Letters: Our Readers’ Opinions

Vote for Julia Parker

I remember fondly the days when the delegation that represented our district in Boise made decisions that were in our collective best interests. Whether Republican or Democrat, they listened to us and took appropriate action.

That hasn’t been the case recently. Dan Foreman’s representation of this district has been abysmal. For example, we are fortunate to have the University of Idaho here. It’s a strong contributor to the economy. It’s Idaho’s major research university and offers significant opportunities to people of all ages. As our representative in Boise, one of Foreman’s major concerns should be directing legislation beneficial to the university. He should correspond with university leaders regularly about their needs. Instead, he doesn’t even support basic funding for the university.

In addition, Foreman should be interested in providing the best education possible for our young folks. He should be approaching school officials to see what help he can provide. Instead, he opposes funds for public schools. His vote was the only one in opposition to support for school facilities. He opposed money for libraries. This is bizarre behavior ... .

Fortunately, we have an opportunity to replace Foreman with Julia Parker. Her nursing experience will be a distinguishing asset when dealing with health care issues. She understands the importance of education as it relates to individual opportunity and economic development. Julia Parker shares our values. She’ll listen to and represent all members of her district.

We need Julia Parker in the Idaho Senate. Please give her your vote.

Shirley Ringo

Moscow

Prop 1 isn’t that simple

As the Idaho County clerk, I’m the elected official charged with conducting elections. I feel compelled to weigh in on Proposition 1. The open primary part of this proposition is where many voters will stop. However, if you think it is only about having an open primary, please think again.

With Proposition 1 comes ranked choice voting, a system that sets up a complicated and potentially costly process to arrive at the actual results. The estimates for implementing this system are wildly different from those who are in favor (rough estimate of $600,000 for software) versus those who are opposed (rough estimate of a minimum of $25 million). What isn’t figured into the cost is the very real burden it will place on county clerks and election workers all across Idaho.

Hand-count vote tallying in a ranked choice voting system cannot be accomplished, or at least not accomplished with any type of efficiency. This pushes all Idaho counties to machine tabulation. None of the tabulation systems currently certified by the Idaho Secretary of State and utilized in Idaho can accommodate ranked choice voting.

I respect the initiative process we have in Idaho that allows the people to put their shoulders to the plow and collect enough signatures to add issues to the ballot for all Idahoans to consider. However, as one of the 44 county clerks who will ultimately be implementing this change, should Proposition 1 pass, I cannot sit by without letting people know that it’s not that simple.

Kathy Ackerman

Grangeville

Supporting Prop 1

Before 2011, Idahoans had a much larger voice in who represented them. We were given one ballot listing candidate hopefuls. Voters chose candidates they felt would best represent their community. Legislators collaborated and laws were moderate. As most Idahoans are moderate, reasonable people, it worked well.

Elections changed in 2011 when HB351 passed. Now party central committee leaders choose candidates, not you nor I. Legislation has moved further away from moderation to right extremism.

Proposition 1 ends Idaho’s closed primary and creates a nonpartisan primary, opening elections to all voters regardless of party affiliation. Candidates from all parties will need to work hard earning your vote. Additionally, 270,000 independent voters will be able to participate.

During the primary, voters receive one ballot listing candidates. Voters choose candidates best representing you. All votes are counted and the top four candidates move to the general election.

At the general election, voters rank candidates 1 to 4. (IdahoansforOpenPrimaries.org produced a video showing the process.) The candidate reaching 50% of votes wins. All votes are counted and like all elections, there are winners and losers.

To better understand Prop 1, go to Veterans for Idaho Voters and Idahoans for Open Primaries (cross-partisan and independent groups).

For 40 years Idaho leaders respected and listened to constituents. Legislators collaborated and laws were well-written by Idaho legislators, not written and funded by out-of-state organizations. It is time to “Go back and make Idaho great again!” Vote yes for Prop 1.

Vickie Fadness

Lewiston

Judge for yourself

How will you choose your Whitman County Superior Court judge this November? It’s a tough decision because most of us are lucky to have little court experience, and few have the time for due diligence. Fortunately, the League of Women Voters can help because they host candidate debates. Search “YouTube LWV Pullman” online and watch the July 22 debate, and you’ll see Whitman County had three well-qualified primary candidates.

I wasn’t initially sure how to evaluate the candidates, but the debate highlighted differences in preparedness and style. I realized I prefer candidates who listen and digest arguments before replying, and I liked hearing about the importance of educating court attendees on the legal process. Candidates who think about issues tend to propose solutions, and it was a red flag for me when a candidate knocked down an idea without proposing an alternative.

Buried in the debate discussion was a simple yet profound idea: If courts can help stabilize families, there may be fewer traumatized people committing crimes and fewer traumatized by crime. Jenna Brozik is one of the two remaining candidates for November, and I think her emphasis and experience in civil and family law will help establish this virtuous cycle.

This November, we have more than just an opportunity to elect a Superior Court judge for four years. If we choose carefully, we can positively impact our community for many years to come.

Simon Smith

Pullman

Voting for Mitchell

In response to a Sept. 26 letter in the Clearwater Progress claiming Idaho Rep. Brandon Mitchell is taking away our freedoms and rights because of how he voted on certain bills, I see things differently. Let me share my thoughts on the following bills.

HB710 protects our freedom to choose what our children read in school libraries. Parents can still go to the library and authorize books for their children based on their family values. The rights of parents should always supersede what the schools might think is best for our kids.

HB340 and HB599 protect my freedom to vote by making sure my vote isn’t canceled out by an illegal vote. Every illegal vote cancels out one legal vote and erodes trust in our elections.

Bills S1110, SJR 101, H652 and S1377 protect rural Idaho’s freedom to be heard. Currently, our initiative process allows 18 districts to decide what can be placed on a ballot. In Idaho, you can count 18 districts in just three counties and those with the highest population are the ones that have the best chance in passing an initiative (for example, Proposition 1).

Lastly, being part of a constitutional republic means Brandon Mitchell needs to represent all 52,000 of his constituents. With that said, no representative can make everyone happy but standing for the majority of his district while maintaining his own values is how our republic works.

For this and other reasons, I’ll be voting for Brandon Mitchell to continue as my representative.

Lisa Reynaldo

Kamiah

Proposition 1 question

Could someone help me understand this statement about Proposition 1? “The votes are counted in successive rounds, and the candidate receiving the fewest votes in each round is eliminated. A vote for an eliminated candidate will transfer to the voter’s next-highest-ranked active candidate.”

This makes it sounds like a candidate can receive more than one vote from a voter upon the elimination of a candidate with fewer votes. This doesn’t make sense to me. Please explain.

Kathy Branson

Lewiston