Press "Enter" to skip to content
What the abortion initiative does

What the abortion initiative does

September 10, 2026

State supreme court decisions about acceptable language used to define ballot initiatives - an issue not just in Idaho but elsewhere too - may seem like deep inside baseball stuff.

But because it directly influences how people vote, at the moment of voting, these descriptions should catch our attention. The abortion initiative on the ballot this fall will pass or fail in large part based on what Idahoans think they’re voting on. Last weekend, the Idaho Supreme Court decided that question. Sort of.

The initiative from Idahoans United for Women and Families (the concise text is online) has been approved to appear on the November ballot. A key question is, how will people perceive what they’re voting on? Will it open the doors to completely unconstrained and unregulated abortions, or will it scale back cruel and draconian extreme restrictions on human rights? Both concepts are being pushed.

When an initiative appears on an Idaho ballot, it comes with a short description provided by the state. Here is what the state first proposed as the impact of a yes vote:

“A YES vote would create reproductive rights, including a right to abortion before a fetus’s ability to survive and after a fetus’s ability to survive in cases of a medical emergency, and provide liability protections for healthcare providers.”

Idahoans United asked the Supreme Court to throw out that description. It did, but shortly after a majority of the justices approved this one:

“A YES vote would support creating a right to abortion before fetal viability—defined as a fetus’ ability to survive without extraordinary medical measures—and after fetal viability in cases of medical emergency; providing protections against professional discipline and civil and criminal liability for healthcare providers; and codifying a statutory reproductive right to freedom and privacy.”

This is a little more detailed, but not drastically different. Here’s the same exercise with the effect of a “no” vote.

First, the initial state submission:”A NO vote would make no change to Idaho’s current law, which protects the life of the unborn while allowing abortion in reported cases of rape or incest, or when necessary to protect the life of the mother.”

Then the court-approved version: “A NO vote would support making no change to Idaho’s current law, which preserves the life of preborn children by prohibiting abortion, except when necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman, and during the first trimester in documented cases of rape or incest reported to law enforcement.”

Those subtle differences were apparently enough for the majority to conclude, “ the revised statements are consistent with the views expressed in our prior opinion dated September 4, 2026, and that they also substantially comply with the requirements of Idaho Code section 34-1810(1)(b). Accordingly, Idahoans United’s objection is overruled.”

There was a dissent from Justice Colleen Zahn. She said the majority was correct on the “yes” portion but not on the “no” description “because it introduces new terminology not found in the Idaho statutes at issue or in the ballot materials for the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act and because the revised No Statement only restates one aspect of current Idaho law, thus failing to substantially comply with the statutory requirement that the statement clearly convey the effect of a ‘no’ vote.”

She also pointed out that “the revised No Statement fails to clearly convey the effect of a ‘no’ vote because it uses different language than current Idaho law regulating abortion” and “the revised No Statement fails to substantially comply because it does not clearly advise the voter of current Idaho law concerning licensing, civil, and criminal liability for healthcare providers.”

Like abortion law itself, this kind of descriptive language is hell on precision when it comes to actual practical effects, what can and may or must not be done in actual medical offices, by people facing imminent and critical decisions. Statute books tend not to translate well to those environments.

What’s a voter to do? The best option is to read the initiative text for yourself. It’s in plain English and won’t take long.

Beyond that, try this:

If you like what the Idaho legislature has done about abortion in the last five years or so, or think they haven’t gone far enough, vote no.

If you dislike what the legislature has done, or think it’s gone too far, vote yes.

Easy. But that probably wouldn’t clear the Supreme Court.

(image)

 

A break for the guides

September 9, 2026

Considering Kami Bakken’s line of work, it’s difficult to imagine mental health being a major issue in her life.

It’s more difficult to think there is a need for the Redside Foundation, an Idaho-based nonprofit that also provides mental health and other services to river, hunting and wilderness guides in Wyoming, Montana and Colorado.

“We have this romantic ideal about these rugged individuals from the west, and guides are perfect examples of that,” says Shannon Walton, executive director of Redside. “There’s a lot going on underneath that – the loneliness, depression, thoughts of suicide and high levels of substance abuse. In the regions we serve, we have the highest rates of suicide in the lower 48, among the highest rate of substance abuse in the lower 48 and the highest access to firearms in the lower 48. It’s a perfect storm regarding the need for support.”

