By Brian Murphy
bmurphy@idahostatesman.com
Idaho will pay reimburse Idaho Republican Party attorneys $100,000 for the party's closed-primary lawsuit. The state lost the case.
The attorney fees were $143,900, but they will accept $100,000.
The Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee approved the move Monday morning by a vote of 14-6.
“This is kind of a darned if you do, darned if you don't, because you're taking money from the general fund for this," said Rep. Wendy Jaquet, D-Ketchum. "I think you just have to plug your nose and vote for this,"
Senate Finance Chairman Dean Cameron, R-Rupert, responded, “I think you're right.”
“Four years ago we did try to avoid this lawsuit, and we were unfortunately unable to do that in this body, so we're just going to have to kinda pay the price," Rep. Marv Hagedorn, R-Meridian, said.
The six “no” votes came from Sens. Shawn Keough, R-Sandpoint; Joyce Broadsword, R-Sagle; Nicole LeFavour, D-Boise; and Diane Bilyeu, D-Pocatello; and Reps. Shirley Ringo, D-Moscow, and Jaquet.
Meanwhile, a bill Monday was introduced to allow political parties to close their primaries.
You can follow Idaho Politics on Twitter.
Delicious
Digg
Yahoo
How absurd
It is like no matter what Republicans do. it costs us money. I am not happy about the closed primary and this just pours salt in the wound.
The GOP has no shame...
their idea of equal opportunity is to scam everyone - even their own.
I am an independent voter - guess I'll have to vote Dem because I sure won't register as GOP.
REFORM NOW!!
I agree! No matter what Republicans do, it costs money - OUR money!!!
STOP funding the RICH!!
Vote INDEPENDENT or DEMOCRAT to turn Idaho upside down!
It's time to educate our rural neighbors and make them see what a mistake it is to support the Rich Republicans!
This is supposed to be a government for the people, by the people, but it is run by corporations and supports the RICH not the average hard working citizen.
I think the Republican party
I think the Republican party should pay for their closed primaries to be held as well as eat the $100,000 in legal fees. The legislature needs to be more in balance. This year if an R wrote the bill the R's voted yes. It didn't matter the content of the bill or whether it was intelligent or not. I am hoping this fall when there are elections in Pocatello that people will get out and vote against the R's that have run this state this year. They are passing legislation to limit the power of local municipalities right and left. I guess their idea of less government pertains to whatever level they are not on. If they are federal, that is where the power should be. If they are at a state level, that is where the power should be. They just want control. They do not listen to the people and haven't at all this year. They know what is good for the average citizen, the citizens cannot be trusted to have an intelligent opinion unless it matches their opinion.
Disgusting waste of tax dollars
$100,000 could pay for a couple of great teachers or a few thousand text books. What a waste of taxpayers dollars.
Reminder to GOP!
I hate to remind you, but wasting tax payers money is much worse than raising taxes to pay for education and social services, which impacts us all to some degree.
Guns and Lawyers
It seems like the Idaho legislature has an unlimited supply of funds for lawyers and lawsuits, but when it comes to education or social services their pockets are empty. I guess it's not hard to understand how lawyers would manage to get their hands on taxpayer funds at the rate of $300 an hour. Hey, they got to pay for that Arid club membership somehow.
No kidding!
Idaho representation by the majority is a sad legacy from this 2011 session. I hope they sleep real well at night, because alot of people are going to be losing sleep trying to figure out how to care for loved ones and what they are going to do for a job. This has become the "Throw the people under the bus" session.
Simple
It is just a case of the Republicans taking from one pocket and putting it in the other! If Idaho ever wants to truly fulfill her promise of a great place to live, work, and play, we are at some point going to need to actually have a two-party system that will allow for vigorous debate on the important issues of the day, reach well-thought out conclusions, and implement policies and laws, within the framework of our state and federal constitutions, which are in the best interests of all Idahoans. There are many places one could lay blame for our current situation, but there is one, inescapable, undeniable fact that has been constant thru the good times and bad of the last 50+ years in our state: The Republican Party has been in control of the state legislature with only limited instances of any sense of bi-partisanship. In the future, I hope Idahoans will keep that fact in mind and honestly evaluate how and why we have arrived at the place we find ourselves today!
Want a little cheese with all that whine?
