Ok frankly, I’ve truthfully been dreading writing this year’s voter’s guide, ok?
Maybe that’s overstating it a bit. I’ve looked forward to almost everything. All the down ballot races are exciting and very important. The part I’ve been dreading is the presidential race. Many have postulated that there’s never been a more divisive race than that of Trump vs. Clinton. And that has led to some issues.
I want to start out by saying that this voter’s guide is just that - a guide. Nothing I say or do not say should be taken as gospel and nothing says your vote must be the same as my vote. I put this out there because it’s a way to help others who aren’t hopeless political nerds without a life. I spend a lot of time researching and reading to come up with these suggestions and present them to you with the belief that these are the best options we have.
My purpose in writing this is so that you can have the resources and knowledge you need to make an informed vote based on Biblical and Constitutional principles.
If we disagree on one point or another, that is simply because we are human. And humans make errors. It should not drive a wedge between friends or cause relations to become strained. Instead, it should motivate us to learn, study, and become better people. People who have all the facts, not just the facts we like. People who love our fellow flawed humans so much that we treat them like we would want to be treated. People that cling to Biblical principles no matter what.
If we focus on unchanging principles instead of ever-changing people, we will stay on the right track.
Now, before we get started, you should not be casting a vote unless you understand what is the purpose and proper role of government. Voting is a duty and a responsibility and it should not be done unless you understand what you’re voting for and why. So before we get to the voter’s guide, please check out this article. You’ll thank me later.
Quick Picks:
(Picks marked in BLUE. Scroll down for Detailed Explanations of my picks)
United States Senator
-Ray Writz (CON)
-Mike Crapo (R)
-Jerry Sturgill (D)
U.S. Representative 1st District
-Raul Labrador (R)
-James Piotrowski (D)
State Senator District 1
-Shawn Keough (R)
-Steve Tanner (D)
State Representative District 1 Position A
-Heather Scott (R)
-Kate McAlister (D)
State Representative District 1 Position B
-Stephen Howlett (D)
-Sage Dixon (R)
State Senator District 7
-Carl Crabtree (R)
-Ken Meyers (D)
State Representative District 7 Position A
-Jessica Chilcott (D)
-Priscilla Giddings (R)
State Representative District 7 Position B
-Paul Shepherd (R) - Unopposed
County Commissioner Second District
-Jeff Connolly (R) - Unopposed
County Commissioner Third District
-Dan McDonald (R) - Unopposed
County Sheriff
-Daryl Wheeler (R) - Unopposed
County Prosecuting Attorney
-Louis Marshall (R) - Unopposed
Idaho Supreme Court Justice
-Robyn Brody
-Curt McKenzie
Idaho Constitutional Amendment
-Yes
-No
Detailed Explanations:
United States Senator
-Ray Writz (CON) While I generally agree with positions held by Constitutional candidates, the caliber of the candidates themselves is often less than stellar. I met Mr. Writz briefly and was less than impressed by his ability to communicate. This does not inspire confidence in his ability to either win an election or to get things done if elected.
-Mike Crapo (R) A 0% from NARAL and 0% from Planned Parenthood Action Fund, 100% from National Right to Life, a strong record of protecting the 2nd Amendment, a defender of traditional marriage...and the list goes on. Let’s put this guy back in Washington.
-Jerry Sturgill (D) According to Mr. Sturgill’s website, “wage inequality” is a major concern to him as well as making sure the government forces businesses to pay employees more. Obviously, his understanding of the government’s proper role leaves much to be desired. He received a 0% rating from the NRA, which leads one to believe he can’t be trusted with protecting our 2nd Amendment rights. Also, his website makes no mention whatsoever of his position on life/abortion. This is always concerning when candidates don’t even see this issue as important enough to mention.
U.S. Representative 1st District
-Raul Labrador (R) Rep. Labrador is one of the founding members of the Freedom Caucus that was instrumental is outing Speaker Boehner. This group of conservative representatives has been very active and effective in stopping bad legislation. Rep. Labrador is strongly pro-life and pro-2nd Amendment. He understands the role of government and has shown a dedication to his beliefs.
-James Piotrowski (D) One of his biggest criticisms of Rep. Labrador is the fact that Labrador voted against a spending measure. Let that sink in. Mr. Piotrowski says he is a strong constitutionalist, yet he claims he has always been a Democrat and believes it is the part of individual rights. Anyone who has ever read the Democrat party platform knows that this is very, very far from the truth. The Democrat party is the party of denying the individual rights of unborn children. That right there tells you all you need to know.
State Senator District 1
-Shawn Keough (R) A brief look at Ms. Keough’s voting record is ample evidence of her “un-conservative” convictions. For instance, Senator Keough voted against SB 1165, a bill that outlawed abortions after 20 weeks. She also voted against SB 1387 that requires women to have an ultrasound before having an abortion. She has made claims to being “strongly pro-life,” but as the old saying is - actions speak louder than words. Her votes against these measures that have been proven to reduce the number of abortions is unconscionable. The government’s job is to protect our God-given, inalienable rights and the first of those rights is “life.” If a politician is anti-life, they are anti-liberty and therefore have no business pretending to “protect” our other rights.
The Idaho Freedom Foundation rates candidates based on their votes throughout the session and rates them based on their “Freedom Index”. Senator Keough has consistently scored poorly on every issue from life to the economy. And sadly this year was no different from past years.
