rodwbeck@gmail.com — www.grassrootsidgop.wordpress.com

Dear Fellow Republican:

Many of you have read or heard about Idaho GOP Chairman, J. Kirk Sullivan’s ” Closed Primary Update” memo. He has certainly annoyed a lot of Idaho Republicans with that communication.
Since 71 fellow Idaho Republicans filed suit in Federal Court to protect our 1st Amendment Right to Free Association, I am compelled again to correct the misstatements Mr. Sullivan has been repeating.

In various newspaper accounts and now in his written memo, Mr. Sullivan, states the “Idaho Republican Party [is] among the plaintiffs.”

Mr. Sullivan knows his statement is false, yet he persists in repeating it. A first year journalist major can establish Mr. Sullivan’s claim as false simply by reading the list of 71 plaintiffs listed on the court document. The Idaho Republican Party is not listed. Our lawyer just sent Mr. Sullivan a demand letter asking him to retract his erroneous statement.

Many of the 71 Plaintiffs serve on the State Central Committee and two are on the Executive Committee. (See our blog for all documents: www.grassrootsidgop.wordpress.com)

The Republican Party membership is clearly on record having voted overwhelmingly to not allow Democrats and other non-Republicans to participate in a Republican Primary election at the 2006 Convention, and again in June 2007 at the Burley Central Committee meeting.

What is also clear is that the Idaho Republican Party is on record supporting legal action, yet Mr. Sullivan and the Executive Committee have discounted the decisions voted on at the 2006 Convention. And, frankly, they have done so in a manner in which has unnecessarily irritated many rank-and-file Republicans.

The Closed Primary Resolution passed at the 2006 Republican Convention called on the Party to petition the Governor and Legislature to pass legislation implementing our proposal. That didn’t happen .. it was never brought to a vote in the Legislature or any legislative committee.

State Representative Marv Hagedorn (R-Meridian) wrote on his blog about Mr. Sullivan’s memo: “[Sullivan] seemed to ‘forget’ that I and others ran a number of versions of legislative bills starting early during the 2007 session … the same bills he covertly worked against in both the House and Senate.” ( marvhagedorn.blogspot.com)

The 2006 resolution further states that the Party “should use all means available” to protect Republicans’ 1st Amendment Rights.

Given various negative statements from elected leaders, even Mr. Sullivan cannot guarantee that the legislature will enact enabling legislation providing for full implementation of our specific rule prohibiting Democrats and other non-Republicans from voting in OUR primary election in 2008. There is strong opposition from the Democrats, plus, unfortunately, too many Republicans. In Mr. Sullivan’s memo, he again laid out his case in opposition to the grassroots GOP decision.

The ONLY means available now is through Court intervention. The Legislature failed and nobody can guarantee passage of a closed primary bill next session.

For the record, I have met over the spring and summer with GOP elected officials trying to develop a method to proceed. I served as Senate Majority Leader and can tell you that I cannot guarantee passage or even consideration of a closed primary bill next session. The ONLY means available is through Court intervention , which 71 fellow Republicans have started.

At this point, I should make you aware of some GOP Party facts:

1. The Central Committee is only the governing body of the Idaho GOP(Art. 1)

2. The Executive Committee is authorized only to act on behalf of the official Party policy as adopted by the State GOP Central Committee (Art. 2)

3. Only registered Republicans can vote in a Republican Primary (Art. 9)

Mr. Sullivan attached to his memo an action taken by the Executive Committee (not unanimous) that favored legislative action as opposed to, in their words, “disfavors judicial activism.”

I believe the Executive Committee has failed to responsibly act on behalf of the express policy of the Idaho Republican State Central Committee.

Given their failure, we grassroots Republicans have two courses of action. First, we are circulating a petition calling for the Idaho Republican Party to officially join in our lawsuit and for a special meeting of the State Central Committee, the governing body. You can print out petitions at our blog at www.grassrootsidgop.wordpress.com. Get as many fellow GOP’ers to sign as you can. The instructions are on the petition.

