by Logan Finney, Idaho Reports

A district judge in Ada County denied a request from Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador to disqualify Proposition 1 from the general election ballot, rejecting his claims that the initiative organizers mislead voters while obtaining signatures for their ballot measure.

“The evidence the Attorney General submits actually negates the idea that the Defendants perpetrated false statements to thousands of persons who actually signed the petition,” Fourth Judicial District Judge Patrick Miller wrote in an opinion released Thursday morning. “The public presentations in the record thoroughly discuss both the top four and ranked-choice components of the initiative.”

Labrador’s attorneys unsuccessfully argued in court Wednesday that the “open primaries” moniker is false and misleading, because it leads voters to believe the ballot measure would restore the system of open partisan primaries that Idaho used prior to 2011.

“The term ‘top four primary’ may be a more distinctive description of the specific type of open primary proposed, but the term ‘open primary’ is not false as applied to the specific initiative,” Miller wrote. “At best, whether or not ‘open primary’ is accurate is a matter of opinion. And other than settling disputes over the official ballot title, the courts can’t regulate political opinion.”

Labrador’s office argued that the Idaho Supreme Court last year forbade the initiative organizers from describing their proposal as an “open primary” because the term was not included in their official ballot titles. That case resulted from a challenge to the first ballot titles supplied by Labrador, and Miller ruled that the decision does not have any bearing on what language can be used during the signature drive or general election campaign.

“To say that the Idaho Supreme Court’s statutory authority to prescribe ballot title language means the Idaho Supreme Court can foreclose debate about the purpose and effect of an initiative would most certainly render such power unconstitutional,” Miller wrote. “It does not give the Court the authority to regulate further speech regarding the initiative.”

Labrador supported his arguments with statements from Idaho voters who signed the initiative and then later claimed to be misled about its contents. The exhibits also included a video recording, captured by Ada County Republican Central Committee 1st Vice Chair Ryan Spoon at an Idahoans for Open Primaries volunteer training, in which organizers described their proposed election reforms as an open primary.

“Those statements all appear to be matters of opinion, not fact… the Court has reviewed the entire video presented and all participants very accurately described the details of the initiative, most particularly that it would result in a top-four primary and a ranked-choice general election. In the Court’s judgement, Mr. Spoon’s summary of what was reflected on the video was not accurate,” the opinion states. “The Court also takes note of the fact that it is not a complete recording of the presentation.”

Set to appear on the November ballot as Proposition 1, the initiative would change Idaho primary elections by placing candidates from all political parties on a single open ballot. The initiative would permit all registered voters to vote for any primary candidate regardless of political party affiliation. Currently only registered Republicans may vote in the closed Republican primary. The top four candidates from the new primary system would advance to the general election. The initiative would also create a new instant runoff voting system in Idaho’s general elections, commonly called ranked choice voting.

Labrador’s office released the following statement after the ruling:

We are disappointed with the ruling. Idaho law is very clear: no person may make a false statement to obtain signatures for an initiative. My duty is to protect the integrity of the initiative process and to defend the legal rights of all Idaho voters to receive fair and truthful information about initiatives. The district court’s decision is inconsistent with the two Idaho Supreme Court’s decisions that expressly state the term “open primary means something significantly different than what is proposed by the Initiative” and that “the Initiative does not describe an ‘open primary’ system.” Unfortunately, nothing will stop initiative sponsors from obtaining signatures through misrepresentation in the future. At least, our legal challenge has raised awareness about the true nature of the initiative. It is now up to Idaho voters to decide whether they want to replace Idaho’s primary system with a top-four primary system and fundamentally alter Idaho’s orderly general elections with an expensive ranked choice voting system that has resulted in confusion, delays and widespread voting errors in other states.

---