Rep. McGeachin discussed the effort nationwide to do away with the Electoral College, and select presidents by the popular vote. On a related topic, Rep. McGeachin also discusses the need to repeal the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, which allows for the popular election of senators. The two issues are related – both the Electoral College and the selection of senators by state legislatures were placed in the Constitution to preserve states’ rights and keep the balance of power between the states and the federal government.

Rep. McGeachin also discusses Idaho State budgets and tax revenues, resulting from the 22% drop in revenues in the last two years.

Don’t miss this interview with one of Idaho’s standout legislators.

Recently, an oft quoted myth has resurfaced that legislative immunity is a perk for State Representatives which can be invoked whenever convenient. For example, this myth is being used as the basis for accusations of impropriety being leveled against Idaho State Representative Phil Hart (3rd H.D.)

Rep. Hart has relied on a provision in the Idaho Constitution to postpone an income tax controversy he is involved in until after the conclusion of the legislative session. Both Washington and Idaho legislators are protected from “any civil process” while their legislatures are in session. As a threshold matter of state sovereignty that protection also includes civil process attempted by the federal government.

State Constitutions

Article 2, Section 16 of the Washington Constitution reads:

Members of the legislature shall be privileged from arrest in all cases except treason, felony and breach of the peace; they shall not be subject to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor for fifteen days next before the commencement of each session.

Similarly Article III, Section 7 of Idaho’s Constitution reads:

Senators and representatives in all cases…shall not be liable to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor during the ten days next before the commencement thereof…

There are eleven states that have similar language in their respective constitutions which use the phrase “any civil process.” An I.R.S. decision on what Rep. Hart’s allowable business deductions are is administrative in nature and clearly a civil matter because it involves an attempt to take property. It is therefore, “any civil process.”

The History of and Reasons for Legislative Immunity

Our Founding Fathers just freed from English tyranny wanted to ensure that elected Representatives would not face arbitrary arrest for the sake of political retribution.

As stated by the United States Supreme Court:

The privilege of legislators to be free from arrest or civil process for what they do or say in legislative proceedings has taproots in the Parliamentary struggles of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. As Parliament achieved increasing independence from the Crown, its statement of the privilege grew stronger. In 1689, the Bill of Rights declared in unequivocal language: “That the Freedom of Speech, and Debates or Proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parliament.” 1 Wm. & Mary, Sess. 2, c. II. See Stockdale v. Hansard, 9 Ad. & El. 1, 113-114 (1839)…

Freedom of speech and action in the legislature was taken as a matter of course by those who severed the Colonies from the Crown and founded our Nation. It was deemed so essential for representatives of the people that it was written into the Articles of Confederation and later into the Constitution. Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 372 (1951).

The Founding Fathers also wanted to ensure that the people’s voice was protected and uninhibited:

The reason for the privilege is clear. It was well summarized by James Wilson, an influential member of the Committee of Detail which was responsible for the provision in the Federal Constitution. “In order to enable and encourage a representative of the public to discharge his public trust with firmness and success, it is indispensably necessary, that he should enjoy the fullest liberty of speech, and that he should be protected from the resentment of every one, however powerful, to whom the exercise of that liberty may occasion offence.” Id. at 373.

The court continued in summary “Legislators are immune from deterrents to the uninhibited discharge of their legislative duty, not for their private indulgence but for the public good. One must not expect uncommon courage even in legislators. The privilege would be of little value if they could be subjected to the cost and inconvenience and distractions of a trial… [Emphasis added] Id. at 377.

This idea has been affirmed time and again in many states.

In Wisconsin the Speaker of the House’s office received a subpoena for one of the speaker’s administrative assistants related to an audit of a lobbyist’s tax return. The Speaker took the position that his administrative assistant was his alter ego and should be protected by the constitutional provision that a member of the legislature not be “subject to any civil process, during the session of the legislature….” The Supreme Court of Wisconsin agreed with the Speaker.

“…the meaning of a constitutional provision may be determined by looking at the objectives of the framers in adopting the provision. We conclude, as did the court of appeals, that the rationale for the privilege was to preserve the public’s right to representation in the state legislature. When a legislator cannot appear the people whom the legislator represents lose their voice in debate and vote.” [Emphasis added] State v. Beno, 341 N.W. 2d 668 (1984).

