Idaho politics is defined by traditions. But not all are good. Should we drop some?

Now that the primary election is over, it is worth considering why we do certain things when it comes to elections and elected offices. And then, further consideration is warranted as to whether what we do even makes sense.

So, for instance, why do we live with the governor and lieutenant governor running on separate tickets? Why not on the same ticket, sort of like the president and vice president or the governor and lieutenant governor of Utah or other states? The lieutenant governor fills in for the governor when he is unable, and acts as president of the Senate. There is not a good reason why the two offices should not be fairly aligned in purpose. Plus, we should amend the Idaho Constitution to prevent the lieutenant governor from acting as governor in times of the governor’s mere “absence from the state,” a provision that is not helpful at all in this modern electronic age.

Why do we “close” primaries, if everyone can still vote in them with the simple switch of party affiliation? This façade is undemocratic and unnecessary — let’s return the primaries from the parties to the people, where they belong.

Why are certain offices elected? For instance, the state treasurer, the state controller, county clerk, county treasurer, county assessor, or county coroner? These races are rarely competitive because there’s rarely a political component to them. Rather, these are more administrative, as opposed to policy, positions. Would it make more sense for some of them to be appointed?

Why are certain offices partisan? For instance, consider all of the above positions, and also the secretary of state, attorney general, and county prosecutor. Be honest — what huge difference would there be between a Republican coroner and a Democrat coroner, a Republican controller or a Democrat controller, a Republican prosecutor or a Democrat prosecutor? Are the party affiliations all that helpful when considering who to select for county clerk, which is, again, more of an administrative and not policymaking position?

Why do we run competitive elections for district judge? The vast majority of district judge positions on the ballot in the primary, unless they were vacant, were not challenged. The same goes for the Supreme Court Justice and Court of Appeals judge positions. It’s not easy for the public to understand the job of a judge, and when there are competitive judge elections the candidates can’t even talk about how they would rule on cases. Instead, they most often have to resort to comparing resumes and making platitudes about how they intend to work hard or be fair, which are things every good judge candidate would say. When you can’t talk specific policy like a legislative candidate, voters get confused and judicial elections turn into more of a popularity contest. By contrast, magistrate judges don’t have opponents and only face a yes/no question: “Should Judge __ be retained in office?” Should we run all judicial elections that way?

And finally, why does our Legislature meet annually? This is more for fun, but did you know that the Montana state constitution dictates that their legislature meet only on odd-numbered years, and for 90-day periods? Their primary work is to pass a biannual budget. When you only have 90 days every two years to meet, could that possibly lead to a sharper focus on only the most important legislation? Just a thought.

To be sure, we all have traditions. Some traditions make us feel comfortable. But, as author G.K. Chesterton once said, clinging to tradition without good reason “means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead.”