Gem State Chronicle

Is Prop 1 going down?

Brian Almon — Tue, 20 Oct 2026 22:00:37 GMT

Momentum Grows Against Prop 1

Proponents of abortion in Idaho are convinced they’re on the right side of history. Leftists believe that their agenda is the natural march of progress from barbarism to utopia—it’s right there in the name “progressive.” After abortion initiatives succeeded in Kansas and Ohio—both red states—they believed Idaho was ripe for the picking. Early polls showed majority support for abortion in Idaho, so it seemed that now was the time to make history.

Yet as with ranked choice voting in 2024, proponents of abortion in Idaho might have overreached. Rather than pursuing a very limited expansion of exceptions, and perhaps legalizing abortion up to 12–15 weeks, which might have garnered more support, the authors of the initiative took it upon themselves to completely rewrite Idaho’s laws defending unborn life. The so-called Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act establishes a guaranteed right to what the authors call “reproductive freedom and privacy” with no age limit, and legalizes abortion until viability, which the initiative redefines to mean when a baby can survive without “extraordinary” medical care. Depending on the circumstances, that could be in the eighth or even ninth month of pregnancy.

Even those Idahoans who might have supported a limited expansion of abortion seem to be balking at Prop 1. While there has been little public polling on the issue, prediction markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket have shown a shift in sentiment over the past few weeks. While trends in betting markets don’t guarantee any particular outcome, they can demonstrate what people—people who are willing to put money behind their predictions—believe is going to happen. Jake the Lawyer recently had a good video explaining how prediction markets work and the legal issues surrounding them.

As of this writing, Polymarket shows a 15% chance that Prop 1 passes, after bouncing between 40% and 60% for much of the summer. With two weeks to go until Election Day, bettors are suddenly pessimistic.

Several things happened around the weekend of October 9–12 that likely influenced bettors’ views of this campaign. The Too Extreme for Idaho PAC, which is behind the Stop Prop 1 campaign, reported raising $1.5 million, including $1 million from the LDS Church and another $300,000 from the Catholic Diocese of Boise. October 9 was also the day that the Idaho GOP issued a press release cosigned by nearly all statewide and federal elected officials calling on voters to reject Prop 1. It included a quote from Gov. Brad Little:

“I am voting no on Proposition 1,” Gov. Little said. “It would allow girls under 18 to receive abortion without parental consent, and it would make abortion far more accessible in Idaho. Proposition 1 simply goes too far.”

Around the same time, nearly 100 Idaho physicians signed an open letter defending Idaho’s abortion ban and urging voters to reject Prop 1, and Sen. Brandon Shippy organized an open letter from Idaho lawmakers urging the same thing. As of this writing, that letter had 66 signatories, nearly three-quarters of the Republican caucus.

All of these developments suggest momentum is moving against Prop 1 in Idaho. The same betting markets have shown barely any movement in other big races, such as the U.S. Senate race between Sen. Jim Risch and Todd Achilles or the gubernatorial race between Gov. Little, Democrat Terri Pickens, and independent John Stegner.

One caveat is that none of these Idaho markets have very high trading volume, which means relatively few people are trading contracts based on these predictions. It’s possible for bettors to be wrong, but I’m more interested in the trends. Momentum is everything in politics—voters gravitate toward candidates and causes that look to be winning bets. Right now, the betting markets suggest Prop 1 is heading for defeat.

If Idahoans reject Prop 1, it could be a watershed moment for the pro-life cause. It would show that expanding abortion rights is not inevitable, and that progress doesn’t have to be defined as a permanent leftward shift. Idahoans have the opportunity to show that progress could, in fact, mean greater respect for unborn life, rather than treating it as disposable. But polls, prediction markets, and even momentum mean nothing if you don’t show up to vote. Early voting has started in nearly every Idaho county—if you aren’t sure you can make it to the polling place on November 3, then make a plan to vote early. Generations of Idahoans yet unborn are depending on it!

Feature image by Jeffrey Eisen from Pexels.

Thanks for reading Gem State Chronicle! This post is public so feel free to share it.

I was expecting our fifth baby. One day ago we had surprised my family with news that it was a girl. Tonight I lay in a trauma bay, trying to process the unexpected diagnosis of placental abruption just shy of 18 weeks.
According to the slew of posts I see across news sites and social media campaigns, I should have been fearing for my life because I live in a state with a near-total abortion ban, where obstetric care is (so they say) still in the dark ages. Instead, I found compassionate, competent physicians who took care of me AND my baby. I knew full well that if the bleeding couldn’t be controlled, they were prepared to escalate the interventions (D&E or C-section), but they didn’t jump to a “nuclear” option right away. They followed ACOG guidelines on treatment, and stabilized me while keeping me informed on my baby’s prognosis in a rapidly developing situation. After my body went into pre-term labor, they jumped in with more life-saving care for me to stop the hemorrhage. I received the same medications abortion advocates claim women won’t have access to in abortion-ban states. I delivered a tiny baby girl who reached out her delicate fingers and grabbed my husband’s hand and opened her mouth. She lived 43 minutes. We held her, prayed with her, and treasured every minute of her brief life.
We named her Amal after a great aunt, and we filled out her birth certificate and death certificate on the same day.
Amal died with dignity instead of trauma because of Idaho’s current laws. I was given life-saving, and health-saving care because of Idaho’s current laws.

Article on AI use in politics

Ryan Suppe at Idaho Ed News wrote an interesting article about AI use in politics yesterday. Anyone who reads press releases and political newsletters know that AI tools are used extensively, sometimes entirely replacing human authors. Here at the Gem State Chronicle, I use AI for many things, including editing for grammar and typos, but the words you read here always have their genesis in my own human mind.

Remember that Substack has Pangram built-in, unless the author disables it on a per-article basis. Here’s what it says about what you’re reading now:

I plan to write more about this issue this week, bouncing off Suppe’s work as well as the Legislature’s interim committee on AI in education and the recent report from the Judicial Branch on AI use in courtrooms.

In the meantime, check out the article:

It’s common for high-ranking politicians to task staffers with communicating on their behalf. They write speeches, social media posts, op-eds and press statements. But if those staffers are outsourcing that work to artificial intelligence, it would raise questions around authenticity, transparency and accountability, particularly when machine-generated content isn’t disclosed.
Gov. Brad Little’s office this year published three op-eds that included AI-generated content, according to Pangram and GPTZero, two different commercial AI detectors. Attorney General Raúl Labrador’s office also published three, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Debbie Critchfield’s office had two.
None disclosed that they used artificial intelligence.

Read the whole article

Video of the day

Michael Knowles sits down with Chris Hansen to discuss his career fighting child predators and the recent movie that seems to portray him as the villain:

Have you been catching the Daily Minute? It’s an exclusive publication of the Gem State Chronicle summing up what you need to know, published most every weekday. You can subscribe on YouTube, Facebook, X, and even TikTok!

As always, thank you to sponsors Lynn Bradescu’s Boise Realty, Money Metals, and New Saint Andrews College. Do you want to see more independent journalism and level-headed political analysis in Idaho? Consider supporting the Gem State Chronicle with a paid subscription! I’m working on setting up some new sponsorships, so reach out to me if you want to promote your business on this platform!

Achilles campaign running out of cheap tricks

Brian Almon — Mon, 19 Oct 2026 20:57:47 GMT

I took the weekend almost completely off, spending much of it on a camping trip with one of my sons and some of his classmates. It was great to step away from the world of politics and the internet for a few hours and enjoy nature and fellowship. We did some fishing, some shooting, and woke up to see the sun rise over the river. We had a great time!

As I knocked off other items on my to-do list this morning, I wasn’t sure what I should write about today, then I started hearing about these text messages purporting to support Sen. Jim Risch against Todd Achilles, but which were obviously meant to drive voters away from Risch. To me it seems like the Achilles campaign is desperately throwing anything into the mix to see what sticks as we approach Election Day. I don’t know if the messages were conceived by anyone in the Achilles campaign, but it wouldn’t surprise me, considering some of the other cheap tricks that have been played during this election cycle.

Todd Achilles’ Increasingly Desperate Campaign

On Monday morning, Republicans throughout Idaho received a text message purporting to be from a “Democratic Socialist” endorsing Sen. Jim Risch and claiming he would “advance a national socialist agenda.”

The message did not disclose who paid for it, and I reached out to a member of the Risch team who said they had no clue who sent it. I posted on X that I wouldn’t be surprised if the idea originated somewhere in the vicinity of the Todd Achilles campaign. Even the Boise DSA page on Facebook disavowed the message, calling it “alarming”:

It wouldn’t be the first time that Achilles supporters engaged in a little bit of astroturfing. A few weeks ago, during an interview with Nate Shelman on KBOI radio, a caller identifying himself as “Bob in Eagle” began asking a question, but Shelman recognized him as Matthew Hebb of Unbridled Strategies, which is doing paid work for the Achilles campaign:

Hebb is a political journeyman who came to Idaho a few years ago and briefly served as an Ada County GOP precinct committeeman. He was also a delegate to the Idaho GOP State Convention earlier this year.

Todd Achilles has desperately tried to reinvent himself, working to change his spots from a left-wing Democratic state legislator to an independent (even “conservative”) candidate for Senate. Yet he can’t escape his own record.

Beyond trying to convince voters that the former House Democratic caucus chair is now a principled independent who disagrees with Democrats as much as Republicans, Achilles has been trying to attract attention any way he can. He approached Sen. Risch at a 9/11 memorial event last month while one of his people recorded the encounter on a phone, apparently hoping to instigate some sort of confrontation to drive engagement on social media. When Risch simply shook his hand and moved on, Achilles posted the video anyway, casting the incident as Risch “running away” from him.

The truth is, contrary to the astroturf text message, that Todd Achilles is the closest thing Idaho has to a Democratic socialist. Less than two years ago, Achilles stood alongside Sen. Bernie Sanders and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at a rally in Nampa that was heavily promoted by Idaho Democrats.

Achilles’ choice of staffers is also revealing. His communications director is Crispin Gravatt, who performs as a drag queen under the name Penelope Windsor. Gravatt serves on the City of Boise’s Public Works Commission and previously spent eight years working for the Idaho STEM Action Center. He has also spoken publicly about his efforts to “expand resources to the LGBTQ+ community.” I wouldn’t be surprised to see a Democrat hire a drag queen as comms director, but it’s certainly at odds with the image Achilles is trying to present to unaffiliated voters and disaffected Republicans.

Dirty tricks won’t help Todd Achilles win this race, and neither will one more text message pretending to be conservative. Republican voters in the Treasure Valley know Todd and are well aware of his past positions and associations.

If you really think Achilles has a shot, you can make a fortune on the betting markets. I don’t know if Todd himself has sampled his own Flavor Aid, or if he’s knowingly laying the groundwork for a future campaign. Idaho is expected to gain a third congressional district in 2032, and local Democrats are surely hoping it will be more competitive than our current districts. How soon after he loses on November 3 will Achilles once again register as a Democrat and seek another office to stay relevant in the years to come?

High-profile political campaigns have always featured dirty tricks and mudslinging, so none of this is surprising. I expect Idaho voters to tune out the noise and reelect Sen. Risch by a large margin.

In the meantime, early voting is underway in nearly every Idaho county. Check out this page I put together for the Idaho GOP with early voting information for each county. Make sure to vote this year. It’s important not only to defeat Prop 1 and protect life in Idaho, but also to send a message to Todd Achilles and the people around him that dirty tricks are no substitute for a real conservative record.

Thanks for reading Gem State Chronicle! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Press releases

Video of the day

Post Falls mayor Randy Westlund joined the North Idaho Experience podcast for a wide-ranging discussion on taxes, growth, and where the city goes from here. Great information for anyone concerned about the future of their own hometown.

Dorothy Moon says vote Republican

Brian Almon — Fri, 16 Oct 2026 22:21:12 GMT

I wrote three articles early this week then got busy, but that doesn’t mean news hasn’t stopped. I’ve been keeping on eye on several developing stories, including early and absentee vote numbers, rising healthcare costs in Idaho, and what’s going on with nuclear innovation in Idaho.

Is there anything I haven’t covered that you’d like me to look into? Let me know!

I noticed that former state representative Julie Yamamoto, who already endorsed Todd Achilles against Sen. Jim Risch, and former secretary of state Ben Ysursa, who already endorsed a Democrat for Ada County Commissioner, have now endorsed Lori Hickman against Attorney General Raúl Labrador. It makes you wonder if they ever truly believed in Republican values of faith, family, and freedom, or if they were simply political opportunists for whom the GOP label was the most expedient route to power.

As Nick Freitas said, the primary is the time to punish bad Republicans, while the general is the time to unite against the communists. To that end, check out Idaho GOP chairwoman Dorothy Moon’s column this week calling on voters in battleground districts to vote Republican:

MOON: Four Districts, One Clear Choice

The truth is, Democrats don’t represent the hardworking people of Idaho, for whom faith is real, family is important, and freedom is more than just a buzzword. If they ever had real power in our state, they would take us down the same destructive path as California, Colorado, or Illinois. Democrats in Idaho don’t take their marching orders from the voters, but from Gavin Newsom, AOC, and Hasan Piker.
Absentee ballots are in the mail, and early voting has already started in much of the state. Make a plan to vote, and then vote for men and women who represent you and your values, not those of California or New York. Let’s stay the course and keep Idaho the greatest state in the nation.

Read the whole thing

Today’s releases

Thanks for reading Gem State Chronicle! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Video of the day

Nick Freitas and Jack Posobiec explain what motivates the communist left, how they lay the groundwork for seizing power, and what they do once they get it. A timely warning for the American people:

RINOs among us?

