For years, Idaho legislators have tried to keep their leadership elections and in-house discipline to themselves.
This is one reason why lawmakers say they need to be able to meet in closed party caucuses, outside the view of the media and their constituents. A caucus is not unlike Las Vegas. What happens there stays there.
But on Friday, nine Republican state senators pulled back the curtain and gave their constituents a glimpse inside the cloistered caucus — although their motivations were probably more machiavellian than altruistic. Regardless, it is an astounding twist in the implosion of state Sen. John McGee, R-Caldwell.
Nine days after Senate Republicans caucused, and decided to keep the embattled McGee in party leadership, the nine Republicans issued a statement saying they wanted to replace McGee.
The fact that a group of Senate Republicans went public in such an unorthodox fashion illustrates a schism within the caucus.
McGee’s fellow leaders were divided; Assistant Majority Leader Chuck Winder of Boise signed Friday’s statement.
There is also a split among Treasure Valley Republicans, the lawmakers who best know the backstory and the backlash surrounding McGee’s Father’s Day arrest and guilty plea on a DUI charge. Winder, Boise Republican Mitch Toryanski and Meridian Republicans Russell Fulcher and Shirley McKague all say they wanted a change.
Was the Senate Gang of Nine standing on principle? For constituents most dismayed by McGee’s bizarre behavior — and most disgusted by the fact that he was able to plea away a felony vehicle theft charge that could have cost him his elected office — their candor might be celebrated. There is also an element of self-preservation here. All legislators stand for re-election this year. Perhaps the safest place to stand is as far away from McGee as physically possible.
We also know this. These nine opponents didn’t vote alone. On Friday, Senate President Pro Tem Brent Hill of Rexburg said more caucus members wanted McGee out. However, Hill said he didn’t recall the vote count, and wouldn’t say how he voted.
All this from Hill, who said after the Jan. 11 caucus vote on McGee, “I’m confident we came out united.” Hill is usually a straight shooter, but not this time. Friday’s public statement is nearly as much a criticism of Hill as it is a calling out of McGee.
There is, within the senators’ public vote of no confidence, a whiff of wishful thinking. “It is our hope that, by going public with our position on the leadership question, we can intensify our attention on other issues facing our state. Idaho needs her elected officials to focus on the critical challenge of stimulating job creation and rebuilding the economy.”
We’ll believe it when we see it. Just as likely, this statement opens up new speculation. How many other senators wanted McGee out? Who are they? And does this public split leave McGee incapable of performing his job within leadership, serving as the public spokesman of the Senate GOP caucus?
That’s the thing about pulling back the curtain. Sometimes it raises more questions than it answers.
“Our View” is the editorial position of the Idaho Statesman. It is an unsigned opinion expressing the consensus of the Statesman’s editorial board. To comment on an editorial or suggest a topic, email editorial@idahostatesman.com.
