"This is Part 3 in the five part analysis of Proposition 1. After reading the proposed amended Idaho Code section 34-904, and the proposed amended Idaho Code 34-904A, it is difficult to see whether Idaho has two primaries or one. It appears that there will be two ballots, one for precinct committeemen of parties, and a second where all the other candidates will be mixed in together. To further dilute political party policy and principle cohesiveness and thus articulable challenges, a political party may currently allow electors designated as unaffiliated, and electors actually registered to a different political party to vote in that party’s primary election, see proposed amended Idaho Code section 34-904A(2). Why a party would ever do this after Proposition 1 is unknown. On the other ballot, “Every qualified elector shall be allowed to vote in the top four primary election, regardless of party affiliation.” This is the so-called open primary.
An open primary means that political party activities will not focus on candidates challenging each other over policy or principles. It means that Idaho will cement into law a uni-party voting system, where policy and principles are irrelevant. A fight over policy and principles will waste time, because interlopers with other policies and principles will intervene to create a mish-mash. If the candidate with the fewest votes is cast aside, and those votes are transferred to the next highest candidate, then the weakest candidates on policy and principles will be preferred. Candidates who have little knowledge of policy, and those who lack principles should not gain an advantage. This law would harm Idaho, and Proposition 1 should fail, so policies and principles are not destroyed in favor of pablum.
The ballot disclaimers in proposed Idaho Code section 34-904(4) and 34-906(3) and (5) confirm that a candidate’s chosen affiliation “does not imply that the candidate is nominated or endorsed by the political party or political group or that the political party or political group approves of or associates with that candidate, but only that the candidate is registered as affiliated with the party or group.” In short, you can still register for any party, which is traditionally a public representation about your policy positions and principles. But, the fine print indicates being associated with a political party means nothing. If a party does not nominate a candidate, or endorse a candidate, or approve of a candidate, or associate with a candidate, then a cogent voter should recognize that the candidate does not represent that party’s policy positions and principles. Proposition 1 encourages wolves in sheep’s clothing.
The disclaimer regarding federal presidential and vice-presidential candidates found in subsection (5) of section 34-906 is hash, because some candidates for those two offices are official nominees of their political party. Proposition 1 is poorly drafted law, and that subsection (5) should give a clearer disclaimer.
Proposed amendments to Idaho Code section 34-1201 are confusing. In subsection 1, the judges count the ballots, but in amended section 34-1203(1) “the election personnel” tally the votes cast. Which is it? We know who the judges are and they can be held personally accountable, but election personnel? Who are these people? The judges should also tally the votes cast.
In the new subsection (5) to Idaho Code section 34-1201, elections shall be canvassed. The problem is that canvassing is traditionally a confirmation process by a board of county commissioners or other entity and not a tabulation process by election office personnel – or by a voting machine. A canvass confirms the tabulation, see 34-1207, “After the canvass of the votes for each office, the board shall cause the county clerk to complete a canvass report, which shall then be signed by each member of the board,” or 34-1711(1): “The board of county commissioners shall act as the board of canvassers.” The definition of the word “canvass” is being changed from confirmation of the vote counts by a Board of County Commissioners to a tabulation function done by unaccountable people or machines. No argument is made as to why this needs to happen, or how this change benefits Idaho."
Art Macomber, Attorney
Comments can be sent to art@artmacomber.com