Second, and due to some of the GOP leadership’s opposition to protecting our 1st Amendment right, we filed an amended complaint to the lawsuit asserting that we actually do represent the interests of the Idaho Republican Party.

What Mr. Sullivan and some on the Executive Committee and others who are aggravating the process fail to understand, is that their actions are irresponsible. If the Legislature fails to fully enact legislation implementing the Republican closed primary rule – for the 2008 Republican Primary – a race with close results could be subject to a constitutional challenge. This is a very serious matter, which seems to escape their understanding. This means primary elections could be thrown out.

Thank you for carefully reading this letter. I hope you will join with us to build a more vibrant and active Republican Party for the future.

Sincerely,

Rod Beck

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

From Henry Kulczyk

When there is a public debate on an issue I begin my decision making process by
asking a few fundamental questions. Consider my view of the recent debate on
closed primary elections.

To begin with, what is the purpose of a primary election? That is simple; the
purpose is for political parties to select their best candidates to run in the
general election. It seems bizarre that anyone, not being a member of a
particular political party would be allowed to vote, or want to vote in another
parties primary. To use a sports example, should BSU have allowed Oklahoma pick
the starting line up?

One of the first things always brought up when discussing a closed primary is,
will there now be a litmus test for candidates? Well there should be a litmus
test. That test should be the party platform. The purpose of a political party
is to have like-minded people come together, and then decide what issues they
support or oppose, then elect people to represent them and their platform.

It is common knowledge that democrats routinely vote in republican primaries.
Do you believe they are voting to help pick the strongest republican candidate,
or could they be up to a little mischief? In a strong republican District where
a democrat would not be able to win election, a democrat will file as a
republican. Democrats, in an open primary, then cross over to defeat a
republican with a democrat in the republican primary.

Having open primaries, which allow anyone to vote in any party primary defeats
the purpose of the primary election. The primary is for party members to select
their best candidates to represent their party in the general election. Maybe we
should consider eliminating the primary and parties altogether by allowing all
candidates to run in the general election.

For 12 years Idaho has had a super majority of republicans in the legislature
with a republican Governor. You would think that the republican platform would
be Idaho code. Not so. In fact, I have been lobbying for a particular plank,
Education Opportunity Tax Credits, for ten years now. In my lobbying efforts I
once showed a republican legislator the republican platform supporting this
exact legislation. Without any discussion on the merits of the bill, he
dismissed the platform by saying “Henry, that is a cute lobbying trick.”

The interesting thing about the closed primary debate is how republican
leadership is fighting those who elected them. In a decisive vote the
Republican Party faithful voted to close the primary. Twice. When the Idaho
legislature failed to implement a closed primary, many rank and file
republicans took the matter into their own hands and filed suit.

The State Chairman of the republican party not only refuses to support the
members of his party in implementing a plank of the republican platform, but he has
come out in open opposition to them.

In our current open primary elections we have democrats running as republicans
because that is the only way they can get elected. We have a super-majority of
republicans and cannot seem to implement the party platform and we have
republican leadership opposing the rank and file republicans when they do try
to implement a plank of the platform.

It seems the Republican Party has been reduced to another social club and the
platform is a “cute lobbying trick”. It is time to close the primary and
elect republican leaders that will support the republican platform.

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

Whether you’re a believer in term limits or not, you will find this interview audio fascinating. Adam Graham, one of Idaho’s top conservative bloggers, conducted the interview with Jeremy Johnson, Director of State Government Affairs with US Term Limits. The interview is posted at Adam’s Blog.

The discussion includes results of Supreme Court rulings, and the constitutionality of term limits.

Term limits enacted by Idaho voters were thwarted multiple times by the Idaho Legislature, an unconscionable act of hubris and arrogance. Now that such bad actors as Bruce Newcomb have disappeared from the legislature, perhaps it’s time to try again. Be sure to read this related post.

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

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

In one of the oddest Reader’s View pieces to appear on the pages of the Idaho Statesman, the co-presidents of the League of Women Voters of Idaho advocated today that Idaho’s women be unconstitutionally deprived of their right to select their own state Supreme Court justices.