Brian Almon — Wed, 14 Oct 2026 23:02:20 GMT

The Real RINOs Among Us

I’ve said many times that I’m not a fan of the term “RINO”—Republican in name only. It’s deployed far too often during intraparty disputes to describe Republicans who disagree on any number of issues. If you ask some activists, not only is Gov. Brad Little a RINO, but so are House Speaker Mike Moyle, Sen. Brandon Shippy, and even Rep. Heather Scott. One disagreement is often all it takes to earn the RINO label.

There has always been a degree of ideological variety within the Republican Party. While that degree is shrinking, there is still room within the GOP for debate over the best tax rate, the role and scope of government, and how best to manage temperance and morality. Where I believe the RINO label is useful, however, is in identifying current or former Republican elected officials who publicly undermine the party’s own nominees.

A few weeks ago, in writing about Ronald Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment, I said that the primary was the time for Republicans to fight each other, but once the voters have spoken, it’s time to unite against the left. Unfortunately, some Idaho Republicans didn’t get the memo. Over the past few weeks, six current or former elected officials have publicly endorsed candidates running against Republican nominees:

Former Secretary of State Ben Ysursa endorsed Kelceymarie Warner, a candidate for Ada County commissioner running against incumbent Republican Ryan Davidson.
Outgoing state Sen. Jim Woodward endorsed independent candidate Steve Johnson, who is running against Republican Scott Herndon. Herndon defeated Woodward in the May Republican primary.
Former attorneys general Jim Jones and Lawrence Wasden endorsed Democrat Lori Hickman, who is running against incumbent Republican Raúl Labrador. Labrador defeated Wasden in the 2022 primary.
Former state Reps. Scott Syme and Julie Yamamoto endorsed independent candidate (and former Democratic legislator) Todd Achilles for U.S. Senate, running against incumbent Republican Jim Risch.

To be clear, everyone has the right of conscience. Every person, no matter their affiliation or past position, can support whomever they want. However, Idaho Republicans have the right, and I would say the responsibility, to enforce consequences for these decisions. A current or former Republican elected official who has been through the primary process themselves and counted on Republican support in the general election should see their career in the Republican Party come to an end if they endorse a candidate running against a Republican nominee. No more invitations to speak at Lincoln Day Dinners. No more positions of honor at Republican Party events. No more appointments to Republican boards or committees. And, above all, no more song-and-dance routines in which they play the part of “token Republican” for the left-wing news media.

Because that is what a lot of these endorsements are about. They’re meant to add impact to a campaign by having a known Republican endorse an independent or a Democrat, making voters believe that there must be something exceptionally wrong with the Republican nominee. Jim Jones has made a new career over the past few years as the token Republican supporting Democratic candidates or causes, and he, Syme, and Ysursa all endorsed Democrat Tom Arkoosh against Labrador in 2022. This most recent round of endorsements doesn’t really carry the weight they might have wanted. Were these six Republicans motivated by political concerns, or has it always been personal?

Ysursa, Woodward, Jones, Wasden, Syme, and Yamamoto each benefited from Idaho GOP support in the past, and presumably at the time they expected Republicans to unite behind them following the primary. While having once won office as a Republican certainly doesn’t obligate someone to forever support Republicans in the future, actively opposing a Republican nominee shows that they are no longer part of the team and should not be treated as such. It also calls into question how much they really believed what they said while on the campaign trail themselves. Were these Republicans really as pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax, and anti-regulation as they once claimed? Or was it always about political power, first and foremost, with ideology merely a costume for the campaign?

At the 2025 Idaho GOP Winter Meeting, the state central committee voted to censure a Republican precinct committeeman who had taken a leading role in campaigning for ranked choice voting, contrary to the party’s position. As a member of the state central committee, I voted in favor of the censure, despite knowing it was merely words, because I felt it was important for the party to establish ground rules for those who carry its banner. An NFL team would be well within its rights to discipline a player or coach who gave material support to its opponents, such as sharing its playbook or even just expressing support. Nations at war exact harsh justice against those who give aid and comfort to the enemy. Partisan politics falls somewhere between those two examples, and I think it’s appropriate for a party to establish consequences for campaigning against its own nominees.

After all, the primary is how we as a party select our champions. Ysursa, Woodward, Jones, Wasden, Syme, and Yamamoto aren’t just opposing Republican nominees; they are spitting in the faces of the Republican voters who chose those nominees. They’re essentially saying that the primary process is pointless, that it’s only useful to them if it results in their favored outcomes. An organization cannot survive if it allows such treachery to become routine.

In the privacy of the polling place, your vote is your vote. If you don’t believe that the Republican nominee is the right man or woman for the job, then you have every right to vote for someone else or leave that race blank. But that’s a far cry from former Republican elected officials who enjoyed the support of the Republican infrastructure when they were on the ballot are today using their cachet to campaign against Republican nominees. To me, that is the definition of a RINO—a Republican in name only—someone who uses the party label when it suits them but then stabs the party in the back the moment it doesn’t.

Feature image created with ChatGPT.

Thanks for reading Gem State Chronicle! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Video of the day

Nick Freitas and Christian Heiens break down the investigation into Minnesota congresswoman Ilhan Omar. Is there a chance she gets denaturalized and deported?

What’s up with absentee voting?

Brian Almon — Tue, 13 Oct 2026 22:04:03 GMT

Everything You Want to Know About Mail-In Voting

Early voting started this morning in several Idaho counties. Yet some voters cast their ballots days or even weeks ago. According to the Secretary of State’s absentee ballot dashboard, approximately 127,500 absentee ballots have been issued to Idaho voters, with 35,797 returned thus far, a 28% return rate. The total number of absentee ballots issued is lagging behind 2024 numbers but is ahead of 2022, the previous midterm election.

Breaking those numbers down by party, registered Republicans have been issued 74,311 absentee ballots and returned 20,179, for a return rate of 27.2%, just below the overall average. Democrats have been issued 24,804 and returned 8,538, a 34.4% return rate, while unaffiliated voters have been issued 25,016 and returned 6,724, or 26.9%.

As of this month, Republicans make up 62.5% of all registered voters in Idaho, with unaffiliated voters accounting for 24% and Democrats just under 12%. However, the breakdown of absentee ballots issued is 59.5% Republican, 20% Democrat, and 20% unaffiliated. The share of absentee ballots thus far returned is 56.5% Republican, 24% Democrat, and 19% unaffiliated.

Note that these numbers are a snapshot in time. Check the Secretary of State’s dashboard for the latest data.

My sense is that conservative Republicans have long eschewed voting by mail, especially after so many questions arose from the 2020 presidential election, but followed President Trump’s lead in 2024 when he encouraged his supporters to vote early or by mail. Cliff Maloney, CEO of Citizens Alliance, predicted that if Republicans could reach a 33% absentee vote threshold in Pennsylvania, President Trump would win the state. They just barely hit that number, and Trump went on to win Pennsylvania and the presidency.

Yet many conservatives remain skeptical of mail-in voting, and rightly so, in my opinion. Unlike in-person voting, whether early or on Election Day, mailed ballots pass through more hands, creating additional potential points of failure. When the American Postal Workers Union and National Association of Letter Carriers both endorsed Joe Biden for president in 2020, it created even more concern among Republicans about whether their ballots would be properly handled.

Earlier this month, the Idaho GOP sent absentee ballot request forms to Republican voters throughout the state. I noticed some outrage from conservatives on social media, characterizing the move as using the enemy’s tools and giving up on election integrity. I saw things differently, however, posting on X that it was a “brilliant play” by the state party.

Anyone who refuses to use legal and legitimate tools to win, whether we’re talking football, politics, or war, deserves to lose. How many Republican voters who support our candidates and oppose Prop 1 might otherwise not bother voting, but could be persuaded to request an absentee ballot this way? While I currently handle communications and social media for the Idaho GOP, I was not involved in the absentee ballot request campaign.

Even if election integrity is your number one issue, we cannot change current policy without first gaining a critical mass in the Legislature. Several attempts to curtail no-excuse absentee voting have failed over the past few years. There simply aren’t enough lawmakers who want to make a change. There are also many citizens who appreciate the convenience of voting by mail, and vehemently oppose efforts to make it more difficult.

It turns out that mail-in voting has been part of our election system for a long time. In 1970, the Idaho Legislature passed House Bill 555, which authorized no-excuse absentee voting. Idaho Code §34-1001 says:

Any registered elector of the state of Idaho may vote at any election by absentee ballot as herein provided.

The rest of the chapter explains how the absentee voting process is regulated, but for all intents and purposes, Idaho has had a no-excuse absentee voting option for more than half a century. Absentee voting was historically associated with special circumstances, such as military service, travel, old age, or disability, but its use has expanded over the years. Some states, such as Oregon and Washington, conduct their elections almost entirely by mail, requiring a great deal of public trust in the process, especially in two states that haven’t voted Republican at any level of consequence in more than a generation.

The COVID-19 lockdowns in 2020 accelerated the move toward mail-in balloting. Here in Idaho, the 2020 primary was conducted entirely by mail. However, conservatives began pushing back around this time, while many progressives embraced mail-in voting. It became a tribal shibboleth, with some Democrats describing 2020 as the most secure election in history, while some Republicans began to look askance at election systems in general.

While I have pushed back on some of the more extreme claims regarding election security, I am troubled by the way in which mail-in voting separates the voter from the ballot. The bedrock of a republican system of government is the idea that popular will is determined by a vote, and each ballot represents the will of a single eligible voter. That connection is easy to see with in-person voting: a citizen goes to a polling place, checks in, receives a ballot, makes his marks, then casts it in the ballot box.

Mail-in voting makes this much more abstract. States with absentee-only voting create situations where paid partisan actors can go to an apartment complex or nursing home and carry away dozens or even hundreds of ballots, and there’s no way to be sure that they actually represent the will of eligible voters. 2020 put this concept on steroids when many states mailed absentee ballots to every name on their list, while at the same time reducing signature verification measures to almost nil.

Idaho has generally banned ballot harvesting and requires signature verification for returned absentee ballots. Idaho also requires all absentee ballots to be received by election officials by 8 p.m. on Election Day, while states such as California continue counting ballots that arrive days later. Yet these safeguards do little to reassure skeptical voters who have lost trust in the system.

Still, so long as no-excuse absentee voting is the law of the land in Idaho, it makes sense for conservative Republicans to use it to its full extent. We can lament the state of the system all day long, but when it comes down to it, we have to play by the rules on the field.

Three years ago, Mike Lindell debated Matt Braynard regarding early and absentee voting on Tim Pool’s show. I noted at the time how Lindell came across as naive, complaining about the way things were but having no plan to change them. Just over a year after that debate, Donald Trump took back the White House, partly on the strength of Republican get-out-the-vote efforts that emphasized early and absentee voting.

We can and should continue deliberating the best ways to secure our elections. But right now, today, the system is what it is, and if we want our side to win elections, we must play the hand we’ve been dealt. As Idaho GOP Chairwoman Dorothy Moon put it last week:

I don’t care whether you vote early, absentee, or on Election Day, so long as you vote. Our future depends on you!

Absentee voting is already underway, and completed ballots must reach election officials by 8 p.m. on November 3. Early voting starts today in 16 Idaho counties, with many more opening up next week. Check the Secretary of State’s website for information about your county. Then make a plan to vote, in whatever way seems best to you. Our future depends on it.

Feature image created with ChatGPT.

Labrador helps defeat unconstitutional regulation of firearms

Attorney General Raúl Labrador announced that Idahoans can now buy suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns without registration, lengthy waits, or federal taxes. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued guidance on Friday indicating that it will stop enforcing those requirements nationwide, following the court victory Idaho won with 14 other states in Silencer Shop Foundation, et al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives.
The National Firearms Act has required federal approval, registration, and a $200 tax for these firearms since 1934. Courts had upheld the registration rules as a method to collect that tax. However, when Congress eliminated the tax itself in the One Big Beautiful Bill, Idaho argued the registration requirements could not stand alone. On August 5th a federal court in Texas agreed.

Other press releases

Thanks for reading Gem State Chronicle! This post is public so feel free to share it.

What to think about HJR4?

Brian Almon — Mon, 12 Oct 2026 18:20:15 GMT

HJR 4: Who Should Decide Idaho’s Drug Laws?

During the 2025 legislative session, Idaho lawmakers passed House Joint Resolution 4, which places a question on our ballot this November:

Shall Section 26, Article III of the Constitution of the State of Idaho be amended to provide that only the Idaho Legislature shall have power and authority to legalize the growing, producing, manufacturing, transporting, selling, delivering, dispensing, administering, prescribing, distributing, possessing, or using of marijuana, narcotics, or other psychoactive substances?

If a majority of voters say “yes,” then our state constitution will be amended to reserve the power to legalize certain drugs to the Legislature alone. A “no” vote would retain the ability of citizens to circulate initiatives regarding legalization, as they did earlier this year.

HJR4 passed on a nearly party-line vote, with Rep. Rob Beiswenger being the only Republican to vote no.

The question before you as a voter is not necessarily whether marijuana or other drugs should be legalized, but rather who should have the authority to make that decision in the future. Contrary to some claims being made, HJR4 would not give the Legislature any additional power that it does not currently have—lawmakers can already pass laws related to the legal status of drugs—rather it would take this issue out of the purview of the citizen initiative.

At least ten marijuana-related initiatives have been proposed since 2010, with several coming close to reaching the signature threshold needed to appear on the ballot. This year’s initiative to allow medical marijuana use achieved more than 80% of the necessary signatures and met the 6% voter requirement in 13 legislative districts, rather than the 18 necessary to qualify.

Supporters of HJR4 argue that restricting drug legalization to the Legislature will stop the flow of out-of-state money seeking to impose legalization on Idaho via the initiative process. Opponents say that restricting the right of the people to use the initiative process on any subject is a bridge too far.

