Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “Idaho”

Conflicts of interest

Conflicts of interest

January 24, 2025

This comparison and contrast between Idahoans and their leaders isn’t new in principle, but it’s worth reiterating as the Idaho state government sets about its annual goal setting in the form of the Idaho Legislature.

Every year, for many years now, and generally toward the start of the legislative session, the Idaho Public Policy Survey is released at Boise State University. It is a poll of Idaho’s people about a wide range of public issues.

The survey was conducted by GS Strategy Group; if you wonder (as I do) about how such a survey is conducted these days, GS reported that 38% was done by cell phone, 11% by landline phones, 40% online and 11% by text message. It was conducted in the first part of November.

Its top line was a reversal of the previous year, as respondents found Idaho is moving in the right direction - although what that means exactly isn’t especially clear. Two different people might say, for example, “right direction,” and mean wholly different things by it.

Most of the rest of the findings were more specific and less ambiguous, and very much in line with findings from previous years, which lends some strength to their plausibility. Here are the report’s “key findings” (the whole list) on issues:

“For the second consecutive year, workforce and affordable housing is Idahoans’ top overall legislative budget priority.

“Increased teacher pay is Idahoans’ top education budget priority.

“A majority of Idahoans say they oppose (53%) the use of tax dollars to pay for a private or religious school.

“Nearly half of Idahoans (49%) say access to health care is difficult in the state.

“39% of Idahoans say increasing the number of immigrants helps Idaho’s economy, but that proportion grows to 46% when discussing legal immigrants specifically.

“A majority of Idahoans (55%) believe that abortion should be permitted in Idaho through at least the first trimester. A majority (64%) also believe that exceptions for abortion access should be expanded.

“A majority of Idahoans (51%) have concerns about the security of elections in the United States, but less than a quarter (22%) have concerns about the security in Idaho itself.

“A majority of Idahoans are concerned about campaign spending by independent groups in Idaho.”

That sounds not only very different from the high priorities of the Idaho Legislature, it sounds directly in contradiction to them.

Many states (Oregon, California and Washington among them) are spending much of their legislative effort on housing. (A suggestion: Check out what other state legislatures are doing, since most of them are meeting by this time of year. What are they dealing with? Some, you will find, are very like Idaho, and others are highly different.) How successful those efforts will be is unknown, but they’re trying. It’s not a top priority at the Idaho Legislature. Neither is homelessness, which is a big topic elsewhere in western states.

Attitudes toward abortion and immigration clearly are very different statewide than at the Statehouse. Idahoans generally do not seem comfortable with the how-absolute-can-we-make-our-abortion-ban approach at the legislature.

Health care access in Idaho - which by any reasonable standard is one of the top problems in Idaho right now - obviously registers as a serious matter for many Idahoans. You’ll not find a lot of action in that area at the legislature, which in recent years has gone out of its way to make the problem worse.

Most Idahoans say they’re concerned about the massively-rising levels of campaign spending by independent (often out of state) groups in Idaho elections, including but not exclusively legislative elections. Expect the sound of crickets about that at the Statehouse.

Idaho’s legislators aren’t acting in secret. There are plenty of ways Idahoans actually can track, in detail and even in real time, the actions of their lawmakers at Boise. Few seem to do it. Probably few even know who their legislator is (except that, for nearly everyone, it’s an “R”).

That’s the simplest straight-line explanation of why so many legislators get so easily re-elected. Doing the will of the people doesn’t really seem to explain it.

 

The judge shortage

January 6, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Carter and Idaho

Carter and Idaho

January 3, 2025

The last time a Democrat won Idaho’s vote for president was 60 years ago, in 1964, when Lyndon Johnson prevailed in a landslide nationally and narrowly in Idaho, and Republicans have won the state easily since. In these last six decades, the highest Democratic percentage for the office, 37.1%, was won by Jimmy Carter, who died at 100 on December 29. (Barack Obama in 2008 came next highest, at 36.1%.)

Carter’s numbers fell by about 12 points four years later, a drop more severe than he experienced nationally. Some of that may relate to the candidacy of Ronald Reagan, who was almost preternaturally popular in Idaho.

