D24A REPRESENTATIVE LANCE CLOW
Prop 1 is Not about Opening Idaho Primaries.
This November, Idaho voters are being asked to consider Proposition 1 – a complicated, 18-page proposal that, according to its sponsor, involves “two distinct changes to elections for most public offices.” Supporters of Prop 1 are enthusiastic about the idea of “Open Primaries.” However, the proposition actually eliminates traditional primaries as we know them, replacing them with a “Top Four” primary system. This system allows multiple candidates from the same party to advance to the general election, with no requirement that candidates be supported by a party or pledged to a platform. If the goal were simply to open primaries to “unaffiliated registered voters,” that could be achieved with a straightforward change. But Prop 1 complicates this by including the “poison pill” of Ranked-Choice Voting.
Prop 1 would change our primaries—where traditionally, only one candidate from each party advances—to a system where up to four candidates could advance, all of whom could belong to the same party, leaving no room for other party candidates or independents. If only four candidates file for the Top-Four Primary, all four would automatically advance to the general election. This is not what people expect when they hear “Open Primaries.” Some might support a change to ensure that the party nominee receives a majority of the party primary votes, but that’s not part of Prop 1.
We’ve seen how complex the first of the “two distinct changes” in Prop 1 is. But before we explore the second, it’s important to understand that the Idaho Constitution requires that “Every act shall embrace but one subject,” and that the “subject shall be expressed in the title.” Prop 1 not only covers “two distinct” subjects, but it also fails to clearly express the second change in its title. The title vaguely references “Ranked-Choice Voting,” yet the term is never actually used in the text of Prop 1, nor is it defined. If Prop 1 passes, it’s expected to face immediate legal challenges, especially given its apparent violation of constitutional requirements.
The second distinct change, often referred to as Ranked-Choice Voting, adds even more complexity. With potentially four candidates in every statewide, legislative, and county race, the system becomes convoluted and expensive. Implementing Ranked-Choice Voting could cost state and local governments upwards of $40 million to acquire the necessary hardware and software for processing the multi-layered ballot counts. Alaska, which operated under a similar system in its last general election, is already reconsidering its decision.
Some argue that allowing voters to rank candidates distorts the principle of one person, one vote. For example, if a voter ranks their favorite candidate as number one and that candidate wins with less than a majority, other voters who supported less successful candidates get a second or third chance for their lower-ranked choices to prevail.
Prop 1 bundles two distinct ideas into one proposition, forcing voters to accept both or neither. Many voters, particularly unaffiliated ones, may support the idea of opening primaries but are rightly concerned about the inclusion of Ranked-Choice Voting. Prop 1 deserves a “No” vote because it lacks clarity and forces voters to accept changes they may not want. If opening primaries is the goal, it can be accomplished without the complex changes proposed in Prop 1. As William Shakespeare said, “Not all that glitters is Gold.” Vote “No”, do not be distracted by the glitter.