Fred Birnbaum wrote an article for the Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) last week arguing in favor of HJR4, pointing out that the Legislature has already passed laws preempting local ordinances regarding guns, minimum wage, and plastic grocery bags:

It is appropriate because it is the role of the Legislature to promulgate new laws, including laws that preempt local governments. The Legislature has the power now to regulate drugs, why does it need the sole power? The legislature has already preempted local governments from regulating guns, imposing a minimum wage, and banning plastic bags. This constitutional amendment would serve a similar purpose by preventing local units of government (for example, cities) from legalizing drugs. It simply doesn’t make sense to have a patchwork of laws on drugs.
The amendment would also prohibit the use of the initiative to repeal government prohibitions enacted by the legislature on drugs. Removing the use of the initiative moves Idaho away from the costly and dangerous direct democracy approach to this complex political issue.

The issue of direct democracy is central to this ballot question. The citizen initiative was not originally part of Idaho’s constitution, ratified in 1890 as part of our admission to the Union. Yet these were the early years of the Progressive Era, in which reformers sought to give people more power to check their elected governments. The Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1913, moving the power to select U.S. senators away from state legislatures and directly to the people. In 1912, Idaho voters approved amendments to the state constitution authorizing citizen initiatives and referendums, but they were not fully implemented until 1933. Five years later, Idahoans successfully used the initiative process to establish the Fish and Game Commission.

The original conception of Idaho’s state government, like the federal government structure that emerged from the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, was that of a republic, in which citizens delegate legislative, executive, and judicial powers to elected officials. Our Founding Fathers understood that mobs are fickle, and therefore direct democracy was dangerous, as Birnbaum said. They balanced their belief in the sovereignty of the people with the need to resist mob rule by separating legislative power between a Senate that represented the states and a House of Representatives that represented the people. Only by working together could these two bodies pass laws for the republic.

Nevertheless, modern courts have held that the right of citizens to create laws via initiatives is “fundamental” to our governing structure. The 1912 amendment modified the original state constitution by giving the people direct access to lawmaking authority:

The people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws, and enact the same at the polls independent of the legislature.

Neither the Legislature, with powers delegated by the state constitution, nor the people, reserving certain powers to themselves, can necessarily supersede the other. The people have the right to overturn laws passed by the Legislature via referendum, but the Legislature has the power to repeal laws passed via citizen initiative. Indeed, many Republican legislators have pledged to overturn Proposition 1, which would legalize abortion in Idaho, should it pass this November.

In 1994, voters approved Proposition 2, which established term limits for elected officials at the federal, state, county, municipal, and school district levels. A Supreme Court decision in 1995 established that states cannot place more onerous limits on federal elected officials than those already in the U.S. Constitution, but voters affirmed term limits for state, county, municipal, and school officials in a 1998 advisory vote. In 2001, the Idaho Supreme Court upheld the law, ruling that term limits did not violate the state constitution.

However, in 2002, the Legislature passed House Bill 425, which repealed the term limits law. Proponents of the bill argued that term limits interfered with the right of voters to choose their own representatives, while those from rural districts argued that recruiting potential officeholders was sometimes difficult.

Gov. Dirk Kempthorne vetoed the bill, but both chambers successfully overrode the veto, with more than two-thirds voting in favor. Later that year, two voters filed suit asking the Idaho Supreme Court to declare the law unconstitutional. One had filed to run for an Ada County commissioner seat held by an incumbent who faced disqualification under the term limits law. However, the court ruled 5-0 against the petitioners, with Justice Gerald Schroeder writing that the Legislature not only had the authority to repeal laws passed via citizen initiative, as initially decided in Luker v. Curtis (1943), but also had the authority to use an emergency declaration to implement that repeal immediately.

Supporters of term limits were not done yet. They gathered enough signatures to put H425 on the ballot as a referendum, but the repeal narrowly survived, 50.23% to 49.77%.

It seems unlikely that anyone involved in passing the bill paid much of a political cost. Bruce Newcomb, the floor sponsor of H425, was already Speaker of the House and would remain in that position until 2006. Several other current elected officials and prominent political figures were involved in the H425 vote. Those supporting the bill included Gov. Brad Little, House Speaker Mike Moyle, Lt. Gov. Scott Bedke, and U.S. Sen. Jim Risch, as well as Department of Insurance Director Dean Cameron, outgoing U.S. Attorney for the District of Idaho Bart Davis, and former Secretary of State Lawrence Denney. Opposing the measure were Treasurer Julie Ellsworth, former Congressman Bill Sali, former Boise Mayor Dave Bieter, and Steve Smylie, son of former Gov. Robert Smylie, who was in the House at the time.

Following the passage of Medicaid expansion in 2018, the Legislature attempted to raise the threshold for initiatives to qualify for the ballot, requiring a certain number of signatures from all 35 legislative districts rather than just 18. However, the Idaho Supreme Court struck down that law in 2021, stating that the citizen initiative was a fundamental right of the people of Idaho, which meant the court must apply strict scrutiny to any attempt by the Legislature to modify it.

Not counting this year’s Proposition 1 or the 2022 measure to increase taxes to raise spending on public schools, which was withdrawn after a special legislative session rendered it unnecessary, Idahoans have considered 31 ballot questions stemming from citizen initiatives, rejecting 16 and approving 15. However, in recent years, organizations such as Reclaim Idaho have turned the initiative process into a professional operation, training volunteers and signature gatherers to ensure their agenda makes it onto the November ballot. Reclaim Idaho itself was successful in passing Medicaid expansion in 2018, and its system has been used and copied by other left-wing organizations, including the group behind this year’s Proposition 1, which seeks to legalize abortion.

Is that what the early 20th-century progressives envisioned when they amended the constitution to allow for citizen initiatives? The concept of the initiative process assumes that voters have the time, energy, and willingness to fully understand a proposed law before voting. Yet the last few propositions to make the ballot have attracted millions of dollars meant to influence the vote one way or another.

Additionally, bills passed through the legislative process must survive three committee hearings, two floor votes, and the governor’s desk, and can be amended at multiple points to close loopholes or fix potential problems. Initiatives are presented to the public as-is, take it or leave it. With the two marijuana initiatives that gathered signatures this year, there was no opportunity for feedback or debate within the legislative process. Had either one reached the signature threshold, it would have appeared on the ballot as a simple yes-or-no question.

That brings us full circle back to HJR4, in which the Legislature is asking us, the people, to amend the state constitution to reserve questions regarding drug legalization to itself. Obviously, those who support drug legalization oppose this measure, while those who wish to use the initiative process for other issues are concerned that HJR4 might be just the first step toward eliminating it entirely.

Still others worry about potential unintended consequences. Wayne Hoffman, founder and former president of IFF, recently argued that the measure could also eliminate the right of citizens to use the referendum process to repeal laws related to drug legalization:

HJR 4 does not rewrite Section 1. It assigns one slice of that same power — the power to legalize these substances — to the Legislature alone. If “only the legislature” is enough to kill an unnamed initiative, there is no good reason it magically does not also apply to the referendum.
Critics might argue that a referendum does not “legalize” anything. It only blocks a legalization statute from taking effect. That misstates what Idaho’s referendum is. It places the exact bill that was before the Legislature on the ballot and asks the public whether that bill should become law. The people are not grading the Legislature. They are voting yes or no on enactment. A yes or no vote has the exact effect as a yes or no vote had when the bill was before lawmakers in Boise.
Therefore, the words in HJR 4 — “Only the legislature” — do not leave room for that second consideration on whether or how cannabis or other psychoactive substances become legal.

Hoffman also suggested that HJR4 could lead to state-run cannabis stores, similar to how Idaho’s state government maintains monopolies on liquor distribution and gambling through the state lottery:

I sincerely doubt that’s what the lawmakers who put HJR 4 on the ballot have in mind. But they won’t be the ones in charge in two years, or in twenty. If they wanted to ban cannabis permanently, they could have tried to write that. Instead, they wrote a power to legalize and gave it to themselves alone, in the same section that made the state Idaho’s only liquor wholesaler. They’ve left the door open to cannabis sales in Idaho, with state employees at the register.

How you vote on HJR4 will not necessarily be determined by your position on drug legalization itself, but by your opinion regarding the citizen initiative as a whole. Are there certain issues that are too important to be left to the mob? Or is the right of Idaho citizens to make laws outside the Legislature so fundamental that it should not be tampered with?

These are questions about the nature of our republican system of government and popular sovereignty, and it will be fascinating to see where Idaho voters fall on November 3.

Feature image created with ChatGPT.

LABRADOR LETTER: From Courtroom Settlements to Community Solutions

I recently traveled to Burley and had the opportunity to meet with Simply Hope Family Outreach and tour their new facility under construction. Simply Hope Family Outreach started in Burley in 2015 after a local family nearly lost their son to an overdose. The founders of Simply Hope decided that other families should not have to face that kind of crisis alone, and they built an organization to make sure of it. Today, Simply Hope runs Idaho’s first Safe Teen Assessment Center, where young people and their families can get early intervention, case management, counseling referrals, and support that continues after the first visit.

Your address. It’s where friends come to visit, where you get your mail and packages, where you get to know your neighbors. It’s the place you call home.
But for victims of domestic violence, stalking or trafficking, an address can be a liability. In the wrong hands, it can bring danger right to their door.
My office is well known for elections and our business services. Fewer people know about another important service we provide: Idaho’s Address Confidentiality Program (ACP).
The program helps vulnerable Idahoans keep their physical location out of public view while still being able to receive mail, register to vote and access essential government services.

It was a great week in Idaho’s Second District! From Boise to Hailey and Carey, I was thrilled to drive across the state and meet with Idahoans.
Last weekend, I visited Boise State University and toured the newly reconstructed North End Zone at the stadium. We later rooted for the Broncos as they beat the Utah State Aggies – although I did go to Utah State…It was a great game. I’m always thrilled to see the Broncos win at home!
I’ve been a longtime supporter of Higher Ground and their impactful mission. For over 25 years, Higher Ground has served people with disabilities, veterans, and first responders. Their work across the country is incredible, and I was pleased to see it firsthand during my visit to Sun Valley.

Families in Idaho can now apply to receive funding to cover both public and private educational expenses thanks to a new federal tax benefit that allows parents to donate money directly to an approved, non-profit Scholarship Granting Organization (SGO).
Individuals can contribute up to $1,700 to an approved SGO, or $3,400 if filing jointly. The donors can then claim a dollar-for-dollar federal tax credit on their 2027 taxes. SGOs will use the funds to provide scholarships for Idaho students for a wide range of qualified K-12 expenses, including academic tutoring; additional costs for special needs students; educational materials and equipment; internet access; computers and technology; and more. The credit is also available to private school students who wish to offset the cost of tuition or fees.

Video of the day

Guntuber and soon-to-be congressman Brandon Herrera celebrates what he calls the biggest gun rights win in his lifetime after the Trump Administration removes all remaining federal barriers to suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns:

Thanks for reading Gem State Chronicle! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Gov. Little comes out against Prop 1

Brian Almon — Fri, 09 Oct 2026 20:49:26 GMT

Idaho Republican officeholders unite against Prop 1

Full disclosure, as the communications consultant for the Idaho GOP I played a role in producing this press release. I couldn’t be happier, though, to see so many of our elected officials taking a stand for the cause of life. I appreciate the words from our governor, and the willingness of him and the other nine officeholders to publicly oppose Proposition 1.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 9, 2026
The Idaho Republican Party announced today that ten Republican officeholders representing Idaho in Congress and statewide elected positions have publicly declared their opposition to Proposition 1, the proposed initiative to legalize abortion in Idaho.
“If there is one issue that unites Republicans across the ideological spectrum, it is that of life,” said Chairwoman Dorothy Moon. “The Idaho GOP has always believed that the unborn are entitled to the same right to life as you and I, and I’m proud to stand beside our elected officials in urging Idahoans to vote no on Prop 1. It’s too extreme for Idaho.”
The following Republican elected officials have declared their opposition to Proposition 1:
Governor Brad Little
Senator Mike Crapo
Senator Jim Risch
Congressman Mike Simpson
Congressman Russ Fulcher
Lt. Governor Scott Bedke
Attorney General Raúl Labrador
State Controller Brandon Woolf
Superintendent of Public Instruction Debbie Critchfield
State Treasurer Julie Ellsworth
“I am voting no on Proposition 1,” Gov. Little said. “It would allow girls under 18 to receive abortion without parental consent, and it would make abortion far more accessible in Idaho. Proposition 1 simply goes too far.”
“It’s up to the voters whether or not Idaho adopts extreme California-style abortion laws, or remains a sanctuary for life,” Moon added. “Get out and vote—our future depends on it.”

Thanks for reading Gem State Chronicle! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Less than four weeks before an election that could change the course of our nation’s future, all the talking heads are telling you to give up. It’s over, they say. Democrats will win the House, and probably the Senate too. President Trump will be impeached, and the MAGA agenda is dead.
Remember when the same talking heads told us that Donald Trump had zero chance of defeating Hillary Clinton in 2016? Or that Kamala Harris and her coconut trees were sure to win the White House in 2024?
I want to remind you that polls don’t matter. Prediction markets don’t matter. Opinions from analysts and commentators on TV don’t matter. The only thing that matters is voters casting ballots.
That means you!

Read the whole thing

Other press releases

Video of the day

Bryan Hyde examines the question of how Idaho can remain a red state when our biggest city has lurched so far to the left:

As always, thank you to sponsors Lynn Bradescu’s Boise Realty, Money Metals, and New Saint Andrews College. I just spent a few days visiting my friends at NSA, and they are doing amazing work up here in Moscow.

Do you want to see more independent journalism and level-headed political analysis in Idaho? Consider supporting the Gem State Chronicle:

Subscribe now

Bart Davis steps down as US attorney for Idaho

Brian Almon — Thu, 08 Oct 2026 20:34:21 GMT

Bart Davis announces retirement

On Wednesday, October 7, Bart Davis announced his retirement as U.S. attorney for the District of Idaho, effective October 17. The announcement came just one year after Davis was confirmed by the Senate to serve in that position for a second time, following a previous tenure during President Donald Trump’s first administration.

