You have to hand it to Attorney General Raul Labrador. He can’t be shamed out of pursuing a foolish course of action. Just days after the Idaho Supreme Court unceremoniously tossed the Attorney General’s lawsuit to kill the Open Primaries Initiative (OPI), he’s at it again. In the Supreme Court’s opinion dismissing Labrador’s first suit, the Court said he “fundamentally misapprehends the role of this Court under the Idaho Constitution and the role of the Secretary of State under the initiative laws enacted by the Idaho Legislature.” That stinging rebuke did not stop Labrador from filing another suit attacking the initiative. It, too, will end up on the legal trash heap.

Labrador falsely claims in the new lawsuit, as he did in the first suit, that the OPI must be killed because it was misrepresented by OPI proponents. He supports his case with nine “declarations” (sworn statements) from his friends, who assert that signature gatherers tried to conceal that the initiative provided for ranked-choice voting in the general election. That would be pretty hard to do, because the ballot titles, which were front and center on every petition, explained exactly how the new voting system would work–abolish party primaries and establish a ranked-choice general election. Labrador should have known that because he drew up those ballot titles after the Supreme Court rebuked him for the misleading ballot titles he initially drafted.

Labrador was not particularly clever in selecting the nine declarants to support his new case. They appear to be his political confederates. The most conspicuous is Jacob Ball, a former Congressional staffer for Labrador, who has set up a political action committee to oppose the OPI. Months ago, Labrador endorsed another declarant, Steve Tanner, for the House seat in District 13B. Benjamin Chafetz is an extreme-right candidate for the District 17 Senate seat. Ryan Spoon, a failed candidate for the College of Western Idaho board, appears to be member of the extremist branch of the GOP.

The AG is demanding a decision in the case by early September. That would require numerous violations of court procedural rules. Labrador may not know this, but he must follow the procedural rules, just like any other Idaho lawyer. All of the declarants claim they were hoodwinked by signature gatherers in August or September of last year. A judge will want to know why it took almost a year for these individuals to come forward with their misrepresentation claims. Regardless, the OPI has already been certified so it is too late to challenge it. A competent lawyer would comprehend that simple fact.

The misrepresentation statute that Labrador is relying upon is also a stumbling block for his case. A federal court judge in Idaho has held the statute to be constitutionally unsound. Even if the statute did not have constitutional problems, it could not be used as a basis for invalidating the OPI.

In sum, Labrador’s second suit is so fraught with problems that it won’t go anywhere. That leaves one to wonder why it was filed. One possible answer is that the suit is just a publicity stunt, dreamed up by Labrador to try to besmirch the OPI.

The other possibility is a much more sinister one–that Labrador and his declarants are engaged in a conspiracy to deprive Idahoans of their sacred initiative rights under the Idaho Constitution. Either way, the suit is a fool’s errand and a waste of time and resources for both the courts and the AG’s office.

What comes through clearly is that Labrador is frightened to distraction by the OPI. It will end his future in Idaho politics by getting rid of the closed GOP primary. The OPI will bring a breath of fresh air to Idaho government because it favors the most highly-regarded candidates and disfavors extremists.

Please follow and like us: