Proposition 1 letter to the Legislative Council

A. Alaska model

In 2020, voters in Alaska approved a similar ballot measure implementing an Open Primary System, where the top four candidates advanced to a Ranked-Choice General Election. This system has been implemented by the State of Alaska and is currently in use. The design of the initiative being proposed here in Idaho is often referred to as the Alaska model. While the details of the text are specific to Idaho's election code, the substantive changes are the same.

To better understand the process and implications, our office contacted and met with the Alaska Division of Elections. While many things were learned, there are a few key takeaways. First, Idaho's 44 county clerks administer elections locally, which are overseen by the Secretary of State for uniformity. Alaska does not have county-level government. The state Division of Elections administers all elections at a state level, which is divided into five regional offices. Other government functions are similarly divided between either a state or municipal level.

Because elections are administered by the state Division of Elections, no additional coordination is necessary between counties to determine the final election results for state, legislative, and other district elections that cross multiple county boundaries. In Idaho, many elections require our office to combine results produced by varying systems, whether hand- counted or machine-tabulated, to determine the outcome of these races and measures.

Similarly, because elections are administered at the state level, Alaska uses only one vote tabulation system for the entire state. Presently, and prior to the implementation of these changes, Alaska uses Dominion Voting Systems. The Dominion Voting System has the capability to produce and tabulate a ranked-choice voting ballot.
Finally, Alaska made note of its voter education and awareness efforts. The state allocated $3.5 million dollars to educate voters on the new system of voting. When speaking to Alaska's Election Director, they felt they could have used more funding for these efforts.

B. Top Four Primary Election

From an administrative perspective, minimal changes would be required to transition from our current primary election process to the proposed Top Four Primary process at the county or state level. The same ballot design and tabulation systems could be used, and rather than identifying the top vote-getter for each party primary, the four candidates with the most votes would be identified. In many instances, counties may save money with this process as it would require fewer unique ballot styles by not having separate pre-printed ballots for each political party and non-partisan ballots at each polling location.

While funding a public awareness campaign would be highly recommended, the voting procedure would not change, as each voter still selects one candidate. The awareness efforts would focus on what candidates appear on each ballot and how this would change the process following the primary election. That said, all voters would see all candidates, regardless of party, for any given race, and this would likely be easier for voters to understand as it is currently more common for us to receive questions from voters on why particular local candidates are not on their ballot due to the ballots being by party.

C. Instant Runoff Voting

The changes required to implement the Instant Runoff Voting process for the general election are much more significant. This process has two parts: public awareness and ballot tabulation. The petitioner's Funding Statement notes both areas.

D. Fiscal Impact Statement and Funding Source Statement

Given the information here, I feel it is important to address the fiscal impact statement and funding source statement included with the Initiative. Any person or group circulating a petition is required to propose a funding source as required by Idaho Code §34-1804(2).

Additionally, Idaho Code §34-1812 provides the Division of Financial Management (DFM) twenty days to develop a fiscal impact statement. This process is relatively new. If you review each of these statements in this petition, you will see that they are broad and vague. The funding source statement generally identifies the same expense areas I have identified here. The fiscal impact statement is similar but less clear. This is not a reflection of DFM. Our office worked with DFM and made multiple attempts to contact Alaska during the 20-day window to help develop the fiscal impact statement, but we were unable to do so. Much of the information contained here was learned over the past year while the petition was circulating. Additionally, some were subject to potential change over the course of the year.

Since this was a novel proposal that the state had not previously evaluated, the 20-day timeframe for developing the fiscal impact statement seemed insufficient. Further, there is no statutory ability to amend the statement after it has been issued. Having worked through this process, I recommend a statutory change to allow the fiscal impact statement to be amended with new information on future petitions after the completed petitions are filed with the Secretary of State, but before the question is added to the voter pamphlet and goes to voters. This would add greater transparency to the process, and a letter such as this may have been avoided.