Error in Boise voter pamphlet mentions library ballot question that doesn’t exist
A pamphlet for voters that was sent to every household in the city of Boise references a ballot question that does not exist regarding Boise’s proposed new main library.
Boise voters will decide in the November election on Proposition 1, a “vote for a vote” proposal. If it passes, any future Boise library project costing more than $25 million would require voter approval. Proposition 2 is the same kind of proposal, applying to future Boise stadium projects costing more than $5 million in public or private money.
Proposition 1 was brought forth by petition efforts from the community group Boise Working Together. It is the only proposition voters will see on the ballot regarding the library.
That is contrary to information in the voters’ pamphlet — a guide that helps explain measures Boiseans will see on their ballots this November. In the pamphlet, groups most closely connected with ballot measures have a chance to weigh in on why voters should support or reject the measures. Groups can submit statements to the city clerk’s office, which does not endorse or verify the statements.
The pamphlet cost $32,660 to produce, according to a deputy clerk for the city. It is required by the state for special ballot measures such as Propositions 1 and 2.
Boise Working Together’s statement was in support of Proposition 1, urging voters to approve the “vote for a vote” ballot measure.
The Boise Public Library Foundation submitted a rebuttal, encouraging Boiseans to vote down Prop 1. It said the ballot measure is unnecessary and unconstitutional; said it could “significantly increase” the cost of the library; and said it “creates confusion and wasted expense” and “sets a bad precedent.”
The statement also said, “the City Council has placed a special Question on this same ballot that provides the opportunity for citizens to vote directly on whether or not to proceed with the Main Library Project.”
The Boise City Council did not do that. There is no special question on the ballot regarding a yes-or-no vote on the library.
How did this happen? A tight timeline is partly responsible.
Jamie Heinzerling, deputy clerk for the city of Boise, said the state code is strict on deadlines for the pamphlet. Arguments were to be submitted by July 20, while rebuttals like the one from the Boise Public Library Foundation were due Aug. 1.
“The state lays out specifically what we can do here, which is we take what we get and we put it in,” Heinzerling said in a phone call Friday. “We don’t weigh in. If we crossed over and said ‘this isn’t factual,’ what position would that have put us in with the citizens that submitted that?”
The city spent about $10,992 to print the pamphlets and $21,669 to mail them.
The deadline for rebuttals was before Aug. 16, when the city announced that it would not pursue putting the special election on the ballot. The pamphlets were sent to print Aug. 27 and were revised Aug. 29 after the city received a proof. Heinzerling said the pamphlets were sent to AutoSort, a commercial mailing company, on Sept. 16, and they were mailed Sept. 18.
“When it became clear that the City Council was not able to put an alternative Special Question on the ballot, the Foundation attempted to amend its statement, but was told that no amendment or withdrawal would be allowed,” Bev Harad, chairwoman of the foundation, told the Statesman in an emailed statement. “The Foundation believes that the arguments made in its statement, other than the reference to a competing Special Question, remain valid.”
The Boise city clerk’s office was made aware of the error on July 31, according to letters from Boise Working Together. The group sent city officials a letter that day, asking the clerk’s office to reject the Boise Public Library Foundation’s references to the special question, saying that it did not exist at the time.
The city retained Wendy Olson, a former U.S. attorney who now practices with Stoel Rives, to address legal needs the city may have related to the library and stadium initiatives. She responded to Boise Working Together on July 31, saying the clerk’s office did not have the authority to reject an argument for any reason not explicitly stated in state code. She offered the group the chance to submit a counter-rebuttal by 5 p.m. the next day.
Heinzerling said she personally had not heard from any voters confused by the misinformation.
David Klinger, spokesman for Boise Working Together, declined to comment on any possible confusion. He said he considers Proposition 1 to be a “very understandable choice.”
“It’s unfortunate that the voters’ guide alludes to an alternative that doesn’t exist,” he said.
Klinger argued that, in the letter at the top of the pamphlet from Lynda Lowry, the city’s director of finance and administration, the city should have included a note warning voters of an error. It is unclear whether Lowry could have known of the error before the ballots went to the printer.
“This is a distraction that has unfortunately been a concern to a growing number of voters,” Klinger said Friday. “Voters need to realize that there are only two propositions on the ballot in November, both from Boise Working Together and the citizens.”
The special question mentioned in the pamphlet was proposed by Elaine Clegg and was going to be considered by the Boise City Council on Aug. 20. Just a few days before a hearing was set to be held on the issue, however, Bieter announced the city would not be pursuing a special election on the library after all.
The city gave two reasons for that, one being that cost estimates came in above the budgeted $85 million. The other was that Ada County Clerk Phil McGrane delivered a letter to city officials saying he would not put the special question on the ballot. In his letter, McGrane told officials that was his conclusion after consulting with Idaho Secretary of State Lawerence Denney, who in turn consulted with Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane about whether the city had the authority to put the question on the ballot.
The state officials concluded the city did not, so Boise did not pursue the election further.
The city will not reprint the pamphlets to remove the incorrect information, Heinzerling said. It will be printing more pamphlets with the same content in large print and Spanish language versions.
Boise’s municipal election will be held Nov. 5.
Timeline of Events
- March 16 — Boise Working Together begins collecting signatures on the two ballot initiatives, one for a vote on the library project and one for a vote on the stadium project. The group needed to collect 4,962 signatures on both measures from registered Boise voters.
- April 30 — Boise Working Together submits more than 7,000 signatures on each issue to the Boise City Clerk’s office
- May 30 — Ada County confirms that the petitions both met the signatures threshold to be on the ballot
- June 18 — Ada County Clerk Phil McGrane tells the council it must demonstrate that it has the legal right to put spending questions before voters
- June 25 — Boise City Council chooses not to adopt the two proposed ordinances from Boise Working Together outright, opting instead to send them to the ballot for voters to decide upon
- July 18 — Boise City Council adopts Elaine Clegg’s ordinance that would call for a hearing on special projects costing more than $25 million. At the hearings proposed by Clegg’s ordinance, the council would decide whether to pursue a special election on the issue.
July 20 — Arguments for the pamphlet are due to Boise City Clerk’s office
July 31 — Boise Working Together submits a letter to the clerk’s office pointing out that the election named by the Boise Public Library Foundation’s rebuttal in the pamphlet does not yet exist
Aug. 1 — Rebuttals to arguments due for the pamphlet
Aug. 16 — Mayor Bieter announces the city will not pursue a special election on the library and instead is putting the project on hold
Aug. 27 — Pamphlets sent to printers
Sept. 16 — Pamphlets sent to mailing company
Sept. 18 — Pamphlets mailed to Boise households
This story was originally published September 27, 2019 at 3:51 PM.
.jpg)