Our recommendation on Idaho’s Prop 1: Open primaries, ranked choice voting | Opinion

Proposition 1 on the November ballot would dramatically change how we choose our elected officials, and it would dramatically change Idaho politics.

We think for the better.

And Idaho can’t wait for change.

Our current system leads to extremist candidates with extremist ideas and policies that lead to extreme laws.

Idaho already has too many bad laws on the books, from an extreme abortion ban to a library book ban and bounty bill to a parental medical consent law, all of which have negative consequences that hurt the state.

Proposition 1, particularly the open primaries portion, would help fix the problem Idaho has with extremist legislation by creating a system in which candidates must appeal to a broader swath of voters — not just the small minority who turn out for the closed Republican primary.

If approved by voters, Proposition 1 would abolish Idaho’s party primaries and create a system in which all candidates participate in a top-four multi-party primary and voters may vote for any candidate they wish, regardless of party. The top four vote-getters for each office would then advance to the general election.

The measure would also establish ranked-choice voting in the general election, in which voters rank the candidates on the ballot in order of preference. The votes are then counted in successive rounds, and the candidate receiving the fewest votes in each round is eliminated. The votes for an eliminated candidate are transferred to the voter’s next-highest-ranked active candidate.

The candidate with the most votes in the final round wins.

The Idaho Statesman editorial board recommends a “yes” vote on Proposition 1.

The problem

The Idaho Republican Party in 2012 closed its primaries, meaning that only registered Republicans may participate.

About 280,000 Idahoans, or more than a quarter of all registered voters, have chosen to be “unaffiliated,” not registering with any party.

They can’t vote in the Republican primary.

This raises a serious question of taxation without representation. All Idaho taxpayers pay for the primaries, but not all Idahoans can vote in the Republican primary.

Yes, anyone may simply register as a Republican and then vote in the primary.

But you shouldn’t have to register with a party just to exercise your right to vote for your preferred candidate. It’s undemocratic.

And some voters, such as judges and members of the military, feel it’s vital that they not affiliate with a political party so that they avoid the appearance of bias. Proposition 1 would allow everyone, regardless of affiliation, to vote in Idaho’s primary elections.

Not only that, no longer would voters have to select a primary ballot that contains only one party or the other. Under Proposition 1, all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, would be on the ballot all at once, and voters can choose whichever candidate they prefer, regardless of party affiliation, in each race.

So you could vote for a Republican candidate that you like in one race, a Democrat in another race, a Libertarian candidate in another. Or, if you so choose, you could select all Republican candidates straight down the ticket.

Low voter turnout

Voter turnout is already low for primaries compared with the general election; the closed Republican primary limits voting to an even smaller subset of the population.

The result is that a sliver of the electorate determines the winner of the closed Republican primary.

Consider legislative District 13, which includes southeastern Nampa and surrounding parts of Canyon County.

Extremist incumbent Sen. Brian Lenney won his primary against the eminently more reasonable Republican Jeff Agenbroad with just 2,695 votes. That’s just 19% of all registered Republicans in District 13 and just 11% of all registered voters in District 13.

For House Seat B, Republican challenger Steve Tanner ran on a platform railing against COVID-19 safety measures, mail-in ballots or ballot drop boxes and “critical queer theory,” whatever that is.

Tanner received 2,205 votes, 46% of all ballots cast — not even a majority.

Tanner has no challenger in the general election.

This is how you get bad, extremist legislation. Tanner doesn’t have to worry about doing what most voters in his district want because he needed only a very small minority to get elected.

‘Getting primaried’

The other problem, particularly in a one-party-dominated system, is that the closed primary promotes hyperpartisanship because of fears of “getting primaried.”

Moderate Republican legislators today fear facing a more radical opponent in the Republican primary if they don’t vote a certain way on certain issues, such as abortion, allowing guns in schools or transgender health care.

To see how this plays out, look no further than Idaho Rep. Marco Erickson, R-Idaho Falls, who voted in favor of a law that requires parental permission before a caregiver can provide any kind of treatment to a minor, ostensibly to prevent kids from getting gender-affirming care without their parents’ knowledge.

The bill was supported by the Alliance Defending Freedom, the national Christian organization that Attorney General Raúl Labrador has conscripted into service as a shadow arm of his taxpayer-funded legal team.

The law has had myriad negative unintended consequences, and Erickson knew it would.

