Unraveling Censures in Idaho GOP
East Idaho Legislators Face Scrutiny in Own Party Censures
In a shift from the traditional unwavering support for Republicans in Eastern Idaho, the end of 2023 showed a seismic change in dynamics within the Idaho GOP. The focus now is on the enforcement of the "Republican Party Platform Enforcement Rule," ushering in a new era of scrutiny and controversy, particularly targeting incumbent legislators. Tenured lawmakers, Reps. Wendy Horman, Stephanie Mickelsen, and Sen. Kevin Cook from District 32 in Bonneville County found themselves at the epicenter of this political upheaval.
The Legislative District 32 Committee, under the Bonneville County Republican Party umbrella, summoned the three legislators to a hearing in early December 2023. This hearing stems from allegations of violations against the Republican Party Platform. In a controversial point of order, legislators remained in the dark about the complaints lodged against them until they agreed to the rules governing the meeting, adding an element of intrigue and tension to the proceedings.
The accusations revolved around the newly established "Republican Party Platform Enforcement Rule," which grants authority to various GOP committees to investigate, evaluate, and take action against elected officials deviating from the party platform. The Bonneville County Republican Central Committee, through its Legislative District Committees, aims to hold elected officials accountable for their adherence to party principles.
However, the controversy intensified with more methods decided behind closed doors by party elites like Dorothy Moon. A Special Investigative Committee was appointed to delve into the alleged violations. Notably, Horman, Cook, and Mickelsen have been subjected to this committee, whose recommendations subsequently led to resolutions of "censure" and "guidance."
A resolution of guidance suggests encouragement from the party to align with certain policy positions, while censure reflects greater dissatisfaction with an official's performance. The latter is more severe, and continual disregard for a censure could lead to a potential withdrawal of party support. Yet the Idaho GOP process does not reveal its process for which lawmakers to review, how they are evaluated, or even presented with an appeal process.
The controversy has not been without its fair share of pushback. The legislators, especially Rep. Wendy Horman, have expressed their discontent with the process. Horman, serving her sixth term and holding a significant position as co-chair of the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee, highlights the impracticality of expecting a single individual to scrutinize the myriad budget proposals.
Horman said there is no need for a special committee to look into her votes. All anybody needs to do is ask, “and I will be happy to answer questions,” she says. But the process outlined by the central committee does not have the appearance of a friendly conversation.
“That’s not what this is. This, in my opinion, is very totalitarian and very authoritarian, where a small group of people think they can tell an elected representative how to vote. It feels like blatant intimidation. The first potential outcome is censure and guidance. Tell me that is not North Korean re-education. Tell me how that is not Nazi Germany.”
Censure Outcomes
In a culmination of months-long controversy, the fate of Idaho GOP legislators, including District 32 Sen. Kevin Cook, Rep. Stephanie Mickelsen, and Rep. Wendy Horman was sealed with resolutions of censure and guidance from the Legislative District 32 Committee in mid-December.
Rep. Mickelsen faced the most severe consequence, receiving a resolution of censure. This public statement expresses dissatisfaction with her performance, emphasizing a perceived alignment with the Democratic Party and a lack of interest in addressing concerns raised by the Republican Party.
In contrast, Rep. Horman, who initially faced seven complaints, saw her alleged violations reduced to zero. The committee was grateful for her submission to their criticism through written responses, urging her to engage with the Republican Party and preliminary committees and chastising public media arguments.
Senator Cook, grappling with four sustained complaints, received a resolution of guidance. While not as severe as a censure, it signifies the party's encouragement for him to vote in a certain way or take a stronger stance on particular issues. Cook had refrained from attending the hearing, citing uncertainties about a public hearing or vote on the allegations.
Bonneville County GOP Chairman Nick Contos clarified that these resolutions are expressions of the committee's concerns and do not carry legal consequences. However, they signal a noteworthy shift in dynamics within the Idaho GOP, with potential repercussions for the legislators' future within the party.
The legislators, particularly Rep. Mickelsen, have responded with defiance and skepticism. Mickelsen questioned the consistency of punishments, suggesting a possible personal element and alleging financial support for her opponent by the individual who signed her censure. The committee's actions, according to Chairman Doyle Beck, are rooted in assessing the legislators' commitment to the Republican Party, emphasizing their pledge to support party principles when filing for office.
As this chapter concludes, the Idaho GOP is left grappling with internal conflicts, debates over party discipline versus individual autonomy. The resolutions underscore a larger struggle within the party as it navigates the delicate balance between enforcing unity and allowing elected officials to represent their constituents. The aftermath of these resolutions will undoubtedly shape the trajectory of the Idaho Republican Party in the coming years.
Second Offenses Could Pack a Stronger Punch
Repercussions originally seemed more symbolic than practical since they lack any legal binding. However, resolutions presented in the Idaho GOP winter meeting in January showed desire for these censures to pack a stronger punch. A proposal around the censures stated that after an official’s first offense, for subsequent offenses, committee members could remove party support and prohibit the candidate from using Republican Party Identifiers on any campaign literature or advertising for five years.
“The Idaho Republican Party has a proprietary interest in its name, logos, party identifiers and the support it gives to Republican candidates,” the rule says. “Candidates do not have an independent right to make use of the same.”
Bingham County Republican Central Committee Chairman Dan Cravens called the proposal outlandish, saying there are several things in the Republican platform that not every Republican supports.
“That would just be ridiculous, and it would be very damaging to the brand of the Republican Party. And it’s something voters would have no patience for.”
