Labrador refiles lawsuit over ballot initiative

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador refiled a lawsuit aimed at quashing a ballot initiative to end closed primary elections on Friday, this time in the Fourth Judicial District. 

The move comes just days after the Idaho Supreme Court rejected a similar petition for failing to file the complaint in a lower court and because it was too early to rule on the measure’s constitutionality.

The initiative, if approved by voters in November, would create a nonpartisan primary election open to all voters in which the top four candidates will move on to the general election, according to the initiative’s website. In the general election, voters could rank their candidates in order of preference. 

Idahoans for Open Primaries collected more than 70,000 signatures in support of the initiative, enough to get it on this year’s ballot. The measure was approved for the ballot by Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane in July. 

Labrador’s lawsuit argues that the “open primaries” description is inaccurate and that Idahoans for Open Primaries obtained signatures fraudulently by concealing the ranked-choice voting part. Labrador’s lawsuit asks the court to throw out the thousands of signatures that have been collected.

In its dismissal of the Republican attorney general’s appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court this month, the justices said any fraud allegations about the signatures would have to first be addressed in the lower courts. The second prong of Labrador’s lawsuit — a claim that the changes to election law would be unconstitutional — could be addressed only if voters enact the measure in November, they ruled.

“The attorney general’s petition 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,” Justice Robyn M. Brody wrote in her opinion. 

The new complaint reflects the court’s guidance, putting Labrador’s allegations of deceptive signature-gathering before a lower court and leaving aside his constitutional contentions. The attorney general’s quick move to follow the court’s direction comes less than three months before voters are set to have their say about the proposal. The Idaho Republican Party has organized against the effort, while some prominent former state leaders, such as former Republican Gov. Butch Otter, have rallied behind it, arguing it would give a wider spectrum of residents a say in choosing their leaders. 

“In reality, the initiative abolishes party primaries and institutes ranked-choice voting in the general election — an unpopular and complicated system that many petition signers did not know was included in the initiative and would not support on its own,” Labrador said in an emailed statement. 

In the lawsuit, Labrador asked the court to declare the signatures collected as null and void, order the initiative withdrawn, attorney’s fees and any other relief the court deems reasonable. Accompanying the lawsuit were motions to speed up the litigation.

“AG Labrador is doing everything in his power to interfere with the election and deny voters a voice,” Luke Mayville, spokesperson for Idahoans for Open Primaries, said in a statement on Saturday. “The people of Idaho, not the Attorney General, will decide in November whether Idaho should restore the right of all voters — including independents — to participate in every taxpayer-funded election.”

 Labrador had said when the initiative was announced that “these bad ideas coming from liberal outside groups” should be defeated, according to previous Statesman reporting. 

The new filing is just one in a sea of legal disputes over the initiative, including a lawsuit last year over Labrador’s proposed titles for the ballot initiative. Even back then, there was disagreement about how to label and describe the type of election system proposed by the initiative. 

In a ruling on last year’s case, the Idaho Supreme Court rejected both Labrador and Idahoans for Open Primaries’ arguments for the terms “open primary” and “nonparty blanket primary” to appear on the ballot, Instead, the court said “top four primary” was the most accurate description, according to previous Statesman reporting.