Managing Editor: This voter guide was created by Daniel Foucachon. Here is his website. CrossPolitic’s interview with Bill Goesling can be found here. They also discuss Proposition 1 and Proposition 2.

Preface

Our opinion is that principles should come before party. But because the principles we hold dear tend to be the Judeo-Christian, constitutional, pro-family, and restrained-government principles, which are formally cherished by one party and formally belittled by the other party, we find ourselves voting along party lines this year, with varying degrees of reservation. Here’s a link to the Idaho GOP 2018 Platform, and a link to the Idaho Democrat’s list of “Demands” if you care to see what we mean.

With that in mind, here are our notes on the Idaho Ballot (as found in District 5).
Click HERE for a sample ballot.

Sincerely,
Daniel Foucachon and Caleb Bouma

First District: Russ Fulcher

We heartily endorse Russ Fulcher! He is a particularly good candidate in our opinion. He is a true conservative with a good track record. When Obamacare was being implemented a few years ago, in order to fully cooperate states had to establish a state exchange. Other Republican states refused to cooperate, but here in Idaho most of the leadership deceived the public by claiming that establishing a state exchange gave us maximum control over it in Idaho. Russ Fulcher fought this, laying his career on the line in the process. He did not compromise the truth, but sacrificed his political career by going against the rest of those in leadership in the Senate, House, and executive branch offices.

Governor: Brad Little

While we have concerns about the consistency of Brad Little’s conservatism and wish he had more “backbone”, Brad Little as Governor will be MUCH better for Idaho than the socialist democrat running against him, Paulette Jordan! Due to the degree we believe Paulette’s principles would harm Idaho, we don’t think it’s the time to even consider the two alternatives, who do not have any realistic chance at winning. Paulette Jordan is running a very slick, highly funded (Soros, Al Gore) campaign. She’s targeting Republicans with deceptive Facebook Ads. She’s extremely liberal, but has the “female, Native American” card which she plays strong. Featured a few times by CNN (front page). Suspicions of a Presidential bid in future. Let’s stop her in Idaho.

Lieutenant Governor: Janice McGeachin

We consider Janice to be a very solid conservative. Janice proved her mettle years ago in the battle to stop politicized medicine (Obamacare) from entering Idaho. She, like Russ Fulcher took an honest stand against it.

District 5 Senate: Dan D. Foreman

Dan has done exactly what he said he would do in the Idaho Senate, and that is stand for life, lower taxes and regulation, and has refused to vote for spending that cannot be justified. We wholeheartedly recommend Dan Foreman. He is the most consistent pro-life candidate we’ve had in a long time, and unwavering in his conservatism. Not always “political,” which gets him in trouble with liberals seeking to discredit him.

District 5 State Representative Seat A: Bill Goesling

We somewhat reluctantly endorse Bill Goesling, a Republican who seems to favor liberal ideas that lead to big governments and unchecked spending in education and healthcare. If surrounded by good Republicans, we believe he will most often vote along party lines, meaning this is a better option than Gannon.

District 5 State Representative Seat B: Caroline Troy

We recommend Caroline Nilsson Troy. Troy is an independent thinker, reads bills, and considers them thoughtfully. She won’t always vote along party lines, which has resulted in some votes we have historically disagreed with, but is a conservative whom we believe deeply cares for District 5 (Latah and Benewah County), and will represent us well. Even where there might be a disagreement over a vote, we respect her position due to the way she approaches the issues thoughtfully.

Latah County Treasurer: Peggy Gottschalk

Peggy is in our opinion the best qualified for the position. She has been a solid contributor at the grass roots level for years in the local party as well and is honest, hardworking, humble, and dependable. We warmly encourage you to vote for her.

Secretary of State: Lawerence E. Denney

Attorney General: Lawrence Wasden

Superintendent of Public Education: Sherri Ybarra

County Commissioner First District: Tony R. Johnson

Tony Johnson is a long-time local, displays a true love for Latah county, is ready and eager to serve, and is generally against increasing spending.

County Commissioner Third District: David McGraw

David McGraw is a good manager with lots of business management experience. Moderately conservative, thoughtful, and engaged.

County Assessor: Annette Bieghler

Annette Bieglher is known to be a good manager (previously co-owner of La Madrid), and has managed a lot of people.

Second Judicial District Court: John Judge.

Yes, retain John Judge. He is known to be a good, fair-minded, sensible judge.

Proposition One

We recommend NO on Proposition One.
While we would generally opt for the more libertarian approach of “less regulation,” this is complicated by the fact that it is essentially another form of State Lottery. Horse racing (and even private betting) is already legal in Idaho. Prop 1 would make the State of Idaho “the house,” meaning that there is a perverse incentive (especially since proceeds have desirable aims like improving schools) to increase mere gambling. This is not about “historic horse racing.” More gambling equals more state funds. The public treasury will then depend on those funds, and encourage more gambling. Therefore we are most concerned with the precise element of Proposition One that those in favor hold as its greatest virtue, namely that it will fund the state coffers through an act not in accord with a people growing in virtue and wisdom. Therefore we recommend a NO vote.
Bill Goesling made some good comments on why he opposes Proposition One on The CrossPolitic Show and Podcast.

Proposition Two

We recommend a NO vote on Proposition Two.
While we recommend “no,” we acknowledge that this is not straightforward, and is certainly a complicated, delicate, and messy issue. People often have true needs that are not met, and the price of insurance is often overwhelming. Much reform is needed, but we don’t believe that should come in the form of expanding Medicaid.
There are a number of reasons we recommend no:

1. We believe that it is not the role of government to provide charity through coercion in the form of taxation (Exodus 20:15). Churches and other private charity are more appropriate and effective. We also believe that government aid weakens the far more potent ability to help those in need that family and community provide.
2. We believe that since some of the funding from expanding Medicaid would come from Federal coffers, that this will make Idaho more dependent on the Federal government. No Federal dollars come without strings. Idaho would, therefore, be less free.
3. There is no limit set on how much this will cost the State of Idaho. This has the potential to hurt the Idaho taxpayer in ways we can’t even measure at present.

School Levy

We recommend NO on the School Levy.
While we do hear reports of schools being in serious disrepair, we don’t believe more money will fix the issue. The Latah County schools are costing more and more per student. Rounding slightly, it currently costs $12,000 to fund a single student per year in Latah county. High-quality private instruction is approximately half that cost in Latah County. When a private institution needs repair beyond their yearly tuition revenue, they frequently pursue private fundraising, which has proven effective. Furthermore, a growing percentage of Latah County residents do not even use the local public schools, opting instead to pursue private or home education. Such a levy will have a noticeable effect on every resident’s property taxes. Student rents will rise and struggling families will have to set aside more money each year to pay taxes, while fewer residents use the public schools.
We therefore recommend “No” on the school levy. More money is not the answer. Better management and honest assessment of the public school situation is a better answer to the issues.