Davis spent 19 years in the Idaho State Senate, including 15 as majority leader, before his first appointment as U.S. attorney. Prior to his political career, Davis practiced law in his hometown of Idaho Falls after graduating from BYU in 1978 and receiving his law degree from the University of Idaho in 1980.

As U.S. attorney, Davis was the chief federal prosecutor for Idaho, representing the U.S. Department of Justice in criminal prosecutions and civil litigation. He oversaw cases involving drug trafficking, violent crime, fraud, immigration violations, and other federal offenses, while also coordinating with federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies. U.S. attorneys are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, serving at the pleasure of the president. Incoming presidents often replace U.S. attorneys at the start of their terms, as President Joe Biden did in 2021 when he asked for Davis’ resignation. President Trump reappointed Davis in 2025.

Davis oversaw three offices—in Boise, Coeur d’Alene, and Pocatello—staffed by 65 employees. During his second term, his office filed 298 criminal cases.

Davis also co-chaired Idaho’s bipartisan redistricting commission in 2021, having been appointed by then-Senate President Pro Tempore Chuck Winder.

With Davis having recently turned 71 and celebrating his 50th wedding anniversary, his retirement is not especially unusual, but the timing is, coming just a year after his confirmation for a second term. Davis did not give a specific reason for retiring at this time.

President Trump is expected to nominate a successor, relying on Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch for input on whom to choose. Potential successors include Justin Whatcott, who served as acting U.S. attorney prior to Davis’ confirmation; Sen. Todd Lakey, a former county prosecutor and practicing attorney who was reportedly under consideration prior to Davis’ nomination in 2025; Rafael Gonzalez, who also served as acting U.S. attorney on multiple occasions; Rep. John Shirts, another lawyer in the Legislature who previously served as an assistant U.S. attorney during Davis’ first term; and Theo Wold, who served in President Trump’s first administration as well as solicitor general in Attorney General Raúl Labrador’s office.

No successor has been publicly announced.

Should Lakey or Shirts be appointed, their departure from the Legislature would create a vacancy to be filled through the usual process: the respective Republican legislative district committee would submit three names to Gov. Brad Little, who would appoint one to the seat. Idaho’s current legislative term ends November 30, with the new term beginning December 1.

Thanks for reading Gem State Chronicle! This post is public so feel free to share it.

It hasn’t been a good year for the Idaho teachers union.
The Idaho Education Association is cutting roughly 13% of its staff, eliminating four organizer positions, closing all five of its regional offices and scaling back its annual Summer Institute.
In other words, it is dealing with a major budget mess. And it has no one to blame but itself.
After all, the IEA was forced to pay $70,000 to cover state taxpayer expenses that resulted from the union’s frivolous lawsuit against education choice. The union lost the case in a unanimous decision in February.
That was a choice.
Then came the second blow – Idaho’s House Bill 516. That’s the new law that stopped school districts from using taxpayer-funded payroll systems to collect union dues and requires unions to reimburse districts for paid employee time used for union activities.
During the debate, lawmakers and the public were told taxpayers weren’t subsidizing the union.
Now the IEA is cutting staff and closing offices — and it says HB 516 is one of the reasons its operating environment has become more difficult.
Six months ago, I wrote in these pages that Idaho hadn’t banned unions. It had simply stopped doing their paperwork.

Read the rest

Congressman Fulcher’s latest newsletter

Congressman Russ Fulcher posted his latest newsletter this week, highlighting the Hydropower Licensing Transparency Act, the Water Resources Development Act, the Auto Data Privacy and Autonomy Act, and more.

Press releases

Thank you also to all the paid subscribers who make it possible for me to do what I do, as well as all the readers who are constantly encouraging me to keep it up. I appreciate you all!

How should schools teach AI?

Brian Almon — Wed, 07 Oct 2026 00:43:03 GMT

Will AI be a tool, or a crutch?

AI tools have become integral to the operation of the Gem State Chronicle, as they have for many other platforms, publications, and systems in our modern world. There is a great temptation, especially for young people, to allow AI to become a crutch, rather than a tool. Check out State Superintendent Debbie Critchfield’s new op-ed on how Idaho’s public schools are preparing students for the future of AI:

I’ve spoken to parents who want classrooms to be technology-free. I’ve spoken to local employers who demand a basic skillset in AI. And, I’ve spoken to teachers who are wondering how to walk the line between these two realities.
One thing is certain: AI is here to stay. Pretending it’s a fad is not the right answer for our students. Our kids need to know how to use technology but, most importantly, how to think for themselves. AI doesn’t replace thinking and can’t replicate judgment, emotional intelligence, and relational skills that make human teamwork irreplaceable.

Read the whole thing

Labrador defends the law

Attorney General Raúl Labrador announced today that a federal district court has rejected a long-standing constitutional challenge to Idaho’s Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), dismissing all claims brought by individuals convicted of sex offenses and granting summary judgment in favor of the State of Idaho.

The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is seeking public comment on a proposed settlement action and consent judgment with Payette Lakes Recreational Water and Sewer District (PLRWSD). DEQ alleges violations of the Clean Water Act and the Idaho Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (IPDES) permitting requirements.

Feature image created with ChatGPT, using a prompt that asked it to use its imagination.

By the way, Substack has a fun new feature that uses Pangram to scan the text of the post to see how much of it was likely generated by a human, and how much by an AI tool. Use it on the next political newsletter you receive, and you might find the results enlightening.

For the record:

Thank you also to all the paid subscribers who make it possible for me to do what I do, as well as all the readers who are constantly encouraging me to keep it up. I appreciate you all!

Do debates matter anymore?

Brian Almon — Tue, 06 Oct 2026 00:05:33 GMT

Do debates still matter?

Everyone loves the idea of a political debate. We learned about Lincoln and Douglas in grade school, and most Americans know something of the legends surrounding Kennedy and Nixon’s televised encounters. For political junkies, the attraction is obvious. It’s the wordcel version of a boxing match: instead of pummeling your opponent with your fists, you pummel him with words, zingers, facts, and logic.

But how much do debates actually matter in the 21st-century political landscape?

Once upon a time, debates were a primary way for voters to learn about their candidates. In 1858, incumbent senator Stephen Douglas and challenger Abraham Lincoln staged a series of seven debates throughout Illinois, giving voters a chance to hear from both candidates in person. Each lasted three hours: an hour for the first speaker, ninety minutes for his opponent, then a thirty-minute rejoinder. Both candidates had a total of ninety minutes to make their case.

This was before the Seventeenth Amendment, when state legislatures still elected U.S. senators. Lincoln and Douglas were therefore campaigning for their parties’ legislative candidates as well as themselves. Voters who couldn’t attend depended on newspaper accounts and campaign surrogates to learn what the candidates had said.

The 21st century is a very different environment from the 19th. Voters can watch hours of interviews, speeches, and candidate forums without leaving the couch, or even the commode. A formal debate no longer holds the same value for a campaign. Today, debates are less about having a reasoned and articulate discussion of the issues than about landing that one perfectly prepared zinger that will go viral on social media. Modern debates are about confrontation, not conversation.

It began with television. John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon were each given eight minutes for opening statements in their first televised debate in 1960, but only two and a half minutes to answer individual questions. By 2024, presidential candidates were getting two minutes per question, with no opening speeches.

Once debates shifted from in-person encounters to made-for-TV events, the candidates’ goals changed as well. Modern television audiences simply didn’t have the attention spans of their pre-mass-media ancestors, so the system adapted. As Neil Postman wrote, the purpose of the media shifted from information to entertainment over the second half of the 20th century.

What do we remember from more recent national candidate debates? Ronald Reagan’s “There you go again.” Lloyd Bentsen’s “You’re no Jack Kennedy.” Donald Trump’s “They’re eating the dogs.” Sometimes memorable and viral moments don’t require words at all, as when George W. Bush responded to Al Gore walking toward him onstage with just a nod.

While moments like these are fun and can reveal something about a candidate, they don’t substantively help voters understand which candidate is stronger on the issues that matter to them, or how each will govern. While political junkies like me might enjoy a modern Lincoln–Douglas debate, it just doesn’t make good content. The value campaigns can extract from debates lies in the viral ten-second clip for social media, rather than in a reasoned exchange that will change the minds of undecided voters.

The argument over whether to participate in a debate follows a predictable script. Underdogs demand an encounter, declaring that voters deserve to see candidates answer tough questions. Frontrunners point to their public appearances and existing coverage, dismissing demands for debates as political stunts.

These positions are tactical, rather than ideological. Challengers need attention, and frontrunners have little reason to supply it.

Long-shot candidates like Todd Achilles, running an independent campaign against Sen. Jim Risch, or Mark Fitzpatrick, who challenged Gov. Brad Little in the Republican primary, are always desperately seeking opportunities to break into the public consciousness. “Debate me, bro!” is one way to get attention. If the incumbent agrees, challengers can try to parlay the encounter into a viral moment. If the incumbent refuses or simply ignores the demand, that itself becomes the story: he’s afraid, he’s hiding from voters, he can’t defend his record, etc.

Yet it’s just noise in the end. Little refused to debate Janice McGeachin or Ed Humphreys in 2022, yet still won comfortably. Nor did he debate Democrat Stephen Heidt or independent candidate Ammon Bundy in that year’s general election, yet he defeated them all the same.

From the perspective of a comfortably-positions incumbent, why bother with the risk?

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Debbie Critchfield bucked the trend among Republican incumbents in Idaho and has participated in two events this year. In August, the Idaho Association of School Administrators hosted a candidate forum featuring Critchfield, Democratic challenger Becky Sundin Mitchell, and Constitution Party candidate Teresa Roundy. In September, Idaho Ed News and the College of Idaho hosted a debate, inviting only Critchfield and Sundin Mitchell.

Critchfield said she knew about two weeks before the College of Idaho debate that it would include only her and Sundin Mitchell. She told me that as the debate went on, she concluded that it was unfair to exclude Roundy, the third candidate in the race. She subsequently withdrew from a planned KTVB debate, saying she would participate only if Roundy was invited.

KTVB’s past practice indicates a fundraising threshold of $10,000 to qualify for its debates, along with other potential qualifiers such as previous vote share or current polling. As of this writing, Debbie Critchfield has raised $156,000, Becky Sundin Mitchell $21,000, and Teresa Roundy has not raised a penny. If that’s the threshold, then that’s the threshold, but it seems arbitrary, no? Sundin Mitchell’s $21,000 is much closer to Roundy’s level than Critchfield’s. If the threshold was $25,000 instead, would KTVB invite Critchfield alone, or would they change the level to at least cover two candidates?

In our conversation, Critchfield maintained that excluding one candidate was inherently unfair:

After two debates, I decided this was wrong. Obviously the media can decide who can participate in their debates, and I can decide not to participate.

One can argue that Roundy has no chance of winning and therefore isn’t worth inviting, but one could make the same claim about Becky Sundin Mitchell. If that’s the standard, how competitive must a challenger be before voters are allowed to see that person on the same stage?

The partisan response was also predictable. Idaho Democratic Party chairwoman Lauren Necochea took to Facebook to accuse Critchfield of “shunning debates,” perhaps assuming her own voters would have already forgotten about the first two events. You can see how the debate question becomes more important than the debate itself: parties and candidates use the question of whether to debate as a cudgel against the other side. Any campaign that participates in a debate already has its press releases and social media posts lined up beforehand. The actual substance of the debate is less important than how campaigns can frame it after the fact. How many voters’ minds are actually changed by the debate itself?

In the superintendent’s race, most Republican voters will likely support the incumbent, while most Democrats will support the challenger. The teachers’ union and its acolytes will always support the most left-wing candidate possible; no debate will change that fact. How many voters in the Year of Our Lord 2026 are genuinely undecided at this point, waiting with bated breath for a debate between the top two candidates before making up their minds?

Personally, I would enjoy a modern Lincoln–Douglas debate between candidates, and I lament the decline in literacy and attention spans that has led us to this point. After a while, the rehearsed lines and competing attempts to win the social media battle grow tiresome. But it is what it is, and campaigns must meet voters where they are.

For you, as an engaged citizen, the task remains the same: learn about the candidates, vote, and encourage your neighbors to do likewise. Find the signal amidst the noise. Building a political system that truly represents your values takes more work than just liking the latest viral moment on social media.

Feature image created with ChatGPT.

Thanks for reading Gem State Chronicle! This post is public so feel free to share it.

This August, Governor Little and I both had the opportunity to join INL Director John Wagner in welcoming NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman to Idaho Falls. His stop in Idaho highlighted something we already know well — some of the nation’s most consequential work in space is happening right here at home. Idaho should be part of the conversation about where the United States Space Academy takes shape. Read my op-ed with Governor Little HERE and below.
Also, this week, the United States recognized the 50^th Anniversary of the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment protects federal taxpayer dollars from being used to fund elective abortions. I am and always have been pro-life and will continue to support pro-life policies.
Last but not least, I’ve heard from countless Idahoans regarding joining the Sharia-Free America efforts. I’m pleased to announce I’ve cosponsored legislation that would prevent all foreign nationals who observe Sharia from entering the United States or from remaining in the country. Additionally, I joined the Sharia-Free America Caucus.

The DOI is collecting premium, enrollment, administrative expense, and claims information to conduct an analysis of health care costs in Idaho’s commercial health insurance market and the cost drivers from 2022 through 2025. This data will enhance the Department’s understanding of affordability, availability, market dynamics, and insurer exposures, enabling the DOI to fulfill its statutory obligations to regulate the insurance industry and protect consumers. The DOI intends to publish aggregated results in a public report.

