Why "Cross-over" voting in a primary is a legitimate practice

One of the candidates who recently sent in his response to our questionnaire added a note at the bottom that says this: "Your Vol. 47 No. 2 Page 1 [IPEA's newsletter] was very offensive to any person who is running for office.  People must stand for correct principles and vote accordingly. Cross-over voting should be made illegal!!!" 

Its ironic that in this case he would benefit if people follow our advice and vote in the primary based on issues that are important to IPEA.  He is running as a Republican, and his positions are much more favorable to IPEA than his incumbent rival, and there is no opponent to the Republican in the general.  Those people who would like to vote for a Democrat will not have that choice in the general, so they need to vote for the Republican who supports more of their issues in the primary election.  And in this case, he's it! 

This "cross-over" voting argument has apparently disturbed some candidates.  In fact, I will be doing an interview on right-leaning talk radio in eastern Idaho on Wednesday at noon because this radio host saw the newsletter.  He thinks "cross-over" voting is unethical. That candidate and radio host are both wrong.  

What they think of as "cross-over" voting is when you vote in the primary of the other party (the one you don't like) in order to sabotage an election.  That's not what we were advocating.  But even if we were, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  IPEA was encouraging "strategic" voting. For instance, if you normally vote Republican but you live in a Democrat leaning District, and there is a contested primary in the Democratic party, you could "cross over" and vote in the Democratic primary for the candidate you feel would best address your issues if that candidate is elected in the general election.  Then you can still vote for the Republican in the general election, but if your guy loses, at least you have the Democrat that most closely fits your views.  

Neither strategic voting OR cross-over voting are unethical and should not be illegal, and here is why:

Each of us has one vote.  The purpose of our vote is to influence the outcome of an election in order to elect the person we want for the job.  That vote is ours to use as we see fit.  If you want to use your vote to influence a primary, then you should absolutely use your vote in that way.  It's all you have.  It's not only NOT unethical or illegal, it is your PATRIOTIC DUTY.  So don't let anyone tell you otherwise.  

And here's a note to the Republican party in Idaho.  There is a move in the party to close the primary.  This would mean that you would have to register as either a Republican or a Democrat to vote in the primary.  They seem to think this would stop "cross-over" or "strategic" voting.  They are wrong.  Even in a closed primary, all you have to do is register for the party so you can vote in their primary, then you can still vote for the other party in the general if you want.

The Republican party would hurt itself by closing the primary because this will disenfranchise the independent voters who are not afraid to cross party lines to elect the right candidate for the job. And the number of independent voters is growing in Idaho as well as everywhere else in the country, and the last thing either party should do is discourage them from participating in the primary process. If you consider yourself to be an Independent, this move from the Republican party should offend you.

IPEA's Political Action

I received a letter in the mail criticizing IPEA's recent newsletter, but the writer didn't sign it so I can't reply directly.  I don't know if this letter was from a member or someone else who read our newsletter. I sent a copy to all candidates for the Idaho legislature.  For that reason, I'm addressing the letter here.    

The letter said "I find it somewhat disturbing that you would ... criticize the Republicans in the Idaho Legislature".  Here's a link to IPEA's  Political Action Statement.  Please make a special note of #5. IPEA focuses on issues, not parties. The letter accuses us of "bashing" Republicans, but it is a reality that the Republicans in the Idaho House of Representatives moved in lockstep to kill the PERSI retiree's COLA in the last session.  We criticized them because of their actions on this issue, not because they are Republicans. We sang the praises of Sen. Andreason for stopping the legislation.  Sen. Andreason is a Republican.

The letter asks "Have you been told that the Republicans force them to vote the party line?"  Yes.  Republicans are often strong-armed by the majority party leadership to vote the party line.  Some of them lean towards supporting our issues, only to withdraw support after the majority party leadership puts the screws to them. That doesn't mean we should give them a pass. We wish more Republican legislators had the courage to stand up to party leadership. When Sen. Cameron, a Republican, stood up to Mr. Gwartney, we sang his praises as well. 

The letter said we "add fuel to the argument for Republicans to close the primary election".  That may be true.  But even if that happened, it wouldn't stop someone from registering and voting as a Republican in the primary and then voting differently in the general election.

The letter says "It appears that you only contact Democrats, except for Rep. Trail and Sen. Andreason, to carry your legislation.  Have you tried working with any Republicans on any legislation?"  The answer to that is an emphatic "YES!"  IPEA staff and volunteers spend far more time lobbying Republicans than we do Democrats.  We know that in a legislature controlled by one party, that's what we need to do.   