But Idaho, and its politics, changed during those Carter years in various ways, and probably more than the nation’s did. Not all of it - not most of it, for that matter - was directly attributable to Carter himself. But the Carter era, with all it entailed in Carter’s own action and the opposition to him, was something of a pivot for Idaho, as it would be in many other places. And a president famously unconcerned about the political impacts of his actions was not well positioned to oppose a wave rising up against him.

The Carter Administration did have an effect on Idaho directly in a number of ways, in some places economically but not least its environment. Carter’s Interior secretary - the only cabinet member to serve all through that administration - was Cecil Andrus, plucked from the Idaho governorship. He had a real impact on federal lands policy, most famously perhaps in Alaska, but to a great degree in Idaho as well. Carter signed the Central Idaho Wilderness Act (pushed by Andrus and Senator Frank Church) in 1980, and it formed the basis of what has become the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness.

Carter may, in fact, have had a closer connection to Idaho in a practical way than any president in the last century. As a naval officer, he worked with the National Reactor Testing Station at Idaho Falls. (The Carter Administration years were a growth time for the site.) He vacationed for several days on the remote Middle Fork of the Salmon, and visited Grand Teton National Park.

Carter took a lot of blame for the reversals in those years in Idaho’s timber industry, though most of the trends that saw its diminishment both predated and followed his time in office. (Northern Idaho’s mining industry cratered during the Reagan years, though Reagan never was blamed for that.) This was on top of the many other complaints against Carter of a national scope, from the economy to the hostages in Tehran to the Panama Canal treaty.

But Carter’s unpopularity in Idaho was something remarkable to see, a ferocious anger out of degree and proportion with whatever disagreements many Idahoans may have had with him, and of a different kind than was normal for Idaho. It was a kind of dismissive fury new to politics in the area, probably made possible by the broader disillusionment of the Vietnam and Watergate periods. And it has carried through over time. Democratic presidents since have been able to gain no traction except in the diminishing blue sectors of the state; the mention that a person or candidate is Democratic often is enough to shut down the listening before another word is said. This was not true a half-century ago.

That change in the social environment was an opportunity for political activists, many of them national rather than local in origin, who fed on a growing sense of cynicism to develop a politics of antagonism - one of far less interest in what one’s own party or preferences could do, and bitter anger toward the other guys, who over time became redefined from loyal opposition to deadly enemies.

These are some of the reasons the Carter years were among the central turning points taking our politics from what was to what is, unfortunately, today. And Idaho turns out to be one of the best case studies for it.

 

Two kinds of cases

December 23, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

The unknowing

December 3, 2024

Never thought this day would come.  But, we seem to be watching the dissolution of the national Republican Party in real time.

The GOP is in danger of splintering to pieces.  All on its own.  By it's own hand.  No help needed, thank you very much.

In Congress, the danger of becoming irrelevant is coming from within the Party.  At least that portion called the "Freedom Caucus."  The 40-50 or so GOPers who've chosen to separate themselves from the main branch of the Republican Party, in most things, by moving further right.  Way at the end of the teeter-totter.

It would seem, gone are the days when a political group could hold a party-line vote on any subject.  Now, at least for Republicans, even setting a date for a celebration of Lincoln's birthday ends in an argument.  The in-fighting is serious.  And, for real!

We read and hear a lot about the "nutcase" folks which really are a minority within the whole of modern day Republicanism.  The nuts get publicity because (1) they're easy for what we call "reporters" to "report" and (2) their outrageousness.  "Good copy" as they say in the newspaper business.

In reality, today's bunch is just the old John Birchers on steroids.  Their subject matter has been updated from the '50's.  But, it's still pretty much the same.

And, it doesn't look like the radical nature of their conduct has reached its zenith.  Every month or so, they come up with something new.

Now, on the national scene once again, it's the size of the federal budget that's become divisive.  While a majority of Republicans seem O.K. with the numbers thus far, recent mainline GOP approval has come under fire from the rightward fringe.

The malingerers want "downsizing."  "Downsizing" on all fronts!  They don't seem to care who or what gets hurt.  Just "DOWNSIZE."

The reason the fringe doesn't care is because they don't know.  If you listen to their bitching - and you do so at your own risk - they haven't studied the subject matter enough to "know" what they want cut.  Or, what or who would be harmed by just "cutting here, there and anywhere."  Becoming familiar with the intricacies of constructing a budget is, to them, not necessary.  Just "CUT."

