"This is Part 2 in the five part analysis of Proposition 1. An 18-page Proposition 1 is not enough, because the Secretary of State must create new rules to add to the 722 sets of administrative rules now existing in Idaho. New executive branch rules are needed for post-election audits, certain statements of votes cast for candidates, and administrative rules for elections conducted by instant runoff voting, including new “rules for canvassing, for tabulation, and for releasing unofficial preliminary round-by-round results as soon as feasible after the polls close,” see new Idaho Code section 34-1218. Figuring out a candidate and their policy positions is difficult, but now the voting process will be indecipherable to the average voter. How would Proposition 1 make our political lives easier?
The new subsection (3) of 34-411A makes it clear that two primaries are created, because “For a top four primary election, an elector does not need to be affiliated with a political party in order to vote.” Compare this to 34-704, where precinct committeemen must be affiliated with a political party. The two primaries will be combined into one election, which equals more confusion.
Proposed amended section 34-501(1)(b) tilts the law toward mere “affiliation” with a political party by allowing creation of a party where “at least three percent of the aggregate of votes cast for all candidates indicating their affiliation with that party pursuant to section 34-704A, Idaho Code, in any round of tabulation in a general election for governor.” The single sentence of 34-501(1)(b) needs work to be coherent.
The amended Idaho Code section 34-702A(3) allows vote-stealing. In general elections conducted by instant runoff voting, a write-in candidate who has not submitted a declaration of intent is not considered an active candidate, but the vote for that candidate will still count the same as an eliminated candidate when tabulation occurs, see proposed Idaho Code section 34-1218(3)(b) and (c). You could write-in Ms. Smith, but your vote could be assigned to another candidate you never chose! Such vote stealing should not be legalized.
Proposed new Idaho Code section 704A(1) demonstrates the writer’s deficits when stating, “Any person who desires to offer themself as a candidate,” instead of the simpler “Any person who desires to be a candidate.” Why use clunky and arcane language when a direct statement is better? Proposition 1 is not edited properly, and to make it a law in November would award poor drafting to Idaho’s detriment.
If you are an Independent in Idaho, amendments to Idaho Code section 34-708 strikeout the section and replace it with a single sentence: “No person may offer himself as an independent candidate at the primary election.” The destruction of party nominations is one target of Proposition 1. Today, candidates can represent themselves as being part of a party with discernable principles and articulated policy positions. Bumper-sticker candidates with no ties to a party do not make better governance. An Independent Party should be allowed to offer candidates in an Idaho Independent primary.
Proposition 1 amendments to Idaho Code section 34-715 have made it indecipherable. The numbering is incorrect, so that subsections (1), (2), and (3) are duplicated but with different language. According to the second subsection (2), we are offered “Jack-in-the-Box” revivals. If vacancies in races occur after the new “top four primary” but at least ten days before the general election, such vacancies are filled “by advancing the candidate, if any, who received the most votes in the top four primary but did not qualify to advance to the general election pursuant to [Idaho Code] section 703(2)(c).” After reading the several provisions, it is unclear how a candidate could not fail to advance to the general election based on the proposed amended Idaho Code section 34-703(2)(c). If I cannot understand these provisions, then I guarantee the average voter will be lost too. Idaho does not need such complex elections.
In the second subsection (3) of the proposed Idaho Code section 34-715, a tie “shall be broken in a manner similar to” the provisions found in the amended Idaho Code section 34-1216. That section calls for tied results to be resolved by a coin toss, or by the constitutional provision if the tie involves an executive branch office. What is “in a manner similar to?” The provision is vague for not defaulting to the coin toss or the constitution. Idahoans do not need any backroom or machine decisions about what may be similar to a coin toss or our constitution."
By Art Macomber, Attorney.
Mr. Macomber ran for State Attorney General in 2022 after 16 years practicing law in Idaho.
Comments can be sent to art@artmacomber.com.
