Rep. Mike Simpson faces a repeat challenge from his far right flank. Here’s our pick

Congressman Mike Simpson has been a positive force for Idaho since he was first elected to state office in 1984. Since he was first sent to Washington in 1998, he has protected key assets for his district, including agriculture, public lands and Idaho National Laboratory.

In the editorial board’s judgment, voters in the 2nd Congressional District would be best served by making him the Republican nominee.

It was, at times, difficult to watch Simpson under the Trump administration. His willingness to defend what was often indefensible was disappointing. But we are heartened that he voted to launch a bipartisan investigation of the Jan. 6 attempted insurrection. And we see signs he is returning to his old ways.

Simpson’s opponent, Bryan Smith, has been a central figure and financier of the expansion of the far right in the Idaho Legislature. His would not be a voice of compromise or sensible policy making in Congress.

Smith refused to be interviewed by the editorial board. The Statesman does not endorse candidates who will not agree to an interview.

If you want to guess how he would act in office, just watch the behavior of the people whose campaigns he has funded: Ron Nate, Karey Hanks, Chad Christensen, Rod Beck, Ryan Davidson — it’s hard to think of a member of Idaho’s far-right faction who doesn’t have his money in their pocket.

With inflation looming, a drought lingering and a million other real problems that need solving, Idaho needs a lawmaker who knows how to make a deal and craft a policy that works.

Simpson has offered a realistic plan to save Idaho’s salmon. That plan, or something like it, is likely the only option to keep the fish population from extinction. If Smith were elected, the likelihood of the species’ survival becomes more remote.

The logging industries on the West Coast have seen something like what could happen without a deal. There, when a judge found that the requirements of the Endangered Species Act had not been met for protecting the spotted owl, all at once most logging came to a halt. It put many communities into a turmoil from which they have never recovered.

There is no law of nature preventing the same thing from happening here.

Without a deal, Idaho agriculture could find itself suddenly in a similar predicament.

Smith did not agree to answer the editorial board’s questions about what his plans for the salmon are, but from his political messaging, we are left with the impression that he has no serious plan. But no plan is not an option. Either we make a plan, or eventually a federal judge will make one for us.

If Idaho has one elected official who has the record to pull off a deal that could save salmon and protect agriculture and other stakeholders, it’s Simpson. Simpson’s dedicated work over years led to a deal that protected the Boulder-White Clouds while avoiding a national monument declaration, which likely would have moved forward if he failed.

Simpson has also acted to support concrete steps to improve the immigration system. He was one of the co-sponsors of the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, a bipartisan bill that would make green cards more accessible to undocumented farm workers across America.

That again gives evidence of Simpson’s ability to compromise. Simpson said he long opposed piecemeal immigration reform, worrying it would relieve the pressure for a long-dreamt-of comprehensive immigration reform bill. But Simpson said he changed his position once he concluded there was no path forward on a comprehensive bill.

That’s what Idaho needs in its congressional delegation: not someone who will draw a line in the sand and refuse to compromise under any circumstances, but someone who can examine the facts and follow them where they lead. Simpson has that sensibility. Smith does not.