Press "Enter" to skip to content
The voters who weren’t

The voters who weren’t

July 19, 2024

This seems to be the month of top Idaho elected officials warning about, and offering decisive action, on a serious problem … that doesn’t exist.

I’m making no argument that non-citizens should vote in public elections in this country; I don’t think they should. (If you want to vote in Germany or India, become a citizen of those countries.)

Problem is, this just isn’t a big problem, as much as some public officials and media celebs try to drive people into a froth over it.

Senators Mike Crapo and Jim Risch (with some of their colleagues) on July 12 were “demanding answers from U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland on the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) efforts to prevent aliens from registering to vote in American elections.”

They noted the substantial number of people crossing our border (that much is true, quite a few are) and then said, “Plainly, there are opportunities for and instances of non-citizen voter registration, and so the critical question is whether the laws against doing so are being enforced by your Department.  There appear to have been few prosecutions by your Department under these laws, and there is no indication that you have been pursuing cases in places like Georgia and Ohio where aliens have been caught registering or voting.”

First, we know that the states and not the federal government run elections, so what exactly the DOJ is remiss in doing is unclear.

House Speaker Mike Johnson said that “We all know, intuitively, that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections. But it’s not been something that is easily provable." If after a lot of years of searching for the evidence no one has been able to prove it’s happening, you might have to stop to consider that there might be a reason.  Johnson’s debunked intuition aside, there have been few identifiable cases in the nation, ever.

For one thing, a 1996 law specifically has barred non-citizens from voting in federal elections.

Non-citizen voting is allowed only in the District of Columbia and in some cities in three states: California (San Francisco and Oakland, where it applies only to school elections), Maryland and Vermont - but only in specified local elections.

In Idaho, where Republican Party leaders have - without any evidence - more than once spoken of truckloads of non-citizens crossing the border to vote in Idaho elections, Governor Brad Little and Secretary of State Phil McGrane have joined the chorus.

On July 9 the governor signed “the ONLY CITIZENS WILL VOTE Act.” It is harmless enough: It mostly calls for coordination and reports. But the language describing it is breathless.

“Idaho already has the most secure elections in the nation, and we’re going to keep it that way. My executive order – the ONLY CITIZENS WILL VOTE Act – directs Secretary of State Phil McGrane to work with local county clerks to scrub our voter rolls and make sure Idaho's elections do not fall prey to the consequences of Biden's lawless open border,” Governor Little said.

McGrane: “Across Idaho’s 44 counties, we have excellent mechanisms in place already to ensure non-citizens do not vote in Idaho, but there is always more we can do to make sure only citizens will vote. I am proud to work closely with Governor Brad Little to put in place a plan that keeps Idaho ahead of the pack in election integrity.” Shorter: We don’t have a problem in this area.

Nor do other states. Only a few states have reported more than a tiny stray number of non-citizens either registering to vote or actually voting. The most substantial case is in Georgia, where in 2022 the secretary of state reported “1,634 cases of potential noncitizens registering to vote in Georgia.”  However, most of them seem to have registered to vote in error - they thought they were in a long bureaucratic line to do something else - and none of them actually voted.

 

Federal District Judge Fred Biery in Texas remarked of his state’s efforts on the subject, “This is a solution looking for a problem.”

He’s right.

(image/Robert Couse Baker)

He missed this time

July 16, 2024

So, someone took a shot at the former President.

He survived, thank God.  But, the most obvious question for debate is "Why did it take so long to happen?"

Donald Trump and the National Republican Party have, for years, consistently avoided talk of background checks for purchasers and have pooh-poohed other recommended gun safety laws.  They won't ban automatic rifles like the AR-15.  They've never gotten behind legitimate efforts to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible people.  They've accused those that do of "infringing" on the rights of others.

So, it's worth asking again, why did it take so long for someone to try to kill another President?  Any President?  And with an AR-15?

The groundwork for this latest assassination attempt was laid many years ago.  Long before this shooter was born.  It's really been a question of where and when.  Which President would be the target?  Where would it happen?  Would it be successful?