As always, thank you to sponsors Lynn Bradescu’s Boise Realty, Money Metals, and New Saint Andrews College. Thank you also to all the paid subscribers who make it possible for me to do what I do, as well as all the readers who are constantly encouraging me to keep it up. I appreciate you all!

The fall of the Idaho School Benefit Trust

Brian Almon — Fri, 02 Oct 2026 22:48:04 GMT

What Happened to the Idaho School Benefit Trust?

In late August, the Idaho Department of Insurance (DOI) filed to take over the troubled Idaho School Benefit Trust (ISBT), alleging that it had become insolvent and was unable to cover claims made by employees of member school districts. A court approved the takeover in late September, and now school districts are being asked to cover approximately $13 million in obligations or risk having their employees’ pending claims go unpaid.

What was the Idaho School Benefit Trust? Created in 2014 as an alternative to conventional insurance, sponsored by the Idaho School District Council, and governed by a five-member board of trustees, ISBT essentially coordinated self-insurance among member districts. Participating districts and their employees paid contributions into a common pool, and ISBT used that money to cover medical claims. Blue Cross of Idaho served as the plan administrator, processing claims and providing access to its network, but the districts themselves ultimately bore the financial risk.

This model was meant to spread risk, reduce costs, and avoid some of the overhead associated with traditional insurance coverage. ISBT advertised itself to Idaho school districts as a safe and stable alternative to conventional insurance, touting relatively low rate increases. By August 2021, ISBT had about $22.5 million in reserves. Yet by August 2025, that cushion had fallen to just $2.1 million, well below the statutory requirement. Today, the Trust is completely insolvent. What happened?

DOI is currently investigating ISBT’s collapse, so hopefully we will have some answers in the near future. But there are certain red flags in hindsight. ISBT carried stop-loss protection through Blue Cross for exceptionally high claims, but that coverage only kicked in above certain thresholds. The Trust itself remained responsible for claims below those thresholds, and DOI now says that contributions and reserves proved insufficient to cover those costs. Meanwhile, medical claims rose substantially while ISBT continued to advertise itself to local districts as a stable and relatively inexpensive alternative to conventional insurance.

House Bill 443 in 2022 changed the insurance landscape for Idaho school districts by providing significantly more state funding for employee health insurance and making the state insurance plan a more attractive option. Twenty-four districts and charter schools subsequently left ISBT between 2022 and 2023, which could also have played a role in the Trust’s financial deterioration. However, without knowing more about the claims experience of the organizations that left compared with those that remained, it is difficult to know what effect that exodus actually had.

There’s also an open question about the school districts that remained with ISBT following the passage of H443. Every public school district had access to additional state funding for health insurance, whether they joined the state plan or not, and there were no strict statutory requirements regarding how that extra money was used. It’s plausible, though difficult to know for sure, that some might have stayed with the low-cost ISBT system and redirected the balance elsewhere. Yet now ISBT’s insolvency has brought the chickens home to roost.

ISBT’s quarterly filing for May 31, 2025, showed a surplus of approximately $13.5 million and reported a $2.4 million gain through the first nine months of the fiscal year. But an independent audit completed the following February painted a dramatically different picture: ISBT ended the fiscal year 2025 with a fund balance of just $2.1 million and a $9 million annual loss. The Trust needed approximately $13.4 million in surplus to meet statutory requirements.

A year later, even that small cushion was gone, and ISBT was officially insolvent. DOI says it became aware on June 23 of this year that the Trust could no longer pay its claims, just over a week before school districts faced a July 1 renewal deadline. However, districts claim they were not told of the insolvency at the time, and many renewed their contracts before ISBT notified members on July 14 of the gravity of the situation. Even that notice did not fully disclose the amount of the shortfall.

ISBT’s insolvency meant that school employees and their dependents potentially faced large medical bills for services received under the assumption that the Trust would cover their claims. ISBT arranged an $11.9 million loan from Blue Cross, then issued a contribution call to member districts designed to cover approximately $13 million in principal and interest. School districts were given a choice of paying $714.71 per covered employee and dependent up front, or $21.74 per covered member per month on a payment schedule that could extend for three years.

According to DOI, September 10 was the deadline for districts to choose a payment option. Its website says districts already agreed to make additional contributions when necessary when they signed their participation agreements with ISBT. From DOI’s perspective, then, districts are not deciding whether they owe the money—they do no matter what—only whether to pay their share up front or over time.

As you can surely imagine, that put member districts in a financial bind. The Coeur d’Alene School Board instructed Superintendent Shon Hocker to negotiate a modified payment arrangement with ISBT that would preserve the district’s legal rights. The district offered to make monthly payments under protest without signing the proposed contract addendum, but that was not sufficient for Blue Cross, which began denying some claims for services provided during July and August, before the old self-funded plan ended on August 31.

As of today, ISBT is fully under the stewardship of DOI Director Dean Cameron, who was appointed rehabilitator by the Fourth District Court. Cameron is now responsible for overseeing the Trust, collecting remaining contributions, paying outstanding claims, repaying the Blue Cross loan, and winding down the old self-funded plan. DOI is separately investigating exactly what happened and attempting to answer the questions that remain unresolved:

Why did a Trust with more than $22 million in reserves lose nearly all of them in only a few years?
Were premiums kept too low for too long?
What role, if any, did districts leaving for the state plan play?
Why was the Trust’s financial deterioration not communicated more clearly to member districts?
Why were districts allowed to renew for 2026-27 before being told that the old Trust was insolvent?
Did the trustees, actuaries, and DOI respond quickly enough as the reserves disappeared?
What did DOI know, and when did it know it?

As conservatives, we believe that competition inherent in the free market nearly always provides better solutions than government systems. What, then, do we make of this situation? There is a temptation to look at the collapse of the Idaho School Benefit Trust and conclude that the private sector failed where government succeeded. After all, the Trust ran out of money while the state employee health plan remains solvent.

But the Trust was never really a private-sector enterprise in the traditional sense. It pooled taxpayer-funded school districts, provided benefits to public employees, operated under state regulation, and relied on private companies to administer claims and insure against catastrophic losses. The districts themselves ultimately bore the risk.

Perhaps the better lesson is that health insurance has become such a complicated hybrid of public and private institutions that the traditional distinction between the two is increasingly difficult to make. ISBT attempted to capture some of the advantages of private self-insurance while operating entirely within the world of public employment and regulated health care. It seemed to work—until it didn’t.

The important question now is not whether government or the private sector deserves the blame, but whether there were sufficient incentives and accountability built into the system. When a pool funded by taxpayers can lose more than $20 million in reserves before its members fully understand what has happened, something in that system failed—whether we choose to call it public, private, or something in between.

Idaho Ed News was very helpful in breaking down this story. Click here for its full coverage.

Thanks for reading Gem State Chronicle! This post is public so feel free to share it.

With just over a month to go until Election Day, Idahoans are getting fired up to vote. Absentee ballots are already in the mail, early voting starts in just two weeks, and voters are preparing to decide the most important questions of the day.
Chief among those questions is whether or not Idaho will turn back the clock on abortion and once again allow the destruction of unborn babies. Proposition 1 would slash Idaho’s laws that protect the unborn as well as women and girls. It’s too extreme for Idaho, and I hope you will vote no!
You don’t have to take my word for it. Idaho Republicans are coming together on this issue like never before:
U.S. Senator Jim Risch:
“The most basic right we have is the right to life. I am strongly pro-life and always have been.”
Attorney General Raúl Labrador:
“I oppose Proposition 1 because it is too extreme. Idaho’s current law protects unborn life while recognizing reasonable exceptions for rape, incest, and circumstances in which an abortion is necessary to prevent the death of the mother.”

Read the rest

Press releases

Video of the day

My friend Caleb Pirc, director of Idaho Family Policy Center’s Legal Center, recently spoke with Lennox Kalifungwa for the New Saint Andrews College Kings & Statesmen program. I’m thankful to NSA for sponsoring the Gem State Chronicle, and suggest you subscribe to the podcast now in case more familiar faces appear in the future!

Low-sugar candy, national legislation, and a failed school benefit trust

Brian Almon — Thu, 01 Oct 2026 22:13:56 GMT

Healthy candy alternatives by Savanna DeHay

We’re approaching that time of year when sugar-filled, chemical-laced candy becomes the centerpiece of every gathering, every meal, and every gift. While it is great visiting with family and friends, it’s easy to feel guilty for not partaking in junk “food” that negatively impacts physical and mental health. Here’s the thing: you should not feel bad about refusing harmful products, but you don’t have to completely abstain either. Here are four keto-friendly candy dupes made with ancestrally appropriate ingredients. Enjoy!

Read the rest

Today’s press releases

Thanks for reading Gem State Chronicle! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Video of the day

Nick Freitas and Christian Heiens bring you five good reasons for the Republicans to keep control of Congress in the upcoming election:

I’m working on an article about the failure of the Idaho School Benefit Trust this week. The trust was meant to provide a cheap and safe alternative to conventional insurance for schoolteachers, but its failure has left teachers and districts holding the bag. Idaho Ed News has been covering this issue for many months, so check out their work for a preview.

Democrats play the “independent” card

Brian Almon — Wed, 30 Sep 2026 20:22:23 GMT

The “independent” gambit

Imagine you’re an Idaho Democrat. For whatever reason, you live in one of the reddest states in the nation. Despite drawing enthusiastic crowds for abortion or AOC in the big cities, you know that, realistically, most voters in the state will select the Republican candidate without a second thought.

In the last legislative session, you controlled a total of 15 seats out of 105. You haven’t elected a Democratic United States senator since Frank Church was defeated in 1980, and outside of a single term by Walt Minnick from 2008–2010, you haven’t had Democratic representation in the U.S. House of Representatives in more than thirty years. The last time Idaho had a Democratic governor was 1994, the last time the state voted for a Democratic presidential candidate was 1964, and the last time Democrats controlled the Legislature was 1960.

According to the latest numbers from the Secretary of State’s office, there are more than a million registered voters in Idaho. Of those, nearly 63% are affiliated with the Idaho GOP, while less than 12% are registered Democrats.

If you’re an Idaho Dem, that has to be pretty bleak.

But wait! Twenty-four percent of voters are unaffiliated with either party. That’s more than twice the number of registered Democrats in the state. What if… what if you could find a candidate who held a solid proportion of Democratic policy positions but without the blue label? Maybe—just maybe—you could win the Democrats, win the unaffiliated voters, and pull just enough Republicans to reach the finish line, especially in a midterm year when you expect Republican turnout to be down.

That seems to be the strategy this year, doesn’t it?

I wrote in The Hill earlier this month about how Democrats in Idaho, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Montana are publicly supporting supposedly independent candidates for U.S. Senate races. In all but one of those states—Montana—Democratic Party leaders successfully pushed their own nominees off the ballot.

You already know the story of Idaho Democrats throwing their support to Todd Achilles, who, despite filing as an independent candidate against incumbent Republican Sen. Jim Risch, was a Democratic state legislator just over a year ago. But this strategy appears to be growing here in Idaho.

Up in District 1, Democrats usually don’t even bother running. When Scott Herndon defeated incumbent Sen. Jim Woodward in 2022, the left side of the electorate supported Steve Johnson as an independent write-in candidate. When Woodward defeated Herndon in 2024, an independent named Dan Rose ran in the general election. Now that Herndon has once again defeated Woodward, Steve Johnson is back, once again running as an independent.

Over in District 24, Rep. Clint Hostetler survived a brutal primary that saw both of his seatmates ousted—Rep. Steve Miller as well as fellow member of the Gang of 8, Sen. Glenneda Zuiderveld. No Democrat filed for this race in a heavily red district, but the party appeared to have a card hidden up its sleeve in “independent” candidate Kevin Moxley.

According to Sunshine, Moxley created his campaign committee in January 2025, filing as an unaffiliated candidate. However, in July of that year, the Twin Falls Democratic Central Committee gave Moxley $500, while prominent Democrats, including state chairwoman Lauren Necochea and former congressman Larry LaRocco, donated to his campaign as well.

Yet the connections between Kevin Moxley and the Democratic Party go much deeper.

Sen. Zuiderveld recently posted a screenshot of the National Democratic Training Committee highlighting Moxley’s participation in one of its training events. Moxley’s social media post boasts that, following his training with the Democrats, he had filed for an EIN and signed up to run for the Idaho Legislature. He also said he had met with Idaho Democratic Party staff, presumably to discuss his campaign strategy:

Also in the summer of 2025, Moxley co-founded Indivisible Twin Falls County, the organization that sponsored the “No Kings” protests against President Donald Trump. Speakers at the June 2025 protest included David Roth, who would go on to win the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate before being cast aside in favor of Todd Achilles, and Terri Pickens, the eventual Democratic nominee for governor.

Federal Election Commission records show that Moxley has made consistent donations to Democratic candidates and organizations for years, including Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign, the Progressive Turnout Project, the Democratic National Committee, and the Idaho Democratic Party. Moxley appears to still contribute regularly to the Idaho Democrats, with the most recent recorded transaction coming in August of this year. He also contributed to Democratic congressional candidates Kaylee Peterson and Ellie Gilbreath earlier this year.

As of today, Moxley’s website emphasizes his veteran status, his support for the Second Amendment, and his independence from partisan politics. Yet a screenshot from April 2025 shows that his campaign originally promoted positions more closely associated with the Democratic left: support for LGBTQ+ policies, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs at public colleges and universities, and opposition to enforcing immigration laws.

Left: April 2025 | Right: September 2026

The evidence points to Moxley having longstanding ties to Democratic candidates, organizations, donors, and policy priorities, even as his current campaign emphasizes independence, gun rights, agriculture, and other themes more likely to appeal to Republican voters. It seems clear to me that Kevin Moxley is a progressive Democrat who, like Todd Achilles, is trying to rebrand as a gun-toting farm-supporting independent.