Bakken, a river guide who lives in Jackson Hole and has a seasonal home in McCall, received the professional help she needed – after experiencing significant low points along the way.

The guiding itself is a pleasure. Her routine consists of spending a week, sometimes longer, guiding a group of 24 people downriver alongside a small team of guides.

“These trips are truly one-of-a-kind experiences, especially with the Middle Fork being a crown jewel of rivers in the United States,” she says. “The Salmon River is also one of the longest free-flowing rivers in the lower 48, and the river is constantly changing. So while the trips are somewhat innately life-changing, we also offer an experience that allows people to connect with this landscape and with each other.”

Bakken relishes every aspect of her job – educating folks about the history and the importance of the Salmon, the games played and even the cooking. She especially enjoys the close relationships with people who take the trips.

“From a guide’s perspective, you are on 24/7 and it’s that way non-stop for three months, or longer for guides that work year around.” she says. “And you are developing connections with people who are guiding with you, and they become your family. That sense of community and having people you can lean on is incredibly important to me.”

It’s an emotional let-down when the river runs end for the season and the wonderful people she met along the way are gone. It magnifies the stress of living in these pictures of paradise, financial and otherwise.

“There were times that I didn’t want to see the sun shine the next day,” she says.

Bakken is not alone, as Walton has seen as the Redside director. One immediate outlet is a helpline for those facing depression, or suicidal thoughts.

According to the foundation’s website, “Redside” is named for an infamous rapid on the Middle Fork of the Salmon River that “conjures up images of the majestic native sockeye salmon on its life-fulfilling journey to the heart of Central Idaho.” The foundation was formed in 2010 after the death of a popular Idaho guide, Telly Evans (1974-2010).

As stated on the website, “Sadly, behind his generous smile and unyielding passion, Telly hid a pain that would eventually steal him from the river and friendships he loved.”

With his death came the inspiration to provide a wide range of services for the guides – including health care access, financial planning and housing assistance. One of the toughest challenges for the guides, as Bakken will attest, is asking for help.

“There is no shame with seeking help,” she says. “Today, I’m good and I feel blessed. I don’t know if I would be here without Redside.”

Chuck Malloy, an Idaho native and long-time journalist and columnist, is a volunteer writer with the Idaho Community Foundation’s Nonprofit Center. He may be reached at ctmalloy@outlook.com

 

Another conflict of interest lawsuit

September 7, 2026

Attorney General Labrador is embroiled once more in a conflict-of-interest lawsuit. He is now accused of using his position to bias voters against Proposition One, the initiative designed to strike Idaho’s total abortion ban. The proponents of the initiative took him to court last year, claiming he had written deceptive ballot titles for the initiative. The Idaho Supreme Court ruled that the short title was improper and ordered Labrador to revise it. He is now accused of misleading voters with confusing language about the effect of their vote.

Regardless of how the Court rules, the crux of the problem is Labrador’s glaring conflict of interest. His primary objective in office has been to rack up political points by trying to stamp out abortion in every form. He fought against a federal law requiring emergency care for pregnant women in crisis. He fought to criminalize doctors who refer women out of state to obtain abortion care. That did not end well because after two years of litigation, he agreed he was wrong. The State had to pay $400,000 in attorney fees for his obstinance. He teamed up with a Christian Nationalist group, Alliance Defending Freedom, in a Texas lawsuit to ban Mifepristone and Misoprostol, two drugs used for early termination of a pregnancy. That suit was dismissed for being filed in the wrong state, so he joined a similar suit in Missouri to limit Mifepristone.

And that is just a taste of Labrador’s bias. He has fully embraced the 2026 Platform of the Idaho Republican Party. Article14 of the Platform says: “human personhood begins at the moment of fertilization…the act of abortion is murder…We support the criminalization of all murders by abortion within the state’s jurisdiction.” That includes “persons conceived in rape and incest.” That’s about as far-reaching as you could get. No wonder the proponents of Prop One are skeptical of the ballot language. Idaho’s abortion laws are among the strictest in the country. But Labrador’s over-the-top enforcement of them has endangered women and caused about 35% of Idaho’s doctors who practice obstetrics to leave the state or quit practicing.

