Hopefully the next election cycle the Dems can field a competitive candidate for Idaho Secretary of State. Our current one, Ben Ysursa, is biased in favor of his party and is improperly helping it. I can understand bias, but not lying to voters.
The Sec of State's web site lists this mission statement:
An example of Ysursa's bias can clearly be seen in the wording of the Advisory vote, which reads
Our mission is to serve the citizens and business community of Idaho by overseeing the election process, facilitating business activity, and providing timely and accurate information.
Should the State of Idaho keep the property tax relief adopted in August 2006, reducing property taxes by approximately $260 milion and protecting funding for public schools by keeping the sales tax at 6%?Let's unpack this a bit. First, the phrase "protecting funding for public schools" is an egregious example of sloganeering. Whether the funding was "protected" is disputed, since funding based on sales tax is variable and will fluctuate. This is just promoting Risch's talking point.
The worst part is the outright lie "keeping the sales tax at 6%". The bill raised the sales tax one percent. I don't think the Sec of State ought to place misleading and downright false info on the ballot, especially since his mission is to provide accurate information. How about this wording?
Do you approve of the law that removed school funding from property taxes and replaced it with a one percent increase in the sales tax?
Update: See comments. The language was mandated by the legislature, and it's not clear to me whether Ysursa could do anything about it.
7 comments:
That wording is NOT Ysursa's, and he had NOTHING to do with it.
That wording was specified by the Legislature when they passed H0001.
As far as I know, the Executive (in this case the Secretary of State) is not allowed to change the wording that the Legislature specified.
I don't know about Ben's personal politics, but in his elected capacity, he's about the most non-partisan official I know of...
You are correct; that bill required the specific language listed. The true test will be is Ysursa includes explanatory language on the ballot explaining that the language was part of a partisan bill, passed on a party line vote, and contains the lie that it keeps the sales tax at 6% rather than raising it.
Won't happen...
1) There is no explanatory language on the ballot, and
2) I believe that separation of powers would prevent the Executive (Sec'y of State) from editorializing on a bill passed by the Legislature, in any case.
You're tilting at the wrong windmill, here...
It may be a windmill, but I've not given up yet.
Check out the Voter pamphlet, http://www.sos.idaho.gov/elect/inits/06_ID_voters_pamphlet.pdf page 14. You'll scroll past a bunch of explanations and arguments until you get to the advisory vote. It stand alone, worded as in the statute, no explanation, arguments or reasons.
This statute was drafted by the Gov, approved by the legislature and signed by the Gov. I don't know that it would violate the separation of powers. It might, I guess.
Just saying that the righteous anger about the egregious wording - which is perfectly appropriate, in my view - should justly be applied to the liars that actually foisted this on the people: the Republican Legislature.
Ysursa's just following the law. Not saying he is, or isn't, a political saint, just that he's a bystander on this one...
I think we've pretty much achieved agreement. I would like Ysursa to have done more to educate on the misleading language, but I'm not sure he could. (Also not completely sure he couldn't, just have exhausted my interest in this windmill.)
Ben's a decent guy.
Post a Comment