In Michigan there was a legislator who had a garnishment on his wages. The judgement was in place before the legislative session started. The Attorney General for the state of Michigan defended the legislator because the garnishment was viewed more as an attack against the legislative branch of government as opposed to an attack on the legislator. The Michigan Constitution uses the same “any civil process” language used in Idaho and Washington. Here is what the Michigan Supreme Court said of the garnishment:

“This is too narrow view of the situation. The idea back of the constitutional provision was to protect the legislators from the trouble, worry, and inconvenience of court proceedings during the session, and for a certain time before and after, so that the state could have their undivided time and attention in public affairs.” Fuller v. Barton, 208 N.W. 696 (1926).

In Arizona and Wisconsin the Attorneys General agreed that a garnishment shall not be allowed on a legislator’s paycheck during the legislative session in their respective states. The Arizona Attorney General cited the Fuller v. Barton case as his authority. “It is my opinion that the Arizona constitutional provision prohibits garnishment proceedings, and, therefore, you should not honor any garnishments involving any legislator during the sessions of the Legislature.” Arizona, Opinion of Attorney General, No. 56-24.

In Kansas the point is made again that the immunity provision of their constitution is for the benefit of the state and of the people that the legislator represents.

The use of the words “subject to” means that the member is not “liable to” the service of civil process. To construe our constitution differently would be to defeat its apparent object. The state is clearly entitled to the service of its members of the legislature during the time sessions of either branch thereof are being held. Our constitution has wisely provided that the members shall not be annoyed with arrests or suits, or be obliged to be absent from their duties….” Cook v. Senior, 45 P. 126, 127-8 (1896).

In California the language in that state constitution reads “A member of the Legislature is not subject to civil process during a session of the Legislature or for 5 days before and after a session.” The California Court of Appeals said:

In precise terms article IV, section 14, creates an exception from civil process without qualification as to the kind of subject matter of the lawsuit. Similar exemptions have been construed to cover civil actions of all kinds, including those involving the legislator’s personal affairs. …such immunities are designed to benefit the public by protecting legislators against compelled distraction and interference during the session.” Harmer v. Superior Court, 79 Cal. Reporter 855 (1969).

And finally in my state, Washington, a member of the Washington Senate, was sued for legal malpractice because he filed a lawsuit after the statute of limitations had expired. Senator Gordon Walgren, in his capacity as an attorney, argued successfully that the statute of limitations tolls (is postponed) while he was tied up with the business of the legislature.

These similar constitutional provisions convince us that immunity was granted by our constitution to protect the legislators from distraction during the stated periods of time and should be broadly construed. Immunity from service of “any civil process” should be granted during the constitutional described time periods… When a person is prevented from exercising his legal remedy by some positive rule of law, the time during which he is prevented from bringing suit is not to be counted against him in determining whether the statute of limitations has barred his right… Seamans v. Walgren, 82 Wn.2d 771, 774 (1973).

This is exactly the case with Representative Phil Hart. The deadline to appeal given by the IRS or the Idaho Tax Commission should toll (be postponed) during the legislative session. Otherwise, Rep. Hart would have likely missed votes and debate to address his tax litigation. However, it is important to also note that this constitutional provision cannot be waived. For example:

In Alaska, that Attorney General says the legislator has no flexibility. According to him, exercising the immunity from civil process is mandatory. “Immunity against civil process cannot be waived by the legislator since the Alaska immunity is intended to protect the public as well as serve the convenience of the legislators.” Alaska, Attorney General Opinion, 159 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 8.

Conclusion

Rep. Hart has relied on the legislative immunity provision of the Idaho Constitution to postpone working on his own tax issues, which have been ongoing for a few years. There is no question that it is within the sovereign power of the states to afford this protection. Furthermore, the law seems to be clearly on Rep. Hart’s side. So why does the witch hunt continue? Has the I.R.S. ever been used as a weapon for political retribution? Both President Richard Nixon(1) and President Bill Clinton were accused of this.(2)

For a man who wrote a book challenging the I.R.S. definition of “income,”(3) to face an arbitrary I.R.S. denial of normal business deductions(4) and then not be allowed to appeal that decision because the I.R.S. ignores the Idaho Constitution while he is in legislative session…is a glimpse into the future of an Obama nation. Remember Obama’s request for 16,000 additional I.R.S. agents?