So here's a challenge to the writer of that letter and to all of you:  If you are a member, please attend IPEA's General Council on May 8 in Boise.  You can voice your opinion on how we should move forward.  This is a much more effective way to influence IPEA's policy than an anonymous letter.  Here's a registration form:  http://www.ipeaonline.org/Registration.pdf

How did we get in this mess, anyway? It's not just the recession.

There's a article in Friday's Idaho Statesman about the sorry state of affairs for Health and Welfare .  This comes on the heels of the many stories about the sorry state of affairs for public schools.  I was asked by an IPEA member yesterday whether this budget crisis is real or if the legislators are lying to us.  And, she went on, if it is real, whose fault is it?  


The budget crisis is truly real.  Revenues are way down.  But whose fault is it, anyway? First, its not the fault of the feds.  In fact, if it weren't for the federal government, our state budget would be in far worse shape than it is due to the federal stimulus money that we have received.  


So let's blame Governor Otter.  Well, he surely deserves some blame.  And let's blame the state legislators.  Many of them also deserve some of the blame. 


But, I'm sorry to say, a large share of the blame lays squarely on the shoulders of the Idaho voters, and yes, that means you.  I say that because this crisis was years in the making.  Had we elected Governors and legislators who were interested in a reasonable and fair system of taxation, Idaho would be in a much different position as we faced this recession, and public employees wouldn't be in so much danger of losing their jobs and Idaho citizens wouldn't be at such risk of losing services.  


Instead we have elected people to represent us who have consistently increased the share of the tax burden of the working class and middle class people in Idaho and shifted it off the wealthy people, big business and large landowners.  That's just the way it is.  This didn't happen overnight.  This has been the trend for decades now.  


So those of us who just go to work everyday and get a regular paycheck keep paying property taxes on our modest homes (unless we've lost them), sales tax on everything we buy (including food) and as much state income tax as a person making four or five times what we make.   But when the recession hit, we couldn't handle the entire burden of financing state government by ourselves.  Too many of us have been laid off.  Many of us have our homes in foreclosure and are no longer paying property taxes.  And most of us simply don't have the money to engage in any discretionary spending, so sales tax revenue is way down.  


The only way out of this terrible recession is to revamp our entire tax system to make it more fair.  If the burden were distributed more fairly, we wouldn't be in this mess, and the only way out is to fix it.  But the only way that's going to happen is if the Idaho middle class voters push the legislators to do it and elect others if they won't.  


This year's legislators are nibbling around the edges of the problem, but no one seems willing to take a big bite. For instance, legislation came forward that would require a review of all of the millions of dollars of tax exemptions every five years.  Excuse me, we can't wait five years.  They should just throw them all out, and then make everyone who wants a tax exemption apply again and make their case.  There would be an immediate increase in tax revenue as all those people who were exempted started paying taxes.  The revenue would gradually balance out as legitimate exemptions were awarded again, but it would give us some breathing room and we would end up with a more equitable system in the long run.  


Rep. Shirley Ringo (D) Moscow, had the courage to suggest a temporary surtax for people who made more than $250,000 a year, but most of the legislators wouldn't take that seriously.  And why not?  Excuse me, if you make that much money, you certainly should pay more income tax than someone making $25,000 a year.  


And how about those people with cabins in our most pristine wilderness areas who pay next to nothing in leases for the property that we own?  Why not increase those leases to market value? There is some consideration of this idea.  Let's see where it goes.  


These are just a few examples of what could be done if our elected Idaho lawmakers would get serious and start worrying more about us, the middle class voters, instead of getting reelected.  Hey, maybe if we would stop being complacent and push them a little harder, they would start to realize that the path to reelection may just involve doing what's right for the middle class Idahoan.   

Mr. Gwartney should resign

The issue of PERSI retiree's COLA sure stirred up some interesting stuff at the Idaho legislature.  I hope you have been keeping up on all of the newspaper articles and I hope you're considering finding someone else to send to the legislature in place of a few of the current Republicans in the House of Representatives.  I'll be submitting a "Reader's View" to the Statesman in the next few days in rebuttal to the last justification made by the Republican House leadership.  I'll post the article here when it's written.  Every time we were able to neutralize one of the arguments of the proponents of the bill, they came up with a new one.  This last one is the old standby : "unfunded liability."  I'll disprove that argument as well.  Don't let them fool you.  You are the voters and you have a right to expect your legislators to explain their positions with the truth and not with scare tactics. 


Here's a link to an article in the Idaho Statesman about Mr. Gwartney.  IPEA has long been asking the Governor to do something about Mr. Gwartney, and it's nice to see someone else bring up some concerns.  This article, while lengthy, is worth the read.  IPEA has been complaining to our legislators and to the Governor about Mr. Gwartney for some time, but, for the most part, our complaints have fallen on deaf ears.  Maybe now that the general public can see how costly Mr. Gwartney really is to the state and to the state's taxpayers, Governor Otter will do something about him.  Mr. Gwartney only receives $1 a year from the state for his service, but we contend that firing him and paying a decent salary to a real professional would save the state a lot of money in lawsuits alone, and things in general would operate a lot better. And, as they say, "you get what you pay for."  

