Narrator: Presentation of Idaho Reports on Idaho Public Television is made possible through the generous support of the Laura Moore Cunningham Foundation, committed to fulfilling the Moore and Bettis family legacy of building the great state of Idaho.

By the Friends of Idaho Public Television and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Melissa Davlin: It's no secret that Idaho Republicans have fought amongst themselves for years.

Tonight, we hear from a lawmaker who is facing censure from her county colleagues and party chairwoman Dorothy Moon on current election bills and the direction of the state party.

I'm Melissa Davlin, Idaho Reports starts now.

Hello and welcome to Idaho Reports.

This week, Ruth Brown talks to Idaho Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard Bevan on how a judicial salary bill could affect court administration.

Representative Stephanie Mickelsen joins me to discuss her recent censure from her county Republican Party and Idaho Republican Party Chairwoman Dorothy Moon gives her take on the presidential caucus, recent election bills and the divisions within her party.

But first, let's get you caught up on the week.

If you thought the library debate was over, you were wrong.

On Wednesday, the House passed a bill that would allow individuals to sue libraries over alleged obscene content.

Under the bill, patrons can file a lawsuit after 30 days if the library declines to move a book following that person's request.

This is the third bill the legislature has publicly heard this year.

Jaron Crane: This goes above and beyond the Miller test.

You've heard me talk a little bit about the Miller test.

The Miller test is a universal U.S. Supreme Court standard that they use to determine obscenity in the United States.

So everything we currently have in code right now will adhere to the Miller test.

Lori McCann: I'm also concerned with the fact that we have a local library system.

We have county commissioners.

We have the ability.

We have elected these people or they've been appointed.

And so we are preempting, we are saying to them, we don't trust what you're doing.

Kenny Wroten: I've heard on this floor and I've heard in the halls, well, it's not as bad as it was.

They didn't say it's a good bill.

They just said it's not as bad as it was.

It's like getting hung by a new rope.

It's like, well, at least it wasn't as bad as it was.

It's still bad.

Brent Crane: Why are we fighting so hard to put obscene material in front of our children?

Why?

This is good public policy.

I can tell you Mr. Speaker, the books I've seen, there are books in our libraries today that are violating 181514.

And to sit there and say that it's not happening is not right, because I do know it has happened in Nampa, Idaho.

And so I would ask for your green light.

Thank you.

Davlin: The bill passed 47-23 and now heads to the Senate.

We have much more legislative news online, including updates on the House Tax Committee, killing a bill for tax credits for private school tuition.

You can find our coverage online at IdahoReports.org We've been bringing you updates on the debate over how the state should fill judicial vacancies when judges retire.

Producer Ruth Brown has more.

Ruth Brown: The House has introduced a new bill on judicial retirements, and this one is tied to pay raises.

I sat down with the Idaho Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard Bevan this week to discuss his concerns with the bill and its potential impact on the court system.

Ruth Brown: Justice Bevan, the Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee, held a bill last Friday that would have impacted how we replace some judges who retire before their term is over.

And then promptly on Tuesday, we saw a new bill come through that would have addressed judges who leave before their term is over.

judges who leave before their term is over.

But that is tied to judicial raises.

But that is tied to judicial raises.

What are some of your concerns around this?

Our main concern Chief Justice Bevan: Our main concern is the way that this bill has been structured with judicial compensation and combined with policy matters affecting judicial retirement and elections.

The bill, as you said, was handled The bill, as you said, was held in the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.

An administrative judge spoke to it.

Others came forward and talked about concerns about the bill and how it would be managed, how we would run the courts if the bill passed if the bill passed and the bill did not pass out of the Senate committee.

But as you say, it was it was resurrected, if you will, Tuesday and now contains an additional clause tying the passage of this bill to judicial compensation.

the passage of this bill to judicial compensation.

Our concern is when these things happen to the judiciary Our concern is when these things happen to the judiciary and to our branch of government, they don't happen to anybody else in state government.

It's not as though another agency, another branch, is having their potential compensation increase tied to a policy bill.

