Great post, Brian. This morning, I was working on an email to you on a closely related topic. Then, up pops your Substack post about The Devil’s Bargain (https://gemstate.substack.com/p/the-devils-bargain-5b5). So, here’s what I planned to send you via email in case others are interested...
This resolution was adopted at the 2023 Summer meeting of the Idaho GOP. While I support the IDGOP Summer 2023 resolution and the points raised in your Substack post, I worry that 2023-39 may not go far enough.
I shared my concerns with someone in party leadership, who stated the below but did not explain further.
“Resolution was approved by the State Central Committee at our summer meeting. It went through a tremendous amount of scrutiny back and forth by the most conservative minds of our State. We are simply doing it now County by County. It is a resolution, not a rule. Thank you for your input.“
SO, WHAT’S THE CONCERN ALREADY?
My concern is that with the resolution/constitutional amendment as written, people in power -- e.g., Sec. of State, legislature, governor, courts, municipalities etc. -- could simply declare ALL (or more) elections are NON-PARTISAN, essentially creating ranked choice voting via the back door.
We already have so-called non-partisan elections that are not non-partisan at all, including Mayors, School Boards, City Councils, and Judges. Look how bought off so many of these elections and people are!
The following additional requirements (or some variation) could increase transparency in a system that's currently fuzzier than 30-day old bread left on the kitchen counter:
1. ALL elections shall be partisan (no exceptions, not even dog catcher if that's an elected position).
2. Candidates shall be registered voters (and American citizens) for at least X months or election cycles prior to filing for candidacy (you fill in the X).
3. Candidates shall officially declare their party affiliation at least X months prior to filing for candidacy.
Candidate affiliation can be any legally recognized party in Idaho, currently listed at Idaho Secretary of State website as Constitution, Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian (https://sos.idaho.gov/elect/VoterReg/party_affiliation.pdf).
4. Winners shall remain in their registered party for at least Y months/years/term percentage after the general election (you fill in the Y).
5. In case of vacancy, any appointee or interim office holder also shall fulfil items 2, 3, and 4 above.
What do you think about these concerns? Already considered and discarded at Summer 2023 Meeting? Not valid in this context? Stupid ideas? When pigs fly? Etc.
I agree with all 5 of your points. Our city, county, school districts, sheriff, police chief, fire chief, etc. Anybody elected or appointed should be made to select their party affiliations. Our local city council is a perfect example of the whos who of lefties who all campaign on fiscal conservatism, but can't wait to spend your tax payer $$$.
Great post, Brian. This morning, I was working on an email to you on a closely related topic. Then, up pops your Substack post about The Devil’s Bargain (https://gemstate.substack.com/p/the-devils-bargain-5b5). So, here’s what I planned to send you via email in case others are interested...
I had some concerns while preparing for a county-level discussion about the proposed resolution/constitutional amendment titled “2023-39 Political Parties Inherent Right to Nomination of Candidates for General Elections” (see https://idgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/2023-Summer-Resolutions-SCC-Accepted.pdf).
This resolution was adopted at the 2023 Summer meeting of the Idaho GOP. While I support the IDGOP Summer 2023 resolution and the points raised in your Substack post, I worry that 2023-39 may not go far enough.
I shared my concerns with someone in party leadership, who stated the below but did not explain further.
“Resolution was approved by the State Central Committee at our summer meeting. It went through a tremendous amount of scrutiny back and forth by the most conservative minds of our State. We are simply doing it now County by County. It is a resolution, not a rule. Thank you for your input.“
SO, WHAT’S THE CONCERN ALREADY?
My concern is that with the resolution/constitutional amendment as written, people in power -- e.g., Sec. of State, legislature, governor, courts, municipalities etc. -- could simply declare ALL (or more) elections are NON-PARTISAN, essentially creating ranked choice voting via the back door.
We already have so-called non-partisan elections that are not non-partisan at all, including Mayors, School Boards, City Councils, and Judges. Look how bought off so many of these elections and people are!
The following additional requirements (or some variation) could increase transparency in a system that's currently fuzzier than 30-day old bread left on the kitchen counter:
1. ALL elections shall be partisan (no exceptions, not even dog catcher if that's an elected position).
2. Candidates shall be registered voters (and American citizens) for at least X months or election cycles prior to filing for candidacy (you fill in the X).
3. Candidates shall officially declare their party affiliation at least X months prior to filing for candidacy.
Candidate affiliation can be any legally recognized party in Idaho, currently listed at Idaho Secretary of State website as Constitution, Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian (https://sos.idaho.gov/elect/VoterReg/party_affiliation.pdf).
4. Winners shall remain in their registered party for at least Y months/years/term percentage after the general election (you fill in the Y).
5. In case of vacancy, any appointee or interim office holder also shall fulfil items 2, 3, and 4 above.
What do you think about these concerns? Already considered and discarded at Summer 2023 Meeting? Not valid in this context? Stupid ideas? When pigs fly? Etc.
I agree with all 5 of your points. Our city, county, school districts, sheriff, police chief, fire chief, etc. Anybody elected or appointed should be made to select their party affiliations. Our local city council is a perfect example of the whos who of lefties who all campaign on fiscal conservatism, but can't wait to spend your tax payer $$$.
Thank you, Mont! Much appreciated support. I hope party and legislative officials will listen too.