In arguing that justices ought to be selected by an unelected and unaccountable committee rather than by the voters themselves, these authors mysteriously argue against the right of Idaho women’s to vote, and in essence argue that Idaho’s women should meekly surrender this right to a commission with no accountability to the electorate.

What’s even worse, the authors make no mention whatsoever of the Idaho State Constitution, which, in Article V, Section 6 unambiguously states “The justices of the Supreme Court shall be elected by the electors of the state at large.”

If these women are right, that an unelected committee is better qualified than voters to choose judges, the League of Women Voters of Idaho should try to amend the constitution rather than simply ignoring it.

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

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

State controller Donna Jones reported yesterday that the state is awash in surplus tax revenue from the current fiscal year, to the staggering tune of $247 million.

Said Jones, “Taxes are too high on Idaho’s families. Instead of looking at raising taxes to pay for road and bridge repair, the Legislature could potentially use $200 million of this surplus to tackle Idaho’s backlog of road repairs.”

Governor Butch Otter said last week that in his judgment it will be necessary to raise taxes on Idahoans by $200 million to pay for necessary road repairs, and his spokesman said yesterday that his position is unchanged on his insistence that our tax burden needs to be increased, $247 million surplus or no.

Said Jon Hanian, “Unfortunately, what the governor has said is that, in some cases, we’ve got to bite the bullet and do what’s necessary.” Most Idahoans are going to think that a $200 million bullet is pretty expensive piece of ammunition.

If the surplus were applied to road construction and repair, another $47 million would still be left over for other one-time needs.

On top of the $247 million surplus now in hand just from this past year, the state has already socked away $121 million in the Budget Stabilization Fund, $101 million in the Public Schools Stabilization Fund, $60 million in the Economic Recovery Reserve Fund, $58 million in the Millennium Fund, and $98 million in the Permanent Building Fund.

Thus, the state of Idaho is currently sitting on a grand total of $685 million in taxpayer funds, and this seems like a particularly awkward time for the party of smaller government and lower taxes to insist on adding to the already heavy tax burden Idaho families bear.

And make no mistake: the surplus has come from the wallets of ordinary working Idahoans. The Statesman says, that since corporate tax receipts are actually down for the year, the excess revenue has come “from unexpectedly high individual income tax returns.”

The surplus, if handled wisely by the state’s Republican leadership, could open up possibilities for meaningful tax relief such as an across-the-board grocery tax credit for all Idaho families and an education tax credit which would greatly expand parental choice in education.

Idaho families have already been socked with staggering increases in property tax assessments, wiping out most of last year’s property tax relief and leaving them stuck with a 20% sales tax increase.

Ada County taxpayers are looking at another tax hit, as their property tax load will increase to pay for the new College of Western Idaho, which is already the recipient of $5 million in taxpayer largesse. Ada County citizens will naturally be spooked to know that though their tax load will jump by a minimum of $4 million to pay for the new college, there is simply no guarantee that the increase will stay that low.

According to today’s Idaho Statesman, the new board members of the College of Western Idaho merely say “they want to keep property tax contributions close to campaign estimates.” As the Statesman accurately reports, the $4 million per year is “just a guideline; state law would permit the board to set a levy considerably higher.”

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

Remember how Idaho voters told their legislature not once, but twice, that they wanted to limit the terms of all elected officials, from the legislature down to school boards?

And remember how the legislature overturned the will of the people on this issue not once, but twice?

Seldom have Idahoans witnessed such baldfaced arrogance from their elected officials. Legislators, Bruce Newcomb chief among them, essentially told voters they were smart enough to elect them, but too dumb to know when they (legislators) should go home.

Speaker Bruce Newcomb salved his conscience (if he has one) with this:

If I truly thought that this was a grass roots movement that came from the people of Idaho, I wouldn’t be here. But I don’t believe it is. I think it was something that was brought to us by outside interests.

Oh, yes, add to the voters’ deficiencies their apparent gullibility.

Time does little to dull the outrage of those legislative votes. But perhaps some Idahoans still see the truth in one of Ronald Reagan’s famous quotes:

Politicians in government should be changed, like diapers, and for the same reason.