With that track record it should have been clear to him that he had a clearcut conflict of interest in characterizing the effect of a vote either way on Prop One. Every lawyer in the state, including government lawyers, must avoid conflicts of interest. Yet, Mr. Labrador has a solid track record of engaging in that prohibited conduct. He famously took legal action against two of his own client agencies–the Department of Health and Welfare and the Idaho Board of Education– and was removed from both cases by two different judges for his obvious conflicts of interest.

Another lawsuit brought against Labrador by proponents of the Open Primaries Initiative claimed that he wrote biased ballot titles for that measure. The Supreme Court agreed that the titles were misleading and ordered him to rewrite them. The situation could have been avoided if Labrador had recognized his evident conflict of interest. He came out publicly against that initiative beforehand and had no business drafting the titles.

During my eight years as Idaho Attorney General, conflicts occasionally arose. It was not only unethical to ignore a conflict but easily addressed by obtaining unbiased counsel to handle the matter. For instance, in 1986 state Sen. Jim Risch insisted on running an initiative to establish a state lottery after I told him it required a constitutional amendment instead of a mere initiative. His initiative was approved by the voters but challenged in court. I concluded it would be a conflict to defend the lawsuit. Instead of ignoring the conflict, I deputized a reputable Boise law firm, Hawley Troxell, to defend the suit on a pro bono basis. Labrador should have recused himself from writing the Prop One description because of his obvious conflict. Idaho’s respected Secretary of State could have done an unbiased job on his own.

Violating conflicts of interest rules can result in substantial embarrassment to the violator, as Mr. Labrador learned last year. Ever since Idaho obtained statehood in 1890, the Attorney General has served as a member of the State Land Board, but also as legal advisor for the Board. Last year, for the first time in Idaho history, the Board voted to obtain independent counsel. Ouch! That had to hurt. Labrador found himself on the short end of a 4-1 vote.

Labrador claimed the Board did not want to be told “no” on various issues. The dramatic change was more a matter of trust. Those closest to us usually know us best. If a client cannot trust its lawyer, or the lawyer engages in unethical conduct, the client has the right to go elsewhere for legal representation.

 

Shades of Trump in Oregon

Shades of Trump in Oregon

September 6, 2026

Oregon voters as a whole have not approved of Donald Trump any time he’s been on the general election ballot, handing him losses in 2016 (39.1%), in 2020 (40.4%) and 2024 (41%).

But parts of Oregon then and now have expressed different attitudes, as an election map of the state would show. Slicing the data in a different way, we now have a new report breaking the state’s current polling data into 35 geographic units, similar in number to the state’s 36 counties, but in this case each with similar populations.

This recasting shows up in a new national report in the polling analysis site Strength in Numbers, led by G. Elliot Morris (whose Substack is well worth a review), and drawing on an unusually large and detailed data set.

Nationally, it gives Trump an overall polling average of 38.2%, which if anything is a bit higher than some other polling aggregators conclude. Oregon, being a little bluer than the nation overall, gives Trump a job approval of 32.8%

Rather than using county maps, where enormous spaces may contain few people, and vice versa, distorting the voter picture, the report relies on Census Public Use Microdata Areas, or PUMAs. Each of the 35 in Oregon contains roughly 100,000 adults.

There are no massive surprises here. But we can see some sharp patterns.

First, the three — and there were only three — PUMAs where Trump polling approval topped 50%: the Klamath, Malheur, Lake and Harney four-county area (55.6%); the Union, Baker, Wallowa and southeastern Umatilla counties region (54.8%), and Douglas County (53.3%). That these areas support Trump is not surprising at all, though two years ago Trump scored 70% or more in nearly all these places.

Then there are the batch of PUMAs where Trump’s favorables have dropped below 50%, but still clearly above the national average: the Josephine, Coos and Curry counties area (49.1%); Deschutes (leaving out the city of Bend), Crook and Jefferson counties 47.7%); most of Linn County including Albany (46%), Marion County except Salem and Keizer (44.7%); the Columbia River counties from northwest Umatilla to Hood River County (44%); the cities of Medford and Central Point (43.9%); and southeastern Clackamas County (43.6%). Up to this point, the PUMAs have been essentially rural, with a few mid-sized cities thrown in (Medford, Albany, Grants Pass).

