Posted on 07/25/2024 12:32:16 PM PDT by Twotone
In 2023, a coalition called Idahoans for Open Primaries, made up of mostly leftist groups led by Reclaim Idaho, submitted a proposed ballot initiative to impose ranked choice voting and a top four blanket primary on the state of Idaho. They decided to call it “Open Primaries” despite that moniker having nothing to do with the content of the initiative itself, likely because open primaries polls well with voters while ranked choice voting does not.
The Attorney General’s office issued an opinion on the content of the proposed initiative that called out several problems:
It violates the single-subject rule, presenting two major changes to Idaho law — the blanket primary and ranked choice voting in the general election — in the same initiative.
Reclaim Idaho attempted to submit their own title for the initiative, which according to Idaho law is the purview of the AG’s office.
Ranked choice voting violates the state constitution which lays out how elections are to be tabulated.
The US Constitution says that state legislatures — not citizens initiatives — must determine the method of electing congressmen.
The initiative violates the right of political parties as private organizations to select their own nominees.
The coalition removed the words “open primaries” from the text but continued to use it as the name of their organization. When the AG’s office submitted a short title that used the terms “nonparty blanket primary” and “ranked choice voting,” the coalition sued, but was unable to convince the Idaho Supreme Court to let them use the phrase “open primaries” in the title. The coalition ignored the rest of the AG’s concerns and proceeded with their campaign to gather signatures, which was certified by the Secretary of State’s office a few weeks ago.
Accordingly, Attorney General Raúl Labrador filed suit yesterday, claiming that the initiative — now known as Proposition 1 — is not only illegal, but was placed on the ballot under false pretenses:
First, despite a crystal-clear prior ruling from the Idaho Supreme Court that the initiative does not propose an “open primary,” Idahoans for Open Primaries and its members systematically called it that to obtain the necessary signatures to support the initiative. They repeatedly described their initiative to citizens through their websites, signage, social media, trainings, canvassing efforts, and in interviews and statements that the proposed initiative would implement “open primaries” when the Idaho Supreme Court ruled last year that the initiative “does not describe an ‘open primary’ system.”
Second, the initiative makes distinct changes to the primary election and separately to the voting system used in general election, which violates the single-subject rule for legislation and initiatives. This initiative would eliminate party primaries and also institute a complex and multi-stage ranked-choice voting system for the general election, involving multiple ballot counts and vote shifting between candidates that lacks basic transparency.
Press release from the Office of the Attorney General, 7/24/24
Remember than an “open primary” is one in which voters can choose to fill out any party’s ballot, even if they are not affiliated with that party. Idaho Democrats currently operate an open primary — Republican and unaffiliated voters can walk in and select a Democrat ballot so long as they don’t vote on any other ballot that year.
Republicans had open primaries until 2011, when a federal court ruled that the party had the right to close its primary and only allow its members to participate. This hasn’t stopped Democrats and leftists from affiliating as Republicans to vote for the most liberal nominee, but it has certainly made former Republicans like Jim Jones very upset.
Jones, a former attorney general and chief justice, was joined by former governor Butch Otter and several other prominent Republicans of the past in supporting the initiative. At a policy forum last year, Jones boasted that the purpose of the initiative was to break what he called the “stranglehold” that Idaho GOP chair Dorothy Moon allegedly has on Idaho politics.
I expect a ruling on this lawsuit fairly quickly, since it will impact the way in which campaigners both pro and con go forward heading into election season. I will continue bringing you more information about the initiative and why Idahoans should reject it this November, should it survive this legal challenge.
Ranked Choice Voting is the best system for voting.
“””They decided to call it “Open Primaries” despite that moniker having nothing to do with the content of the initiative itself, likely because open primaries polls well with voters while ranked choice voting does not.”””
????open primaries polls well with voters????
In Florida we have ‘closed primaries’ and the common statement about ‘open primaries’ is:
Why would you want the opposing team to decide who should be the quarterback on your team?
“””Ranked Choice Voting is the best system for voting.”””
Is your comment sarcasm or are you serious?
No, it’s not.
How so?
Because voters are mostly fidiots!
If the 2016 presidential election used ranked choice voting...Donald Trump would never have been elected president.
I’m serious
You must be trolling.
RCV has a built-in run-off system.if a candidate doesn’t get over 50%, the votes for the 2nd choice is added up.
It’s convenient and hassle-free.
And it forces all candidates to compete for your vote.
Maybe it’ll work better in a parliamentary system like you see in Europe.
You don’t like change and I understand that.
A candidate that gets 30% of the vote in a 5-person field shouldn’t be the winner. RCV solves this problem.
RCV allowed Mary Peltola (D) to get elected in Alaska.
No, it’s not. I’ve been reading quite a bit about it with this ballot measure coming up in Idaho. The biggest problem with it is it’s not auditable. Once you start messing with the numbers, you essentially just make a mess.
Besides, we’re supposed to have ONE vote. If people want to blow it on an outlier candidate, that’s their business. And when people get fed up with the main party candidates not doing what they should do, it opens it up to those outliers. But this essentially gives some people 2 & 3 votes. I don’t think that’s fair.
I’ve also read that Alaskans are thinking about rescinding their ranked choice system. It doesn’t appear to make them very happy.
In practice, RCV doesn’t allow a voter to select only one candidate.
Imagine being forced to vote for Hillary.
Oops. You probably did.
RCV is the Leftist backup to mail-in ballots.
By any means necessary.
That’s not how it works.
Hillary would be your last choice.
No, voters allowed Mary Peltola to get elected. The system didn’t contribute to her victory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.