Erickson told The Washington Post in an email for a story in October that he “tried to warn my fellow legislators … but I was one Republican voice among a group of people who do not understand how things work on the ground.”

But Erickson, a director of a youth organization, does understand how things work on the ground.

“It has been a terrible bill with terrible outcomes for the youth, especially those who are the victims of their parents’ abuse,” he told the Post. “I have seen youth not want to participate in therapy for fear their abuser would gain access to what they are talking about.”

Given that he knew it would have such horrible consequences, you might be surprised to learn that Erickson voted in favor of the bill.

That’s likely because he was afraid he could lose to a far-right extremist challenger in the primary. A vote against the bill would mean some far-right outfit would mail out campaign postcards attacking Erickson for supporting child mutilation or some such nonsense.

So instead of standing up for what he knows is right, Erickson caved and voted to pass “a terrible bill.”

Erickson survived his primary contest, but not by much. He faced a far-right challenge from Jilene Burger, who wrote in her primary campaign literature, “I’m sick and tired of watching Idaho politicians enact policies that follow the ‘WOKE’ agenda.” Huh?

Burger received 1,916 votes in the closed Republican primary, just 461 votes shy of Erickson’s 2,377. Had Erickson voted against that bill, perhaps that would have been enough to lose the primary.

This is exactly how groups like the Idaho Freedom Foundation, the Idaho Family Policy Center, Idaho Chooses Life and the Alliance Defending Freedom maintain a chokehold on these legislators: Vote for our bill or face a far-right challenger in the primary.

It is no coincidence that special-interest groups that benefit from the current system oppose Proposition 1.

The consequences of extremist legislation are manifest: doctors and teachers leaving the state, hospitals struggling to recruit workers, children afraid to return to the state where they grew up, expectant mothers being airlifted out of state for treatment, libraries closing or banning children, and now doctors afraid to treat children for fear of getting arrested.

These laws and the priorities brought forward every legislative session by extremist legislators are out of step with the priorities and positions of most Idahoans, as shown time and again by public opinion polling.

The solution

Open primaries would relieve that pressure in two important ways.

One, a Republican legislator in an open primary would necessarily have to appeal to a broader base of voters, namely those unaffiliated voters who can’t participate now. That would weed out extremist candidates who don’t appeal to unaffiliated voters.

Second, because the top four vote-getters move on to the general election, the legislator, even if they were to lose to an extremist candidate in the primary, would likely still move on to the general election, where there’s greater turnout and candidates would have to appeal to a much broader segment of the electorate, not just the small minority of voters who turn out for the closed Republican primary.

Ranked choice voting would relieve that pressure because moderate candidates would more likely secure the second-choice votes of a wider swath of voters, helping to secure a win in the general election. Extremist candidates, who appeal only to fellow extremists, would get fewer second-choice votes. No longer would you be able to win on a platform of returning to the gold standard, privatizing Social Security or getting rid of citizens’ right to vote for U.S. senators.

Opposition

We concede that there are some concerns about Prop 1, particularly with ranked choice voting. We’re willing to listen and have an honest debate about it.

Unfortunately, some opponents have resorted to dishonesty and disingenuous arguments around the issue, such as:

• It will sow more distrust in our election system. It would only sow distrust because opponents are sowing distrust in it.
• It will turn Idaho blue. Please. The suggestion that ranked choice voting is some nefarious plot to “rig” the elections to turn Idaho blue is far-fetched, to say the least. In all, 626,000 of Idaho’s more than 1 million voters are registered Republicans.
• It’s so bad in Alaska, they’re voting to repeal it. Not quite. Some people in Alaska didn’t like it, so a group of citizens got a repeal on the ballot. That’s how the system works, just as it’s on the ballot here. It remains to be seen how voters will decide. By many accounts, it’s popular, but that’s why we vote.
• It violates “one person, one vote.” No it doesn’t. Every voter gets one ballot, and their vote includes choosing a No. 1 option, a No. 2 and so forth.
• Your ballot can be “thrown out.” Not true. No ballot is ever thrown out. If you voted for only one candidate, your ballot is still counted. If you chose not to rank any other candidates, your ballot isn’t “thrown out.” Your vote for your first-choice candidate is still registered and counted. To suggest otherwise is dishonest.
• Your ballot is thrown out if your ballot contains mistakes. Not true. If a voter makes a mistake in filling out the ballot in one race, that race could be read as either an overvote or undervote, and the vote might not be recorded in that race. The other races on that ballot would still be recorded. That’s the case now if you make a mistake on your ballot, such as voting for two people by mistake.
  