Let's say, for example, Let's say, for example, all state employees in the telework bill requiring them to come back to the office and work, have that bill tied to their ability to obtain CTC or change in compensation this year CEC or change in compensation this year, and that it would only pass if they're in the same bill.

That's a hot button policy issue of its own accord, That's a hot button policy issue of its own accord, but but it's not tied to compensation for others.

For whatever reason this is now the second time this has happened in the judiciary, and we felt it important to let the public know.

Let the people of Idaho know that Idaho judges aren't for sale, that that's the way we see it.

By putting our compensation in with a policy bill where we either agree to the policy, which we've already spoken against in the Senate and then agree to it, or we don't get a raise, and then agree to it, or we don't get a raise, that it's almost like a quid pro quo for judges.

And I want the public to know that Idaho's judges are fiercely independent.

fiercely righteous.

Fiercely righteous.

And I don't say that in a in an overwhelming way about how they conduct themselves.

But they do things right, and they do it based on the law and not on their own personal whim or how they expect to be treated by a legislature if they do it one way or the other.

They rule on the rule of law.

Our judges work extremely hard.

They do an extremely difficult job day in and day out.

And so now to say, well, 'you get a compensation increase like every other state employee, but only if you agree to this bill,' that significantly hamstrings the ability to administer the courts.

And so that's why we want Idaho citizens to know that we have to stand up and say 'no' no, that if it means we don't get a raise this year if it means we don't get a raise this year for the second time in three years, that's what it means.

And we're prepared to to deal with those consequences.

The legislation would mean that Brown: The legislation would mean that if a judge leaves prior to his his or her term, if a judge leaves prior to his his or her term, the seat would be filled by a senior judge.

the seat would be filled by a senior judge.

Can you walk me through Can you walk me through what the what that means for the courts and what kind of a burden that would be to the courts?

Bevan: Well, first of all, senior judges are judges who are retired.

Brown: Right.

Bevan: They've left the bench because they don't want to be working full time.

We don't have a huge cadre of senior judges throughout the state.

Where I came from in the Fifth District, Twin Falls, where I came from in the fifth District, Twin Falls, South central Idaho.

South central Idaho, there are very few senior judges down there to do this work.

When I came to the Supreme Court in 2017, my good friend and colleague Randy Stoker, passed away and and colleague, Randy Stoker, passed away and his his seat had to go to election because of the way his death happened.

because of the way his death happened.

And so the seat was vacant for almost a year And so the seat was vacant for almost a year.

and judges were coming from Treasure Valley to handle cases And judges were coming from Treasure Valley to handle cases day by day, week by week.

Senior judges.

And so it's difficult, number one, to get judges who have the capacity and time to do that.

And number two, we just don't have the budget or the wherewithal to pull judges in.

So then it becomes a question of, well, are we going to then circle the wagons and have all the judges who are already having a full caseload handle the vacancy and the absence in this in this period of time, which could be up to multiple years in the case of a Supreme Court justice.

Brown: Are there legal concerns around the delays in cases, how that will affect an Idahoan.

Bevan: Well, certainly Idaho's constitution guarantees a right to a speedy trial for criminal defendants and frankly, to all litigants who come to the court seeking a a speedy and prompt resolution of their dispute.

speedy and prompt resolution of their dispute.

The likely resolution is that criminal cases take precedence due to the constitutional requirement of speedy trials, and civil cases will likely be pushed to the side and be handled as they can, but certainly not in a priority fashion but certainly not in a priority fashion and not in the way that if a judge were there handling these cases week after week, they might be handled.

There are some legislators who would argue that judges Brown: There are some legislators who would argue that judges should always be elected rather than appointed.

You're on the ballot this year.

You don't have a challenger yet.

But can you walk me through what are some of the ethical differences that judges face when running for election versus a councilman or a legislator?

or a legislator?

Well, first, let me say, we don't Bevan: Well, first, let me say we don't shy away from being elected.

I've been elected four times in my career so far.

And we understand the Constitution mandates judges are elected when when it comes time to be on the ballot, like I am this year.

So so I say that.

But against the environment of 1890, when our Constitution passed that requirement versus today, the judges ethically are not allowed to go out and fundraise themselves.

You have to have an independent board or committee to do that for you.