The Idaho Dairy Industry PAC, which supported Alexandra Caval against Rep. Hostetler in the Republican primary, has thrown its support behind Moxley, donating the maximum of $1,000 to his campaign. Moxley also received a $1,000 check from the Political Action Committee for Education (PACE), the Idaho teachers union PAC.

While PACE typically donates to Democrats or more moderate Republicans, the Dairy Industry PAC is influential in Republican politics, especially in southern and eastern Idaho. Dairy industry lobbying groups have also fought strenuously against stricter enforcement of immigration law. Idaho Dairymen’s Association lobbyist Bob Naerebout has said that as much as 70% of the industry’s workforce could potentially fail an I-9 audit, meaning aggressive enforcement could severely disrupt the industry.

Yet there’s even stronger evidence of Republicans quietly supporting Moxley’s campaign against a conservative Republican incumbent. Rep. Hostetler defeated incumbent Rep. Chenele Dixon in 2024, and Moxley’s Sunshine report shows a $100 donation from Michael Dixon, Chenele’s husband.

As I wrote yesterday, we seem to have discarded the old concept of party loyalty and embraced a new, short-sighted, self-serving vision of what political parties are for. Democrats are happy to cast aside their own nominees for progressive independents they deem more electable, while some Republicans are just as willing to support progressive independents against conservative Republicans—even when those supposed independents take the opposite position on nearly every issue that matters to Republican voters.

Rep. Hostetler was nominated by the same Republican voters who rejected Sen. Zuiderveld and Rep. Miller. But for some people and organizations, that isn’t good enough, so they’re throwing their resources behind an independent candidate whose earlier campaign messaging closely tracked Democratic priorities.

Idaho is a partisan state, so it’s likely that most voters, whether in Magic Valley legislative races or statewide races for the U.S. Senate, will choose the Republican candidate without a second thought. But this November will provide interesting data about how far that partisan support goes. Will the gambit of running independent candidates succeed in peeling off Republican support? Or is Idaho simply a red state through and through?

I’ll let you know on November 4.

Feature image created with ChatGPT.

Thanks for reading Gem State Chronicle! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Little and Simpson want Space Force to come to Idaho

This August, we both had the opportunity to join Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Director John Wagner in welcoming NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman to Idaho Falls.

Administrator Isaacman’s visit was part of his nationwide effort to see firsthand the people and institutions that are shaping America’s future in space. His stop in Idaho highlighted something we already know well — some of the nation’s most consequential work in space is happening right here at home.

That is why Idaho should be part of the conversation about where the United States Space Academy takes shape.

Read the whole thing

Part 2 of Michael McGowan’s analysis of conservatism

There is a mass of Loony Leftist Lemmings charging toward a cliff edge. They strive to drive all to the dive…into Chaos. They can’t help themselves. The human race has an instinctual desire for Unity. The Old-School “traditional” Conservatives stand in front of the lemmings. They see that such a headlong rush is ill-advised. They think their job is to slow things down and put some order into the business. But their back is to the cliff edge, and that they cannot see. Even less do they see the jagged rocks hundreds of feet below.
What they don’t get is that the destination has to change. Otherwise, sooner or later, the result will be the same: a massive mess of shredded flesh and shattered bones. And they will be at the bottom.
The job of Conservatives must no longer be to merely slow the rush to ruin, but to reverse it — and hard. This means a redefinition of what it means to be a Conservative. According to the criteria I gave in my last article, this New School will clearly identify what Conservatives should be conserving. This object of our conservation will be a thing of permanent value; in fact the very glue that holds any society together.
What is this social glue? It is Natural Law.

Read the rest

Press release

Sen. Crapo voted in favor of the Ratepayer Protection Act, but Democrats filibustered it

Sen. Blaylock explains why she will vote no on Prop 1

Sen. Camille Blaylock wrote a great Substack newsletter this week walking through current Idaho law, what Prop 1 would change, and why she will be voting no:

My beliefs about life began long before I ever thought I would hold public office. They began with a pregnancy test and a tiny little girl I somehow knew before I ever met her.
Those convictions are mine, and I’ve never hidden them. But being pro-life doesn’t give me permission to be sloppy with facts. If you are pro-choice.. you don’t get a pass either.
Proposition 1 is too consequential for that.

Camille Blaylock

A little Birdie told me..

I still remember the day I found out I was pregnant with my first baby. My husband and I had been married for all of 2 years but eager to start our family…

22 days ago · 8 likes · 3 comments · Camille for Idaho

What does Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment really mean?

Brian Almon — Tue, 29 Sep 2026 20:47:56 GMT

Republican unity and the Eleventh Commandment

The 1964 presidential election split the Republican Party. The conservative wing, energized by activists including William F. Buckley and Phyllis Schlafly, finally found the nominee they’d been seeking for two decades in Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona. The moderate wing, led by New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, predicted doom and gloom, and in this case, they turned out to be right. Goldwater lost the electoral vote to Lyndon Johnson 52–486, which remains the largest Democratic landslide since FDR and the last time Idaho voted blue in a presidential election.

In the wake of that loss, the man who had made the biggest political speech of his career in support of Goldwater sought to become governor of California. Ronald Reagan knew that a divided party could not win, and so he proclaimed what became known as the Eleventh Commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican.” Reagan would honor that pledge in the 1966 California gubernatorial election, which he won, as well as the 1976 Republican presidential primary, which he lost.

Ronald Reagan understood something fundamental about American politics. Partisan primaries can be aggressive, even vicious, but once the primary is over, parties must unite to fight the other side. The differences between Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller, though stark in many ways, were smaller than the differences both had with Lyndon Johnson. And LBJ’s presidency was disastrous for America: the escalation of the Vietnam War cost tens of thousands of American lives; the Civil Rights Act, though meant to fix inequality in the Jim Crow South, quickly turned into a tool for racial quotas and shakedowns; and the Immigration Act tore apart the fabric of our country, leading to many of the cultural conflicts and illegal immigration problems we face today.

Of course, Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment was never a hard-and-fast rule. Incumbents still invoke it to shield themselves from criticism during primaries, despite Reagan himself doing just that in 1976 when he challenged President Gerald Ford. I believe the real point of the concept is that Republicans should save their most aggressive attacks for Democrats and that, once the primary is over, it’s time to unite as a party.

Party politics is like a football team. During training camp, players are competing with each other to see who makes the team and who gets cut, who will be starting quarterback and who will ride the bench. Once camp is over and the season begins, it’s time to focus on beating the other teams rather than each other. Or, as former Virginia legislator Nick Freitas put it:

You punish bad Republicans in the primaries.
You vote to save the country from leftists in the general.
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

For many years, the old Republican establishment demanded that candidates follow this rule. After Pat Buchanan unsuccessfully challenged President George H. W. Bush in 1992, he took the stage at the GOP convention in Houston to give Bush his full support. When Mitt Romney won the 2012 Republican nomination, party leaders demanded that Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and Newt Gingrich get in line and support the party’s nominee.

Yet something changed in 2016. When the nominee wasn’t a Romney, Jeb Bush, or John Kasich, as party leaders seemed to want, but instead Donald Trump, those same party leaders decided they would rather burn the party down than support someone they detested. The so-called NeverTrump movement led many formerly Republican stalwarts not only away from the party but into the arms of the Democrats. Kasich spoke at the 2020 Democratic National Convention, while former House Republican Conference chair Liz Cheney endorsed Kamala Harris in 2024. The same pundits who demanded that Ron Paul supporters fall in line in 2012 sought to create a bulwark—literally, that’s what they called their blog—against Trump throughout his tenure.

That same strain of disloyalty appears in Idaho Republican politics as well. In 2022, then-Rep. Codi Galloway challenged Sen. Fred Martin, the chair of the Senate Health & Welfare Committee who supported lockdowns, masks, and vaccine mandates. Galloway won a close election, and rather than swallowing his pride and supporting the party’s nominee, Martin endorsed the Democrat in the race.

The same thing happened in the attorney general race that year, as “Republicans” like outgoing Sen. Patti Ann Lodge, former attorney general and Supreme Court justice Jim Jones, and former first lady Lori Otter all publicly endorsed Democrat Tom Arkoosh rather than Republican nominee Raúl Labrador. I wrote about these turncoats at the time:

These supposed Republicans are telling the people of Idaho that they are fine with outright socialism, with abortion on demand, with public schools grooming their students, with no transparency or accountability for taxpayer dollars. This is what Lori Otter, Patti Ann Lodge, Jim Jones, Fred Martin, Gary Raney, and Ben Ysursa support. Just as the Republican establishment of 2016 was deathly afraid of Donald Trump’s nationalism, so [too] do these career politicians fear Raúl Labrador’s plan to put the citizens of Idaho ahead of lobbies and other special interests.
These endorsements call into question everything these politicians did before. Now that we know that Fred Martin and Patti Ann Lodge are neither principled conservatives nor loyal Republicans, what do we make of their actions in the last legislative session when they blocked health freedom bills? Now that we know that Tommy Ahlquist supports left-wing extremists like Lauren McLean, then what can we determine about his motivation for staying in the 2018 gubernatorial primary?
How many more masks will drop in the coming years? What other political leaders who claim to be conservatives are really wolves in sheep’s clothing?

Unfortunately, it hasn’t gotten any better. In 2024, young Colton Bennett lost a close three-way race to incumbent Republican Rep. Lori McCann in District 6. Bennett drew fire from some conservative activists for issuing a public statement of support for McCann following that primary. However, no good deed goes unpunished. In 2026, McCann abandoned her House seat to challenge Sen. Dan Foreman instead. She lost, and Bennett won the race for the now-open seat. Now that McCann’s political career is likely over, she too has dropped the mask and is viciously attacking Bennett on social media, attempting to smear him as a misogynist, despite what will likely be a very close contest with Democratic nominee Trish Carter-Goodheart.

So much for Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment, right?

Of course, this phenomenon is not limited to one side of the Republican divide. Mark Fitzpatrick, who lost to Gov. Brad Little 58.96% to 28.79% in the May primary, has called upon the Idaho GOP to remove Little from the ballot for being a socialist:

Brad Little should be banned from calling himself a Republican.
He isn’t one.
@IdahoGOP could be pulling away rights to use the R from the fraudsters, but they don’t.
Ask why.
Seriously. Call the office and ask them why these socialists like Little and Guthrie are allowed to call themselves Republicans.
They are going to tell you to “vote Republican” on Nov 3rd.
What a joke.

Several replies to Fitzpatrick’s tweet asked what the alternative was, to which Mark replied, “There’s no realistic solution. Idaho might wake up a bit if the ‘Republican’ loses.”

Had Fitzpatrick won the May gubernatorial primary, he would surely have expected the Idaho GOP and other Republican elected officials to support his campaign. I suspect many would have considered him too controversial, however, and might have jumped ship either to former Supreme Court justice John Stegner’s independent campaign or even joined forces with the Democrats to stop him.

It makes one wonder what the point of a political party really is. Is it to work together for shared goals against a common foe? Or is it just a vehicle for individual political ambitions, to be used when convenient and discarded at a moment’s notice?

I have been extremely critical of Sen. Jim Guthrie, the chair of the Senate State Affairs Committee who unilaterally killed dozens of good bills that had passed the House over the past two sessions. I donated to his primary opponent and urged others to do the same. But he won, and barring a very unlikely series of events, he will return to the Senate for the 2027 session. Nothing I do will change that—no amount of kicking, screaming, or angry posting on social media will make any difference.

This is where political pragmatism comes into play. Guthrie, and others like him, will be in the Legislature for the next two years whether I like it or not. That means accomplishing my preferred policies requires working with them, or at least around them. I have limited time, energy, and political capital. Should I use it complaining about a done deal, or put it toward things I can actually change?

That is what Otto van Bismarck meant when he called politics “the art of the possible.” Do what you can, where you can, with the resources you have. None of us can go back in time and change the last election, but we can set ourselves up for the next one.

And there will be another election. All 105 legislators will be on the ballot in 2028, and we are likely to see openings for Congress, Senate, and the governor’s office in the next few years. Now is the time to recruit candidates, build networks, test the waters, and prepare the conservative bench. The men and women who will win the 2028 and 2030 primary elections are out there right now laying the groundwork for successful campaigns, not making a show of sour grapes on social media.

Ronald Reagan’s preferred candidate lost in a landslide in 1964. Rather than moping, Reagan mobilized and won two terms as California’s governor. In 1976, he challenged the president and lost. Rather than crashing out, he rebuilt his campaign and returned in 1980, winning two of the biggest landslides in American history and redefining Republican politics for generations to come. He did it by uniting the Republican Party rather than further fracturing it.

It’s something to consider for our situation today.

Feature image created with ChatGPT.

Thanks for reading Gem State Chronicle! This post is public so feel free to share it.

DOI to rehabilitate School Benefit Trust

The Idaho Department of Insurance (DOI) has officially taken control of the financially troubled Idaho School Benefit Trust, with Director Dean Cameron appointed as rehabilitator to oversee its operations while regulators continue investigating the causes of its financial problems. Claims will continue through Blue Cross of Idaho, though claims from delinquent school districts may be withheld until required contributions are paid or payment arrangements are made.

On September 24, 2026, in the Fourth Judicial District Court, Ada County, an Order of Rehabilitation, case number VC01-26-17631, was issued appointing Director Dean Cameron of the Idaho Department of Insurance (the “Department”) as Rehabilitator of the Idaho School Benefit Trust.
The Director, through his authority and powers as Rehabilitator, and in compliance with Chapter 33, Title 41, Idaho Code, will henceforth oversee all operations of the Trust.

Read the full press release

Other press releases

Video of the day

Rufo & Lomez had a careful and nuanced discussion about the controversy over Indian immigration to the United States this week:

I’ve mostly finished the state agency hub on Idaho Insider. Check it out and let me know what you think. The next step is some major behind-the-scenes work to make Idaho Insider even better and more responsive going forward.

Can a leopard (or a Democrat) change his spots?