I was angered by the President's words and actions following the attempt.  Clenched fist in the air and shouts of "Fight, fight."  That's an excellent example of the kind of rhetoric that inspires people like the shooter.  They soak up that sort of mindless speech, seen by a sick mind as an "order" to take up arms.  Remember January 6th?

In this case, the 20-year-old did exactly that.  Except the rifle had already been purchased by his father and was available at home.

"Fight, fight" Trump repeated with clenched fist in the air.  "Fight, fight."

This nation has been embroiled in the senseless murder of public officials and engaged in endless talk about controlling firearms for generations.  Now, we're doing it again.

But, the killings and the near-killings continue unabated.

The shooter, in this instance, didn't fit any of the previous profiles of an assassin.  He's White.  Middle-income American.  Registered Republican voter.  Description of probably 100-200 million of us.  Just ordinary folk.

The "losers," in this instance, will be the Secret Service.  They'll get the blame for not assuring the locale - probably picked by the President's campaign team - could be adequately secured.  More blame will come as nitpickers charge some one from the Service should have been on that roof.  Some will say the President should not have been on an outdoor stage where protection is more problematic.

All B.S.

We'll likely never know if security agents advised against this locale.  Or, if there were any concerns about the ability - or inability - of the Secret Service to adequately perform their duties in this venue.

When Presidents speak - about anything - they most often get their way.  Nobody in the room has "veto power" over the expressed desires of the "Big Guy."  He say's it.  You make it happen.

It's a blessing the President was only grazed.  Another inch or so inward the bullet would have removed part of his skull.

You can bet the Service will replay videos of the incident over and over and over.  And, they'll likely physically reconstruct the staging for a step-by-step review of what happened.

You can also bet the Secret Service will be more aggressively advising campaign staff on future campaign sites and will be more involved in the selection of speaking locations.  That's what they do.

So, the campaign continues.  As watchers, we'll probably not note much of a change in things.  But, changes there will be.

 

A jewel among nonprofits

July 15, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

They’re not making more water

They’re not making more water

July 12, 2024

To start with, it’s not a bad deal. It’s just that it’s a temporary stopgap, if that.

Last month, the state of Idaho and users of water from ground and surface sources cut a deal about groundwater use. Absent a deal, thousands of groundwater users, across half a million acres of territory, were in line, because of state orders, to lose their irrigation water this season. Their growing season would have been wiped out. The economic impact, for these people and those connected to them, and even to the state overall, would have been massive.

The hit was directed generally toward groundwater pumpers, because many of them had more junior water rights, while many surface water rights were mostly older and so had a legal priority for water use (“first in time, first in right”). But the issue also pitted ground people against surface people, a not-unusual situation in Idaho water.

Earlier this year, the state Department of Water Resources calculated that the Eastern Idaho Snake River Aquifer was running low - too low. The aquifer has been in decline for about 60 years, a fact that has been carefully measured and hasn’t been ignored. The issue was important in working through the Snake River Basin Adjudication. In 2015 another agreement on water usage was worked out for preserving the aquifer, and the subject has been under regular review since.

The state has been involved in recharging (pumping water back down) and other steps to help, but if too much groundwater is drawn out, the aquifer will drop and eventually dry. You can ask people around the Great Plains’ Ogallala Aquifer about the terrible consequences of that.

Idaho’s water management system, in southern Idaho at least, long has tended to be cooperative, with interested parties usually more willing to talk than insistent on fighting. The state has been the beneficiary of that for decades.

So when the state ordered water shutoffs for thousands of irrigators, which led to - call it concerns or something approaching panic - widespread realization that a search for solutions had to be undertaken. Negotiations got underway (Lieutenant Governor Scott Bedke seems to have been a key figure in them), and finally late last month a deal was struck, included in an agreement signed as an executive order by Governor Brad Little.

It has six main provisions. It proposed to “improve understanding of the aquifer”; convene a legislative commission on water infrastructure; put a priority on funding projects that would help the aquifer; ask stakeholders to meet; get the regional groundwater management advisory council to submit a new plan by September; and commit groundwater users to develop a mitigation plan by October.