Hey, Idaho Democrats have had ample time to present a message that would be more acceptable to Idahoans. And yet they have NOT. They continue to parrot the extreme left agenda of feminism, environmentalism and unionism. As a rule, most people in this state are not ideologues but rather straight thinking people who want the best for Idaho and they will reject an extreme agenda. Some will say, "well they've voted far all those Republicans haven't they?" And it's true that Idaho is the second most Republican state in the Union as relates to the legislative makeup. However, the D's didn't even file for most of those seats and presented weak candidates in the competitive seats and failed to present an agenda different from the usual groups that make up the Democrat party. And you expect a different result? At least a retailer that couldn't sell a product will change the product to one that has more appeal. All Democrats seem to be willing to do is whine about the lack of support from Idaho voters! How about a different agenda from the democrats? Sorry, that will NOT happen as they are too tied to the extreme agenda of the previously mentioned groups.
No, you're an adequite server.
----------
You must be lucky to be in the state I was born in!
Ignorance is so much easier
'whodaho' has no idea. Before you make broad, sweeping (and inaccurate) statements you should do your homework. You want an extreme agenda? How about funding a laptop (and on-going maintenace) for teenagers in high school? Proposing that we increase class sizes in order to improve education? Maybe we could increase our prison budget (and maybe outsource those services to some of our donors) while slashing services to our most vulnerable citizens? While we're at it, let's try to nullify federal law and ignore the past 180 years of American history? And let's neuter the ability of our citizens to collectively bargain.
That's an extreme agenda. You haven't seen anything proposed by Idaho Democrats that can even enter this conversation. Radicals are on the right, folks, in this state.
Ignorance also makes for better airplay on AM
No readin' needed.
"No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government." Neil Peart
Read closely
It is NOT the Republicans. It is the State of Idaho that was wrong, it is the Democrat Party that wanted the illegal open primaries, it is the JUDGE that ordered the outcome.
Read more closely
The Secretary of State, Attorney General, and the Governor -- all Republicans -- were all against closing the primaries. I believe the Secretary of State took it to court. The Democratic Party had nothing to do with it.
the Secretary of state was also against it
What a disgusting, self-serving issue brought by a few to benefit a few. What a horrible way to have to spend scarce resources.
It is the Republicans!
who filed the lawsuit challenging Idaho's Open Primary law that started this whole thing? oops...that's right...71 members of the Idaho Republican Party! Before you express your "oneopinion" get your facts right! here is the link if you need some clarification! http://grassrootsidgop.wordpress.com/2007/07/11/breaking-news-grassroots-idaho-goper-file-suit-in-federal-court/
Facts
Was it the GOP legislators or the GOP party that filed the lawsuit. Big difference.
Maybe you should get your facts straight!
The Judge dismissed that case long ago. The case before the Court is the Idaho Republican Party V Ysursa.
And...
And which one of those two parties is the Democrat?
what a waste of tax dollars money
Not a time to throw tax dollars money away.
Parties Should Pay
for legal fees they deem necessary to further THEIR CAUSES. Especially when voter approval isn't mandated.
c2
It still makes no sense
I'm still dumbfounded about why Ben Ysursa ever let this lawsuit happen. If the Republicans want to close their primaries, why is it the state's business to force them to keep the primaries open? The primary system exists for the benefit of the political parties. The only interest that the state has in the primaries is to accept the results from the party - whether through voting, as the Republicans do, or caucusing, like the Democrats. If the Republicans want to exclude non-Republicans, that's their business.
If Ysursa and the other Republicans who didn't support closing the primaries wanted to push this, they should have done it as members of the party, not as representatives of the state. This was more than a complete waste of money - it was misuse of the office. Ysursa, et al, should never have allowed the state to get into a position to be sued.
Because they have lost control of their own party
This is all a result of the Tea Party / Ron Paul takeover of the Idaho GOP.
Ha Ha Ha, guess what, the lawyers win. You lose.
And the government rips itself open and begins to eat itself. It's so out of control, like a starving shark on a Discovery special. Fun to watch though.
What evidence supports your statement, becourteous?
Both parties are organized from the bottom up. When you vote in a primary election, usually the last office on your partisan ballot is that for precinct committeeman (or woman), a volunteer position. Occasionally there is a contest for this office but not very often, because it is hard enough to find one person who will make a two-year volunteer commitment to do the grunt work for the parties. You are more likely to see this office vacant on your ballot (no candidate) than you are to see a contest.
In order for the Tea Partyor Ron Paul voters (not necessarily one and the same) to take over the GOP, they would have had to run precinct contests and won a majority of the precinct elections in the entire state. What evidence do you have that this occurred?
There was talk about the Tea Party vying for these positions in 2010, but I have not read anywhere that the effort was successful. I know they didn't run anybody in my precinct, but I have no knowledge of what happened in other precincts throughout the county and state. If they ran unopposed, because no one else wanted the job, it would be hard to confirm they were Tea Party or Ron Paul supporters without asking them; but if they wanted the job and no one else did, then I would say they have a right to be represented in the party organization since they are very much Republicans, if a different strand of Republicanism than the status quo.
