Idaho
Idaho Secretary of State’s Office preparing arguments for open primary ballot initiative • Idaho Capital Sun
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.
Idaho GOP didn’t submit arguments against ballot initiative
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.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
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.
Need to get in touch?
Have a news tip?
“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.’”
Idaho
Idaho Senate introduces new bill to give local municipalities authority to control rat populations
BOISE, Idaho — A new bill in the Idaho Senate aims to let local municipalities take action to control rat populations. This, after a previous bill to combat rat infestations across Idaho, died in the House.
Rats have been spreading throughout the Treasure Valley in recent years, but previous attempts at legislation to deal with the problem have failed.
WATCH: Senior Reporter Roland Beres provides an update on the new rat bill
New bill would allow local governments to combat rats
Residents in Eagle and Boise have been tracking an alarming rise in rat populations recently.
Rep. John Gannon (D – District 17) introduced new legislation today that would essentially permit local governments to act in order to control rat populations if they want to, without creating a mandate.
Gannon said some cities complained that they did not have the authority to do the job themselves.
The bill was introduced with a dose of humor.
“I’m going to support this. It’s very late in the session, but I think this might just squeak through,” said Sen. Ben Adams (R – District 12). “Well. Unless it encounters a trap along the way.”
ALSO READ | ‘I’ve never seen something that big’: Boise neighbors finding rats in their backyards
This story was initially reported by a journalist and has been, in part, converted to this platform with the assistance of AI. Our editorial team verifies all reporting on all platforms for fairness and accuracy.
Send tips to neighborhood reporter Riley Shoemaker
Have a story idea from Downtown Boise, the North End or Garden City ? Share it with Riley below —
Idaho
Penny Lee Brown Obituary March 25, 2026 – Eckersell Funeral Home
Penny Lee Brown, age 72, of Idaho Falls, formerly of Ririe, passed away Wednesday, March 25, 2026, at Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center in Idaho Falls.
Penny was born October 18, 1953, in Fort St. John, British Columbia, Canada, a daughter to William and Luella Cooper Artemenko. She attended schools in Fort St. John, British Columbia, Canada. She earned her Certified Nursing Assistant Certificate from Eastern Idaho Technical College.
She married Donal A. Brown in Fort St. John, British Columbia. Their marriage was later solemnized in the Idaho Falls Temple. She was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
She enjoyed attending her children’s sporting events, puzzles, collecting cat memorabilia, crafting, baking, and caring for others.
She is survived by her husband Donal A. Brown, children: Jared Brown (Krystal) of Boise, Marcus Brown (Misty) of Weippe, Idaho, Scott Brown of Idaho Falls, Douglas Brown of Idaho Falls, Jamie Brown of Williston, North Dakota, Steven Brown (Claire) of Idaho Falls. A brother Kenneth Artemenko (Nancy) of White Horse, YK, four grandchildren and one great grandchild.
She was preceded in death by her Father William Artemenko and her mother Luela Cooper and a brother Levern Artemenko.
Funeral services will be held Monday March 30, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Perry Ward Chapel 285 2nd West, Ririe, Idaho. The family will visit with friends on Monday from 9:30 to 10:45 a.m. at the church. Interment will be in the Ririe-Shelton Cemetery.
Idaho
Idaho bill aims to criminalize transgender bathroom use in private businesses
BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Idaho lawmakers are considering a bill that would make it a crime for transgender people to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity — even inside privately owned businesses.
At least 19 states, including Idaho, already have laws barring transgender people from using bathrooms and changing rooms that align with their gender in schools and, in some cases, other public places. The LGBTQ+ advocacy organization Movement Advancement Project’s tracking of the laws shows that three other states — Florida, Kansas and Utah — have made it a criminal offense in some circumstances to violate the bathroom laws.
READ MORE: Ohio Gov. DeWine signs bill restricting transgender students’ use of bathrooms
But none of the others apply as broadly to private businesses as the Idaho bill, which covers any “place of public accommodation,” meaning any business or facility that serves the public. The state’s Republican supermajority Senate is expected to vote on the bill this week, deciding whether to send it to Gov. Brad Little’s desk.
Felony bathroom use?
If the law is passed, anyone who enters a public facility like a bathroom or locker room designated for the opposite sex could be sentenced to a year in jail for a misdemeanor first offense, or up to five years in prison for a felony second offense. That’s a longer sentence than Idaho imposes for a first drunken driving conviction or for displaying offensive sexual material in public.
Protecting those spaces is a “matter of safety” and “decency,” said Republican Sen. Ben Toews told a Senate committee last week.
