BOISE, Idaho (CBS2) — The Idaho Supreme Court has issued an opinion on the case of Idahoans for Open Primaries (IOP) v. Labrador.
IOP is a coalition of member organizations that are petitioning for a ballot initiative that would end Idaho's closed primaries for voting. The goal is to open primaries voting so that voters can see and vote for candidates regardless of party affiliation.
Veterans for Political Innovation member, Todd Achilles says the initiative will dissolve a law passed back in 2012 that required Republican voters to affiliate with the party in order to vote for their candidates. Under this initiative, voters would be able to vote regardless of party.
The ballot initiative would also introduce instant run-off voting. A process in which a candidate has to earn more than half of first-choice votes, and offers voters the ability to rank the candidates they want to vote for in order.
Idahoans for Open Primaries v. Labrador went to the Supreme Court for two separate points. The first, IOP asserts that Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador's ballot titles for their initiative did not substantially comply with Idaho code. The Attorney General delivered "short" and "general' ballot titles that did not comply with Idaho code and were "prejudicial against the initiative."
The opinion of the Idaho Supreme Court has granted IOP's petition for writ of certiorari. From the Summary Statement, "The Attorney General’s ballot titles did not comply with the requirements of Idaho Code section 34-1809 because the short title was not distinctive and failed to use the language by which the measure was commonly known or referred to; and because both the short and general titles used language that was argumentative and prejudicial against the Initiative."
The court has given Labrador until 4:00 p.m. on Friday, August 11, 2023, "to provide new short and general ballot titles that comply with Idaho law and are consistent with the opinions expressed in this decision."
The court however, did not find that the Secretary of State has an obligation to extend the deadline for signature collection, and denied their writ of mandamus, or an extension to the deadline for legal reasons.
IOP has won reasonable attorney's fees and Labrador must rewrite the title and description section of the ballot initiative so as to not be argumentative and prejudicial against the initiative.
ncG1vNJzZmihlJa1sLrEsKpnm5%2BifK%2Bx1qxmpaeTlrlwtcOan6hlo6q9s7HMnmScp6WnwW6%2B1KWcrGWZo3qnrdWoqWanlmK8sbHNZqeroZ2Wv6qx0maeq6elpXqwvsOeqaxlkanBsL7NnrBmn5WjsrOty2arqGWimsOqv8RmmZqknKTBbrXNoquimaSew6Z506KrpZ2j