Not only are Rep. Hart’s accusers in error, but the entire situation substantiates the very reason legislative immunity was written into the constitution in the first place…to prevent political persecution.

Matt Shea is an Army combat veteran, practicing attorney, and State Representative for the 4th Legislative District in Spokane Valley, Washington.
1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon\’s_Enemies_List
2. archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/22/200136.shtml
3. www.constitutionalincome.com
4. It has been reported in the press that the IRS’s denial of 100% of Rep. Hart’s business deductions over an eight year period was political payback after Rep. Hart’s refusal to turn over the names and addresses of those who purchased his book. Now both the IRS and the Idaho Tax Commission are attempting to impose the income tax on the amount of these denied deductions which totals approximately $300,000.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Plus, the numbers are in and Governor Butch Otter and the Idaho Legislature were right when they cut spending in both the 2010 and 2011 budgets. Halli discusses the details.

And finally, the Idaho Republican party has come under fire for a new plank in their platform calling for candidates in the Republican Primary to reveal whether or not they agree with the platform. The mainstream media call this a “loyalty oath”. Learn the truth in today’s program.

Listen on this website, or at BlogTalkRadio.com/IdahoTalk.

After fighting what I believed was an unconstitutional federal income tax, six years ago I capitulated, filed returns, and have since then, paid $120,054 in combined state and federal income taxes (including the interest and penalties). At the time, I was also working toward a settlement with the IRS. What derailed this settlement process was becoming a target for an audit. My experiences provide a case study of why we need to get rid of the income tax on wages and salaries.

Years ago I became interested in the income tax and wanted to understand how it worked. I had read a lot of the literature on the subject. In doing so, I noticed there was a big gapping hole in the literature. No one had written about the intent of the Income Tax Amendment when it was debated and finally ratified on February 25, 1913. Plus I thought it would be easier to research the purpose and intent of the income tax rather than study the Internal Revenue Code. I focused my research on the years 1908 to 1913, as this was when the income tax amendment was debated. Because I discovered so much new information in doing this research, I wrote a book about it.

The genesis of the modern income tax was the Democrat Party’s Presidential Platform of 1908. The income tax plank read,

“We favor as part of our revenue system, and we urge the submission of a constitutional amendment specifically authorizing Congress to levy and collect a tax upon individual and corporate incomes to the end that wealth might bear its proportionate share of the burdens of the Federal Government.”

At the time there were no entitlement programs, and the greatest beneficiary of government was the wealthy. But with only consumption taxes, the wealthy were not paying for the benefits they received. The income tax did not start out as a “soak the rich” scheme, but only as an attempt to be fair in distributing the burdens of the cost of government. It was not a tax on people, but only a tax on what was called at the time “accumulated wealth.”

In 1909, the author of the Income Tax Amendment, Senator Brown from Nebraska said “It is the theory of the friends of the income tax proposition that property should be taxed and not individuals.” 44 Congressional Record, 1570 (1909).

I litigated the issue with the government, challenging its constitutionality. My challenge to the income tax included petitioning the United States Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court would not hear my case. The late Mr. Paul Chappell, a former attorney with the IRS Office of Chief Counsel for the District of Columbia said of my Petition “Reading Phil Hart’s work is like returning to law school. After decades of practice as a tax attorney, Phil makes me feel as if I’m a student again.” And after reading my Petition for the eighth time, another tax attorney, Mr. Arch McColl wrote me, “What you did was brilliant legal work in your Petition for Certiorari….”

In 2004, after my judicial remedy had been exhausted, I filed 1040 returns to get caught up. Suddenly I found myself in an IRS audit. I had to sue the IRS to avoid turning over the names and addresses of those who purchased my book, Constitutional Income. I was represented by the Center for Individual Rights, a Washington D.C. public interest freedom of speech law firm. As far as CIR can figure out, I was the first author in American history to have the government demand I turn over such names and addresses.

The Center for Individual Rights won these lawsuits for me. There were actually two lawsuits, and each lawsuit took a year. However, four years later when the IRS issued their final audit report, the IRS denied all my business deductions for eight years. The amount of denied deductions totaled $300,000. Why? An IRS employee told me “When you don’t give us
everything we ask for, you get all of your deductions denied.” For them, this isn’t about the liens or the money; it is about getting the names.