“Private spaces such as restrooms, changing areas and showers are sex-separated for a reason,” Toews said. “Individuals in these vulnerable settings have a reasonable expectation of privacy and security.”
The bill does carve out several exceptions. Athletic coaches, people responding to emergencies, people supervising inmates, custodians, and people helping children who need bathroom assistance get a pass. So does someone who is “in dire need” of a bathroom, if the bathroom they use is the only one that is reasonably available at the time.
Law enforcement groups say it’s a bad bill
Law enforcement groups including the Idaho Fraternal Order of Police and the Idaho Chiefs of Police Association oppose the bill, which they say would place officers in impossible positions, tasking them with visually determining someone’s biological sex or their level of “dire need.” The Idaho Sheriff’s Association asked lawmakers to require that people first ask any suspected violator to leave the bathroom before calling authorities, but lawmakers refused.
Heron Greenesmith, deputy policy director at Transgender Law Center, said the “dire need” exception could be especially hard to assert — and that the idea that a person can use a public restroom only in an emergency is dehumanizing.
“How does one prove that one was going to poop on the floor?” they asked.
Opponents fear vigilantism
John Bueno, a transgender student at the University of Idaho and a member of the student group Queer Inclusion Society, said the school has lots of single-use restrooms, which helps mitigate the logistical impacts of the bill. But the legislation would likely lead to more unwanted “profiling” of people, whether they are transgender or not, she said.
“It’s this cultural attitude of getting other Americans to habitually be narcing on one other and doing this sort of ‘transvestigating’ — that is what these kinds of bills promote,” Bueno said.
It all comes down to an effort to disenfranchise transgender people, Bueno said.
“This will increasingly deter queer individuals from Idaho universities and the state as a whole,” she said. “Which to be fair, is probably the primary purpose.”
Bill could impact employment opportunities
Nikson Matthews, a transgender man with a beard, told a panel of lawmakers last week that the bill would force him into the women’s restroom, where his masculine appearance puts him at risk of aggression from people who think he’s intruding.
“It creates a crime — but that is not based on conduct or harm,” Matthews said. “It is based on presence, and to justify that you have to accept that someone’s presence alone is traumatizing and harmful enough to criminalize.”
It could also make it difficult for transgender people to work, said Boise resident Laura Volgert.
“People might be able to hold it for an hour if they’re at a restaurant for lunch or at a grocery store,” she told lawmakers during a committee hearing. “They can’t be expected to hold it for a full eight-hour shift.”
That’s the point of these types of laws, said Greenesmith, to “make it untenable to go to the movies, to go to the doctor, to go to the bank.”
Proponents say that isn’t the case.
Proponents say safety and privacy is key
Suzanne Tabert, a Sandpoint resident, said the bill is about “maintaining, clear, enforceable boundaries” so that women and children can feel safe.
“If we lose the ability to protect based on biological sex, we lose our most effective tool for preventing harassment, voyeurism and other sex crimes before they occur,” she said.
She later continued, “This legislation is not about how an individual identifies, nor does it seek to target or malign the transgender community. Rather it upholds a universal standard of privacy.”
Bathrooms are not the only place where lawmakers have been placing restrictions on transgender people in the name of protecting women and girls. At least 25 states bar transgender women and girls from some women’s and girl’s sports competitions. And at least 27 states have laws restricting or banning gender-affirming care for minors.
Expanding all of these policies are priorities for President Donald Trump, too.
The only widely reported arrest of someone on charges of violating transgender bathroom restrictions was part of a protest in Florida last year.
Mulvihill reported from Haddonfield, New Jersey.
A free press is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy.
Support trusted journalism and civil dialogue.
-
Detroit, MI1 week agoDrummer Brian Pastoria, longtime Detroit music advocate, dies at 68
-
Movie Reviews1 week ago‘Youth’ Twitter review: Ken Karunaas impresses audiences; Suraj Venjaramoodu adds charm; music wins praise | – The Times of India
-
Sports7 days agoIOC addresses execution of 19-year-old Iranian wrestler Saleh Mohammadi
-
New Mexico6 days agoClovis shooting leaves one dead, four injured
-
Business1 week agoDisney’s new CEO says his focus is on storytelling and creativity
-
Technology6 days agoYouTube job scam text: How to spot it fast
-
Tennessee5 days agoTennessee Police Investigating Alleged Assault Involving ‘Reacher’ Star Alan Ritchson
-
Texas1 week agoHow to buy Houston vs. Texas A&M 2026 March Madness tickets