None of this is bad, but only the last item (and it’s still in the territory of aspiration) has the sound of something concrete that specifically addresses the question of how to deal with not enough water for everybody. Water mitigation in this case presumably means that groundwater users would have to specify how they will be able to use water, or engage in recharges or something else, without further endangering the aquifer. How exactly they will do this seems less than clear.

The problem may not be insoluble. Water conservation - which some elements of Idaho water law doesn’t always encourage - may be one of the options. Finding other new efficiencies or reuse of runoff water might be considerations. Some good engineers are at work on this.

The core conundrum, though, remains: If everyone uses the water they need for their operations, the aquifer likely would be drawn down, maybe to dangerous levels. That’s why the Department of Water Resources took action in the first place.

There are no evil players here. But unless someone comes up with an unexpected, and brilliant, answer, the problem looks like a diminishing circle: An ongoing game of musical chairs with someone being left out. This year’s negotiation, probably a predecessor to next year’s, leaves that problem unresolved.

(image)

New blood

July 9, 2024

What the Hell is wrong with Republicans in the U.S. House?

Speaking as someone who's lived a long life and one who has a penchant for following this country's political affairs, I repeat, "What the Hell is going on?"

House Republicans have been a pain in the ass for several years. But, the current crop has simply gone bananas.

An impeachment committee, looking for evidence it can't find, trying to embarrass a sitting President whose done nothing "impeach-able."  A President, based on his lengthy experience, who could conduct a graduate-level course in politics that many of them couldn't pass.  A "special" committee trying to find "evidence" that doesn't exist?  Really?

There are 221 GOP'ers in the House.  Most are sane.  Most are there to do the people's work.  Most have a sense of the importance of the positions they hold.  The history.  The responsibility.

BUT...

About 40-50 of those folks have no understanding of their roles in our democracy.  They don't know the real work that must be done.  They offer nothing in the way of responsible legislation.  They produce nothing constructive.  They make noises and clutter the atmosphere with baseless charges and personal antics that should be embarrassing.  At least to them.  'Cause they're certainly embarrassing  to the rest of us.

If those cretins were workers at a business in the private sector, it's doubtful they'd be long-employed, given their disgraceful antics.

Facing the 2024 national election, you have to wonder if the folks at home will send these miscreants back for another term.  At an annual salary of $174,000 a pop!  I know.  I know.  Your good guy is my bad guy and my good guy is your bad guy.  Heard it all before.

But, Boebert?  Taylor-Green?  Gaetz?  Biggs?  Johnson?  Really?

All of this is getting out of hand.  What's needed is a Speaker of the House who will "crack the whip" and get things quickly straightened out.  A "Tip" O'Neill kinda guy.  Gonna happen?  Ya think?

The current Speaker is not up to the job.  He's proven time and time again he really doesn't understand all the details.  Mike Johnson, busy trying to hang onto that job, sold his soul to "the devil" to get it and, given ample evidence of his ego, he now must "dance to the devil's tune" to keep it.  At the moment, he's on very shaky ground.

Only takes one member to start a recall under a recently adopted rule.  Just one.  Which means ol' Mike could be out of a job any day now.

The U.S. House appears to be very close to being ungovernable.  There are so many caucuses of this and that.  Little groups of 10 to 40 that vote as a block.  In close votes, one or more "caucuses"can make a difference.

The Senate, while splintered in philosophy as well, seems to be able to get its work done.  How long that will last is anyone's guess.

Looking down the political road to the election of 2024, that one is going to be absolutely critical.  If there's any chance to weed out the miscreants and replace the wrong-doers with new, younger, smarter  folks to get things back on track, November 5th, 2024, is the 'drop dead' date.

This time around, we can't keep voting for the same old names.  What's needed now is 'new blood.'  Fresh faces.  Ages between 40 and 60.  Either party.  Younger people, some - hopefully - with legislative experience at home.

'New blood.'

 

Two remarkable Idahoans

July 8, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Nixon’s revenge

July 6, 2024

If you enjoy a little irony to compliment your summer this has been a week for you.