  
• “Don’t Californicate our vote.” California doesn’t have ranked choice voting for state offices. California and Utah have local-option ranked choice voting for municipal races.
  
  
• “You just don’t like the results.” Well, yeah, OK. When the results of Republican primaries are extremist candidates like Brian Lenney and Tammy Nichols, people out of touch with what most Idahoans want, yes, we want different results.
• A candidate could win without a majority. Correct, and that’s the case with today’s elections. A candidate can win an election with less than 50% of the vote. Former Idaho Superintendent of Public Instruction Sherri Ybarra won the closed Republican primary in 2014 with 29% of the vote.
• Results can’t be audited. Of course results can be audited, and ballots can be recounted and hand counted just like they are today. It may take longer and be more challenging, but it can still be done.

So let’s address some of the legitimate concerns surrounding Proposition 1.

Cost of ranked choice voting

Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane has estimated that it could cost $25 million to $40 million to implement ranked choice voting in Idaho. That’s no small amount.

Idaho, though, spends a lot more money on many other things and has approved billions in tax breaks in recent years. What could be a better way to spend money than on ensuring every citizen gets to vote?

Logistics of ranked choice voting

While much attention has been given to the cost of switching to ranked choice voting, we believe a bigger concern is the challenge of implementing ranked choice voting.

The dramatic change in the way Idaho would tabulate votes should not be simply brushed aside or scoffed at.

Ranked choice voting would require a more centralized way of tabulating votes, particularly when districts and statewide offices cross county lines.

But other states have done it, and we have full faith and confidence in McGrane to pull it off.

Length of time to vote

This is a legitimate concern that should not be underestimated. When a voter enters the ballot box and has but one candidate to choose, it will undeniably be faster than having to rank multiple candidates in multiple races.

This could cause backups at polling locations, as voters wait in line to get to a voting station to cast their ballot.

But measures can be taken to encourage voters to print out sample ballots in advance to research how they’re going to vote, increase the number of polling places, and increase staffing and voting stations at busier polling places.

Confusion in voting

This is another area in which the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Prop 1 opponents say ranked choice voting is too difficult to understand. We disagree. Ranking the candidates in order of preference is well within the abilities of voters. Yes, the ballot will look different, but once voters become familiar with them, they’ll get the hang of it.

But what Prop 1 supporters fail to recognize is that most voters are not politically engaged, and often voters are unaware of what races might be on their ballot, let alone all of the candidates in every race. Again, is this sufficient reason not to do it? We don’t think so. The solution is to do a better job of informing the voters.

Party representation

Let’s address the idea that political parties should be able to nominate their candidate to go on to the general election, a compelling argument for some of us on the board.

But we think that attitude is looking at elections, and particularly the importance of political parties, the wrong way in our form of government.

Under an open primary, the Republican Party could still have a say in its “starting lineup.” It could hold its own election or caucus or even just have its central committees nominate their favored candidates. They could mail out postcards and buy ads supporting their favored candidates.

And then all voters, when they head to the polls, can take that into consideration.

But if you’re going to charge the taxpayers for the election, you shouldn’t ban anyone from that process.

Parties shouldn’t be viewed as “teams,” where the primary election is a playoff game and the general election is the Super Bowl. Candidates should answer to voters, not parties. In his farewell address in 1796, George Washington warned against the power of political parties and the fear of putting party over country, and James Madison in Federalist No. 10 warned of the dangers of political factions.

Conclusion

In the end, perhaps no voting system is perfect. Open primaries and ranked choice voting are not perfect, and opponents should admit that what exists now is not perfect either.

Some members of this editorial board are more comfortable with the concept of open primaries than with ranked choice voting, and some of us would have preferred the initiative address only open primaries.

But that’s not enough for us to oppose the measure altogether.

Idaho voters have a choice: Support both parts of the initiative or none of it.

This is an all-or-nothing proposition, and despite any misgivings about ranked choice, it’s vital that Idahoans approve the whole deal to fix Idaho’s elections.

If voters reject the initiative, we’re certain Idaho legislators won’t take it upon themselves to do anything, and it could be years before we get another initiative on the ballot.

Proposition 1 is Idaho’s best shot to remedy a serious problem that has beleaguered our state for the past 12 years.

Vote yes on Proposition 1 to improve Idaho politics and reduce extremism.

This story was originally published October 27, 2024 at 4:00 AM.