, maybe including independent candidacies, what’s needed?

That’s a question this debate raises that Idaho Democrats ought to grapple with in a serious way. Soon.

 

Rewind: A sign of hostility

July 8, 2026

This column was first published several years ago.

Walking the dog a while back, I came upon a yard with three Trump signs.  
 
Not an unusual sighting hereabouts - those Trump signs.  Except one was very different from the other two which were the standard versions.  The unusual sign said "MAKE CHRISTIANITY GREAT AGAIN - VOTE FOR DONALD TRUMP." A garland of flowers was woven - photographically - across the top.
 
"Make Christianity Great Again?"  I damned near lost my breakfast!  For the first time in my long life, I was overcome with a heated desire to grab that sign and rip it to pieces.  Even our dog - Skeezix - could feel my sudden anger.
 
Donald Trump is going to "make Christianity great again?'  Trump?  The guy who had dozens of peaceful protesters tear gassed and shoved off public streets so he could stand in front of a church he doesn't attend, to hold up a Bible (backwards) so he could have a photo op?  That serial-lying, mean-spirited, grossly incompetent and incredibly dangerous human being?  The guy who pays porn stars thousands of dollars to keep quiet about his sexual activities.  Him?
 
No, my foolhardy and incredibly ignorant neighbor!  No, not him.  Not him ever!  Trying to link that political disaster of a presidential aberration to anything Christ-like is absolutely impossible.  That sign says more about your out-of-touch political knowledge and your lack of understanding of the Christian way of life than trying to show your neighbors your political presidential preference.
 
Trump has put this nation through dozens and dozens of political indignities, lowering standards in nearly everything he's touched.  Christian?
 
New evidence of how low Trump will go - and how unlike Christ the man is - came in a conversation between ace reporter Bob Woodward and Trump's "in-over-his-head" son-in-law, the young Jared Kushner came to light.
 
You don't have to listen to the entire thing.  You need only 30 seconds or so to hear Kushner's - and Trump's - depravity.  Their plan - when our COVID-19 deaths at the time stood around 40,000 souls - was to make a large government push to open everything back up.  Right now!  Schools, businesses, manufacturing, airlines, etc.  Trump would be the self-proclaimed economic booster.  "Open everything up!"  "Things will be O.K.."   But, if - if - coronavirus cases continued to mount, blame governors!  Blame the governors!
 
That's about the most devious, heinous political thinking I've ever heard.  And I've been around a lot of politicians and a lot of political conversations for a long time.
 
Imagine.  To please his backers - his political "friends" - he planned to reopen a then-shuttered economy so those folks could profit - no matter how many Americans died - then blame the nation's governors for "acting too soon!"   
 
Over the last several years, I've not hidden my feelings about Trump.  From the git-go, he's been a political train wreck, receiving fewer popular votes but winning several key electoral college states.  So, the "winner" became the "loser" while the "loser" became the "winner."  
 
From day one, he's exhibited how lacking he is in leadership qualities; empathy, compassion, knowledge of government, ignorance of the working side of the presidency, how to conduct himself as leader of the world's most powerful nation. 
 
His walk-away from political disasters has mirrored his personal conduct as a private businessman.  If you lose, disassociate yourself from the loss, declare you "won" and go on to some other doomed venture.  Except, in government - especially at the top of government - it doesn't work that way.
 
The longer he's been in office, the more his dangerous qualities are displayed.  Un-friending our historic world partners, our treaties and other agreements with them, while cozying up to some of the world's worst dictators.  Openly admiring Vladimir Putin and all things Russian while being told by his own security professionals of the extreme dangers represented by Putin.
 
Now that we've had six years of his version of the presidency, we've come to know him.  Really know him.  His complete ignorance of business and ethics - long-known to people who've had dealings with him over many years - are now known by other world leaders.  
 
And, by us.  The governed.  His ignorance of the office he holds, his "bull-in-the-china-shop" attitude about relationships and world dealings, his lack of understanding the Constitutional roles of the presidency versus the other two branches of government, the inability to relate to regular citizens of this country - all this and more has marked his tenure.
 
I guess, given the knowledge of Trump's publically-known failings, the danger he poses for all Americans, his abuses of power and seeming lack of common values, combined to set me off when it came to someone publically believing he could have a positive affect in matters of Christianity.  And, I suspect that sign would bring a lot of laughs in the Vatican.  Trump to "make Christianity great again?"
 
Now that I've had a few hours to calm down, the anger is less.  But, what's left of it is directed at me for forgetting my own Christian values and the tolerance we're expected to have for others.  "Forgive them, for they know not what they do."
 
