DOES AN AUGUST PRIMARY MAKE SENSE? PROVE IT.
Our take: Lawmakers are talking about moving the primary elections from May to August, and it has nothing to do with good public policy. It is only a cynical matter of self-preservation.
Post Register, Idaho Falls
The House State Affairs Committee voted unanimously to consider a bill that would move Idaho’s primary election from May to August.
That was an entirely defensible outcome.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Tom Loertscher, R-Iona, is worth talking about.
Idaho’s primary used to be held in August, but was moved to May so Idahoans might have a voice in presidential politics.
With the Idaho Democratic and Republican parties adopting presidential caucuses, the initial argument for the early primary no longer exists.
So, we get to the heart of this debate. Is it better for the greatest number of Idahoans to keep the primary in May? Or would we be wise to push the primary back three months?
You can’t blame lawmakers for disliking a system that compels them to focus on their re-election efforts while finishing up a legislative session.
Pushing the primary back would give both parties more time to recruit candidates, potentially resulting in fewer uncontested elections.
But, an August primary has a couple major drawbacks. It could create logistical chaos for the county officials tasked with conducting Idaho’s elections.
Small counties could be hard-pressed to handle the workload in the middle of their budget-setting process.
And volunteer poll workers are difficult to find in May.
Good luck rounding up a crew in the summer.
That leads us to the biggest problem with Loertscher’s proposal. Voter turnout in primary elections is abysmal, ranging from 33 percent of registered voters in 1994 to 27 percent last year.
Idaho Republicans have gone out of their way in recent years to suppress voter turnout, by closing their primary election, requiring an ID to vote despite not being able to cite even one case of voter fraud and shooting down vote-by-mail proposals embraced by Idaho’s county clerks.
Loertscher, who chairs State Affairs, has been guiltier than most in keeping Idaho from embracing vote by mail.
There is no harm in talking about a summer primary election.
But the burden is on Loertscher to prove that moving the primary is good for a majority of Idahoans and not just a more convenient outcome for the politicians and political parties.
ETHICAL LAPSE: BRENT HILL GIVES A PASS TO JOHN McGEE
Our take: Normally forthright, Senate President Pro Tem Brent Hill, R-Rexburg, didn’t give the whole story earlier this month. He suggested Senate Republicans were united behind embattled Sen. John McGee, R-Caldwell — when, in truth, at least nine of the Senate’s 27 Republicans wanted McGee out of leadership.
Lewiston Tribune
Jeers to Hill, the epitome of transparency and ethical political behavior.
Yet he so mishandled the McGee fiasco that in comparison, House Speaker Lawerence Denney’s mild rebuke of tax scofflaw Phil Hart last year looks like a public flogging.
And Hart was only guilty of hypocrisy — refusing to pay his own taxes while serving on the House Revenue and Taxation Committee.
McGee, on the other hand, committed a crime — one that could have killed somebody.
On Father’s Day, he famously got snockered at a Boise country club, then attempted to drive off in a stolen Ford Excursion and cargo trailer before jackknifing it. After making $12,000 in restitution to the SUV’s owner, McGee’s felony grand theft charge disappeared, but he pleaded guilty to drunken driving.
Thereafter, McGee stonewalled, refusing all interviews until his leadership job went on the line.
In taking no steps to discipline McGee, Hill made him the new standard for ethical behavior in the Senate.
Then, when the GOP caucus emerged from closed doors, Hill implied the group was “united” in supporting McGee.
Turns out, the vote was much closer. Nine senators went public in their opposition to McGee.
Where do the remaining 18 GOP senators stand?