At the moment, those voices are a vocal minority.  Mainliners are still in control.  And, it would seem, there's little danger of the "fringe" becoming the political center of Republicanism.

In Idaho, the local chapter of the "Freedom Caucus" is not having a good day with the more moderate section, either.

There, several "F-C"members have thrown a lot of verbal garbage on the more moderate bunch in the Idaho Senate.  The President Pro-tem of which, apparently fed up with the bilge he was hearing from the Idaho chapter of the Caucus, was moved to publically rebuke the "crazies," calling their latest outbursts "degrading" and "disrespectful."

One of the certainties of the far-right has always been the guaranteed failure of members to stick together.  Sooner or later, there'll be a breakup.  Distrust nearly always runs rampant within the right-wing.

The "Freedom Caucus" - whether local or national - will likely meet the same end.  It's just the latest iteration of discontent within the Party.  One of these days, a new version will come along.

And, then, another.  And, another.  And, another.

 

Volunteers and party bosses

December 2, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Again

January 25, 2024

I had this conversation with my wife yesterday about Idaho’s abortion laws. I have told this before, but she said I needed to say it again. She didn’t remember. Maybe you don’t either.

The Idaho antiabortion statutes are so confusing, even Boise State couldn’t get it right. Up here in Moscow, we are not surprised. “Who do we hate, Boise State” has not been a chant heard here for a long time, but it echoes still between the grain elevators.

In their recent poll of Idaho residents, BSU prefaced a question with the statement “Currently in Idaho, abortion is banned after six weeks of pregnancy…”. That prefacing has no basis in statute. All abortions are banned, unless the doctor can positively attest the life of the mother is in jeopardy. There is also the exception for rape, if a police report has been filed, but my State Senator is trying to remove that. The BSU professors gulped when a reporter pointed this out to them.

In my previous column, I pointed out how these laws, no longer subject to Supreme Court protection, would make me a criminal. I guess I might be spending the last of my days in Idaho Correctional facilities. I ask the local prosecutor to come knock on my door.

I’ve told this story before.

A young woman didn’t want to be pregnant. But she was pretty far along when she came to me. It turned out her baby had a deformation not compatible with life outside her womb. It was anencephalic. The baby’s brain had not developed. She also had excessive amniotic fluid. Her cervix was ripe, meaning, I thought she could soon go into labor. I explained the situation to her, that her baby would not live, but in my opinion, she should deliver. She agreed.

The next day, I ruptured the membranes that surrounded her fetus, excuse me, “preborn child”. If the Idaho Legislature has it’s “Anti-woke” way, those are the words we now should all be using.

So now I want you to read the text of Idaho statute defining an abortion:

the use of any means to intentionally terminate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman with knowledge that the termination by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn child…I.C. § 18-604(1)

I ruptured the membranes… “any means”.

The child will die outside of the womb… “cause the death”.

I could not attest that the condition of excessive amniotic fluid would cause the death of the mother, though it does carry a risk. I am guilty.

So, all women in Idaho carrying an anencephalic “Preborn Child” will need to leave the state, unless they are comfortable having their baby without medical intervention. For that doctor could go to prison.

Maybe the frequency of this condition is so rare we should just ignore it to protect all the other “Preborn” that could be murdered. There were probably only 5-10 anencephalies in Idaho last year. But there were a few Potters Syndromes, some other chromosomal aberrancies. It’s not up to the mother, the family. The legislature knows best, don’t they?

That is where our legislature, the people we have elected, have put us. I pity the women. I feel for the families. This is a tragedy. But our representatives do not have the compassion to consider their condition. Maybe they just can’t be compassionate.

But maybe we Idahoans can. The responses to that poorly prefaced BSU poll showed that 58% of Idahoans favored offering exceptions to the misrepresented restrictions. Remember, Boise State said you could get an abortion in Idaho before six weeks of pregnancy. Legally, you cannot. Ever.

It doesn’t really matter to our elected officials just what we think. I can’t tell who the heck they are listening to.

 

But it’s still a coup

December 12, 2020

johnson

A month and a half before the country voted in the November election, Barton Gellman wrote a long piece in The Atlantic predicting with uncanny precision what has happened over the last month.

“Let us not hedge about one thing,” Gellman wrote. “Donald Trump may win or lose, but he will never concede. Not under any circumstance. Not during the Interregnum and not afterward.” By “Interregnum” Gellman means the period we are in right now, the fragile space between when one candidate for president loses – in this case Trump – and the winner takes office.

