Outvoted but unbowed as the BCRCC debates Proposition 1

By Dave Britton
Reader Contributor

I’m writing as the duly elected Republican precinct committeeman representing the Beach Precinct. I ran as a rational, responsible Republican and won by an almost 2-1 margin, so I sit on the Bonner County Republican Central Committee and the Legislative District 1 Committee.

Last week the Reader reported on our BCRCC August meeting, focusing on its role in making recommendations for gubernatorial appointments to prematurely vacated county positions, and noted that the committee also had a lively discussion of Proposition 1 — a citizen initiative that would convert Idaho elections to a ranked-choice model and open primaries to all voters, regardless of political affiliation.

Prop. 1 is on the November election ballot.

The committee debated a resolution brought by Washington Precinct Committeeman Tom Bokowy requesting that Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador stop opposing Prop. 1 with what the resolution characterized as “habitually doomed legal challenges” that waste significant amounts of money in costly lawsuits and attempt to block the people’s right under the Constitution of Idaho to bring initiative petitions before the voters.

I stood in support of the resolution, noting that, in my view, it was not only wasteful but an unseemly example of grandstanding for attention that reflected badly on the Republican Party.

We both knew that our effort was doomed.

Bokowy and I are in the minority — less than one-third of the 30 BCRCC members — the majority of whom support outgoing-Sagle Sen. Scott Herndon, who serves as chair of the BCRCC. Herndon lost to former-Sen. Jim Woodward in the May primary election but retained his post as a precinct committeeman, so he was eligible to continue his BCRCC leadership as chair. Thus, the BCRCC is somewhat awkwardly and overtly divided, but we all work to be respectful.

August’s debate was noteworthy both in its intensity and in the inaccuracy of the points made about ranked-choice voting. Every reason cited in opposition to it was incorrect but strongly felt.

I found it hard to argue, be persuasive or find compromise with folks whose rational capacity seemed clouded by fear and anger and in-group loyalty.

Trying to make a point-by-point rebuttal on the merits and the facts seemed ineffectual, but we did our best and were outvoted. The matter became a referendum on loyalty to the wing of the party that opposes Prop. 1.

There is a kind of delicious irony in criticizing the AG’s political theater by what could itself be construed as political theater, i.e., offering a doomed resolution, but there is true substance to the content of our objection. These are the core facts:  

• Open primaries may, in all likelihood, weaken the stranglehold of the extremist, Idaho Freedom Foundation-aligned wing of the Republican Party, since it will enable thousands of unaffiliated voters to help select who gets to be on the final ballot. The extremist wing may be right that their power is better protected by the closed primary system. Idahoans may remember fondly how much higher the caliber of elected leadership was in the old days, before the 2011 advent of closed primaries. But, any weakening will not be because of ranked-choice voting, which does not apply to primary elections.

• Open primary elections will offer voters options from all political parties, including, potentially, multiple candidates from the same party, but they will only select their top choice. This weeds the field down to the strongest four candidates regardless of party affiliation. These four candidates may then start campaigning for the general election, knowing who they will be facing.

• In the following November general election, voters will have the opportunity to rank or not rank each of the candidates. If you only want to support one specific candidate, you can rank that one as No. 1 and not rank any others, thus actively undermining their ability to get any additional support from you if your first and only choice is eliminated. Your vote will not be transferred to someone you didn’t support — that idea was brought forward vociferously and with much horror last month by a former Californian who claimed to have been forced by California’s ranked-choice system to vote for Kamala Harris. It’s clear that ignorance (of how things work) is not always bliss. Your ballot will not be rejected if you choose not to rank all four candidates. You might even like being able to rank two or three if you want to make sure that at least one of them wins. 

Having more candidates and more people voting in the primary might mitigate the dominance of the wing of the Republican Party that supports Project 2025. In Bonner County, Tom Bokowy and I are looking forward to it. 

We’re also looking forward to another process approved at the August BCRCC meeting — one that has been reviled by some as an attempt to pressure Republican politicians into toeing the party line, or else. We will be asked to sign an affirmation of approval for the newly minted Idaho Republican Party official party platform, or, to detail and explain what we disagree with or object to. Our answers will be made public.

In my view, that platform is quite troubling, so I welcome the publicity that will attend my explication and political analysis thereof.

Prop. 1 will be good for Idaho politics in general, and I believe it will be good for the Republican Party as well. The extremist wing is driving rational, responsible Republicans away. As much as they argue that their minority rule is justified because “we are a republic, not a democracy,” it still holds that to be good, government must have the consent of the governed.

So I say, “Yes on Prop 1.”

Dave Britton represents the Beach Precinct of Sandpoint on the Bonner County Republican Central Committee.