Irony one: on the day the United States Supreme Court dramatically realigned our historic understanding that “no man is above the law,” granting every former president “absolute immunity” for acts committed in their official capacity, former Donald Trump advisor Steve Bannon reported to jail for refusing to provide information to Congress about the failed Trump coup attempt on January 6, 2021.

Bannon, whose reason to be centers on dismantling the “administrative state,” is a world-class grifter who stands to enlarge his toxic influence in a second Trump administration. Bannon has no more cause to be near the presidency than does the man he worked for, but while he is paying a (small) price – four months in a minimum security prison – the instigator of the coup, thanks to the Supreme Court, will likely never face any consequence for one of the most heinous acts in the long history of the Republic.

If Trump makes it back to the presidency – an increasingly likely outcome – he will never face a jury for trying to overturn an election or any of his other crimes, while the flabby mouthpiece of white nationalism and a proponent of the January 6 insurrection goes to jail, not for cheerleading the riot but for refusing to talk to Congress about cheerleading the riot.

Another irony: While Americans celebrate the nation’s independence this week, a movement initiated 248 years ago against a mentally unstable English king, the Supreme Court has effectively put the once and future crimes of an American president out of reach of the vaunted “rule of law.”

A certifiably crazy former president is now set to be a certifiably crazy king.

As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent against the Court’s gobsmackingly outrageous decision – “immune, immune, immune, immune.”

“We are the United State of Amnesia,” the novelist Gore Vidal once wrote, “we learn nothing because we remember nothing.”

Remembering nothing, for instance, like Richard Nixon. Fifty years after Nixon resigned the presidency under a cloud of crimes associated with the Watergate caper that the Supreme Court has now decided that was no big deal. Nixon acted as president when he authorized the CIA to concoct a cover story for the break in at the offices of the Democratic National Committee in 1972. He was acting in his official capacity when he ordered the break in of the doctor’s office where the medical records of the leaker of the Pentagon Papers were housed. Nixon was acting officially when he order hush money payments to keep witnesses quiet.

“As I looked at it, I realized Richard Nixon would have had a pass,” said no less an authority than John Dean, the White House counsel who helped reveal the extent of Nixon’s crimes.

“Virtually all of his Watergate-related conduct,” Dean said and, “virtually all that evidence falls in what could easily be described as ‘official conduct.’”

And here’s law professor Jeffrey Toobin writing in the Washington Post: “The strongest evidence that Nixon obstructed justice in the Watergate investigation was the so-called smoking gun tape of June 23, 1972. In that conversation, Nixon told H.R. Haldeman, his chief of staff, to instruct the CIA to tell the FBI to curtail its investigation of the Watergate break-in on spurious national security grounds. Nixon told Haldeman: ‘When you get … these people in, say, ‘Look, the problem is that this will open the whole, the whole Bay of Pigs thing. … That will uncover a lot of things. You open that scab there’s a hell of a lot of things and that we just feel that it would be very detrimental to have this thing go any further.

“Under Trump v. United States, Nixon’s statement would not amount to obstruction of justice because it related to his ‘official’ duties — that is, supervising the FBI and CIA. ‘Investigative and prosecutorial decision-making is ‘the special province of the Executive Branch,’ Roberts wrote, ‘and the Constitution vests the entirety of the executive power in the President.’ Accordingly, ‘the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority.'”

Nixon, of course, accepted a pardon from President Gerald Ford for the simple reason that he knew he faced prosecution for the crimes he committed and abetted. Now, the Supreme Court says forget it. Turns out Nixon was right when, after his resignation, he infamously told interviewer David Frost, “when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”

Toobin argues that the evidence of Nixon’s obstruction, the “smoking gun” audio recording, could not, under Roberts anti-constitutional reading be used as evidence. That’s right. Read it again.

“What the prosecutor may not do, however,” Roberts wrote based on nothing more than his own ideology and aiming for his desired outcome, “is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself. Allowing that sort of evidence would invite the jury to inspect the President’s motivations for his official actions and to second-guess their propriety.”