I can't even know if someone donates to my campaign who they who they are.

I simply see that some money went into the campaign account and I'm able to continue to try.

And I mean, that's a huge challenge for a sitting judge.

I mean, that's a huge challenge for a sitting judge.

We also aren't allowed to go out and meet with the public We also aren't allowed to go out and meet with the public and make promises like a typical politician might about how they stand on issues where they will vote.

We have to take cases as they come and we can't tell the folks, 'well, I lean this way.

So when this case comes up, this is how I'll handle it.'

That's simply not the way we we do business.

And that limits us in the capacity and ability to go out and really let people know who we are.

So much of the public just knows the judiciary does their job and we we get through our job.

And so many don't even know who we are, who we are on the ballot.

And so it's a big challenge to help people understand this is what we do.

this is what we do.

This is why we do it.

But it's a much different environment than your typical campaign.

Brown: To see the full interview, visit Idaho Reports YouTube channel, or listen wherever you get your podcasts.

Davlin: Last week, the Bonneville County Republican Party voted to censure two Idaho Falls lawmakers.

Senator Kevin Cook and Representative Stephanie Mickelsen.

The county party also moved to prevent Representative Mickelsen from using Republican Party identifiers on any campaign material for the remainder of her current term and for the next five years.

That comes after a party rule change last summer that allows central committees to hold elected officials accountable for not voting in line with the party platform.

On Friday, Representative Mickelsen joined me to discuss her censure and how she thinks the new rule is affecting legislation this year.

Thanks so much for joining us this week.

For those who aren't familiar, what happened?

What happened?

Rep. Stephanie Mickelsen: My Central committee decided to hold another, I call it a kangaroo court, or an inquisition, against me.

A week, a week ago Thursday.

And then they released that information on Monday or Tuesday of this week, and they decided that they would censure me yet again.

Davlin: What does that mean for people who aren't familiar with party politics?

Mickelsen: Well, the Republican Idaho Republican Party has been passing rules in the last couple of years that thinks, that they think enables them to be able to go and basically remove an R and someone's ability to run as a Republican.

Davlin: When you say remove an R, like on the ballot, the little R. Mickelsen: Yeah, yeah.

The R. So they think that they can stop me from running as a Republican, which I don't think they can.

Davlin: You've already filed to run for reelection as a Republican?

Mickelsen: Yeah, I filed the first day of the period, so I'm ready to go as a Republican, and I fully plan on running as a Republican.

And I have my posters and my and my my literature and everything ready to go.

literature and everything ready to go.

Davlin: Was that censure a surprise to you?

Mickelsen: No, that censure wasn't a surprise to me.

They have been looking for ways to purify the party in their minds for the last couple of years.

It's a plan that had been set in place quite some time ago, and that was to get control of the central committees within each county and then they would be able to start picking who was pure enough.

Or according to their idea of who could run and who couldn't run, and that was what was going on.

Davlin: You know, this isn't specific to your Central committee.

It's a state GOP platform that county committees can can do this.

Do you think that this threat hanging over the heads of lawmakers is affecting voting this year?

Mickelsen: I really think that it's affecting voting and not just this year, but I think last year as well, because you have this sense of, if I don't vote the way I'm told to vote or exactly the way the party interprets the platform, then they're going to come after me.

And some people just aren't willing to have that fight.

I think that they get concerned that it's just one more thing.

And they don't, they just don't want to be a target for them.

And so when it comes to, and we all, you know, I even got a text this morning, what you know, what landmines are we going to have today?

you know, what landmine are we going to have today?

What hot bill is going to be is going to be our purity test for for whether or not we're Republican enough?

we're Republican enough.

What do you Davlin: What do you what bills do you think have been affected by that, by this new platform?

Mickelsen: I know for sure that they were really upset over the school tax educational school tax credit bill.

That was one.

They want to have several bills.

They're kind of social bills that are out there They're kind of social bills that are out there that we've had this year.

Yesterday's bill on traditional families was one of those purity contest situations.

They've had a few gun bills go through that are purity situations, votes basically, situations for votes, basically.

you know, So rather than having good governance and being statesmen, I think you see a lot of legislators that are Republicans that are afraid of voting for their, the needs of their communities.

