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.

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

In an about-face that ought to alarm every Idaho family, Gov. Butch Otter told the Idaho Statesman that he is prepared to raise taxes on ordinary Idahoans by 200 million dollars. On the table are increases in our gasoline tax, vehicle registration fees, and “other potential sources,” whatever that means.

After taking a visible stand against growth in government through his stand-off with the legislature on the size of the capitol expansion, the governor now appears to have meekly surrendered on the subject of the tax burden on Idaho families.

The Idaho Statesman, whose definition of good legislation is that it expands the reach, power, and size of government, is of course pleased, and regards this as an indication that the governor is “growing” as a political leader. Says the Statesman’s breathless headline, “Otter grows into role as governor” by “realizing that fixing Idaho roads means higher taxes.”

Although the governor acknowledges that raising our taxes was hardly part of his “dream” for being our governor, the Statesman states flatly that he now “knows that’s exactly what he’s going to have to do.”

Says the governor, “I feel obligated right now to step forward and say, ‘Folks, I’m sorry, but we’ve got to have it.’”

Perceptively, the reporter (Gregory Hahn) says that six months into the governor’s term, “political watchers are wondering whether Otter’s philosophy (of lower taxes and smaller government) will change government, or the other way round.” This pronouncement may be an indication that we are beginning to get an answer to that question.

This is of a piece with an often-observed tendency for Idaho politicians to be more conservative in Washington, D.C. than they are in Boise, Idaho, perhaps because they are less insulated here from the yammering voices of the left.

“Otter Grows into Role as Governor”, Idaho Statesman

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

Did you hear it back on March 27th? It was the nearly inaudible sigh of relief from both unborn children of teenage mothers, and the parents of those young mothers.

Once again, Idaho has a Parental Consent Abortion law, SB1022, SB1022, on the books, requiring underage mothers to secure consent from their parents before obtaining an abortion. There are provisions for a judicial bypass, meaning a judge can determine if a young woman’s family situation is so fractured that he must take over the parents’ role in this instance.

Most new laws passed by the 2007 Idaho Legislature went into effect yesterday, July 1st. But the Parental Consent law was effective immediately upon signing by Governor Butch Otter.

Yes, as of July 1st, there is no smoking in bowling alleys, technical changes have been made to the way state income tax is filed, there are new restrictions on teenage drivers and their passengers. New provisions make it easier for school districts to consolidate, an appropriation was made to the (useless) Idaho Womens Commission, the statute of limitations for reporting child abuse was lengthened.

But no other law passed in the 2007 Legislature will come close to the positive effects of the Parental Consent law. Now parents are restored to their rightful position of responsibility for, loving authority over, and protection of, their minor children.

Before this law went into effect, parents had no say over their daughter’s choice for an abortion, but were left to pick up the pieces after Planned Parenthood and their cohorts finished their dastardly deed – and left to pay the bills for any complications that resulted. Many young women will be spared the emotional and physical damage caused by abortion. And uncounted unborn lives will be spared.

All abortions performed on under-age girls will not cease, but statistics show that they will decrease dramatically. Young women and their unborn babies will be blessed, along with their families.

A huge thanks is due Idaho Chooses Life and its executive director, David Ripley, for unstinting support of Parental Consent over many years and several lawsuits. We must also remember the ground work that was laid by now-Congressman Bill Sali as he served in the Idaho House, and the fearless efforts this year of Rep. Tom Loertscher (R-Iona) and Sen. Russ Fulcher (R-Meridian).

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

By Bryan Fischer, Executive Director of Idaho Values Alliance

The Idaho Statesman solicited a Reader’s View piece from the IVA on the selection of justices to the Idaho Supreme Court. It ran, as follows, in yesterday’s print edition.

“The justices of the Supreme Court shall be elected by the electors of the state at large.” – Idaho State Constitution.

It’s hard to find a declaration in our state’s supreme legal document that is less ambiguous than that one. It is the will of the people of Idaho – and has been since 1890 – that our Supreme Court justices be chosen by direct election.

Yet a disturbing trend has developed in which sitting Supreme Court jurists, who have taken a sacred oath to uphold the constitution, are deliberately circumventing it by retiring early just so the choice of their replacements can be taken out of the hands of the electorate and turned over to an appointed commission with no accountability to voters.

Both Justices Schroeder and Trout have acknowledged without apparent shame that they are stepping down because they do not trust the people of Idaho to make intelligent decisions in the matter.

But Idahoans are perfectly capable of choosing their own judges. They just need information, the kind that can be gleaned from non-partisan voter guides. (Although some candidates claim that judicial canons prohibit them from returning questionnaires, two federal courts have recently ruled that such restrictive canons are unconstitutional.)

By retiring early, Justices Schroeder and Trout substituted their own judgment for the clear meaning of the constitution. This is the very definition of judicial activism.

The president of the state bar recently argued against judicial elections because they “can threaten judicial independence.” But Idahoans don’t need “independent” judges; we need judges who bind themselves to the plain intent of the constitution and follow it regardless of their personal opinions or preferences. In other words, we need judges who recognize that their role is to apply the law, not make it.

As far as taking “politics” out of the equation, what reason do we have to think that an appointed committee is more insulated from political influences than the people are?

In the two decades prior to statehood, the Founders of Idaho had seen the appointment system at the federal level used to pack the U.S. Supreme Court for political purposes (one new justice had never even been a lawyer), and rejected appointment in favor of direct election by a 40-3 vote.

The federal appointment model has produced a disastrously activist judiciary, which has been systematically dismantling First Amendment religious liberties for over 40 years now. Unaccountable and unelected judges began to identify constitutional violations that had mysteriously escaped detection by the finest legal minds in America for more than 150 years.

A judiciary that is too “independent” soon floats off into the trackless ether of judicial unpredictability, untethered either to the Constitution or common sense, discovering “emanations” and “penumbras” that magically appear just when needed.

Because human beings are imperfect, there is no perfect way to select judges. To paraphrase, the direct election of Supreme Court justices is the worst method of judicial selection, except for all the others that have been tried. But the Idaho model at least reserves to the people the power to remove irresponsible judges.

If the legal establishment is unhappy with the direct election of judges, they should work to amend the constitution instead of ignoring it.

How will we know if our next two justices will honor the constitution? We ask them one question: Will you keep your solemn oath to uphold the constitution by serving out your final term so that the people of Idaho can choose your replacement?

For, if Idahoans aren’t competent to elect their own judges, why should we consider them competent to elect anyone else?

Bryan Fischer is the executive director of the Idaho Values Alliance, a non-profit organization dedicated to making Idaho the friendliest place in the world to raise a family.

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