AG Labrador ‘fundamentally’ misunderstands Idaho Supreme Court role, justice says

BOISE (Idaho Statesman) — The Idaho Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit Attorney General Raúl Labrador filed over an upcoming ballot initiative on Idaho’s closed primary system, concluding that it was too early to rule on the measure’s constitutionality.

The justices’ unanimous decision left the door open for Labrador to file another lawsuit in a lower court. The justices also did not resolve the ethical question they raised on whether Labrador has a conflict of interest in suing a state official while his office also represents him in the same lawsuit.

Labrador last month sued Secretary of State Phil McGrane and a coalition of voters hoping to end the Republican Party’s closed primaries and implement ranked choice voting in general elections. Set to go before voters in November, Labrador argued the proposed measure violated the Idaho Constitution and accused the organizers of misleading voters.

The court Tuesday delivered an opinion that dismissed both of Labrador’s arguments on procedural grounds. Justice Robyn M. Brody said the constitutional question would not be ready to review “unless and until” the ballot measure is approved during the November election.

She also said the Supreme Court was not the right venue to explore whether any signatures were improperly collected. State law doesn’t require the secretary of state to determine whether signatures on an initiative petition are fraudulently collected, she said in the decision. That authority would rest with a lower state court.

“The attorney general’s petition fundamentally misapprehends the role of this court under the Idaho Constitution and the role of the secretary of state under the initiative laws enacted by the Idaho Legislature,” Brody wrote.

AG failed to ‘deny Idaho voters a voice,’ organizer says

Volunteers for the coalition, Idahoans for Open Primaries, gathered nearly 75,000 verified signatures for a citizen-led initiative last month to place the measure on the general election ballot. Labrador accused the organizers of “deceptive practices” by focusing intentionally on eliminating the state’s closed primaries and not ranked choice voting.

The initiative’s organizers have denied Labrador’s allegations on misleading voters who signed the petition. Luke Mayville, the coalition’s spokesperson, called them a “political stunt” from an attorney general who opposes the initiative on political grounds.

Mayville said Tuesday that the dismissal was “very good news” for voters.

“The attorney general has once again failed in his attempts to game the system and deny Idaho voters a voice,” he said by text.

The court’s dismissal leaves Labrador — who has appeared intent on fighting the petition before it goes before voters — with the option of challenging the signatures in a local court.A spokesperson for his office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

But Mayville said such a challenge, less than three months before the election, would be “dead in the water.”

“Even if the AG sues again in a lower court, he won’t have enough time before Election Day,” Mayville said, adding that he thinks this will give voters a chance to vote for the initiative and “restore the right of all voters to participate in primary elections.”

Court stays quiet on ethical question

While Labrador did not accuse McGrane of wrongdoing, he asked the court to prevent the state’s top elections official from placing the measure on voters’ ballots this fall.

The attorney general usually represents other state officials in court. But Labrador’s decision to both sue and represent McGrane prompted the Supreme Court to demand the attorney general explain how his decision did not violate the state’s ethical requirements for lawyers.

The court’s request was unusual, and an Idaho legal academic previously told the Statesman the issue likely violated the rules of professional conduct. In the last sentence of its dismissal, the court said it “need not address” the question because the case was dismissed.

Labrador’s office previously said in court filings that the attorneys representing McGrane have been insulated from the rest of his office, which he said fulfills “all the professional rules require and all they can possibly require.”