The ultimate Trump card delivered by not a conservative Supreme Court, but a radical and reactionary court with a majority more activist than judicial, more driven by its desire for a political outcome than by fidelity to the Constitution.

But it that this American way? Do we really want to encourage an already overly powerful president to have the ability to commit crimes in his official capacity and be held immune for his actions? Is this the way our 248 year experiment in checked and balanced government ends?

To see where this is going read the dissents to Chief Justice John Roberts’ outrageous opinion for the court, an entirely ahistorical document that would almost certainly make even the old Watergate defendant squirm.

“Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. “Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.”

Sotomayor ended with this: “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”

Roberts dismissed such concerns with the high handed authoritarian impulse he has now effectively amended the Constitution to permit. He argues that a president, shielded now with immunity granted by six unelected judges, has the power to be “bold.”

Was Nixon being “bold” when he initiated the coverup of his crimes, all done, by the way, to further his own political prospects and to punish his political enemies?

Unlike Roberts, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has read history. In her dissent Jackson quotes the great Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis and in the process demolishes the claim that the Constitution encourages an all-powerful executive.

The Constitution’s “separation of powers was adopted by the Convention of 1787,” Brandeis wrote in 1926, “not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was, not to avoid friction, but . . . to save the people from autocracy.”

Final irony: a former president with autocratic ambitions – Trump took to social media this week to assert, that is to lie, that former Congresswoman Liz Cheney had committed “treason” for investigating his coup activities – has had those ambitions supercharged by the authority of the nation’s highest court.

In short, the Supreme Court majority – three of them appointed by Trump – has vastly increased the likelihood that should he gain office again Trump will rule like the “dictator” he has pledged to become.

Joe Biden had an awful debate last week. He’s too old to be president. He should stand down. Trump’s court has emboldened his desire for absolute power and his lust for revenge against his opponents. What a choice.

We can have a dime store Nixon with a third the mental capacity of that corrupt former president and ten times the venality, or we can have a diminished man whose entire career supports the American ideals the Supreme Court has now kicked in the ditch.

With fear for our democracy, I despair.

 

Instant majority

July 5, 2024

At the end of a long road to ballot qualification, Idaoans will get to decide whether all the voters, or only a tiny sliver of them, will pick the leaders of its government going forward.

That’s the core of what’s really a simple proposition. There is no lack of efforts to confuse and distract, of course, from what the open primaries initiative actually would do; confusion and distraction are just about the best tools the opposition has.

For example, this from an op-ed by Morgan McGill of the Idaho Family Policy Center (a pro-Republican group): “Through open primaries, Democrats will slowly take greater control over Gem State politics as they build a coalition with more moderate or ‘squishy’ Republican candidates that can flip seats historically held by more conservative Republican candidates.”

The sense of that falls apart when you recognize that the initiative would not change the people of Idaho or their candidates either. It simply would bring more people into the process of selecting their leaders. The only rational reason for opposing the initiative is if you think that’s a bad idea, as a good many people in current state Republican leadership clearly do.

So how does it work?

There are two steps, one at the primary election, one at the general.

At the primary, instead of a convoluted system of trying to figure out which Idaho voters can vote for what, the answer would be this: Everyone (who is a qualified voter) gets to vote for everything. For instance: If there are five people - say, three Republicans, one Democrat and an independent - running for the state Senate seat where you live, you vote for whichever one you prefer. When the votes are tallied, the four candidates who get the most votes go on to November.

In November, once again you get to vote for whichever of the four you prefer - but you also can make another choice, if you want to: You can indicate the candidate who is your second choice (if your first choice doesn’t win), and your third choice (if neither of the top two come out on top). This is the “ranked choice” system, the terminology of which has tangled a lot of understanding about what’s really a pretty simple process.

The idea is that a candidate should have to get more than half of the vote to be elected. (Many of Idaho’s cities operate on this principle in their elections,and mayoral runoffs are not rare.)

This would mean that the people who are supposed to be in charge in this state - the voters, all who choose to participate - would get a voice in selecting their leaders. As it is now, because of the convoluted system governing party elections, only a small fraction do.

