An article in this morning’s Coeur d’Alene Press skewspaper heralded former Kootenai County Clerk Dan English for changing his party affiliation (for now) so he could vote a Republican ballot in the upcoming primary election.
Shown above is a reproduction of Idaho’s voter registration card. In Block 7 the registrant has an opportunity to declare specific party affiliation or to declare no party affiliation at all. But read what is written in the last clause in the shaded block captioned “UNDER PENALTY OF LAW:” The last lines reads, “…and I declare under oath or affirmation that the information supplied herein is true.”
In a comment appended to the skewspaper’s article, Mary Souza observed:
The local democrats should get enough good candidates for their own primary. Build up your own party. Everyone gets to vote in the general election in November. Did you realize that when you sign the affiliation form the words at the bottom, right where you sign, say that you swear the information is true? Is it ok to lie just to get your desired end result?
Defeated former Clerk English responded:
No it’s not OK to lie to get your desired result. That’s certainly not what we did and I resent the implication otherwise. I don’t know what form you are talking about but I will quote from the actual form I received at the Elections Office.
I, being a registered voter at the address listed below, do hereby declare that I wish to affiliate with the following party. Period. Then you check which party you wish to affiliate with or you may choose to check the box to officially unaffiliated.
OpenCdA just returned from the County Clerk’s Elections Office where we examined the Idaho Political Party Affiliation Declaration Form (IPPADF). Having been involved in the 2010 election contest lawsuit, we sincerely wish that the Secretary of State had done a better job of making two points very clear on the IPPADF.
1. The IPPADF is an amendment to your voter registration card. It amends Block #7 on the voter registration form. Each IPPADF you complete will be stored at the County Clerk’s Elections Office with your voter registration card. The party affiliation you declare on the most recent dated form on file (e.g., the most recent IPPADF) remains in effect until changed by completing a new IPPADF or a new voter registration form.
2. Because the IPPADF is an amendment to the registrant’s voter registration card, the oath or affirmation imprinted on the voter registration card is presumed to apply to the information provided on the IPPADF. To assure the absence of having the oath or affirmation printed on the IPPADF doesn’t create a legal issue down the road, OpenCdA believes that an appropriately worded “UNDER PENALTY OF LAW” oath or affirmation statement should appear next to the signature and date block on the IPPADF just as it does on the voter registration card.
If our layman’s presumption is correct, a registered voter who uses the IPPADF to change his or her party affiliation is amending his voter registration card information under oath or affirmation to declare his or her current party affiliation.
It was a bit upsetting to see the former long-time County Clerk, Dan English, who was in charge of our elections, admit that he is changing his party affiliation for untrue reasons. He does not want to be a Republican. He is a determined Democrat. But he will change his affiliation to vote in a party primary other than his own.
The local Democrats are interesting because they don’t have primaries. They don’t let more than one Democrat run against each other, they make sure of that behind closed doors. That way all the local Democrats are available to confound the Republican primary. Let me conjecture that most are probably not trying to get the best Republican to represent them, they are trying to get the worst Republican to run against whomever the Democrats are putting up for the General Election in November.
Such an action is, by its very nature, dishonest. And Press Editor Mike Patrick was especially insulting when, in a recent Editorial, he told Dems to “hold your nose” and change your affiliation to Republican. Wow, Mike, you’re not even trying to be fair anymore, are you?
Comment by mary — March 7, 2014 @ 3:26 pm
Mary,
Patrick and Thompson had another insult in today’s editorial: “Would we prefer corporate headquarters with a vast array of six-figure jobs, of high-tech companies moving here and increasing not just the level of affluence but the region’s IQ as well? Most certainly.”
I wonder: When did Patrick and Thompson measure the region’s IQ, and how did they measure the correlation between affluence and IQ?
Comment by Bill — March 7, 2014 @ 4:22 pm
Where does the money come from for the Republican primary?
Comment by Eric — March 7, 2014 @ 5:39 pm
The government should hold a general election. Each party can submit a single candidate. How they get to that point is their business, their money, their problem. Registering voters under one party or another is not the government’s responsibility.
