In preparation for the Nov. 5 general election, officials with the Idaho Secretary of State’s Office are compiling arguments for and against Proposition 1, the proposed ballot initiative that seeks to create open primary elections and ranked-choice voting in Idaho.

The arguments for and against the initiative will be included in an Idaho voters’ pamphlet that the Secretary of State’s Office will mail to all households in Idaho by Sept. 25, said Chelsea Carattini, a spokeswoman for the office. 

The voters’ pamphlets will be sent to about 850,000 households. 

Under Idaho law, any voter or group of voters had until July 20 to file arguments of up to 500 words for or against the ballot initiative. 

Idaho law requires the voters’ pamphlet to include a complete copy of the title and text of the ballot initiative, a copy of the fiscal impact statement summary, a copy of the sponsors’ proposed funding source information, and a copy of the arguments and rebuttals for and against the ballot initiative. 

For publication in the pamphlet, the Idaho Secretary of State’s Office selected the argument in favor of the initiative that was submitted by Idahoans for Open Primaries. The office also selected the Idaho House Republican Caucus’ argument against the initiative, Carattini said.

Idaho attorney general challenges ballot initiative

Meanwhile, as the Idaho Secretary of State’s Office prepares the arguments for and against the initiative, Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador has filed a lawsuit seeking to block the initiative, the Sun previously reported. Labrador alleged the ballot initiative was deceptively pitched and violates the Idaho Constitution’s single-subject requirement. Reclaim Idaho co-founder Luke Mayville, who is a member of the coalition supporting the ballot initiative, called Labrador’s lawsuit a political stunt that was filed because Labrador is afraid voters will support the ballot initiative. 

Idaho AG Labrador sues to block Idahoans for Open Primaries initiative

Idaho Supreme Court justices on Monday ordered Labrador to show cause as to why his deputy attorneys general should not be disqualified from representing the Idaho Secretary of State’s Office, which Labrador is suing to block the initiative. 

In response, Labrador’s office filed briefs with the Idaho Supreme Court on Tuesday stating that separate deputy attorneys general and separate staff members have been assigned to represent the Idaho Secretary of State’s Office and the Idaho Attorney General’s Office in the lawsuit, and that the two sides are not to share confidential information or discuss the case.

As of press time, oral arguments have not been scheduled in the case.

During its state convention in June, the Idaho Republican Party adopted a party platform opposing ranked-choice voting and conducted workshops in opposition to ranked-choice voting. However, neither the Idaho Republican Party nor Idaho GOP Chairwoman Dorothy Moon submitted arguments against the ballot initiative, Carattini said.

So far, the Idaho Republican Party does not appear to have ramped up a public opposition campaign, outside of the party website and a few opinion columns published by Moon.

Efforts to reach Moon were unsuccessful.

Other Republican groups, including the Idaho County Republican Central Committee and the Idaho House Republican Caucus under Speaker of the House Mike Moyle, R-Star, did submit arguments against the initiative. The Idaho Freedom Foundation, Canyon County Clerk Rick Hogaboam and some individual voters also submitted arguments against the initiative. 

“Proposition 1 does not simply open the primaries and seeks to fundamentally change the system by which Idaho has determined election winners since it became a state in 1890,” the Idaho House Republican Caucus wrote in its arguments against the initiative. “Ranked-Choice-Voting is not intuitive for voters and would cost around $40 million to implement according to Idaho Secretary of State, Phil McGrane. Under Idaho’s current and historic system, an election for public office is simple. Voters vote for their preferred candidate, the votes are tallied, and the candidate with the most votes wins. Simple,” the Idaho House Republican Caucus added.
Meanwhile, Idahoans for Open Primaries, the organization pushing the ballot initiative, and some individual voters submitted arguments in favor of the ballot initiative. 

“I am an individual voter writing in favor of Proposition 1 for many reasons, but to me the biggest one is that it builds a true consensus. Right now an unpopular fringe faction can dominate a closed primary with the help of out of state special interests and put forward a single party candidate,” Meridian voter Graham Herbst wrote in arguments in favor of the initiative. “With Proposition 1 voters can decide between many candidates in a sensible way by ranking them so that whoever does in fact win will do so with a true majority of the people agreeing with the choice.”

How does the ballot initiative work in Idaho?

In Idaho, ballot initiatives are a form of direct democracy where the people vote on whether or not to pass a new law, independent of the Idaho Legislature.

This ballot initiative is known as Proposition 1 and supporters have already gathered and certified enough signatures to qualify the initiative for the Nov. 5 general election, the Sun previously reported. 

It would take a simple majority of voters to approve the ballot initiative during the Nov. 5 election. 

The ballot initiative would make changes to primary and general elections in Idaho. 

The initiative would end the state’s closed party primary elections and replace them with a single primary election that is open to all voters and all candidates, regardless of party affiliation. The four primary election candidates with the most votes would advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation. That means you could have more than one candidate from the same political party – or even all four candidates from the same political party – advance to the general election.

Since 2011, Idaho has had a closed primary law that means political parties do not have to let voters who are not formally affiliated with their party vote in their primary elections. In Idaho, more than 265,000 of the state’s 1 million registered voters are unaffiliated and not allowed to vote in closed party primary elections. The same 2011 law that closed Idaho primaries also allows political parties to open their primary elections to other voters if the party notifies the Idaho Secretary of State’s Office, but only the Idaho Democratic Party has opened its primary elections to other voters, Carattini previously told the Sun. 

Proposition 1 would also make changes to the general election by creating ranked-choice voting, which is sometimes referred to as an instant runoff system. Under ranked-choice voting, voters would pick their favorite candidate and then have the option of ranking the remaining candidates in order of preference – second, third and fourth. The candidate with the fewest votes would be eliminated, and their votes would instead be transferred to the second choice candidate on those ballots. That process would continue until there are two candidates remaining, and the candidate with the most votes would be elected the winner. 