-Steve Tanner (D) Sen. Keough is deeply entrenched in Boise. Her liberal views and policies pose almost no threat to the Democrats (and liberal Republicans in name only). As a result, the Democrats have seen no need to present a challenge to her seat since 2004. Steven Tanner, with absolutely no help (or approval) from the Democrat Party, took it upon himself to put up a challenge to Sen. Keough. Mr. Tanner is pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, and pro-small government. His run as a Democrat was a strategic move of necessity due to the fact that Shawn Keough won the Republican primary. As I’ve stated before, voters must always make their decision based on principle, not party.
State Representative District 1 Position A
-Heather Scott (R) My vote would go wholeheartedly go to Representative Scott. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting her and was extremely impressed by her knowledge, passion and vision. She is by far the obvious choice for this office and it is my desperate prayer that she is re-elected. We need people like her in Boise! Her voting track record has been superb and she has fearlessly stood up to the status-quo and been unmoving in her dedication to Idaho’s people and the Constitution.
-Kate McAlister (D) Once again, we find a Democrat who does not even deign to mention the issue of abortion on her own campaign website. It may seem I am harping on this, but it is for good reason. How can you trust a government to protect your rights (its one and only job) when that same government allows the rights of its most vulnerable citizens to be destroyed? Life is the first right. Without it, none of your other rights matter. This is an issue that Democrats will lose on every time and that is exactly why they avoid it by all means necessary. Besides that, Ms. McAlister does not understand the proper role of government as evidenced by her promotion of government as a job creator.
State Representative District 1 Position B
-Stephen Howlett (D) No information regarding this candidate.
-Sage Dixon (R) Mr. Dixon is the obvious choice for this position. He takes strong positions on important issues such as reducing the size of government and protecting individual rights. He is very knowledgeable and argues his positions not by opinion but by what our Constitution actually says. Sage Dixon being in the Idaho House has been a tremendous benefit to all Idahoans. He has remained true to his word and has proven it over and over again that he means what he says.
State Senator District 7
-Carl Crabtree (R) From the limited information I can find on Mr. Crabtree, all I can say is that I am devastated that Sheryl Nuxoll did not win in the primary. Mr. Crabtree website is extremely uninformative and does not list his positions on the issues. I have reached out to him and will update if he provides more information.*
-Ken Meyers (D) Mr. Meyers believes in man-caused global warming, makes no mention of the life issue, the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment, and is apparently quite satisfied with 62% of Idaho’s land being owned by the federal government.
State Representative District 7 Position A
-Jessica Chilcott (D) Here we find another Democrat who makes no mention of the abortion issue. Here we find another Democrat who does not mention the Constitution (the very thing she would potentially swear to uphold). The choice in this race is very, very clear.
-Priscilla Giddings (R) Ms. Giddings background is military and recently she “volunteered as an aide in the Idaho State Senate during the entire 2015 session. She was invited to go to Washington D.C. and help lobby for education programs that countered Planned Parenthood. After the legislative session ended, she accepted a position with U.S. Senator Mike Crapo as his Idaho campaign field director.” Judging from the information on her website, Ms. Giddings understands the proper role of government and the supremacy of the Constitution. She also gets the need to reduce the tax burden on Idaho and the importance of making sure our balanced budget law is followed. I like her stance on opening up Idaho’s lands that are currently federally controlled. I believe Ms. Giddings will provide a fresh perspective in Boise as well as fresh energy behind conservative causes.
State Representative District 7 Position B
-Paul Shepherd (R) - Unopposed
County Commissioner Second District
-Jeff Connolly (R) - Unopposed
County Commissioner Third District
-Dan McDonald (R) - Unopposed
County Sheriff
-Daryl Wheeler (R) - Unopposed Sheriff Wheeler understands the role of a constitutional sheriff and believes strongly in protecting the rights of the citizens of his county. His strong stance on and deep understanding of the 2nd Amendment recommends him highly to the citizens of Bonner County. Though he is technically unopposed, Terry Ford, after losing in the primary election, has mounted a write-in campaign. In other words, there is a challenge in this election, so be sure you vote for Sheriff Wheeler.
County Prosecuting Attorney
-Louis Marshall (R)
Idaho Supreme Court Justice
-Robyn Brody - This race was supposed to be decided in the primary, however thankfully we get another chance to get this very important race right. No one candidate received a majority of the vote so it went to a runoff election in the general.
-Curt McKenzie - Judicial elections can be tough to call since candidates generally steer clear of partisan issues due to the fact that they are required to not run as a member of a certain party. However, “show me your friends and I’ll show you your future” as the saying goes. Mr. McKenzie has received endorsements from Sage Dixon (a strong, conservative constitutionalist), Rush Fulcher, the NRA and (in my opinion, most importantly) Idaho Chooses Life. Mr. McKenzie has made it clear that he understands the Constitution and the proper role of the judiciary is to interpret, not make, law. Mr. McKenzie has served 7 terms in the Idaho Senate, demonstrating that his local constituents who know him best trust and respect him to keep his word.
Idaho Constitutional Amendment HJR 5
-Yes While I was initially skeptical of this proposal, after doing a lot of research and consulting some of the most informed people I know on the subject, I am confident in my “yes” vote. This amendment enshrines an existing power of the legislature to review the rules and regulations proposed by the executive branch. This ensures that the executive branch’s rules and regulations are in line with the spirit of the legislation they are supposed to enforce. The arguments against this amendment appear to not take into account that the legislature already has the authority to do what it is doing and HJR 5 does not grant any more power to the legislature, nor does it take any power from the executive or judiciary. After much research, talking to people smarter than I, and a lot of thought, I believe that this amendment should be passed.
-No
*(Please note, when unsure how to vote, I tend Republican. This is not because I consider myself a Republican, but because the platform of the party lines up closest with what the Founders intended (as reflected in their numerous writings, the Constitution, and other founding documents).)
Thank you, this is very helpful.
ReplyDelete