The Oregon PUMAs roughly matching Trump’s support nationwide include Jackson County minus Medford and Central Point (40.5%); Lane County except Eugene and Springfield (39.1%); Yamhill County (39%); Columbia, Clatsop, and Tillamook counties (38.2%); Northern Salem city and Keizer 37.4%; Polk and Lincoln counties (36.8%). These areas may hit close to the national average but still are more pro-Trump than Oregon overall.

Now, as the Trump numbers decline sharply, we move into urban and suburban areas, nearly all in the Willamette Valley (the big exception being the city of Bend, which is also in this group). These PUMAs include northwest Clackamas County including Oregon City (32.9%); central and southern Salem city (31.7%); the Milwaukee and Happy Valley areas in Clackamas County 31.3%; Springfield and northeast Eugene cities (29.7%); the Gresham, Troutdale and Gorge areas in Multnomah County (29.5%); Bend city (27.6%); Hillsboro area in Washington County (25.6%); Benton County and southwest Linn County (25.3%); the Wilsonville and Lake Oswego area in Clackamas County (25.9%), Forest Grove and western Washington County area (27.5%); the Tigard, Tualatin and Sherwood area in Washington County (25.5%); eastern Portland city (23.7%); and the Beaverton area (23.1%).

Finally, we get to the areas where you have to go on an intense search to find evidence of Trump support, though some does exist if you look for it. These places include central and western Eugene (20.7%); eastern Beaverton (19%); southeast Portland (13%); west Portland (11.6%); north-central Portland (10.9%); and east-central Portland (10.4%). For the record, Trump received 17.1%% of the Multnomah County vote in 2024, which still represented higher support than current polling indicates.

Viewed as a whole, the usual patterns — more Republican and Trump support in the more rural areas, and farther from large metro areas — seems to continue in force.

But those numbers are significant. They do seem to represent, both in red and blue areas, across the board decline in support for the president. If that has an effect on votes cast for other Republicans in the state, it could have a big impact on Oregon elections in another couple of months.

This column first appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

(image)

 

Darrell Manning

Darrell Manning

September 4, 2026

Darrell Manning, who died last month at 94, was smack in the middle of Idaho’s hot and pivotal politics of the 60s. He served four terms as a Democratic state representative from Bannock County, and rose to Democratic House caucus leader, which you do only if you take party loyalty seriously. He was also the Democratic nominee for the U.S. House in 1968, losing to Republican Orval Hansen.

By any reasonable definition, Manning was a partisan politician, albeit lacking the hard edge. Hansen, who defeated him in 1968, described the campaign in his memoir: “On occasion we made joint appearances in the campaign. They were always polite and friendly, to the disappointment of some who wanted to see more of a fight.” Hansen and Manning had been and remained friends..

In the nearly half-century since he became known as something different: A man trusted by people from all over, a leader whose ability to work in government at times was the difference that sometimes kept pieces of Idaho government from flying apart. For decades, he was, as people have often described him, Idaho’s Mr. Fixit.

His days as a partisan have been all but forgotten. It turned out his major work in government was just beginning.

One big part of it started back in 1955, when he enlisted in the U.S. Air Force. Combining that and his service in the Idaho National Guard, where for a decade he was adjutant general, he never entirely left. He piloted scores of different types of aircraft, but his impact on the development and structure of Idaho’s in-state military operations over a period of decades was profound.

But that was only part of it.

When Cecil Andrus was elected governor in 1970, he looked around for people to populate his new administration, and quickly seized on the Pocatello Democrat he had worked with in the legislature, Darrell Manning. Well aware of his air force background, the new governor named him director of the Idaho Department of Aeronautics - and later, when that agency was merged into a new Idaho Transportation Department, he made him director there too.

In these roles Manning became known for an unusual capacity for getting along with people -- hardly anyone seemed to have anything negative to say about him -- but also as an unusually adept solver of problems, handled in ways that tended to ruffle remarkably few feathers, filling the roles of manager and leader equally well.