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/02/28/1098575/a-cost-cutter-or-kingdom-builder.html

A couple of legislators went on record as to their displeasure with Mr. Gwartney in the article. The article quotes Senator Dean Cameron (R) Rupert, as saying "It is the imperialistic attitude Mr. Gwartney brings to a lot of the projects he does."  But Senator Cameron draws the line at linking the problem with Mr. Gwartney to the Governor.  He said, "I do not lay this blame on the governor. I do not blame him. I lay the blame at Mike Gwartney's feet."  I think he's wrong in that aspect.  Mr. Gwartney is Governor Otter's right hand man.  He appointed him and he supposedly oversees him. If the Governor really doesn't know what Mr. Gwartney is up to, well, he darn well should, and that's a problem in itself.

Senator Kate Kelly, (D) Boise said, "Having worked with a number of directors of the Department of Administration during the years that I have served in state government, it is my observation that the current director manages the agency with less transparency, less stakeholder and public involvement in decision-making, and less respect for legislators and public employees." We agree with that statement wholeheartedly.

Senator Elliott Werk (D) Boise, said, "Mr. Gwartney led the charge to basically disembowel the benefits of the state employees, which aren't as generous as people think they are."  Senator Werk cited Gwartney's cuts to part-time employee benefits that he said "devastated" colleges and universities and Gwartney's "mishandled" attempt to cut retiree medical benefits two years ago.

It's nice to see some of these legislators go on record with their concerns about Mr. Gwartney.  We hope more of them will, and we hope they will all collectively demand Mr. Gwartney's resignation.

Now we know just what Representatives Moyle and Loertscher think of PERSI retirees AND active public employees, BEWARE!

There's an article in the Statesman today that is so illuminating about the way things work at the Capitol during the legislative session.  The article is written by Dan Popkey and it concerns the relationship between the majority party leadership of the Senate and the House, who are apparently at odds now because the Senate chose to stop the action of the House to block PERSI retiree's COLA.  


This validates IPEA's position that we need to replace a few of the Representatives in the upcoming election and it gives more urgency to our call to find good candidates to run against these guys.  IPEA would like to see retired or laid off public employees run for these offices because you know how government works, and when these guys bring up really bad ideas, you would have the arguments to stop them and protect not only public employees, but the Idaho taxpayers.  


To quote Popkey's article, "Moyle [Mike Moyle, Majority Leader] was so mad he wouldn't speak. . .His beef: The Senate caved to state and local government retirees and didn't have the spine to follow through on a leadership plan to kill a 1 percent cost-of-living increase in their pensions."  


Really, Representative Moyle?  That's how you're spinning this?  The Senate "caved" to the 33,000 plus retirees that now will not vote for you and your colleagues in this fall's election?  I wouldn't call that "caving", I'd call that "listening", or maybe "responding" to your constituents.  


Representative Loertscher said the same thing.  Here's a quote from him in Popkey's article:  "You have a few retirees show up out here on the steps of the Capitol and all of a sudden they get their way.  It sends a signal that the way you ply the Legislature is go stand on the steps and holler a little bit and we'll fold up."   Well, IPEA organized that press conference (even though the Statesman keeps saying it was organized by AARP), and we think that's exactly the signal we want to send.  Representative Loertscher, you are a public servant, and its important that you listen to your public, even though it may cause you a little inconvenience or challenge your preconceived idea of the way things should be done.


This cavalier attitude of Representatives Moyle and Loertscher should cause all PERSI members, whether retired or still actively employed, very great concern.  It shows that they simply don't care about public retirees once they have gotten all they can out of them during their years of service.  And if you're an active public employee, you'd better think twice about voting for either of these guys this fall.  


Here's a link to the full article: Idaho Statesman article by Dan Popkey

Our Hero!

Well, we all have our heroes, but today my hero is Senator John Andreason (R) Boise.  Senator Andreason is the Chairman of the Senate Commerce and Human Resources Committee, and he was responsible for killing the legislation to stop the PERSI Cola for retirees.  I know he had some help from a couple of the other Republicans and from the Democrats on the committee, but since the hearing was cancelled and we didn't see a vote, I can't give them credit here even though I'd like to. THANK YOU Senator Andreason! 

Thanks to all of our members and the members of the other organizations who helped by contacting the Senators on the committee.  Your voices were heard!  I know some of them received hundreds of emails and telephone calls.  