I believe I have a First Amendment right to protect the identities of my readers, just as a journalist has a First Amendment right to protect their sources. I also believe in protecting my readers’ Forth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. These are principles worth defending!

During this four year audit, I provided the IRS with all my canceled checks, receipts, invoices and so on. Boxes worth. Yet all these deductions were denied solely for political reasons. Losing $300,000 worth of deductions inflated my now purported “taxable income” and the tax imposed thereon. My expenses for engineering and drafting personnel were denied, office rent expenses denied, office supply expenses denied, book publishing expenses including editors, artists and printing expenses denied. All of my business deductions were denied, all of them. What small business can operate with $0 in business expenses over an eight year period?

Protecting my readers from having big government snooping into their lives has increased my state and federal tax liability by about $125,000.

When the Idaho State Tax Commission got their hands on this IRS audit report that reflected the $300,000 in denied business deductions, they wanted their cut of the inflated “taxable income” too. This is the main issue currently being contested in my litigation with them.

After the Supreme Court declining to hear my case, I began making tax payments. But of the $120,054 I have paid since then, not a single dollar of these payments has been used to offset any of the lien amounts. It’s a nightmare. I would happily trade places with any of my detractors who somehow think I’ve gotten a “good deal.”

Regardless of whether or not the income tax on wages and salaries is constitutional, most agree on one thing: it is an inefficient and privacy invading tax. On the private side, it takes 22 cents for its bookkeeping, reporting, accounting fees, and legal fees for every $1 collected. Whereas a consumption tax takes only one cent for compliance on the private side for every $1 collected.

The income tax places a huge tax on wages and salaries. We all know you get less of what you tax. And guess what? We now have fewer jobs. The income tax on wages and salaries is a job killer. And such a complicated system provides many opportunities for abuse on both the private side and the government side.

These circumstances of mine have created a lot of controversy. But how can it be wrong for me to fight for my legitimate deductions and to stand on my principals?

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho’s primary election this week brought numerous blessings to the pro-Life movement.

There was plenty of concern that grassroots conservatives would not participate in the numbers we needed to overcome serious cross-over threats. In fact, as the election day drew closer – that threat increased as Mayor Dave Beiter issued a clarion call to Democrats to help elect his candidates to the Ada County Commission.

While Beiter’s effort was partially successful – pro-Life conservatives across Idaho participated in strong numbers to nominate one of the most conservative legislatures in memory.

Idaho Chooses Life lost a couple of our endorsed candidates, but those losses are mitigated by the fact that the victors are also pro-Life. We want to thank Sens. Lee Heinrich and Mike Jorgenson for their consistent votes in defense of the innocent.

The clearest set-back came in Canyon County, where Steve Kren lost to newcomer Christy Perry. We don’t know where she stands on the abortion issue. Rep. Kren offered strong opposition to the Abortion Lobby’s agenda.

We are grateful for the return of a strong team of pro-Life leaders in Districts 21 and 20. Sens. McKague and Fulcher, Reps. Hagedorn, Palmer and Bayer have been a blessing and it is nice to see the voters of their district express their appreciation as well. It will be great to have John Vander Woude back in the Idaho House.

The victory of Lynn Luker in District 15 is another blessing. His legal background and attention to detail has proven invaluable to the pro-Life movement many times in the past several years.

There were some very exciting developments on Tuesday.

Voters in Twin Falls gave the Republican Senate nomination to Lee Heider over incumbent Chuck Coiner. Sen. Coiner had, without possible dispute, one of the most liberal voting records in the Idaho Senate. He was particularly hostile to the interests of preborn children and pregnant women. We are very hopeful that Mr. Heider will provide the kind of family-friendly leadership Idaho deserves.

And nothing short of a miracle occurred in Latah County. Sen. Gary Schroeder was finally turned out of office. Our analysis was that Democrat cross-over had helped keep him in office for some 18 years – during which he developed a consistent pro-abortion record. But this year, Democrats apparently abandoned him. Gresham Bouma won a strong majority of Republican voters to gain the nomination. We will have to work hard this fall to ensure that he gains a seat in the Senate.

Of course, everyone is talking about the amazing victory of our endorsed candidate in the 1st District – Rep. Raul Labrador. He graciously acknowledged the contribution pro-Lifers made to his victory on election night, and we will have to re-double our efforts this fall. Abortion is one of the major differences between Labrador and Walt Minnick.

