Bill Description: Senate Bill 1415 would require Idaho to hold a presidential primary election in May even if a political party had already held a caucus and would not use the primary results to determine its nominee. 

Rating: -2

Does it in any way restrict public access to information related to government activity or otherwise compromise government transparency, accountability, or election integrity? Conversely, does it increase public access to information related to government activity or increase government transparency, accountability, or election integrity?

Senate Bill 1415 would create Section 34-731, Idaho Code, to say, "In years in which a president of the United States is to be nominated and elected, a presidential preference primary shall be held at which voters may express their preferred choice of candidate for a political party for president."

The bill says, "The presidential preference primary shall be held in conjunction with primary elections held pursuant to section 34-102, Idaho Code." This is the code that says the primary election is held on the third Tuesday in May. 

The bill also says, "On the tenth Wednesday preceding the primary election, the secretary of state shall contact each national political party to identify the names of any candidates currently recognized as the respective party's candidates for president of the United States. The secretary of state shall certify the list of candidates to the county clerks by the tenth Friday preceding the primary election."

Note the four uses of the word "shall" in the above sentences. These things shall happen even if a political party has already held a caucus and determined its respective delegates. Note also that the secretary of state is instructed only to contact national political parties, not to confer with the relevant state parties, which determine their preferred methods for selecting their respective nominees. 

The final subsection the bill would create essentially acknowledges that the primary may be unnecessary, saying, "Upon completion of the state canvas for the presidential preference primary, the secretary of state shall notify the state chair of each political party of the results. A political party may use the results for candidate nomination at its national convention, and nothing in this chapter shall be construed as mandating a political party adopt the results of the presidential preference primary."

It says, "A political party may use the results for candidate nomination," even though a party that holds a caucus obviously would not do so. 

Holding an irrelevant presidential primary after a party's caucus undermines the party's chosen candidate selection process and gives the appearance that the election, which serves no purpose, is a party function. Holding an irrelevant primary after a party caucus will confuse voters and undermine confidence in the election process. 

(-1)

Does it increase government spending (for objectionable purposes) or debt? Conversely, does it decrease government spending or debt?

Senate Bill 1415 could increase the costs of the primary election in years that include a presidential election due to additional time expended and increased printing costs.

It is not inherently objectionable for a government to spend money to hold an election. But holding a meaningless presidential primary after a political party has already determined its nominee through a caucus is a waste of time and effort, not to mention confusing and misleading to voters.

(0)