Op-Ed: Prop 1’s Glitter Will Not Create Open Primaries. By Rep. Lance Clow (09/12/24)

idahodispatch.com/op-ed-prop-1s-glitter…

🚫 DEFEAT PROPOSITION 1 👎 VOTE NO!

This is one of the best explanations we’ve seen about the deceptive language in Prop 1 regarding “open primaries.” It also summarizes beautifully the unconstitutional duplicity (two-issues, one ballot measure), and the damage that Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) could inflict on the one-person one-vote principle.

Rep. Clow states (slightly edited for brevity below):

Open Primaries: 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.

Prop 1 also has no requirement that candidates be supported by a party or pledged to a platform.

Moreover, of only four candidates file for the Top-Four Primary, all four would automatically advance to the general election.

A simple goal to open primaries to “unaffiliated registered voters” could be achieved with a straightforward change. But Prop 1 complicates this by including the “poison pill” of Ranked-Choice Voting.

Unconstitutional: 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.

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV): With potentially four candidates in every statewide, legislative, and county race, the system becomes convoluted and expensive. RCV could cost state and local governments upwards of $40 million to acquire the necessary hardware and software for processing the multi-layered ballot counts.

How RCV Could Work: A voter’s favorite candidate would rank as number one. But if 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. (Alaska, which operated under a similar system in its 2022 election, is reconsidering its decision.)

Rep. Clow concludes:

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.

More information about Prop 1: eolson47.substack.com/p/jungle-primarie…

🚫 DEFEAT PROPOSITION 1 👎 VOTE NO!