There are many other races to discuss – but suffice it to say that the Lord provided us with a tremendous election night. A little rest, a little rebuilding, then on to secure these advances in the General Election!

Thank you so much for your prayers, time and financial support. May the Lord bless you many times over for your generous hearts.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Two of the most fundamental responsibilities of any American converge this week with the election primary on Tuesday. It is incumbent (no pun intended) on all of us to be informed about what government is doing (in many cases to us rather than for us) and to exercise our franchise as voters based upon that information.

We have several statewide and local contested primary races and a few that deserve some special attention. In some races ideology creates the clear demarcation between candidates, and in others, competency is the distinguishing factor.

The Idaho voting system is somewhat different than most other states. At the time you register to vote in Idaho, you don’t have to claim a party affiliation, you just register to vote. The only time you actually indicate a party affiliation or preference through the voting process is when you vote in a Primary Election. At that time, you request either a Republican or a Democrat ballot. The reason is simple: it’s the parties that bring the candidates to the table in an election for the most part, and so the Primary provides the means of sifting through a party’s candidates to rally behind for the General Election held in November.

Independents and other parties, like the Constitutional or Green Party, may have their own candidates on the General Election Ballot in November, but typically don’t have contested primary races to determine the November finalists.

For the US Congress, 2nd District incumbent Mike Simpson is being challenged by several candidates, including most prominently, Chick Heileson from Iona. The Congressman gives great speeches, and articulates values that resonate with most Idahoans, but his voting record doesn’t necessarily reflect that. The Freedom Index, a congressional scorecard which tracks congressional votes vis-à-vis the Constitution, most recently ranked Simpson at 40, barely 4 points over the average for all congressmen. A perfect score of 100 indicates a voting record most true to constitutional governance. It would appear that the Congressman has been smitten by “Beltwayitis,” the affliction which smites most federal lawmakers after they’ve been in D.C. for too long, and is evidenced by votes for spending and government encroachment that they wouldn’t have supported as freshmen legislators. I’ve got to go with Heileson on this one. I think he’ll vote the way he talks and hopefully prove immune to the affliction Simpson suffers from.

A local race that is inscrutable from my perspective, is the challenge to Steve Hadley as County Commissioner by Dennis Spencer. There is no reason whatsoever to make a change here. Steve has done a superb job in keeping the county budget down at a time of great financial challenges all around us. His fiscal acumen is further evidenced by completing the fairgrounds improvements with no adverse impact on the budget, and saving taxpayers a million dollars by using county employees at the landfill. Steve is a proven leader and has a knack for fiscal management which has and should continue to serve the county well for years.

The Bannock County Assessor’s race is probably the hottest local ticket for this Primary. Incumbent Jo Lynn Anderson is being challenged by Geoff Ranere, a former county appraiser. Ranere left the Assessor’s office in 2008 along with three other appraisers due to internal politics and unscrupulous appraisal guidelines adopted by the office.

The Assessors office is required to abide by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) developed by the Appraisal Standards Board (ASB). These standards mandate equitable and ethical appraisal of property values. Yet I have heard many examples of excessive valuations next to properties virtually unaffected by reassessment, in spite of more improvements made to the neighboring properties. Also contrary to USPAP standards, if the Assessor’s office can’t gain access to a residential property, the Assessor has instructed department appraisers to value the property with a half-finished basement. When the reluctant appraisers were told to engage in these questionable practices, the issue was forced by telling them it was not optional.

Geoff is not only a licensed appraiser well versed in USPAP standards, but he has the ethics which will return the office to equitable and fair treatment of taxpayers. Perhaps even of greater value to us, Geoff has the demeanor and professionalism to make the office hospitable to taxpayers. After all, we are the collective bosses to our public servants. They need to be reminded that they are there to serve us. Geoff has that perspective.

If you’ve been critical of how our government is working, or failing to work for you, now is the time to do something. Collectively, we hire our public officials. Let’s choose wisely, starting this Tuesday.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

BOISE – The 2010 version of the Gem State Voter Guide is now available to view online at www.GemStateVoterGuide.com.

This is the sixth edition of the online publication which was first produced in 2006 and covers each Idaho election on both a state and federal level – excluding judicial races and superintendant of public instruction.

Candidates throughout the state were asked 26 questions on subjects covering: Life, Marriage and Family; Education; Freedom and Liberty, Fiscal and Tax Policy as well as various other subjects.