Comment by Dan Gookin — March 7, 2014 @ 8:09 pm
That’s great Dan but again who is paying for how they got there. In other words who pays for the primary. Again who is paying for this particular republican primary? The one right now in Idaho.
Comment by Eric — March 7, 2014 @ 9:15 pm
Eric,
Judging from the wording in various sections of Idaho Code Title 34, I’d say the costs of administering primary elections are paid by the state. For example, I.C. §34-713 includes this statement:
Comment by Bill — March 8, 2014 @ 6:47 am
Thanks Bill, so in other words everyone, democrat, republican, independant, and people who never vote or care. Every citizen of the state or county kicks in something
Listen, I’m not defending or condoning, I’m just saying.
I am relatively certain if it were the other way around we would have lengthy posts and comments about being shut out of something we all pay for.
That’s not to say it’s right the way the other side is doing it as Mary mentions and we can dialog about that as well but the fact of the matter is, the perception of the regular person is what it is and it’s not good.
Now, we can banter all we like in here about the subtleties and I’ll be the first to admit that I’m naive and baffled by it all and I’m not trying to be antagonistic. However to the average person it looks funny.
Comment by Eric — March 8, 2014 @ 7:50 am
So let’s say the rules are changed and each party pays for its own primary. Does that give them the right to refuse members of other parties changing their affiliations?
Comment by mary — March 8, 2014 @ 9:23 am
That’s a valid question Mary and we can play scenarios until the cows come home. But, we’re talking about right now, today.
Closing the primary was/is, in my opinion, wrong. Now if either party wants to decide who will run for what seat outside of a vote then fine but if two are going to run from the same party to represent all the people then all the people should, if they desire, have a say. Especially if the only two running are of the same party.
So as a Dem in this case I just have to watch and let a select group choose who will lord over me? That’s pretty hard core.
One could say then, why doesn’t your party get someone to run, OK that’s cool but what if I think the Rep candidate is better Just because I’m a democrat who pays taxes I’m not allowed to have a say?
God Bless America!
Comment by Eric — March 8, 2014 @ 9:45 am
At it’s most basic operation it seems like election fraud to me. The GOP purposefully forces, openly acknowledges, and uses election law to create a whole bunch of liars–and that’s BEFORE they vote.
Comment by Old Dog — March 8, 2014 @ 2:03 pm
Old Dog,
As an unaffiliated voter who has never and probably will never affiliate with any organized political party, I agree that requiring party affiliation to vote in a primary election requires some of us to choose between principle and effectively being unable to vote for the candidate we prefer.
To require us to choose first one party, then a different one, then maybe another different one to vote for my preferred candidate is effectively requiring us to choose to swear or affirm falsely. Maybe being willing to do that without any reservation is Idaho’s litmus test for candidacy.
Comment by Bill — March 8, 2014 @ 3:00 pm
Another way to put it: If you use the word “party” synonymous with an affiliation to a “group-thought”–what we are left with is that in order to democratically affect an outcome, an Idaho Voter first needs to change their thoughts, but maybe just til the next election, maybe.
Electoral Schizophrenia on a stick anyone? According to my forms who am I, what do I need to say I believe in today, and for how long til I can change back to who I was? Wouldn’t surprise me that the next step in the process is to add another required visit to the County (or e-form) to officially dis-affirm party affiliation prior to voting after the primary–a logical check and balance don’t you think?
Comment by Old Dog — March 8, 2014 @ 3:25 pm
Old Dog,
You’re very close. The party affiliation declared on the IPPADF you might file for this primary remains your party affiliation (for voting in elections that require specific declaration of affiliation or unaffiliation) until you file a new IPPADF or new voter registration form.
It also seems to me that extreme party loyalists (or as I sometimes refer to them, rabidistas) would look askance at a prospective candidate who changes party affiliation situationally. I suspect some people don’t realize that the IPPADF becomes a part of the voter’s permanent history, a public record that is discoverable under the Idaho Public Records Law.
Comment by Bill — March 8, 2014 @ 3:50 pm