The Tea Party did not exist at the time of the 2008 primary, though Ron Paul made a decent showing in Idaho's presidential primary. Hasn't the open/closed primary debate been around longer than four years? If you look at election law history in Idaho, you will see we have had both open and closed primaries since the time the first primary was held. I am not familiar with the historical reasons for all the various changes, but we can be sure it wasn't the Tea Party or Ron Paul' supporters pushing these changes in the 1930s or 1970s.
Idaho was ahead of the Tea Party curve
in having more conservative members taking over positions as precinct committeemen and Party leadership several years ago; there was a struggle for the top position, for example, and the more conservative guy (who was pushing for the closed primaries) won, and that's how this whole lawsuit came about. Party leadership was for it, but many Republicans, including Gov. Otter and Ben Ysursa, were against it. When the Tea Party came along, a number of the more conservative Republicans jumped on that bandwagon. But this all happened before the Tea Party.
What exactly does the Republican Party stand for in 2011?
I have my own ideas from what they have done, but I truely would like a new definition.
Do people who keep voting for them really know?
GOP 2011 same as GOP 1854, pretty much
The basic tenets/philosophy of the Republican Party hasn't changed since Abraham Lincoln was President. Many of the ideas he expressed prior to running for President were incorporated in Republican thought when the party was formed in 1854. A few examples:
"The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere." (July 1, 1854)
"The strongest bond of human sympathy, outside of the family relation, should be one uniting all working people, of all nations, and tongues, and kindreds. Nor should this lead to a war on property, or the owners of property. Property is the fruit of labor; property is desirable; is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." (Remarks to a committee of New York Workingmen, March 21, 1864.)
"I believe each individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruit of his labor, so far as it in no wise interferes with any other man's rights." (Speech in Chicago, July 10, 1858)
"If there is anything which it is the duty of the whole people to never entrust to any hands but their own, that thing is the preservation and perpetuity of their own liberties and institutions."
(Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854)
----
Party platforms approved at state and national conventions are an effort by political parties to give currency to their underlying principles of governing, but they largely reflect the views of the individuals that make up the conventions in any given year. Just as political issues change over time, so does the ideological makeup of political conventions. Therefore, the platforms are mostly innocuous intellectual exercises that are soon outdated and forgotten about even by the people who voted for them - and don't forget some of the convention delegates vote against various provisions in a platform. To the chagrin of party activists (mostly volunteers), platforms are in no way legally binding on the candidates elected by the general populace who are obliged to serve a constituency larger than their party organizations.
Thank you for clarification
I appreciate having a some clarification, since I really did not understand why The Republican party does what it does. This actually makes sense with some of the decisions I have been witnessing.
Unfortunately, when Reagan signed a pact with the devil,
and promised the 'moral majority' a bigger say in exchange for support, many of the above regarding personal liberty and thought became irrelevant.
"No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government." Neil Peart
lincoln also said...
(1858) I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people...and in as much as they cannot so live while they do remain together, there must be a position of superior and inferior; and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. (Hofstadter, The American Political Tradition, PP.32-33)
Exactly. Real history needs context and cannot be judged or
fully extrapolated into the present. This also points out the travesty of relying on 'original intent' of the past without providing a wider context around it. The 'founding fathers' were men of their time, and although what they did, IMHO, was a great advancement for human society and civilization, they were not gods, nor could they be absolutists in determining the course of society or law based on their own passing lives and times.
However, based on this added quote, perhaps BTW was very close in asserting that the Republicans really haven't moved beyond antebellum Civil War.
"No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government." Neil Peart
Lincoln in historical context
An excerpt from Lincoln's second inaugural addresss:
"Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled up by the bondman's 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said 3,000 years ago, so it must be said, "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
The historical record makes very clear that Lincoln's goal at the start of his presidency was to save the Union. If this meant tolerating slavery in the southern states, he would do so. If it meant abolishing slavery, he was willing to do that also. The one issue he would not compromise on was the westward expansion of slavery, and that issue is what garnered him the Republican nomination. While abolitionists feared Lincoln was not the strongest candidate to lead their humanitarian battle, there was not a better electable alternative to Lincoln, and thus this third party movement succeeded in electing a president. Lincoln himself conceded that he did not control events, that events controlled him and in the process changed his thinking. (Not unlike our current President who has had to be educated by political realities, though unlike Lincoln, Obama never admits he was wrong.)