This just shows the importance of speaking in a collective voice when we talk to state legislators and when we vote for state legislators.  Having said that, we need more members so we can have an even stronger voice in the future.  I'm pretty sure there are some that will be trying to attack our PERSI plan again next year, but this time they will be trying to change it from a Defined Benefit plan to a Defined Contribution plan.  This is a terrible idea for many different reasons, not the least is that changing the plan over would actually cost the taxpayer more money.  If you want to know more about why that would be a bad idea, contact me donnayule.ipea@gmail.com  

While the majority of our members are state employees, we represent public employees in any sector, so if you work for a county, city, or any other entity that is a PERSI employer, you need to join with us.  Contact IPEA's office if you'd like to have a presentation at your workplace.

Let's use the momentum of our success now to guarantee success in the future

We helped save the COLA for PERSI retirees this time around, but here at IPEA we are concerned that our retirement system will come under attack next year by the House Republicans who voted to pass Representative Lake's legislation in this session. 

IPEA is a nonpartisan organization, but this issue clearly demonstrated to us that the majority of the House Republicans are not going to be friendly to Idaho public employees any time soon.  There are clear exceptions to that rule, though, and there are some who, while not yet voting the way we think they should on all public employee issues, we believe will come around to our way of thinking.  

So I'm encouraging all of you to consider running for local office or helping us to find someone you feel would be a good candidate for local office.  There are enough public employees and public employee retirees in every single district in Idaho to have a strong, determining effect on local elections.  We can either fight these same battles year after year, or we can begin to elect candidates to public office who will have our best interests at heart.  If you or someone you know would make a good state legislator, please contact our office (donnayule.ipea@gmail.com or 800.632.6679) and I'll put you in touch with someone who can help you through the process. Come on now, don't be shy.  I know you're out there.  Let's start being part of the solution! 

But we can't wait long!  The filing period for candidates is March 8 through 19.  Let's find some good candidates (retired public employees, you would make great state legislators!) and get them elected!  

Now I know the task is great, there are 43 out of 70  Representatives we would like to see challenged.  But let's do the math:  We need 36 Representatives on the floor to vote FOR public employee issues.  We now have 27 Representatives who either already vote in favor of our issues, or who we think we can sway in the future.  That means we really only need to replace NINE of the legislators in the following list.  When you think of it that way, it's entirely doable.  

Now, part of the problem is the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives.  I believe they pressured the Representatives who voted for us before they voted against us, to change their votes.  Replacing these people should be our highest priority.  They are:

Speaker of the House: Lawerence Denney, Midvale   District 9

Majority Leader: Mike Moyle, Star                           District 14

Asst Majority Leader: Scott Bedke, Oakley              District 27

Majority Caucus Chair: Ken Roberts, Donnelly          District 8

But we should also find someone to run against at least some of these Representatives:

Eric Anderson, Priest Lake            District 1

George Eskridge, Dover                 District 1

Dick Harwood, St. Maries              District 2

Jim Clark, Hayden                         District 3

Phil Hart, Hayden                          District 3

Marge Chadderdon, Coeur d'Alene  District 4

Frank Henderson, Post Falls          District 5

Bob Nonini, Coeur d'Alene              District 5

Paul Shepherd, Riggins                 District 8

Judy Boyle, Midvale                      District 9

Darrell Bolz, Caldwell                    District 10

Carlos Bilbao, Emmett                  District 11

Steven Thayne, Emmett                District 11

Gary Collins, Nampa                     District 12

Steve Kren, Nampa                       District 13

Brent Crane, Nampa                     District 13

Lynn Luker, Boise                        District 15

Marv Hagedorn, Meridian             District 20

Joe Palmer, Meridian                    District 20

Clifford Bayer, Boise                     District 21

Richard Jarvis, Meridian                District 21

Pete Nielsen, Mountain Home       District 22

Rich Wills, Glenns Ferry               District 22

Stephen Hartgen, Twin Falls          District 23

Jim Patrick, Twin Falls                  District 23

Sharon Block, Twin Falls               District 24

Bert Stevenson, Rupert                  District 26

Fred Wood, Burley                        District 27

Jim Marriott, Blackfoot                   District 28

Dennis Lake, Blackfoot                  District 28

Ken Andrus, Lava Hot Springs        District 29

Marc Gibbs, Grace                        District 31

Thomas Loertscher, Iona                District 31

Janice McGeachin, Idaho Falls       District 32

Russ Mathews, Idaho Falls            District 33

Jeff Thompson, Idaho Falls             District 33

Dell Raybould, Rexburg                 District 34

Mack Shirley, Rexburg                  District 34

Lenore Barrett, Challis                   District 35

If we are not able to get people elected to these offices, we can expect more dirty dealing in the future when it comes to public employee issues.  Let's deal with this problem in the election this fall.