Brian Almon — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 23:40:13 GMT

Can a Democrat change his spots?

Todd Achilles used to be a Democrat. In early 2024, his was one of three names submitted by the Legislative District 16 Democratic Central Committee to fill the vacancy created when Colin Nash stepped down to focus full time on his role as a Boise City Council member. At the time, Achilles was a precinct committeeman for the Ada County Democrats in District 16. Gov. Brad Little selected him for the seat, and he won reelection in his own right later that year.

In the 2025 legislative session, Achilles served as minority caucus chair, coordinating and corralling Idaho’s nine Democratic representatives. This is considered the third-highest position in the party hierarchy in the Legislature, behind the minority leader and assistant minority leader. Achilles was clearly going places in Democratic Party politics. His scores on the Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry scorecard were 86 and 82, respectively, while he earned very low marks from conservative scorecards such as the Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF), Club for Growth, and the American Conservative Union.

Heading into a contested Democratic primary in May 2024, Achilles was one of only two candidates to receive the endorsement of Everytown for Gun Safety, a national gun-control organization. Along with Loree Peery, a House candidate in District 2, Achilles was called a “Moms Demand Action volunteer” in the ensuing press release. Moms Demand Action is another organization that has advocated for gun-control measures at the state and federal levels.

In the summer of 2025, however, Achilles resigned from the Legislature and from the Democratic Party to launch an independent campaign for U.S. Senate against incumbent Republican Sen. Jim Risch. Throughout his campaign, Achilles has tried to portray himself as much more conservative than his legislative record and previous endorsements would indicate. Earlier this summer, I examined Achilles’ attempt to campaign as everything to everyone:

In the years I watched him in the Legislature, I found Todd Achilles to be intelligent and well-spoken, though a bit hot-headed at times. He’s come across as friendly and personable in the handful of direct interactions we’ve had. His campaign is attempting to speak the language of conservatism—his most recent Substack post calls out “corporate socialism”—yet his record is what it is. It’s that record—not any slick campaign branding—that offers the clearest indication of how he would serve in the U.S. Senate.

Just a few weeks after I wrote that article, Democratic Senate nominee David Roth dropped out of the race. That announcement followed weeks of pressure from Idaho Democratic officials, including the Ada County Democratic Central Committee:

Had Todd Achilles remained in the Legislature and filed to run as a Democrat, I think it likely that he would have won the primary, and the overall situation would have been much the same as it is now: Achilles versus Sen. Jim Risch on the November 2026 ballot. However, that little letter “I” next to his name does a lot of work. Achilles has based his entire campaign on the narrative that he is an independent voice speaking truth to power rather than a rank-and-file progressive Democrat.

Last month, I wrote about how Democrats were attempting the same strategy in several red states, not just Idaho:

It makes a certain amount of sense. In states like these, “Democrat” is usually a losing brand in statewide races, regardless of a candidate’s actual positions. An independent can absorb anti-incumbent energy and deep-red dissatisfaction with national Republicans in ways a Democratic nominee simply cannot, no matter how moderate that nominee might be.

Despite essentially being the Democratic candidate for the Senate in this election, Achilles continues to appeal to conservative Republicans who might be dissatisfied with Sen. Risch. Last week, he posted a short video on social media touting his military service and appreciation for firearms, while throwing shade at Risch by claiming that the recoil of anything larger than a .45 would “knock him on his 83-year-old butt.” Later in the video, Achilles pledged to “protect the gun rights of every law-abiding Idahoan.”

Yet Achilles cannot run from his record. You might say it’s his Achilles’ heel.

Idaho Second Amendment Alliance president Greg Pruett recently examined Todd Achilles’ voting record in the Idaho Legislature on bills related to gun rights and was not impressed:

The 2025 legislative session had no bill of any major substance for gun owners that Achilles could have voted on. None of the major bills got public hearings or votes.
During the 2024 session, however, the legislature passed a law (SB 1275) that protects employers who allow their employees to exercise their right of self-defense. Achilles joined his fellow Democrats in voting AGAINST the bill.
Additionally, Achilles voted against SB 1374 (also became law) during the 2024 session. That bill helped protect the right of Idahoans to carry firearms on public property.
So, ask yourself: if Achilles voted against public carry and protecting employers from lawsuits if they allow employees to protect themselves, do you think he is going to stop bans on your rifles, magazines, and all the other items mentioned above? No. He will, without a doubt, do what he told Moms Demand Action he wanted to do, and decimate the Second Amendment with “common-sense gun measures.”

The National Rifle Association (NRA) also weighed in on the race, giving Sen. Risch its endorsement and an A+ rating. Achilles received an F.

How does the NRA characterize an F grade?

True enemy of gun owners’ rights. A consistent anti-gun candidate who always opposes gun owners’ rights and/or actively leads anti-gun legislative efforts, or sponsors anti-gun legislation.

To sum up: in 2024, Todd Achilles was the Idaho House Democratic minority caucus chair and voted against legislation that would protect employees’ right to self-defense, as well as a bill expanding protections for carrying firearms on public property. That year, he was one of only two Idaho candidates endorsed by Everytown and Moms Demand Action. Now, in 2026, he wants you to believe that he is the pro-gun candidate in this race, despite his NRA F grade and Sen. Risch’s A+ rating.

What do you think? Can a leopard—or a Democrat—change his spots that quickly?

Feature image created with ChatGPT.

Thanks for reading Gem State Chronicle! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Press releases

Video of the day

Jake the Lawyer explains the history of insanity defenses, and how Lindsey Clancy is trying to get away with murder:

What is Idaho’s state gun?

Brian Almon — Fri, 25 Sep 2026 21:50:35 GMT

The Idaho State Gun

Idahoans will have a lot of choices on our ballots this year, from federal, statewide, and legislative candidates to county and local races, as well as questions involving abortion, drug policy, and whether English should be our official state language. But there is one question that is less consequential and more fun: choosing Idaho’s official state gun.

Placed on the ballot by House Bill 932, , which passed both chambers of the Legislature unanimously earlier this year, the question also has an obvious political benefit for Republicans in a midterm election that could see depressed turnout. On the one hand, it can be seen as a cynical political play; on the other, it’s harmless fun, so why not?

Your six options are:

Winchester Model 1894 rifle, chambered in .30-30 Winchester
Winchester Model 1873 rifle, chambered in .44-40 Winchester
Colt Single Action Army revolver, chambered in .45 Colt
M1 Garand rifle, chambered in .30-06 Springfield
Colt M1911 pistol, chambered in .45 ACP
Remington Model 700 rifle, chambered in .30-06 Springfield

All of these are quintessentially American guns, but the real question voters must ask themselves is which one best represents Idaho.

The choices on the ballot span nearly a century of American history, from the Old West to World War II and beyond. Idaho’s history began earlier than that, as American Indian tribes, the Lewis and Clark expedition, fur trappers, missionaries, emigrants traveling the Oregon Trail, and prospectors searching for gold crisscrossed what would someday become the Gem State.

Idaho Territory was organized in 1863, and ten years later Winchester debuted its Model 1873 rifle. It was carried by miners, stockmen, lawmen, and even members of the Nez Perce during their attempted flight toward Montana and Canada in 1877.

The Colt Single Action Army revolver was also introduced in 1873 and quickly became established as the standard military sidearm of the late 19th century. When Wyatt Earp briefly served as a Kootenai County sheriff’s deputy in 1884, he might well have been carrying a Colt Peacemaker.

The Winchester Model 1894 was introduced four years after Idaho became a state, at a time when the Old West was rapidly transitioning into the 20th century. It became one of the best-selling rifles in American history and remains closely associated with the hunting tradition of the Mountain West.

The Colt M1911, designed by John Browning and adopted as the U.S. Army’s official sidearm in 1911, represents the rise of the American soldier throughout the 20th century. Young men from Idaho carried the 1911 onto European battlefields in two world wars, and it later became a standard for civilian gun owners as well.

Like the Colt 1911, the M1 Garand made its name on the battlefields of Europe. It was the standard infantry rifle for American soldiers in World War II and continued in that role during the Korean War. More than almost any other firearm, it remains associated with the American GI of the mid-20th century.

Finally, the Remington Model 700 was introduced in 1962 and remains one of the most recognizable bolt-action hunting rifles in America. It represents the modern hunting culture of the West and can surely be found in homes and pickup trucks throughout the state.

The six choices represent different eras: the territorial period, early statehood, the world wars, and modern times. All six are significant American firearms, but each tells a somewhat different Idaho story. The Winchester 1873 evokes territorial Idaho, while the Model 1894 and Remington 700 speak more to the hunting and rural culture that developed afterward. The M1911 and M1 Garand represent Idahoans’ participation in the great American conflicts of the 20th century.

So which gun best represents Idaho as a whole—from the world of mining camps, Indian wars, and ranching to rural homesteading, hunting, and the modern Idaho sportsman? I confess that after looking into the history, I find the Winchester 1873 especially compelling. The M1 Garand and 1911 are hard to compete with as iconic American firearms, and plenty of Idaho hunters probably have more personal attachment to a Model 700 or Winchester 1894. But if the question is not “Which gun is your favorite?” but rather “Which gun best symbolizes Idaho?” then our territorial history deserves serious consideration.

Ultimately, the voters will decide. Just remember what the question is asking before you fill in the bubble. Choosing a state gun is really about choosing which chapter of our history we most want to symbolize, so choose wisely.

Feature image by Hi-Lux Optics.

Thanks for reading Gem State Chronicle! This post is public so feel free to share it.

If you’re reading this, then you already know why you should vote no on Proposition 1. This radical initiative would eliminate Idaho’s laws protecting unborn babies, introduce vague terminology regarding “viability” that could potentially allow abortions in the third trimester, no questions asked, and remove legal requirements for parental consent for minor girls. It’s too extreme for Idaho, and I believe Idahoans will vote no on November 3rd.
Today I’d like to focus on the people and organizations spending millions of dollars to convince you to vote yes.
The euphemistically named Idahoans United for Women and Families, the organization behind Prop 1 and the effort to legalize abortion in Idaho, has raised nearly $5 million since launching the initiative campaign in late 2024. Of that, $1.3 million was reported this week alone from five out-of-state donors.
Exactly half of that amount came from Government That Works PAC, a D.C.-based group that is also bankrolling Democratic candidate James Talarico’s campaign in Texas. Talarico, as you know, supports a radical agenda, from transitioning children to high taxes and regulations and even opposition to eating meat. Are these the values we want here in Idaho?

Press releases

Subscribe now

In searching for a thumbnail for today’s post, I came across this great article about the history of the Winchester 1873 model rifle, which will be my choice for our state gun:

The Winchester 1873 isn’t the most accurate nor does it fire the strongest cartridges. Actually, when you look down at the chamber, you’ll notice the face of the bolt doesn’t even quite reach the mouth of the chamber, leaving a visible gap for the rim.
What it does have, that many other rifles at the time of its creation did not, was repeating firepower of great speed. You can put more than a dozen rounds down range in less than a minute, and it has a magazine that can hold those rounds. While that doesn’t sound too fancy nowadays, you have to consider that this rifle is not far off from being a century and a half old in design.
Yet it doesn’t look a day over 44.

Video of the day

Since we’re talking about classic American firearms, here is guntuber and future congressman Brandon Herrera testing the guns of the video game Red Dead Redemption 2:

I’m nearly finished with the commodities commissions at the state agency hub on Idaho Insider. Some of them have extremely sparse web presences, but I’m collecting as much information as I can. Check it out!

Who to vote for in Idaho’s 4th judicial district?

Brian Almon — Thu, 24 Sep 2026 22:17:38 GMT

Woodard or Street?

The most common question I hear regarding issues on the ballot is who to vote for in judicial races. Judges and judicial candidates almost always have a much lower profile than candidates for the Legislature or executive offices, and the very nature of the judiciary prevents them from being as candid as legislative or executive candidates.

The Idaho Code of Judicial Conduct specifically prohibits campaigning in such a way as to call into question the independence and impartiality of the judicial branch, which essentially restricts candidates for judgeships to the vaguest narratives possible. Candidates must go out of their way to avoid taking a firm stand on any issue that could potentially come before their court, which means refusing to take a firm stand on almost anything.

Judicial candidates are not even supposed to ask for donations—instead, they must rely on supporters to raise money for their campaigns on their behalf. Nor can judicial candidates publicly identify as members of a political organization, accept endorsements from political organizations, or endorse other candidates.

All that said, how are voters supposed to know which candidate most closely aligns with their values? Just as astronomers can only study black holes by observing the space around them, political watchers must pay close attention to the people surrounding each judicial candidate.

This November, voters in Ada, Boise, Elmore, and Valley Counties will select between two candidates to succeed Judge Lynn Norton of Idaho’s 4th Judicial District. Beyond the immediate effects of deciding important cases, this level of judgeship can be a stepping stone to Idaho’s highest courts. Just a few months ago, Gov. Brad Little appointed Judge Jason Scott, also of the 4th District, to fill a vacancy on the Idaho Supreme Court.

Your choices for 4th District judge this year are personal injury lawyer Jeffrey Street and Deputy Attorney General Greg Woodard. How can you decide which name to mark on your ballot this fall?

Jeffrey Street earned his juris doctorate from the University of Idaho, clerked for Ninth Circuit Judge Randy Smith, practiced law in Texas and Colorado for a few years, then moved to Boise and began working for Litster Frost. Street’s portfolio includes personal injury, medical malpractice, wrongful death, insurance, construction, and other areas. He chaired the Young Lawyers Section of the Idaho State Bar and currently serves as vice chair of the Professionalism & Ethics Section. These connections have enabled Street to build a large network within Idaho’s legal community, resulting in nearly 900 responses to the Idaho State Bar’s judicial candidate survey.