Put THAT on a sign in your yard.  In my yard.

 

Voting in the rearview mirror

Voting in the rearview mirror

July 6, 2026

Voting rights in America were a Republican thing for over 100 years, but the GOP made an about-face on the issue beginning with President Nixon’s southern strategy. The Republican regression has reached a fever pitch with the GOP push for passage of the preposterously-named SAVE America Act (Save Act). It would make it infinitely more difficult for women, minorities and military personnel to participate in our elections. Thankfully, the Save Act is not likely to become law, due to strong opposition from affected voter groups, including many traditional Republicans.

President Abraham Lincoln set the stage for extending voting rights to formerly enslaved African Americans in a speech delivered at the White House on April 11, 1865. Following Lincoln’s assassination, his Republican Party was able to obtain ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. It granted voting rights for the first time to Black males. Voting rights for females of any race were not on the table until ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. Again, Republicans were behind that effort.

Despite the Fifteenth Amendment, southern Democrats were able for almost 95 years to prevent Black Americans from fully exercising their voting rights. That was accomplished by intimidation, poll taxes, literacy tests, and a variety of other insidious stumbling blocks. Those tactics came to a halt with the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Act). The Act would not have passed without strong support from Republican Members of Congress.

I was working as a legislative assistant for former GOP Senator Len Jordan (R–ID) during the summer of 1965 and recall being proud of his support for the Act. Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D–MT) and Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R–IL) strongly pushed for the Act, overcoming fierce opposition from southern Democrats. Its passage made a dramatic change in the composition of Congress.

Civil rights opponents immediately geared up efforts to marginalize the effects of the Act. Perhaps the most important development was President Nixon’s adoption of his “southern strategy,” which sought to capture the support of white southern voters by appealing to racist themes. The strategy proved wildly successful, eventually turning southern segregationist Democrats into newly minted Republicans. In recent years, a number of western states, including Idaho, have followed suit.

Former Governor Phil Batt, who exemplified traditional Idaho Republicans, was a life-long supporter of civil rights until he passed on March 4, 2023. His successors, Dirk Kempthorne and Butch Otter, both respected the rights and voices of Idaho voters. Governor Brad Little, determined to keep his Trump endorsement, has bought into the MAGA narrative. Idaho’s entire Congressional delegation and Attorney General strongly support the Save Act, despite any credible evidence of voter fraud in our elections. They know better but are fearful of straying from the Trump agenda.

If passed, the Save Act would likely be struck down as a flagrant violation of the US Constitution, which gives states the power to control elections. If the MAGA-influenced Supreme Court should bow down to MAGA, the SAVE Act would seriously impact important voter groups. Those voters who have changed their names from that on their birth certificates, particularly married women, would have to dig up birth certificates, divorce decrees, passports, or a variety of other documents proving their identity and citizenship in order to vote.

Members of the military, particularly those overseas like the more than 50,000 currently located in the Middle East, would likely be unable to find documentation proving their citizenship. Many service personnel would find it nearly impossible to register and vote. Our military forces deserve better than this. After all, they are responsible for defending all of our freedoms. Their military identification should, in and of itself, be the key to allowing their vote and they should be allowed to send their ballots by mail, as has been the case for decades.

I’ve been registered to vote in Idaho since 1963 and have voted in every election since then. Between that time and 1973, when I physically moved back to Idaho from out-of-state school, military service and work in the Senate, I voted by mail. The 1968 election was particularly difficult because the election occurred when I was fighting communists for my government in South Vietnam. If the requirements of the Save Act had been in place at that time, there is no chance I could have reregistered and voted in the 1968 election. Even with present-day communications, it would be nearly impossible for today’s overseas military to gather the citizenship documents necessary to participate in elections.

Idaho’s Members of Congress and Attorney General Labrador do not have much regard for the voting problems the Save Act would heap on our military. None of them ever stepped forward to serve. Senator Risch lamely claims that he did not serve in Vietnam because he “had an ongoing ulcer and they didn’t want” him.

Quite frankly, the military was not very picky during the Vietnam buildup about who they allowed to serve. Practically anyone who could stand on two feet was fair game. Despite having broken both legs in a horrific auto accident, spent 14 weeks in the hospital with my left leg in traction and my right leg in a full cast and being unable to walk unaided for almost a year, the Army was happy to honor my request for Vietnam service.

Our elected officials should stand up and speak out in favor of voting rights and against the ill-named Save Act. If they can’t find the courage to do so, they should step aside.

Abraham Lincoln set the stage for expansion of voting rights to all US citizens.