533 P.3d 1262
Idaho2023Background
- Petitioners (Idahoans for Open Primaries and Reclaim Idaho) seek to qualify an initiative for the 2024 ballot that would adopt a "top-four" primary and ranked-choice (instant-runoff) general elections.
- After Certificate of Review, the Attorney General issued short and general ballot titles using the phrases "nonparty blanket primary" and "require ranked-choice voting."
- Petitioners filed an original action (writs of certiorari and mandamus) arguing the titles violate I.C. § 34-1809(2)(d)–(e) (distinctive short title; true, impartial, non‑prejudicial language).
- The Idaho Supreme Court granted certiorari, expedited review, found the original titles deficient, ordered the AG to submit revised titles by Aug. 11, 2023, retained jurisdiction, denied mandamus to extend the signature deadline, and awarded fees to Petitioners.
- The AG submitted revised titles; the Court certified the revised titles as substantially complying with I.C. § 34-1809; Justice Stegner dissented from the certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / Standing | Petitioners argued original jurisdiction appropriate and they have associational standing to challenge titles because invalid titles block signature gathering. | AG argued lack of standing and challenged plaintiffs' legal capacity. | Court found original jurisdiction proper and granted associational standing (Reclaim Idaho/Idahoans for Open Primaries). |
| Standard of Review for Ballot Titles | Petitioners urged de novo review as a question of law. | AG urged abuse-of-discretion. | Court adopted a "substantial compliance" standard (statutory compliance inquiry, not abuse-of-discretion or pure de novo). |
| Short Title (distinctive / common parlance / prejudice) | Title must use language the measure "is" commonly referred to, be distinctive, and not be prejudicial; AG used "nonparty blanket primary" which is novel and misleading. | AG argued he could choose language that accurately describes the measure and that terms like "blanket primary" are used in some authorities. | Short title failed: "nonparty blanket primary" not shown to be commonly used or distinctive and likely prejudicial; "require ranked-choice voting" ambiguous/prejudicial. Court ordered revised title. |
| General Title (accuracy of ranked-choice explanation; other phrasing) | General title misstates that voters must rank all candidates and omits that eliminated votes transfer; uses "nonparty blanket primary," causing prejudice. | AG defended accuracy and said language reflects the Initiative; argued candidates may list affiliations. | General title failed: it inaccurately stated voters must rank every candidate and failed to explain vote transfers; also prejudicial use of "nonparty blanket primary." Court ordered revision. |
| Mandamus to extend signature-deadline | Petitioners sought extension due to delay caused by deficient titles and time-sensitive signature season. | AG argued Secretary of State has no clear legal duty to accept signatures past statutory deadline; no legal right to extension. | Denied: no statutory duty shown; mandamus discretionary and not warranted. |
| Remedy / Certification | Petitioners asked court to certify their proposed titles to SOS or directly certify; worried AG bias would repeat errors. | AG opposed direct certification; contested findings. | Court declined to certify Petitioners' drafts but retained jurisdiction, ordered AG to submit compliant titles by deadline; after AG revised titles, Court certified the revised titles as substantially compliant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buchin v. Lance, 128 Idaho 266 (1995) (ballot titles must express the purpose of the measure without being argumentative or prejudicial)
- In re The Petition of Idaho State Federation of Labor (AFL), 75 Idaho 367 (1954) (Attorney General must ascertain how a measure is commonly referred to and draft an impartial, distinctive short title)
- California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000) (discussion of partisan vs. nonpartisan/blanket primary characteristics)
- Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (2008) (upheld nonpartisan blanket primary distinction from unconstitutional partisan blanket primary)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (associational standing framework used to assess organization’s standing)
- Coeur d'Alene Tribe v. Denney, 161 Idaho 508 (2015) (mandamus is discretionary; standing and justiciability principles)
- Sims v. ACI Nw., Inc., 157 Idaho 906 (2015) (use of "substantial compliance" in statutory contexts)
- Ross v. Bennett, 265 P.3d 356 (Ariz. 2011) (sister-state application of substantial compliance for petition/recall procedures)