And perhaps Idaho voters can take heart from the apparent success of Nebraskans.

Paul Jacobs, at the Sam Adams Alliance, reports that Nebraska voters have approved term limits three times, in spite of career politicians with a giant sense of entitlement. And now the Nebraska Supreme Court has upheld term limits – possibly because one of their colleagues who opposed term limits in the past was the first justice in the state ever voted out of office! Barring further court challenges, it appears Nebraska voters will finally have their way.

Be sure to read the great article, and take heart. When Ann Coulter heard about the rascally Idaho legislature, her response was, “Maybe it’s time for a little direct democracy.” She was right. And with Bruce Newcomb finally term-limiting himself out of the legislature, perhaps “three” would be the magic number for Idaho as well as Nebraska.

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

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

Seventy-one Republicans did the GOP and the Democrats alike a favor yesterday by filing a lawsuit in federal court to protect First Amendment rights to freedom of association. The lawsuit seeks a court order to require the state of Idaho to honor the rule adopted by the Idaho Republican Party last month, which calls for closed GOP primaries.

Open primaries look like a form of political insanity to the outside observer, who must wonder why any political party – be it Republican, Democrat, Green, or Libertarian – would want to allow members of opposing parties to help them select their candidates for office.

As Boise Weekly’s Bill Cope makes clear, cross-over voting does happen under an open primary system. In a column you can access below, Cope, a die-hard, life-long Democrat, trumpeted his intention to vote in the GOP primary in 2006, in order to put the most liberal Republican candidate on the general election ballot. And his only purpose for making it the subject of a column was to get as many of his liberal friends as possible to imitate his example.

Cope says, regarding cross-over voting, “I’ve done it plenty of times. In fact, when it comes to primary elections, I’ve probably voted Republican more often than Democrat. And I know I’m not the only one. There is somewhat of a tradition among Idaho Dems to go Rep in the primaries, and it goes back many election cycles.”

The suit was made necessary by the failure of the Idaho legislature to act on the issue this year. As House Majority leader Mike Moyle (R-Star) said in today’s Idaho Statesman, “I was hoping we could resolve it without going to the courts. The Legislature couldn’t perform. I don’t think the lawsuit is necessarily a bad thing.”

Secretary of State Ben Ysursa, with the help of Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, both Republicans, appear prepared to fight the suit in court, creating the odd spectacle of elected GOP officials fighting fellow Republicans over their own party’s constitutional right to freedom of association.

The GOP elite in Idaho, for reasons perhaps known only to them, seem bizarrely opposed to restricting the choice of Republican candidates to members of their own party. The bulk of support for closed primaries comes from the grassroots of the party – the farther down the GOP food chain you get, the more support you find.

This also is a likely indication that closed primaries will make it easier for genuinely conservative candidates – that is, true believers in the party’s platform – to successfully navigate the primaries, and thus closed primaries are likely to be a good thing for the pro-family community in Idaho.

In some way, closed primaries must represent a threat to the ability of Idaho’s GOP elites to control the direction of the state party. Or perhaps they recognize that closed primaries may make it more difficult to get candidates of their own choosing through the primary system.

But the issue of closed primaries is hardly a partisan issue. The Democrat Party in Mississippi just successfully sued to get closed primaries there, and in West Virginia, Democrats conduct closed primaries while Republicans don’t.

The Supreme Court has ruled that resistance on the matter is ultimately futile, since no state has the constitutional right to abridge a party’s associational rights by dictating party policy to them. If a political party wants closed primaries, it has a constitutional right to them.

Even if the suit is successful, Democrats will still be able to hold open primaries, and Idaho’s system will then resemble Utah’s, where the GOP holds closed primaries and the Democrats do not.

Supporters are hopeful that they will get injunctive relief in time to close the primaries in May, 2008.

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

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

Education tax credits – in which parents and other interested citizens get a dollar-for-dollar credit on their state tax returns for their investment in education – has been a raging success in Arizona.

Funded entirely by private money, School Choice Arizona gives parents the opportunity to get their kids out of failing schools and creates competition in education, which improves the education product for everybody.