We still have 40 days and 40 nights to go. And it’s a chapter right out of the new book Strongmen, a book I highly recommend.

There was a fair amount to scoffing at Gellman’s prediction that a defeated Trump would never concede and might actually attempt to further corrupt American democracy by sowing widespread doubt about the election outcome, or that he would actively try to get fellow Republicans to help him steal an election he lost.

The esteemed journalist Walter Shapiro, a legendary political observer, was one who mostly dismissed concerns about the seriousness of Trump’s post-election nonsense. Shapiro quoted Sam Feist, CNN’s Washington bureau chief, as basically saying: don’t worry, the election outcome will be obvious when one candidate reaches the required 270 electoral votes.

Even if Trump prematurely declares his own victory, which is precisely what he did in the early hours of November 4, Feist told Shapiro, “We will all note that the facts do not support this declaration…”

But in the Trump Era, to most Republicans, facts don’t matter. Losing more than 50 desperate and often comically inept election legal challenges doesn’t matter. Having the Supreme Court dismiss a challenge to Pennsylvania votes with a one-sentence kiss off that must be the most obvious “bugger off” delivered by a court in presidential history doesn’t matter.

The loathsome Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz was actually ready to argue the case before the high court before the nine justices, three appointed by Trump, effectively told the president to go pound sand.

(Now Texas has rounded up 16 other states and more than 100 Republican members of Congress in another appeal to the Supreme Court that most every respected court observer believes is a ridiculous and futile effort to throw out millions of votes in four states Biden won.)

Trump lost the election – it really was not close, either in the popular vote or the Electoral College margin – but he has still salted democracy’s soil with the conspiracy theory that it was all a rigged, stolen election. This is and continues to be an unprecedented assault on free elections and a peaceful transition of power. And virtually every Republican office holder, including the backbone free enemies of democracy who represent Idaho and eastern Washington, have helped him do it.

The Turkish-born academic Zeynep Tufekci, who has experienced perverted or stolen elections in her home county, understands what is happening: “The U.S. president is trying to steal the election, and, crucially, his party either tacitly approves or is pretending not to see it. This is a particularly dangerous combination, and makes it much more than just typical Trumpian bluster or norm shattering.”

As Tufekci says, “Act like this is your first coup, if you want to be sure that it’s also your last.”

There is another aspect, equally frightening and anti-democratic, playing out across the country as Trump plots his next lie on Twitter. The political unrest he stokes to further his claim to hanging on to the White House has come, or is coming, to a courthouse or a statehouse near you.

The Republican majority leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, pressured by Trump to do something, anything to reverse his loss there, said she had no choice but to acquiesce to the president’s pressure. “If I would say to you, ‘I don’t want to do it,’” Kim Ward said about signing a letter demanding her state’s congressional delegation work to overturn Biden’s win, “I’d get my house bombed tonight.”

Armed thugs shouting obscenities into bullhorns surrounded the home of Michigan’s secretary of state Jocelyn Benson last weekend, demanding that she “stop the steal,” even after the state certified its results confirming a Biden win in Michigan by 154,000 votes.

Benson said she supports peaceful protest, but that “there is a line crossed when gatherings are done with the primary purpose of intimidation of public officials who are carrying out the oath of office they solemnly took as elected officials.”

Similar efforts to intimidate local and state election officials have taken place in Arizona, Nevada, Georgia and Wisconsin. And the trickle-down effects of Trump’s effort to further destabilize the political process are felt even in a very Trump friendly place like Idaho. The local health district that serves four counties in southwestern Idaho, meeting to discuss steps to counter the raging pandemic, had to end its discussion when armed protesters showed up at the homes of three board members. The area is overwhelmed by the virus with hospital administrators warning that they will be forced to ration care by Christmas.

The very Trumpy “anti-mask” protesters, clearly influenced by the president’s politicization of pandemic mitigation measures, were deemed a threat to public safety by Boise police. Ada County Commissioner Diana Lachiondo was forced to leave the health board meeting in tears in order to rush home and check on her 12-year old son.

The Associated Press reported that the protesters were organized “at least in part, by a loose multi-state group called People’s Rights. The group was created by Ammon Bundy,” the same dangerous clown who was arrested earlier this year during a violent incident at the Idaho state capitol.