The historical record also makes clear that once the dynamic and numerical strength of the abolitionist movement was understood by Lincoln and others, the fortunes of the Union forces began to improve. The Emancipation Proclamation further clarified the North's mission for its soldiers - to put an end to slavery. After this the Republican Party fully embraced political equality for the former slaves by introducing the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution; efforts that would be frequently obstructed by southern Democrats whose racist views held sway with a majority of Justices on the Supreme Court.
Nor did the Republican Party overlook the need to grant political equality to women. The first national declaration favoring "additional rights" for women was recorded in the 1872 GOP platform. In 1878 a Republican introduced the first proposal in the U.S. Senate to give women the right to vote. From 1913 to 1919 the Democrats in control of Congress five times defeated proposals to give women the right to vote, but in May 1919 the newly elected Republican Congress met in special session and its first act was passage of the Equal Suffrage Amendment. Subsequently, 26 of the 36 states which ratified the 19th Amendment had Republican legislatures. In 1923 the first Equal Rights Amendment was introduced by two GOP Congressman from Kansas, and yet to this day you still have Democrats asking, "What's the matter with Kansas?" The Republican Party continued to lead on equal rights for women through 1972 when radical feminists hijacked this issue and turned it into a referendum on abortion and other social agendas. Not surprisingly ERA has never been ratified by state legislatures and some states like Idaho have even rescinded their previous ratification upon realizing their original intentions have been met through the legislative process.
If the rights of the individual have been weakened by historical cirucmstances and helped along by bi-partisan compromises, I will still stick with the Grand Old Party which has the strongest record on issues relevant to individual liberty.
unless....
you're a minority....
Republicans hAve a good gig going!
The majority Republicans can engage in unconstitutional conduct, have their party sue the State, win, and then force the taxpayers to pay them beaucoup bucks
Really? What would you call
Really? What would you call forcing somebody to buy a product they don't have and don't need? Constitutional?
Idaho Values
Tis another sad day in our great State.
I have serious doubts about
I have serious doubts about a close primary. I do not think it will hurt the GOP or benefit Democrats but I do believe it will disenfranchise marginal independent voters who do not want to go through the actions to vote in a party's primary in 2012. In short, this will lower turnout at the cost of $100,000 and increase ideological purity in both parties. I like a conservative candidate but I do not believe in disenfranchising voters.
Primary turnout is already poor
Is it your contention that independents will refuse to register with either party because of their disdain for parties, or that they won't like the hassle of having to re-register?
Primary elections have a rather poor history of voter turnout in all states with or without party registration. I would guess this means that many Independents as well as some Republicans and Democrats are not tuned in to elections that early in the game.
Once people re-register under the new system, the actual voting process won't be significiantly different for anyone. Instead of receiving two ballots, one of which has to be discarded, you will simply receive one ballot for the party with whom you registered. I know some older voters who grew up thinking their party preference was a private matter between them and God. For them party registration is like a violation of the secret ballot. I don't see that being a big issue with younger voters who publish far more personal stuff on Facebook.
I would not have a problem with allowing people to register at the polls on primary election day, the same as we do with presidential elections, but we should not encourage people to wait until the last minute unless you like standing in long lines.
I don't, and don't think it will disenfranchise anyone.
As BTW points out, primary turnout is already low which indicates that either it's the party faithful or the independents that are not showing up. My money would be on the independents. From what I've seen of independents, and this is just my observation, they claim 'independent' because they don't pay attention to politics until it is time to vote in the general election. Most I've met don't pay any attention to the primaries.
As for me, I self identify as a Democrat but will register as a Republican since in the state legislative district I'm in, the primary is my only real chance to vote for who will end up representing me.
"No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government." Neil Peart
To Disenfranchise
means you have a franchise in the first place. Since when is it right to allow a Democrat to select a Republican candidate? I guess the Boisepoet can lie and register as a Republican but is really a Democrat. That might not go over too well with all yer Democrat buddies to say nothing about not being allowed to participate in the Democrat Caucus. Unless you lie again and say you are a Democrat...except that you are registered as a Republican. Just stay home!
Is there a membership fee to be a Republican? Is there a
manifesto I must sign off on? Is there an oath to be rendered? If I don't attend meetings will I lose the ability to vote in the primary? I won't be lying if I register as a Republican, as it's simply a list that limits my choices in the primary voting booth. Considering the district I live in, it's a choice I will make in order to have some enfranchisement over the local political process.
"No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government." Neil Peart
Agree with Boisepoet's observations
Your experience has been what I have observed over the years also which includes voting for a few years in a state that had a long history of party registration.