Simply for fear that they don't want to be the next target.

Davlin: So when you vote on these bills that are in front of you, do you take into account feedback from your constituents or do you go with what you believe?

Mickelsen: I definitely have listened to my constituents, especially on certain types of bills, depending upon if it's something that affects cities, I'll talk to the mayors, if it's something that affects counties, I'll talk to county commission, you know, the county commissioner, commissioners.

And if it's a school situation or school bill, or school bill, I reach out to teachers, I reach out to teachers, I reach out to administrators, to superintendents.

But I have had a lot of feedback just from my local community that they will drop me a text or an email and And it's really good to hear what people it's really good to hear what people in our district need.

in our district need.

And sometimes when you see a law, you think, And sometimes when you see a law, you think, that won't have a big effect.

But when you hear constituents say, this is why I need this, or this is why this is a problem, then you can make those kind of votes.

Davlin: You know, the Republican Party has said it's a private organization and it has the right to do this.

It has the right to vet its own candidates that It has the right to vet its own candidates that that end up end up on the primary ballot and eventually on the general election ballot.

What would you say to that?

That they do have the right to do this?

Mickelsen: I would say that they probably don't have a right to do this.

I think when they say they're a private party, I think that's very interesting because they're a private party that serves a very public function.

And therefore, I don't think that they have, that just a few people in leadership should be able to dictate to the rest of the electorate whether or not somebody is a Republican.

And I think that's where the rub comes in, because in the past, when you've looked at Republican platforms or the Idaho Republican platform, the one thing I always thought Republicans stood for was, you know, the lightest touch of government, fiscal responsibility.

It didn't stand for never spend any money.

Never, you know, having any laws, or having an abundance of laws.

And I think what you're seeing with this faction of the Republican Party is they're wanting, they say they believe in freedom, but yet I've never seen a group want to pass so many laws to control and dictate your freedoms.

Davlin: So if this has the blessing of the state party, though, and your fellow county Republicans are turning against you, why keep running as a Republican in the first place?

Mickelsen: Because I've been a Republican since I was, my family always jokes since I was born.

But, you know, I started working on Republican campaigns when I was a teenager.

And for Butch Otter, when he was running for lieutenant governor.

I worked on a campaign for Brad Little when he first ran for lieutenant governor.

I've worked on campaigns for a long time.

Ones that were statewide ones, as well as ones that were just local races.

just local races.

Davlin: But, you know, parties change over time.

You know, we've seen this with the Democratic Party.

We've seen this with the Republican Party over time.

Is this just the new Republican Party?

Is is this just the new Republican Party?

Mickelsen: I think the Republican Party got hijacked by, in in 2010 after the Ron Paul's didn't win.

in 2010 after the Ron Paul's didn't win, and they knew that they couldn't win as a third party.

They knew that they had to go back into the Republican Party because that brand was so strong.

And so they set out a plan and a framework to come in at the local level, take precincts or, local level, take take precincts or, you know, county committees and turn them more to the right.

And most Republicans in the last in the last ten years have been kind of sleeping, not realizing that this was going on.

I will tell you, in the last couple of months, as they've seen these things going on, specifically to me, I've had people reach out all over the state and say, I'm so glad to know the Republican Party is still there, because they said it left me.

because they they said it left me.

But I don't think the Republican Party ever left.

I think it just kind of got, I think it just kind of got it's got the vocal the vocal part of the party got in control.

part of the party got in control Where the Republican Party is still there, I think we still believe in less government or, you know, controlled government.

The lightest touch.

I think we still believe in fiscal responsibility.

But we don't believe in not spending any money.

We have roads we need to take care of.

We have schools that we need to fund.

We have public safety that we need to have.

I mean, does somebody want to not have the policemen out there when you have a wreck on the highway?

I mean, things like that that people don't understand and people are reengaging on this issue.

And I think you're going to see that in the precinct committee races across the state.

Davlin: Representative Stephanie Mickelsen, thanks so much for jo Davlin: Two weeks ago, the Idaho Republican Party held a statewide caucus to select their presidential nominee.

