‘Cliffs Notes’ for voters

Kids aren’t the only ones with homework to do.

As the election draws near, voters will either start educating themselves about proposed state constitutional amendments and initiatives or they will find themselves undertaking a crash education in the ballot box.

Voters will go thumbs up or thumbs down on seven constitutional amendments. In addition they will decide two measures that address term limits.

The printed ballot looks like the small print on the side of soup cans. Unfortunately, there are no Cliffs Notes for voters. So, we decided to write our own—complete with conclusions. Students of government will want to draw their own conclusions by reading the ballot measures in this edition of the newspaper and the notices of ballot measures published in the last two editions of the paper.

Proposition One: Vote no. The tenacious term-limits folks are at it again. They don’t buy the idea that voters are smart enough to decide when it’s time for an incumbent to hit the road. This time they want voters to force candidates to cross their hearts and hope to die if they don’t live up to a signed term-limits pledge. If politicians cross their fingers behind their backs with one hand and sign the pledge with the other, the term limits folks want the doublecross noted on the ballot the next time the candidate runs for office. This is silly and unnecessary.

House Bill No. 644: Vote no. Last time around, Idaho voters decided to place term limits on every office in sight, from county coroner to U.S. senators. The U.S. Supreme Court said the state couldn’t limit terms of federal office holders. Then, Idaho started wondering who was going to serve in government if they lost qualified people because of term limits. Imposing term limits should be up to voters.

HJR No. 6 and HJR No. 8: Vote yes. Frankly, these measures spook us, but we’re willing to give them a try. It probably has something to do with watching the stock market bounce around and watching the State Land Board make less than wise decisions on state lands the last few years.

The measures would remove the handcuffs on the state Land Board and public school investments to produce bigger returns for Idaho public schools. Whether the measures will actually produce larger returns over the long run—safely and without losing productive state lands for posterity—will be up to legislators and the members of the state Land Board. The decision comes down to a matter of trust.

The measures allow land sales instead of exchanges, longer leases on some state lands, establishes a "land bank" where the cash from land sales is stored for purchase of additional land, and investment of state money in instruments more volatile than bonds. Investment experts and a majority of state officials have recommended passage.

SJR 101 and SJR 102: Vote yes. These are housekeeping measures that remove $3,000 a year limits on the salaries of Supreme Court judges, district court judges, the governor and other executive officers.

SJR 106 and SJR 107: Vote yes. More financial bookkeeping stuff. SJR 106 is a strategy to make school construction bonds more saleable by making them eligible for a Triple A rating. SJR 107 bring state debt management into the 20th Century, just in time for the 21st.