In a July 3 letter to the Idaho Legislature’s Legislative Council, Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane told legislative leaders it could cost $25 million to $40 million if the state needs to replace its vote tabulation systems to count ranked-choice voting, the Sun previously reported. However, Mayville said that there is low-cost software available to Idaho that could be certified to count ranked-choice ballots and there is no need to replace all of the state’s vote tabulation systems. 

What are the arguments in support of the Idaho ballot initiative?

Individual voters and organizations submitted arguments related to the ballot initiative.

“Voting ‘yes’ for open primaries will allow all registered Idaho voters, regardless of party affiliation, to participate in the primary election process,” Moscow voter Rebecca Haley wrote. “This means that the voice (of) every Idaho voter will be heard when it comes to selecting our state senators and state representatives for the Idaho state legislature. With the Open Primaries system, winning candidates will need to reflect the values and priorities of the majority of Idahoans in order to win, as opposed to Idaho voters feeling like they have to select from candidates representing the most extreme versions of party platforms.”
Boise voter Janet Sims also submitted an argument in favor of the initiative. 

“Independent voters deserve a chance to share in the voting,” Sims wrote.

On behalf of the coalition Idahoans for Open Primaries, former Idaho House Speaker Bruce Newcomb wrote in support of the initiative as well. 

“Voting YES on Proposition 1 will restore the longstanding tradition of open primary elections in Idaho,” Newcomb wrote. “Idahoans voted in open primaries for 40 years until party officials established closed primaries back in 2011. A Yes vote for Proposition 1 brings us back to a time when you weren’t forced to join a political party to have a say in who is elected to important offices.”

What are some of the arguments against the Idaho ballot initiative?

The Idaho Freedom Foundation submitted arguments against the ballot initiative. 

“Voting ‘NO’ on Proposition 1 maintains election integrity,” the Idaho Freedom Foundation wrote. “Idaho administers elections with machines disconnected from the internet, counts ballots and reports results at the county level, and conducts hand-counted post-election audits. Under Proposition 1, counties would struggle to coordinate elections as additional rounds of counting are necessary. Hand counting ballots during audits would also become impractical and complex. Voters will lose faith in election results as delays in reporting occur.”
The Idaho County Republican Central Committee also submitted arguments against the initiative. 

“Ranked Choice Voting will require extensive voter education due to its complexities which will only add to the cost of this system and create confusion on the part of voters,” the central committee wrote. “Idahoans should and must reject this threat to our democracy and the effort to change our elections.”

Moyle and Idaho House Republicans also submitted arguments against the initiative. 

“Ranked-choice-voting involves a more complicated ballot that confuse(s) voters with contingency voting preferences,” the Idaho House Republican Caucus wrote. “This would multiply the length of time it takes to vote in every race. Many thousands of voters will not complete the many extra steps involved in ranked-choice-voting. This change will make it harder for people with busy lives to get through longer lines and complete a ballot. Vote NO on Proposition 1 to protect “one person, one vote.’”

KIFI Local News 8 is committed to providing a forum for civil and constructive conversation.

Please keep your comments respectful and relevant. You can review our Community Guidelines by clicking here

If you would like to share a story idea, please submit it here.

The Supreme Court, long known for its tradition of confidential negotiations between justices about the outcome of its cases and reputation of staying above the daily political fray, has suffered another leak related to an important case.

An in-depth report from CNN, based on information from unnamed sources with knowledge of the high court’s internal dynamics, describes how a rotating coalition of justices first approved a controversial decision on an in-progress case about Idaho’s near-total abortion ban, then nearly changed course entirely.

It’s the latest piece of internal information to make it out of the Washington court after the high-profile 2022 leak of the court’s draft ruling in the case where it would eventually overturn the constitutional right to an abortion, a seminal scandal in the court’s history.

The Independent has contacted the Supreme Court for comment.

The first major decision in the Idaho case, Moyle v United States, came in January when the Supreme Court decided to allow the state to enforce its near-total abortion ban.

That ban contains an exception to prevent the death of the pregnant person, despite an ongoing challenge from the Biden administration playing out in federal appeals court, which argued federal emergency room protections should preempt the state ban in certain emergency situations.

At the time, the court merely described its conclusion on the matter, but the CNN report reveals the justices voted 6 – 3 to approve this course of action, splitting on predictable lines between the six Republican-appointed justices and the three from liberal administrations.

By April, however, when oral arguments were held at the Supreme Court in the case, the majority seemed to have evaporated, according to the court, as Justices Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Barrett reportedly considered ending the case without a resolution and deeming it “improvidently granted.”

That reportedly left the court with three different camps and no clear path to a decision: the three liberals on one side, the three ambivalent conservatives on the other, and Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch part of the third camp, who sided with Idaho.

The alleged three-way split granted the liberals on the court a rare bit of leverage, and the final decision appeared to represent that compromise, preserving Idaho’s overall abortion policy, while carving out a minor exception.

In a June ruling, which saw the three liberals siding with Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Barrett, the court decided to reinstate a lower-court ruling that ensured hospitals in Idaho provide abortions in emergency medical situations but declined to issue a firm decision in the dispute.

The CNN report is the latest sign of trouble at the normally leak-proof court.

In addition to the Roe decision going public ahead of time, the court has also been under heavy scrutiny for the lavish gifts some of its justices have received from political donors and activists over the years, prompting the court to adopt a formal code of conduct at the end of last year.

Joe Biden has called for sweeping overhauls to the nation’s top appellate court, including terms limits instead of its current lifetime appointments, a binding ethics code, and no immunity before the court for former presidents for crimes committed in office.