Raúl Labrador files new lawsuit in dispute over Idaho's initiative to end closed primaries

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador filed another lawsuit Friday to overturn a ballot initiative to end closed primaries, this time in the Fourth Judicial Circuit.

The move came just days after the Idaho Supreme Court denied a similar motion, saying the lawsuit had not been filed in a lower court and that it was too early to rule on the constitutionality of the measure.

If the initiative is approved by voters in November, it would create a nonpartisan primary for all voters, with the top four candidates advancing to the general election, the initiative's website says. In the general election, voters could rank their candidates according to their preferences.

Idahoans for Open Primaries collected more than 70,000 signatures in support of the initiative, enough to put it on this year's ballot. Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane had approved the measure for the ballot in July.

Labrador's lawsuit argues that the “open primary” description is inaccurate and that Idahoans for Open Primaries fraudulently obtained signatures by concealing the ranked-choice voting portion. Labrador's lawsuit asks the court to invalidate the thousands of signatures it collected.

When the justices rejected the Republican attorney general's appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court this month, they said any fraud claims related to the signatures must first be addressed in lower courts. The second part of Labrador's lawsuit — claiming the election law changes are unconstitutional — can only be addressed if voters approve the measure in November, they ruled.

“The Attorney General's petition fundamentally misunderstands the role of this Court under the Idaho Constitution and the role of the Secretary of State under initiative legislation enacted by the Idaho Legislature,” Judge Robyn M. Brody wrote in her opinion.

The new lawsuit reflects the court's order to move Labrador's allegations of fraudulent signature collection to a lower court and disregard his constitutional objections. The attorney general's quick move to follow the court's order comes less than three months before voters are set to cast their votes on the proposal. The Idaho Republican Party has organized against the proposal, while some prominent former state leaders, such as former Republican Gov. Butch Otter, have barricaded themselves behind it, arguing that it would give a broader range of citizens a say in how they choose their politicians.

“In effect, the initiative eliminates party primaries and introduces ranked choice voting in the general election – an unpopular and complicated system that many petition signers were unaware was part of the initiative and would not support on their own,” Labrador said in an emailed statement.

In its lawsuit, Labrador asked the court to declare the collected signatures null and void, withdraw the initiative, pay attorney fees and any other compensation the court deems appropriate. The lawsuit was accompanied by motions to expedite the proceedings.

“AG Labrador is doing everything in his power to influence the election and deny voters their voice,” Luke Mayville, spokesman for Idahoans for Open Primaries, said in a statement Saturday. “The people of Idaho, not the Attorney General, will decide in November whether Idaho should give back to all voters – including independents – the right to vote in any taxpayer-funded election.”

When announcing the initiative, Labrador said that “these bad ideas from liberal outside groups” must be combated, as the Statesman previously reported.

The new motion is just one of many legal disputes over the initiative, including a lawsuit last year over Labrador's proposed title for the ballot initiative. Even then, there was disagreement over how to name and describe the voting system proposed by the initiative.

In a ruling on last year's case, the Idaho Supreme Court rejected arguments by both the Labrador and Idahoans for Open Primaries parties to allow the terms “open primary” and “nonpartisan general primary” to appear on the ballot. Instead, the court said “top-four primary” was the most accurate description, according to previous reporting by the Statesman.