Here to discuss the caucus and other issues is Idaho Republican Party Chairwoman Dorothy Moon.

Chairwoman Moon, thank you so much for joining us today.

How do you think the caucus went?

Dorothy Moon: Well, Melissa, first of all, thanks for having me here.

I'm excited to be in studio.

I think the caucus went great.

Contrary to some of the reports, I have seen nothing but thankful emails and letters and phone calls that they really enjoyed the social aspect of it, where people can actually get with community members and talk about the candidates or talk about other political issues.

And every one of them had a different flavor.

There's 976 precincts in this state, but there were 210 locations statewide.

And some locations would have maybe 20 precincts represented.

Some might just have one.

And anyway, every one was a different size, some large, some small.

But they moved fast because this was a firehouse caucus, very different from the one in 2012.

Davlin: There was some confusion over the end time.

And, you know, I spoke to a precinct committeeman who said that each of the 210 sites had their, had local control on when to end the caucus, but that resulted in some confusion.

I know when I was leaving, there were still people showing up in the parking lot who were really disappointed because they were hoping to vote for, every one of them, Donald Trump.

Moon: Sure.

Davlin: Is that something that you want to change for next time?

Moon: You know, live and learn.

I was there for the 2012 caucus, which was very different, because you were locked in until you came up with a 50% plus 1 and I was in Chalice at the time.

But, you know, there are things that you learn.

Now, a firehouse caucus, we knew we had a very short window to prepare for a statewide presidential preference caucus, and we had to make sure that we had all of the components in order of getting the ballots printed on getting the poll books printed, the list of registered voters at the end of the year that we were using to make those poll books.

So, you know, we had a lot to do in a very short amount of time and the firehouse caucus made the most sense.

We could have had a convention which would have allowed a little over 700 people only to vote for a presidential choice.

And we knew the citizens of Idaho had already been disenfranchized with the passage of HB138 last year, and this was the best fix for that issue.

Davlin: That was the bill that got rid of the presidential primary.

Moon: Correct.

Davlin: For those who weren't familiar.

Were you expecting the 7% turnout?

Moon: I was hoping for more.

10% is what the 2012 caucus produced.

We had quite a few issues on March 2nd.

We had the issue with a huge snowstorm.

And actually we had someone put out a map demographically for each county with blue and red.

And blue is where there was light turnout and red, of course, higher.

So in southeast Idaho, they had a couple of feet of snow dumped on them over a two day window, as well as Rocky Mountain Power went completely out in Idaho Falls and Rexburg.

So people were calling, Are we still having a caucus caucus with the power out?

And of course, well, yes, they're paper ballots.

You just have to mark one time and you can place it in a ballot box.

So that was very light turnout on the east side of the state.

But then also like Valley County, higher elevations, because of snow, had a lighter turnout.

Davlin: In the future other than, you know, maybe a unified close date, what would you do differently?

Moon: Of course, the absentee ballot issue was an issue.

If there is, we can determine some mechanism to where we could put out ballots earlier, of course, there's always going to be problems even with that.

Who did we leave out?

We did have a lot of areas that would allow people who needed to do curbside voting.

Some caucus locations actually had them run out with the poll book and take care of those folks.

Everybody tried to handle every situation to the best of their ability.

And, you know, we can just try to strive and make sure that in time we have a better situation on that.

But again, what I just told you, we had very small locations and large locations, but a fire House caucus is just that.

It moves fast and it did move fast even at the ones that had 18,000 Republicans were at least 3,000 to 4,000 showed up.

Davlin: There are currently a couple bills that would deal with a presidential primary establishing either a presidential preference vote during the May primary or creating a new date in April.

I wanted to get your thoughts on those bills that are currently in the legislature.

Moon: Well, first of all, it's not my decision.

It's the decision of the state central Committee.

And last year in Chalice after the loss of our presidential primary in its entirety, the state Central Committee voted to either do a convention or to do the caucus.

They decided on the caucus, and the wording in our rules says either give us back the March presidential primary or we caucus.

It was very cut and dry, and that is in our rules.

So I cannot just change the rules now.

Had anyone with the Secretary of State's office liked to have met with the State Central Committee or the legislator who carried these bills and discussed it with the major stakeholder, maybe something could have happened.

