Besides the high profile elections for the U.S. Congress and the state legislature, there were races for county commissioner, sheriff and county prosecutor in each county of the state. County government can have a much greater impact on your life than the national government and even the state especially if you do not live in an incorporated city. County government handles law enforcement, jails, the courts, elections, the taxable assessment of your home and much of the planning and zoning of new developments. What is curious about county government in Idaho is that every county has the same structure and positions. Does that make sense? I think there should at least be a discussion on how our counties are structured whether they change or not.

There are 44 counties in Idaho ranging from Ada County with more than 360,000 people to Clark County with less than 1,000. Despite the disparity, every county in Idaho has the same structure of government. With seven elected positions (Commissioner, Coroner, Sheriff, Assessor, Treasurer, Clerk of the District Court and Prosecutor), the state constitution has tried to give more power to the voters and less power to the politicians and political parties. The large number of elected, instead of appointed, positions is a legacy of the Progressive Movement of the early 20th century. The commissioners serve as both legislators (writing laws) and executives (enforcing the laws) while all of the other elected officials are independent and serve their own special function.

The state does permit each county to change the structure of their government to better reflect the demographics of the particular county (Idaho Code Art. XVIII, Sec. 12). Options available to counties include having an elected commission to perform legislative functions and either an elected executive or appointed manager to execute and implement the laws passed by the commission. Counties may also increase the number of commissioners to five or seven without adding a separate executive. Finally, Idaho statutes allow counties to change the make-up of the other elected county officers to be appointed by the commission. Counties can change their form of government through the approval of a majority of voters in a general or special election. Despite this provision, none of these forms have yet to be adopted by any county.

Let’s look at the different options. Should we split the legislative from the executive functions of the county? From a theoretical standpoint, that makes sense but would it be the most effective? Why should the appointed executive answer to just the commissioners when the other officers are also elected? That actually leads to the discussion of the last option. Why would the executive of the county be appointed and the other executive officers be elected? Many of these positions have candidates who are unopposed (e.g. Sheriff and Prosecuting Attorney in Ada County). Does it make sense to elect them all? Do the smaller counties really need all of these positions to be full-time elected positions, especially Coroner? If the commission appointed the other executives, would that give too much power to the county commissioners at the expense of the voters? Remember, this form of county government was instituted to empower the voters. Lastly, should there be more commissioners? Would the work load in larger counties be better handled with more members?

I am not advocating for any particular county to change its form of government. I do think there should be a discussion of this issue by the voters especially in the largest and smallest counties. The candidates who are running for these offices should be asked their views on these issues by newspapers or others who are holding forums or making endorsements. Let’s at least evaluate if changes in the structure of the county government would be beneficial.

Go Yotes.

Dr. Jasper M. LiCalzi
Professor
Department of Political Economy
The College of Idaho