It appears activists have the signatures they need to place a measure on the Idaho ballot this fall that would make significant changes to Idaho's election system.
Supporters of the measure to adopt Ranked Choice Voting and open primaries submitted their initiative to the Secretary of State in June. There were questions then, and even more questions now.
Idaho's Secretary of State Phil McGrane has sent legislators a detailed memo on the implementation of such a drastic change in Idaho elections.
As McGrane notes, opening primaries would have little impact in either cost or counting of votes. But the RCV part of the ballot measure is much more difficult, specifically because of the vote tabulation systems currently in place.
The convoluted and controversial system would require voters to rank candidates in their order of preference. Votes would be counted in rounds, as the candidate with the fewest votes would be eliminated, and those votes would be transferred to the second choice. If voters only chose one candidate, their vote could be tossed out.
McGrane notes:
"Transitioning vote tabulation systems would be a very significant undertaking. Each county determines what system best fits its requirements and purchases the equipment needed. Without a competitive request for proposal process, it is not easy to estimate the cost of replacing our tabulation equipment. Our office has contacted other states to try. Still, there are too many differences between states to reliably predict what this might cost in Idaho. However, based on previous purchases made by counties, it would likely cost at least $25M to $40M dollars to replace the existing equipment throughout the state."
Furthermore, the Secretary of State warns that RCV could cause delays in the counting process.
"The final consideration regarding tabulation is the coordination between counties. Currently, each county conducts and tabulates its election results and then uploads the final results to the state election night results reporting tool. In order to process the multiple rounds of vote tabulation required by the proposed Instant Runoff Voting process, ballots would have to be centrally aggregated and processed, or ballot image information would have to be electronically shared to tabulate races that cross county lines. To establish the candidate receiving the fewest votes and subsequently eliminated in a round of tabulation, all the votes from each county involved need to be aggregated to ensure the same candidate is eliminated across all involved counties.
During the 2024 legislative session, we added a new provision to Idaho’s voting system specifications prohibiting these machines from being connected to the Internet. This change is considered an industry best practice for security purposes and was recommended by an industry expert. This change also likely prevents counties from sharing the needed information electronically. As a result, we would need to develop a procedure to centralize the information required to process the multiple rounds of tabulation. This can be done, but it will take longer to produce initial election results (i.e., it will take longer for the public and candidates to know the winners of races)."
Would voters have signed the initiative knowing it could cost $40 million to implement? It's hard to say. But as Secretary McGrane notes, "I recommend a statutory change to allow the fiscal impact statement to be amended with new information on future petitions after the completed petitions are filed with the Secretary of State, but before the question is added to the voter pamphlet and goes to voters. This would add greater transparency to the process, and a letter such as this may have been avoided."
While open primaries is a policy decision that can be debated, including RCV in the measure makes it not only convoluted but also presents major headaches for supporters and voters.
Article 3, Section 16 of the Idaho State Constitution makes it clear that “every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith.” Several years ago, lawmakers amended state law to require ballot initiatives only address a single subject.
The reasoning here is simple: to ensure that it is easy to interpret voter intent. If a measure has multiple subjects, it is difficult to know what voters may have been approving or rejecting.
A single subject rule is not unusual. Of the states that allow for a citizen-initiated ballot measure, more than half have single-subject rules.
Montana’s Supreme Court recently cited single subject requirements to strike down an initiative that would have capped yearly property tax increases but would have also capped the taxable value.
South Dakota’s Supreme Court did the same, ruling a voter-approved initiative legalizing marijuana was unconstitutional because recreational marijuana, medical marijuana and hemp were three different subjects.
Single subject rules also exist to clarify actions of legislatures. In fact, 43 state constitutions contain single subject requirements for legislation. Mississippi and Arkansas apply the requirement to just spending bills.
Supporters of the election ballot initiative say it will give Idahoans “more freedom and better leadership.” Whether that is true is ultimately up to voters to decide.
But with two distinct subjects, it will be more difficult to try to determine and implement their real intent.
As it currently stands, are voters supporting open primaries or ranked choice voting with the ballot measure? They are two very different things. By linking the subjects together, voters are being denied the opportunity to support one or the other - something single subject restrictions are designed to prevent.
It is a near certainty the ballot measure will be challenged in court.
Both Washington's (Steve Hobbs) and Montana's (Christi Jacobsen) Secretary of State have spoken out against ranked choice voting, with Hobbs saying "ranked-choice voting adds a layer of complexity to voting that threatens to disenfranchise people who aren’t experts at the process."