The Gem State Voter Guide is a joint project of the Idaho Chooses Life and the Idaho Freedom Foundation and is designed to serve both the voters and candidates in Idaho’s upcoming primary election.

This guide is designed for the Idaho Primary Election to be held May 25, 2010.

For further information on the positions of the candidates, the Gem State Voter Guide encourages voters to contact candidates directly. Contact information may be obtained through the Idaho Secretary of State’s office at (208) 334-2300 or by visiting the Idaho Secretary of State’s website.

The purpose of the Gem State Voter Guide is to allow candidates to answer some of the many questions they may face in the upcoming election. Whenever a candidate’s answer did not fit within the scope of the questionnaire or the candidate expanded on their answer, additional comments were scanned and also appear on the website.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

ICL announced today that it has endorsed State Rep. Raul Labrador in his bid for the 1st District congressional nomination.

“We’ve had the honor of working with Raul for a number of years now, and appreciate his integrity and commitment to pro-Life principles,” said ICL Executive Director David Ripley. “What separates the candidates running for Congress is Labrador’s proven value under fire.”

Labrador has served in the Idaho State House of Representatives since being elected in 2006. During that time he has earned a 100% pro-Life voting record.

This past session, Labrador was co-sponsor of two key pieces of pro-Life legislation.

“Labrador provided leadership in answering the threat of ObamaCare,” Ripley said, “which is the most dangerous advance of abortion since the Roe v. Wade decision.”

Labrador was one of the House leaders who brought forth the Idaho Health Freedom Act, which is the basis for Idaho’s court challenge to federalized health care.

Then he assisted Idaho Chooses Life in getting a strong conscience protection bill enacted into law.

“Conscience protection for doctors and nurses is part of a larger strategy to resist death panels and the rationing of health care for seniors and vulnerable Idahoans,” Ripley added.

The Board of Idaho Chooses Life reviewed candidate answers to an extensive survey on pro-Life issues. Labrador, Vaughn Ward and Harley Brown all scored well on the questionnaire. The other candidates did not respond.

“We acknowledge the candidates’ positions on critical pro-Life issues,” Ripley said. “But we’ve learned through hard experience that there is just no substitute for being there. Raul has stood his ground time after time, when politics and the Abortion Lobby have exerted tremendous pressure to abandon principle.”

“Our endorsement is meant to honor Raul Labrador’s record and service to Idaho,” Ripley concluded.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

All Halli & Friends episodes can also be heard on demand at BlogTalkRadio.com/IdahoTalk, while the most recent can be heard on the player on this page.

There is plenty of anger among voters – but it is an anger waiting to explode against liberal Democrats, the allies of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. And the thing about anger is that it’s mighty – but negative. The challenge facing conservative legislative candidates on the ballot next month is turning that negative energy into a positive energy. Will rank-and-file conservatives turn out in strong numbers to protect their friends?

In other words – if conservatives sit on their resentments waiting for a crack at Walt Minnick, they may find a number of legislative friends mysteriously absent from the general election and next year’s Legislature.

The danger is heightened by the fact that liberal Democrats are mobilizing to take full advantage of Idaho’s ridiculous Open Primary System.

Union members at the IEA are hopping mad about budget cuts to schools and, potentially, their paychecks. They want to dump those conservative legislators they see as blocking their demand for a big tax increase next year.

Just last week, the Idaho Public Employees Association – representing disgruntled state employees – published a newsletter instructing their members on the how and whys of “strategic cross-over voting”.

Here is a startling quote:

“Voting in the primary is the best way to influence a party’s platform, and it is a great way to bring about change. Idaho primaries are open primaries. That means you don’t have to register as a member of a party.”

Wait, there are additional details provided for the more dim-witted of their readers:

“Here’s a possible scenario: You’re leaning toward the Democrat in the general election, but the Democrats don’t have a contested primary in your district. So you vote for the Republican that most closely represents your views and that person wins the primary …. But then in the fall you realize that the Democrat still looks better to you, so you vote for the Democrat.”

If rank-and-file Republicans do not participate next month, it will not take many Democrat cross-over votes to flip a number of crucial legislative elections.

That portends not only tax increases next session – it will mean a devastating blow to the pro-Life movement.

Help us spread the word: Let’s get out and vote on May 25th.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.