Guest Commentary
The Right To Political Privacy
By Senator Kate Kelly, 3-27-07
Senator Kate Kelly
Senate Democrats and state party officials are standing united against a misguided attempt that would result in an invasion of political privacy of Idaho voters.
Senate Bill 1244, introduced in the 11th hour of the 2007 legislative session, would require voters to register a party members before a political primary election. Although voters would have the option of registering as an “independent,” they would then be prohibited from voting in either party’s primary election.
With so little time left in this session, it appears that this legislation may not move forward. But if it comes back again next year, it will still have the same fatal flaws.
The worst thing about Senate Bill 1244 is that it turns every Idahoan’s political preference into a public record; instantly accessible to any employer, telemarketer, neighbor, or even religious clergy. True, registered independents would not be subject to public political classification; but the price of that privacy would be the exclusion from voting in primary elections. And as we all know in Idaho, primary elections often determine the outcome of the General Election race.
The fact is, the government already knows most of us better than some of our own family members. The government knows what kind of car we drive and how much it cost. It knows our age and birthday, our height, weight, hair and eye colors. It knows what we do to earn a living, how much we take home to our families and how our financial investments fared. It knows where we live and how much our homes are worth. Much of this information is not only available to the government itself, but the government also makes it available to anyone who asks for the information.
The point is this: the government already has enough information about each and every one of us. The State of Idaho does not have a burning “need to know: which political party we choose to affiliate with.
Idahoans have a long and proud history of rugged individualism. As Idaho Democrats, we are standing up to protect the rights of the people to vote and support whichever party they please—without fear of social, economic or political retribution. We believe the voters’ own conscience should be their guide, not their neighbors, not their political party, and certainly not their government.
The Senate Democratic Caucus and the Idaho Democratic Party leadership are united in this matter. While we acknowledge that there may be some individual aspects of Senate Bill 1244 that could be useful to political parties, Democrats refuse to bargain away the political privacy of Idaho voters.
Finally, this bill is a solution in search of a problem—there has been no public outcry for primary election reform. Yet, Idaho’s Republican-controlled Legislature has spent the last three months rejecting just about every issue that people do actually care about—community colleges, child daycare centers, raising the minimum wage, public transit and automobile safety have all gone by the wayside. We believe the last hours of the 2007 Legislature would be far better spent revisiting one of these important issues. If we used our remaining days wisely, perhaps then lawmakers could return to their home districts and tell their constituents that the 2007 session was not a complete waste of energy, time and the taxpayer’s own dollars.
Senator Kate Kelly, D-Boise, represents southeast Boise’s District 18, and serves as Senate Minority Caucus Chair.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.


Comments
Add your comment below
Adam, we've disagreed on this before and I'm sure we'll continue to disagree. It seems to me an election, whether primary or general, is for the voters to select their elected representatives...especially when it's funded by all the taxpayers. I understand that courts have sided with parties in the past and maybe in other states things are run differently but as a Butte County Clerk put it, "We're us."
With one party dominant and unable to decide on just one candidate for an office on their own, if they want voters' help in deciding (and to use public infrastructure, voter registration rolls, and so on), they lose their claim to exclusivity on a freedom of association argument.
I think we would be best served by having ALL voters able to vote for ALL parties in a general election. Why should an independent have to decide which of the two dominant parties to commit to for voting purposes? There are important decisions to be made for BOTH parties, and VOTERS are best positioned to decide all of them.
The proposal comes from the moderate wing of the Republican party upset that Sali won. And instead of blaming the six way race and low voter turnout they reflexively blame Democrats crossing over without providing any evidence to support it. Ironically I predict it will be the right wing of the party who will benefit by placing another barrier to voter participation.