Almost simultaneously the human rights memorial in downtown Boise – a place that honors both Anne Frank and the late northern Idaho human rights activist Bill Wassmuth – was vandalized when some imbecile placed swastikas on the memorial, one claiming Nazis “are everywhere.”

To his credit, Idaho Governor Brad Little immediately condemned the intimidation aimed at health district board members, but he remains – as do other Republican leaders – maddingly indifferent to the broader assault on democracy underway. The governor, the congressional delegation and legislative leaders have bully pulpits, but they never muster the guts to speak from them.

Fearing his fellow conservatives, Little purposely created the environment where local, part-time health officials have had to become the frontline in the virus fight. And he acted this week as if his plans to cut taxes during the next legislative session was an adequate response to the radical rightwing anarchy that now increasingly dominates the state’s politics, and surely will continue to do so in the future.

By refusing to confront attacks on democracy at the highest level, Republicans now contend with attacks at every level, and the attacks come from their own supporters that they refuse to confront. Republicans have sown this wind; we all will now surely reap the whirlwind.

Marijuana is not “medical”

July 25, 2019

schmidt

I understand what the proponents for “medical marijuana” are doing as they file their proposed initiative for medical marijuana in Idaho. They want to bring legitimacy to the demon herb. They want to normalize, medicalize, and eventually legalize a current banned substance. I support their goals.

I just can’t support doing it on the back of the medical profession.
We medical prescribers have demonstrated time and again we are not capable of appropriately prescribing even formulated narcotics for which we receive training. We were taught the neurophysiology of narcotic receptors. We were taught the natural response to long term use of narcotics: how the body changes the number of receptors to allow tolerance to the drugs, and how the sensitivity of those receptors can change. Despite all this education we physicians were complicit in the greatly expanded use of narcotics and the tragic increase in deaths from accidental overdose from these legally prescribed substances. My profession carries much blame for this and it burdens me.

But just because we physicians didn’t prescribe opioids in a healthy manner doesn’t mean we couldn’t do better with marijuana. There is no doubt marijuana is much less lethal than narcotics. Maybe this old dog will have to learn some new tricks.

There is research supporting the use of marijuana for some medical conditions. It seems to help some folks with chronic pain, nausea, weight loss, seizures and a host of others. Many states where medical marijuana is legal specify diagnoses that qualify for prescribing. Some states limit the strength of the herb. I guess I shouldn’t whine about the state regulating medical practice when they give me a near monopoly through statute.

But really, isn’t this just an attempt to get a population comfortable with legalization? Many states have moved from medical marijuana on to recreational, which is, I believe what we should be talking about.

I guess there’s precedent. During prohibition doctors were authorized to write prescriptions for alcohol for their patients by the US Treasury. It’s widely agreed the practice was bogus, since there is little evidence to support any “medicinal spirits” use. But us doctors don’t always need evidence, do we?

Idaho is surrounded by states that have legalized either recreational or medical use. Indeed, Idaho is one of only three states in which marijuana is prohibited. The production, regulation, sale and taxation of the substance has proved manageable for our neighbors, even if the Federal government still deems the substance illegal. Our neighbor states are committing an act of “nullification”, something Idaho lawmakers embraced when health insurance was mandated. But Idaho lawmakers don’t feel the need to rebel on this issue. Isn’t it ironic that Idaho’s conservatives would be willing to “nullify” the US Constitution over access to healthcare, but condemn our neighbor states for their “nullification” of Federal marijuana laws?

I’m not opposed to the legalization of marijuana. What is most depressing about the situation here in Idaho is that time and again our lawmakers can’t have substantive discussions of public policy issues staring them in the face.

I guess that’s what the initiative process is for. Medicaid expansion got the support of the people, though many legislators still gag on the issue. While some saw this last legislative session’s attempt to make initiatives in Idaho impossible was “payback” for getting Medicaid Expansion approved, more likely it was to thwart this medical marijuana initiative.

The real issue to be discussed is whether we should legalize the use of marijuana. The “baby step” of medical marijuana instead proposes to regulate the medical profession because we can’t honestly discuss the real issue; legalization of marijuana for individual use at their own discretion. Such weak courage and poor leadership we get from those we elect may just reflect our own cowardice. Don’t let it. Let’s light up the discussion.

(photo by Susie Plascencia)