Your rationale for registering Republican is also very familiar to me, and while it would seem to suggest that party registration will not accomplish the GOP's goals, I'm inclined to see voters like you as a minority within a minority who don't have a lot of impact on election outcomes. Should the Democrat Party in Idaho be able to offer voters some challenging primary races, I'm sure you will find your way home.
Personally, I feel there are other benefits of party registration besides wanting to separate the men from the boys. If you have ever labored in the trenches for a candidate or a party, you know how difficult it is to follow Lincoln's sage advice to "make a list." The primary purpose of such a list is voter turnout (I'm not interested in driving Boisepoet to the polls), but it can also be used for partisan communications and fund raising. I tried to get each GOP voter in my precinct to give $1.00 to the party, and I would invite legislators to meet with small groups of voters in my home to discuss the bills they would be considering. I don't foresee the parties returning to that kind of one-to-one level of grassroots activity, but a list of registered Republicans (or Democrats) increases the prospects for restoring the neglected art of precinct organization to some extent.
Incidentally, Boisepoet, I once registered as a Democrat for a single presidential primary. My candidate didn't have a chance of winning, but I was just disgusted with Ohio Democrats asking what religion he represented. And you think voters in Idaho are ignorant!
BTW I've actually been registered as a Republican over half my
voting life. Didn't even think to call myself a Democrat until after 'W''s first term and seeing how the R in 'Idaho Republican' meant 'Religious'.
It's really sad to see the Republican party devolve to the likes of Otter/Luna (locally) and Palin/Bachmann (nationally) and with unofficial spokesmen like Hannity/Limbaugh. Republicans use to be able to offer intelligent discourse and analysis. You must be one of the few left that can at least lay out an argument without resorting to 'Rushisms' (and not the Neil Peart kind either).
"No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government." Neil Peart
Boisepoet, find some new sources
Why do Democrats like to torture and deceive themselves? They seem to always know more about Rush, Hannity & Beck than I do, but I suspect some of you view them second hand through the eyes of Rachel Maddow who is just as much a low brow partisan hack as Hannity. Puffington Host isn't exactly quality journalism either.
There are plenty of good print sources on the internet for news & serious analysis for people who would rather be informed than entertained, but I'm sure a political science major knows this and is just pulling my leg about his disenchantment with the GOP.
Btw, the WSJ had an excellent article Saturday on one of your favorite topics - taxing the rich. I think it is still listed on the sidebar under "most popular." It even has free access for all you Robin Hoods out there. Maybe you are Murdoch's targeted audience.
BTW, personal experience in discussions with those who
apparently listen to them and can readily regurgitate the current talking points (like unions are destroying America, union leaders paychecks are the cause of society problems, MicheIle O plans to get legislation passed to regulate how you feed your children). And oh boy, the amount of crap that I get forwarded from some of my more conservative relatives/friends. Always love replying with links to snopes or factcheck.org to destroy the lies they swallow. Don't watch the MSNBC programs. Tend to stick to mass media for current events and primary texts to aid with own analysis.
BTW I'm not for increasing taxes beyond what they were in the year 2000, I just want them restored to where they were then. It's entirely disingenuous for people to gripe and rally about the deficit when they refuse to consider how decreasing the taxes from 2000 levels has and will continue to hamper efforts to decrease the deficit. We don't just have a spending problem; we have a revenue one too. And the data regarding how much the tax burden has decreased in the last ten years for all Americans and especially the top 5% is pretty irrefutable. Class warfare? Only if you think America before 2000 was entirely f*d up and this is much better now.
"No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government." Neil Peart
Let's trade. fy 2000 tax rates for fy 2000 spending levels.
Fy 2000 1.79T budget, 236B budget deficit, 10T GDP.
Fy 2010 3.46T budget, 1.3T budget deficit, 14.6T GDP.
My friend, we have a MAJOR spending problem. We cannot tax our way out of this.
www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2000
Agreed SS, we cannot tax our way out. BUT we need to attack
on both ends. I am for working on both, as long as the discussion includes no sacred cows.
True, the numbers above show spending as 18% of GDP in 2000 and 24% in 2010, and that shows the spending problem.
BUT they also show that taxes were 15.5% of GDP in 2000, and 12.1% of GDP in 2010.
We have reduced the amount of taxes we collect due to tax reforms undertaken in the last 10 years. Even if the budget was the same % of GDP as in 2000, we would still have close to a 900 billion shortfall. THAT is the revenue problem.
"No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government." Neil Peart
We'd have to trade
for fy 2000 population while we're at it.