That’s it. Nothing terribly hard to understand about it.

What would be the effect? State Republican Chair Dorothy Moon wrote July 3, “In a winner-take-all election, the candidate with the most votes wins—the candidate that the most voters want. However, in an RCV election, the winner is the candidate a majority can tolerate. This shifts the focus, incentivizing candidates to avoid taking strong stands on issues.”

That’s one way of putting it: A move toward leadership by the broadly acceptable rather than bitter extremes. Here’s another: Wins under the open primary system would go to whoever has the most support among the most voters - as opposed to (in the current setup) whoever gets the backing of a small in-group, often a tiny fraction of the voters. Or: Do you want leadership representative of most of us, or of just a few of us?

Of course, looking ahead, all this depends too on the Idaho Legislature. Initiatives pass laws just as the legislature does, but just as no legislature can bind a later one, the legislature can change - or repeal completely - any initiative passed by the voters. Given how little regard the Idaho Legislature has had in recent years for the voters, the open primary law - if voters do pass it - may have a shaky future.

In the meantime, Idaho voters have a decision to make, about whether they want to be respected as vital participants in a system of self-governance. Or not.

 

Where’s your mouth?

Where’s your mouth?

July 4, 2024

Maybe not where your money is.

It seems the Idaho Legislature loves children. Especially the unborn or foster children that have been removed from their negligent parents’ custody.

Shame, shame.

Why do these people who do such things deserve our dear tax dollars?

There’s no way a young single mother of three who is facing another pregnancy can imagine state support if she would consider terminating that child. No, if she would bring up that consideration to a medical practitioner and she received advice to go beyond our borders, our Attorney General would consider such advice criminal.

She would not get a dime from us Idaho Taxpayers in her situation. And any health care provider talking to her has to contemplate loss of licensure and jail time. That is where the Idaho Legislature has put their mouth.

And their laws. Our laws.

But the focus of the Idaho Legislature recently has been on how the Department of Health and Welfare has been caring for foster children.

Foster children are those remanded from parental custody for some significant reason. These kids get put into state custody for something pretty bad. It’s not like the parents were giving them cold cereal every morning.

Parents going to prison. Parents addicted. Parents who have harmed their children. And it’s not just a swat on the butt we are talking about. And there is no close relative that can step up. These kids are the least supported you can think of.

Our family took in a niece when she was looking at jail time. She graduated. It was hard.

I have heard many others tell the same story. When available, Idahoans step up. But sometimes, there is no family resource. And that’s when we revert to state custody. And here, the Idaho legislature is all mouth and no money.

Put your money where your mouth is.

That’s what you say to a braggart who challenges you. Show me you really believe in what you are spewing. Or are you just show?

Sometimes the money comes out. Often the braggart slinks off.

Our Idaho Legislature has continued to spew its dissatisfaction with foster children care. But no one has made them put up the money. Not our governor. Not themselves, in their own self-respect. And worst, not us voters. That’s our job, to hold their feet to the ballot box fire. Instead, we keep reelecting them. As long as they are Republican, they have our vote.

If you cared about the placement, the support of a foster child, what would you do?

Would you do your best for them?

I would. Our niece was not fostered with us, just placed for her senior year. It took a lot from our family to care for her. Maybe that’s what all you Idahoans expect that we should all just take care of each other.

I wish such were the case.

I have told you; some kids have no resources. Then it is just the state: the last resort.

So which state person should care for this foster child? Most of these situations are very complex and often contentious. It’s not like ordering your Big Mac.

But we pay these state workers about what MacDonalds pays.

The new hire at the IDHW who will work with foster children is paid $16 an hour. This is according to the Idaho Legislature’s budget mouth. They have put their money there. They are not just spewing. They have ponied up.

It’s like the guy says he can beat me at eight ball and put’s up a quarter.

I’ll beat him anyway, and he can keep his quarter.

And our legislators, whom you have elected have approved these budgets, though reluctantly.

I posit they don’t really care about children.

 

(image)