Naturally, the ACLU and the educational establishment fiercely oppose choice in education, and now have gone to the court for the fifth time (!) to try to block the Arizona plan. They are trying to make the case that the plan is unconstitutional, since some parents take the tax credit for sending their kids to religious schools.

But since there is no public money involved, there cannot possibly be a constitutional violation, and as an ADF attorney says, “There is simply no case law out there that agrees with them.”

They have lost in all four previous forays into court, and are likely to do so again.

The Heritage Foundation points out that courts have consistently allowed school choice programs to go forward, and a spokesman for Heritage says, “School choice programs in states like Arizona and Florida and cities like Milwaukee and Cleveland are succeeding in boosting test scores, improving parent satisfaction, and even causing public schools to improve, because of the risk of losing students.”

We hope you will be able to attend our Friedman Legacy for Freedom Reception on July 31, at which we will honor the legacy of the pioneer of the school choice movement, Milton Friedman, and present some proposals (including education tax credits) that will improve school choice in the Gem State. (Details available here.)

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

You’re among the first to know – the lawsuit has been filed which will finally allow Idaho Republicans to select their own candidates in primary elections. Rod Beck, former Idaho Senate Majority Leader, issued the announcement in a press release this afternoon.

A rule establishing party registration was adopted in the Idaho Republican central committee meeting in June, after heated debate, and surprise opposition by some long-time prominent Republicans. However, it was impossible for them to refute the hard evidence that Democrats regularly instruct their members to vote in Republican primaries to force the selection of the most liberal GOP candidates.

Remember when Bingham County Democrat Chairman Beverly Beach sent out a thank-you letter to her party faithful who helped defeat the more conservative GOP candidate, Steve Adams, in favor of proven liberal Joe Cannon? And the Idaho Falls newspaper has carried several very interesting letters to the editor which carefully instruct Democrats how to request a Republican ballot in the primaries, and how to switch parties to get elected. And the Blackfoot paper carried similar letters.

(Remember our former Speaker of the Idaho House, Bruce Newcomb, who failed time after time as a Democrat to get elected? He was his county Democrat chairman. When he switched the “D” to an “R”, he finally won a seat in the Idaho House.)

You will want to know every detail of this lawsuit, and it’s all available at Grassroots Idaho GOP. Bookmark it now so you can check back for the latest news on the lawsuit, Beck et al V. Ysursa Case number: 1:07-cv-229, filed in US Federal Court in Boise.

The time for the restoration of our Constitutional right of association under the First Amendment has come.

Check out previous posts on this subject by searching our website for “closed primaries”.

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

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

There are two fundamental keys to reforming Idaho’s education system: parental choice, and allowing education dollars to follow the child to the school of the parent’s choice.

Last week, the Louisiana House approved a policy that will grant tax deductions (note: not tax credits, which are preferable) for private and parochial school tuition.

Naturally, the public school establishment, fiercely protective of their monopoly on education and militantly opposed to parental choice and educational alternatives, blasted the move, with the teacher’s union president saying “It’s not government’s role to incentivize private education.”

Apparently the teacher’s union believes it is the government’s role to “incentivize” the status quo and unending job security for underperforming teachers and schools.

The sponsor of the bill was unrepentant, however, correctly noting that “It’s time for the teachers union to recognize that it’s time for some alternatives to funding public education.”

The Louisiana House evidently agrees with him, having approved his bill unanimously, 97-0. This bill now goes back to the state senate, which has already passed a similar version of the bill.

The bill was introduced as a tax credit bill, which would mean a dollar-for-dollar reduction in a family’s tax liability, and thus more meaningful, but the senate watered it down to a tax deduction.

Believing as we do in parental choice in education, the Idaho Values Alliance will co-host a reception on July 31 (at the Owhyee Plaza Hotel in downtown Boise) to honor the legacy of Milton Friedman, an economist who pioneered the school choice movement in 1955. Part of the evening will be devoted to a presentation from former state representative Henry Kulczyk of an education tax credit bill for Idaho’s families. We hope you will be able to join us!

Tuition Tax Break Sails Past House

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