Greg Woodard received his law degree from UCLA in 1999 and worked on complex litigation at several large national firms in the early 2000s. He ran for the Boise School Board in 2022, falling short of election. He is open about his Christian faith, and he and his wife have adopted several foster children. Woodard currently works in the attorney general’s office and has taken part in defending laws involving Idaho’s death penalty, open meetings, and more. Woodard is not as plugged into Idaho’s legal community as Street, receiving just over 50 responses to the Idaho State Bar’s judicial candidate survey.

In this year’s May primary, Jeffrey Street took first place with 40.65% of the vote, while Greg Woodard finished second with 30.56%. A third candidate, David Morse, received 28.79%. Since nobody achieved a majority, the top two candidates advanced to the November general election. Street carried Ada County with 41.54% of the vote, while Woodard carried Elmore County with 35.06%. Morse carried Boise and Valley Counties with 35.92% and 37.75%, respectively. The vast majority of votes in this race were cast in Ada County.

According to Idaho Sunshine, Street has raised just over $57,000 this cycle, compared to just over $8,000 for Woodard. Among Street’s contributors are Democratic state Sen. James Ruchti of Pocatello as well as several Idaho law firms. Woodard’s contributions appear to come mostly from family and acquaintances.

In 2025, Lauren Walker posted a clip of Jeffrey Street testifying against House Bill 335, which would have created penalties for organizations that harbor or assist illegal aliens. Street was testifying on behalf of the Idaho Trial Lawyers Association.

Following his primary victory in May, Street posted on Instagram, and the Idaho Young Democrats responded that they were “rooting for” the candidate:

Prior to the May primary, the Idaho Statesman acknowledged that all three candidates were qualified but chose to endorse Street. Woodard, on the other hand, drew fire from the Idaho Statesman in 2022 over his school board campaign, in which he was supported by the Ada County GOP and the Idaho Liberty Dogs.

Though he has to be careful with explicit endorsements, it seems logical that Attorney General Raúl Labrador has confidence in Greg Woodard, considering that he hired him to serve as a deputy attorney general in 2023. Last May, former solicitor general and Trump White House veteran Theo Wold spoke highly of Woodard, calling him a “constitutionalist and a conservative.”

Image credit: Jeremy Schnittman | NASA’s Goddard Space Center

Just as a black hole is visible only by the effect it has on the light around it, the ideological leanings of judicial candidates can often be discerned only by looking at the people and organizations around them. With Jeffrey Street, I see the trial lawyer establishment and Idaho leftists rallying around someone who publicly opposed legislation that would have held organizations harboring illegal aliens accountable. With Greg Woodard, I see support from conservatives for someone who is not only open about his faith, but lives it.

I know who I will be voting for in this election. How about you?

Thanks for reading Gem State Chronicle! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Video of the day

Scambaiter Pleasant Green explains how to recognize AL-generated product scams:

Michael McGowan asks “what is conservatism?”

Brian Almon — Thu, 24 Sep 2026 00:42:11 GMT

Defining terms

Michael McGowan of North Idaho submitted the first of three guest opinion pieces that attempt to answer the question “what is a conservative”? It’s a question that vexes those of us in the center-right political discourse.

We need an explicit study.
For that we must start at ground zero. What does the word ‘conservative’ even mean?
Conservative, adj. — Inclined to preserve the existing order of things. (Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1967)
Nothing revelatory there. It’s probably what most of us would have pulled out of our own heads if asked. But the existing order may be this or that, good or bad. The word ‘conservative’ by itself has nothing to say about what we are conserving.
For comparison, let’s look at the antonym:
Liberal, adj. — Inclined toward opinions or policies favoring progress or reform.
Note that “progress” is an ambiguous and loaded term. The “progress” may be toward good or bad, but the word evokes, in most minds, an assumption of good. But in fact, the word ‘liberal’ in itself has nothing to say about what progress or reform is being attempted.
The morally neutral character of the words ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ shows up clearly when we view the broad lines of western political history.

Read the entire op-ed

Speaking of conservative

Cody Barr is a Republican PC in Moscow, and he says that House candidate Colton Bennett is the real deal:

For years, voters in Legislative District 6 have heard candidates promise conservative leadership, only to watch those same candidates soften once they arrive in Boise. This November, we have a genuine chance to change that pattern by electing Colton Bennett to represent District 6A in the Idaho House of Representatives.
Just take a look at Bennett’s résumé: he enlisted in the U.S. Army straight out of high school, served seven years on active duty and in reserve, deployed overseas as a combat medic, and rose to the rank of staff sergeant. He came home to Moscow (now Troy), built a career as a medical assistant at Gritman Medical Center, presently serves as a Firefighter/EMT at Kamiah Fire and Rescue, and started a family with his wife, Sydney. He didn’t wait for permission to serve his community — he’s been doing it as a precinct committeeman for the Latah County Republican Party.

Read the whole thing

Labrador defends Medical Freedom Act

A federal court dismissed a lawsuit that sought to let a commercial daycare exclude Idaho children based on their parents’ private medical decisions, delivering Attorney General Raúl Labrador and the State of Idaho a complete win in defense of the Idaho Medical Freedom Act.
U.S. District Judge Amanda Brailsford granted Attorney General Labrador’s motion to dismiss in Le Soleil Child Care v. Labrador, rejecting every claim brought by a Boise-area daycare and three parents who asked the court to strike down the law and let daycares turn away children whose parents decline certain medical interventions like vaccines.
The Idaho Medical Freedom Act, signed by Governor Little in April 2025, prohibits businesses, schools, and government entities from denying a service, a job, or access to a public building because of a private medical decision a person made for themselves or their child. Businesses remain free to run their operations, and to speak their minds, on every other front.

Read the rest

Out-of-state billionaires bankrolling abortion in Idaho

The Too Extreme For Idaho PAC issued a press release yesterday calling attention to who is funding Prop 1:

According to a timed contribution report filed September 21, 2026, the committee received more than $1.7 million in contributions in that report alone. Of that, at least $1.25 million came from liberal mega donors with addresses far outside Idaho’s borders:
Michael R. Bloomberg (New York, NY) — $250,000
Government That Works PAC (Washington, D.C.) — $650,000
Gwendolyn Sontheim (Minnetonka, MN) — $250,000
PGSR Trust (San Francisco, CA) — $100,000
Blair Hull (Chicago, IL) — $50,000
“Idaho voters don’t need Michael Bloomberg or a D.C. PAC hand-picking our laws for us,” Dee Sarton, spokesperson for Stop Prop 1, said. “When New York billionaires and Washington political committees are writing six-figure checks to change Idaho’s abortion laws, that’s not a grassroots movement — that’s an attempt to buy an outcome our own communities never asked for.”

Read it all

Video of the day

Nick Freitas and Christian Heiens try to figure out how to unite the squabbling factions of the right before we all pull each other off the cliff:

Welfare and Medicaid fraud really are happening

Brian Almon — Tue, 22 Sep 2026 20:34:38 GMT

Welfare and Electoral Fraud are Real

There are several assumptions built into our current system of government and social services. With regard to welfare, we are asked to assume that benefits are reserved for the truly needy—vulnerable adults, children, and people who otherwise would not survive without government assistance. With regard to our republican system of government, we are asked to assume that each ballot counted corresponds to an American citizen who is registered to vote at his or her real home and who knowingly cast that ballot.

When people subvert these assumptions, we rightfully lose faith in these systems. Why should we tolerate our tax dollars going to fraudsters instead of the truly needy? How can we trust the outcomes of elections when noncitizens cast ballots that end up mingled with legitimate votes, or when we can’t be sure that mail-in ballots actually originated with real voters?

The way to restore trust in these institutions is to crack down hard on those who would abuse that trust. While proving crimes can be difficult, it is necessary, despite claims from some on the left that these things simply don’t happen.

Last Saturday, Attorney General Raúl Labrador announced that a Bonneville County woman had been sentenced for fraud involving Medicaid:

According to Bonneville County iCourt records, Chelsea Kay Austin pleaded guilty to felony grand theft stemming from an incident in 2024, while another charge of abuse or neglect of a vulnerable adult was dismissed. The judge sentenced Austin to a total of five years in prison but suspended the sentence and placed her on a one-year retained-jurisdiction program, after which the court can determine whether she will be released on probation or sent to prison. The case was prosecuted by attorneys from the attorney general’s office, but the probable-cause affidavit was sealed when the case was filed, so the public court record does not explain exactly what Austin did.

Just today, Vice President J.D. Vance announced that his fraud task force had recovered $2.2 billion in Obamacare fraud, which in some cases involved brokers or providers creating fictitious people and using them to claim various welfare benefits. The lesson here is that if there is an opportunity to steal from the taxpayer, a lot of people will take it, and simply giving beneficiaries the benefit of the doubt is extremely foolish.

That goes for election integrity as well. The late Scott Adams had an adage that if cheating is easy to do and hard to detect, then it is a certainty that people will cheat. The prize for cheating welfare is money, while the prize for cheating elections is political power.

Last week, a federal grand jury indicted Fredy Avila Gomez on a host of charges, including wire fraud, theft of government funds, false statement of citizenship in order to vote, voting by an alien, and false statement in a passport application. U.S. Attorney Bart Davis alleges that Gomez used fraudulent citizenship documents to vote, acquire Medicaid benefits, and purchase a firearm. According to prosecutors, Gomez was an illegal alien who not only voted illegally but also defrauded American taxpayers through healthcare benefits over the course of nearly ten years.

A republican system of government only works if the people trust in its integrity, and a welfare system only works if it is aggressively policed to crack down on fraud. That requires elected officials who actually want to crack down on fraud, which is a reminder that elections matter—it is how we determine who watches over these systems.

We are in a much better position today with President Trump, Vice President Vance, and Attorney General Labrador than we were five years ago. Yet it requires eternal vigilance: keep the pressure on our elected representatives to root out fraud, waste, and abuse, and continue reforming these systems to make them stronger, more resilient, and more resistant to exploitation—and, in the case of welfare, eventually reduce or eliminate them in order to restore incentives to work and help our fellow man rather than continue extracting money from the taxpayer.

Feature image created with Microsoft Copilot.

Thanks for reading Gem State Chronicle! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Video of the day

Lomez (minus Rufo today, apparently) interviews investigative reporter Brian Chau about the coordinated narrative regarding the potential threat of artificial intelligence:

Interview with Superintendent Critchfield

Brian Almon — Mon, 21 Sep 2026 22:47:44 GMT

Over the weekend I had the opportunity to sit down virtually with Idaho State Superintendent of Public Instruction Debbie Critchfield, who is finishing her first term in that role. I asked her about her desire to reform the public school funding formula, which has stood mostly unchanged since 1994, as well as her initiative to return to a phonics-based literacy education. Finally, Superintendent Critchfield discussed how new high school civics requirements will help graduates have a better grasp of their heritage as Americans.

It was a great conversation and I look forward to more in the future. Whatever you might think of public schools, most of our future voters and leaders will pass through that system, which means policies regarding public education are extremely important for the future of our state.

Watch the whole thing (less than half an hour) here:

Newsletters

Thanks for reading Gem State Chronicle! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Video of the day

Rufo and Lomez look back at the so-called “intellectual dark web”—doctrinaire liberals who began questioning liberal dogma in the late 2010s—to see how it has stood the test of time:

Gem State Chronicle

Is Prop 1 going down?

Momentum Grows Against Prop 1

Valerie Abraham calls out propaganda regarding Idaho’s pro-life laws

Press releases

Article on AI use in politics

Video of the day

Achilles campaign running out of cheap tricks

Todd Achilles’ Increasingly Desperate Campaign

Newsletters

Press releases

Video of the day

Dorothy Moon says vote Republican

MOON: Four Districts, One Clear Choice

Today’s releases

Video of the day

RINOs among us?

The Real RINOs Among Us

Press releases

Video of the day

What’s up with absentee voting?

Everything You Want to Know About Mail-In Voting

Labrador helps defeat unconstitutional regulation of firearms

Other press releases

What to think about HJR4?

HJR 4: Who Should Decide Idaho’s Drug Laws?

LABRADOR LETTER: From Courtroom Settlements to Community Solutions

MCGRANE: When Your Address Puts You at Risk

THE SIMPSON STANDARD: October 11th, 2026

Idaho families can take advantage of federal school choice tax credit

Video of the day

Gov. Little comes out against Prop 1

Idaho Republican officeholders unite against Prop 1

Dorothy Moon says go vote!

Other press releases

Video of the day

Bart Davis steps down as US attorney for Idaho

Bart Davis announces retirement

The teachers union faces hard financial times

Congressman Fulcher’s latest newsletter

Press releases

How should schools teach AI?

Will AI be a tool, or a crutch?

Labrador defends the law

DEQ seeks comment

Do debates matter anymore?

Do debates still matter?

Congressman Simpson talks space, abortion, and keeping America Sharia-free

DOI looks for data for study on health care costs

The fall of the Idaho School Benefit Trust

What Happened to the Idaho School Benefit Trust?

Dorothy Moon and Idaho Republicans unite against Prop 1

Press releases

Video of the day

Low-sugar candy, national legislation, and a failed school benefit trust

Healthy candy alternatives by Savanna DeHay

Today’s press releases

Video of the day

Democrats play the “independent” card

The “independent” gambit

Little and Simpson want Space Force to come to Idaho

Part 2 of Michael McGowan’s analysis of conservatism

Press release

Sen. Blaylock explains why she will vote no on Prop 1

What does Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment really mean?

Republican unity and the Eleventh Commandment

DOI to rehabilitate School Benefit Trust

Other press releases

Video of the day

Can a leopard (or a Democrat) change his spots?

Can a Democrat change his spots?

Latest newsletters

Press releases

Video of the day

What is Idaho’s state gun?

The Idaho State Gun

Dorothy Moon explains the big bucks behind Prop 1

Press releases

Video of the day

Who to vote for in Idaho’s 4th judicial district?