But as far as this April date, no opinion on it whatsoever.

According to our rules, we want the March presidential primary back, or we will caucus.

Davlin: Do you anticipate those rules changing now that you've been through that Firehouse caucus and seen the 7% turnout?

Moon: You know, I think most of our members really like the caucus.

And maybe we I mean, we can still caucus even if they choose the April date in four years.

And that's the other big consideration Melissa, why are we talking about this now?

And it's just because it's fresh in everybody's minds.

And some people were irritated at the fact they couldn't get in to their venue because it closed earlier than they expected.

However, you know, we really need to sit down, I think they should pull back on this April one.

I know the one for May coming out of the Senate is not even probably going to go anywhere because it puts an emergency clause to put it on the May legislative ballot.

We've already got our presidential choice.

We don't need to appease people by putting that on there.

But as far as we're concerned, it would be nice if they would just hold off on these.

We have for years.

Four years.

Let's meet, let's have a committee and let the Republican Party state Central Committee meet with anybody who brings any bill forward after today.

Davlin: I wanted to shift gears a little bit.

Earlier in the show, we did have Representative Stephanie Mickelsen from Idaho Falls.

And last week, the Bannock County Republican Party voted to censure her and Senator Kevin Cook.

I wanted to get your take on that.

That came as the result of a rule change, again or, it was a rule change, I think.

Moon: Yes, it was a rule change.

Davlin: From the state Republican Party allowing counties to do this.

Moon: That was Bonneville County.

And Bonneville County, they have their meetings, they make the decisions.

And, you know, there's a lot of autonomy with this rule.

The idea is that if they are not representing that community, and again, Idaho's very different all the way from North Idaho and over to southeast Idaho.

And some things they do tolerate in other places they don't tolerate.

But if they're not following the platform, then a county has the right, or prerogative, to go ahead and try to meet with that legislator and say, well, why did you vote this way?

But my understanding is she hasn't even met with the committee, and that's about all I know.

I've been busy right now canvasing our caucus ballots, and so we've been pretty preoccupied with that.

Davlin: You know, the Republican Party is a private organization and can set its own rules and hold these hearings.

But taking a step back from the positions and actions of elected officials, what would you say to voters who identify as Republican, who support these candidates and in some cases have for years, are if they see the central committees and the county parties doing this?

Are you worried that they're not going to feel welcome in the Republican Party if the candidates that they support and they actively vote for are being censured in this way?

Moon: Well, I think the main thing is that you know, I made no bones about it when I took up the gavel is that we want to make sure that our Republicans adhere to the platform and not necessarily 100%, but a majority of it, and honor our Idaho and US Constitution.

If somebody has been supporting a candidate without really knowing their voting record, to me, that's kind of unfortunate.

I definitely would love to see a more informed electorate who actually does track how their legislators vote.

But again, that may not be the case.

They might be friends who, you know, just go and work out together.

But the fact of the matter is votes matter and that's your indicator of how you should go if they're going your way or not, or if you think they should vote a different way, you need to speak to them.

But, you know, you've got to remember that these central committees are voted in by the precinct committeeman, 976 of them.

So they have been elevated to that position to make these decisions.

And it is a private organization and they need to follow the rules or at least have some semblance of voting with the Republicans through the legislative year.

And sometimes they don't.

And so that's why these counties have been calling them out.

Davlin: But, very briefly, would you welcome those voters who support their voting record, who look at it and say, you know what, I'm with that.

I agree with it.

Moon: Well, sure.

I mean, that might just be one issue.

It might be one issue, but maybe they still want property tax relief or grocery sales tax exemption.

So.

You bet.

Davlin: And we are going to have to leave it there.

Chairwoman Moon, thank you so much for joining us this week.

And thank you for watching.

Keep up with us online at IdahoReports.org We'll see you here next week.

Narrator: Presentation of Idaho Reports on Idaho Public television is made possible through the generous support of the Laura Moore Cunningham Foundation, committed to fulfilling the Moore and Bettis family legacy of building the great state of Idaho.

By the Friends of Idaho Public Television and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.