Little wonder that he served in state offices in all of Andrus’ terms, or those of fellow Democrat John Evans (like Manning a southeast Idahoan). But Republican Governors Phil Batt, Dirk Kempthorne and C.L. “Butch” Otter made heavy use of his services too, often bringing in him to manage agencies -- a lot of them over the years -- which had problems, reasonably confident he could solve them. Which he generally did.

In today’s overheated politics, people and careers like that seem almost hard to imagine, and to the cynics among us sound like fantasy. But Manning was real, and so was the example he set.

I interviewed him from time to time during his state executive years, but in the last couple of decades saw him mainly at a Boise morning coffee group of political, legal, journalistic and other such folk. (Manning would opt for a diet Coke.) He was sociable but not especially talkative, and rarely spoke much about himself. You wouldn’t listen to him for the cutting jab or the witty rejoinder, because he didn’t go in for much of that.

But when he spoke, everyone at the table listened. He spoke the truth, and he spoke with respect for other people.

If you want to know the secret of Manning’s management style, what kept him in favor with so many different kinds of political people over so many years, that might have been it.

 

No repository necessary

August 31, 2026

It is not likely that most Idahoans would support the State of Idaho becoming a permanent host for one-third of America’s nuclear waste. But that will be our lot if Governor Little signs a Host Agreement with the US Department of Energy (DOE) for establishment of a Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Center (NLIC) at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). The Governor claims that Idaho will not be the permanent resting place for the waste, but common sense and history tell us otherwise.

The Trump Administration’s grand plan for promoting nuclear energy and handling nuclear waste originated with Project 2025, which was Trump’s blueprint for remaking America in his image. Russell Vought, Trump’s budget director, was a chief architect of Project 2025. It initially called for the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada to become the permanent nuclear waste dumping ground. Trump distanced himself from that recommendation because of concerns raised by Republican officials in Nevada. Idaho’s Republican officials don’t seem to mind having the Gem State become a final resting place for the waste, or perhaps they don’t have the courage of their Nevada counterparts.

Last May, Trump issued four executive orders designed to speed up development of nuclear energy. Among other things, he “directed DOE to designate AI data centers as critical defense facilities and tasked the Secretary of Energy with utilizing all available legal authorities to site, approve, and authorize deployment of advanced reactors to power them.” That appears to be exactly what is planned for the INL. The intent is to use a critical defense facility designation to get around every state and federal law that may get in the way.

Furthermore, Executive Order 14302 calls for disposal of nuclear waste generated by recycling or reprocessing through a “permanent disposal pathway.” There is no indication of parking any waste at a temporary location.

When the Yucca Mountain site fell through, it appears the Trump Administration decided on a dodge to limit public objections from any applicant for an NLIC designation. First, it was claimed that the three selected sites would only be temporary repositories. Second,

the applicants have been promised great, but unspecified, benefits. Those promises are just unenforceable fluff. No jurisdiction will step forward to be a permanent dumping ground and none of the applicants will receive a guarantee that the nebulous benefits will ever be forthcoming.

The Governor has thrown caution to the winds to support this presidential boondoggle. It should be noted that INL has been prohibited from bringing in new loads of nuclear waste ever since 1995, when the State and DOE entered into a written agreement. Opponents of that agreement tried to kill it with a voter initiative in 1996. Idahoans rejected the initiative by a vote of 304,886 to 182,710.

Despite the 1995 agreement, INL has grown and prospered. It is the jewel of the Nation’s nuclear crown. That is because of its highly-skilled and dedicated workforce. It is strongly supported by local communities and folks across the state. Innovation is the name of the game in this complex industry and that rare commodity is in great abundance at the INL. The other four NLIC finalists can’t hold a candle. With its stellar qualifications, INL does not have to be a meek supplicant, begging for some transitory scraps from the federal table.

If the DOE wants to bring in additional waste, they should do it in compliance with the terms of the 1995 agreement. They have sought and obtained exemptions in the past and things have generally worked out for both sides. If we are silly enough to agree, sight unseen, to take one-third of the nation’s nuclear waste, it should be in small increments, with a clear understanding and written agreement as to when each increment will be sent back out of state.

I would posit that INL will continue to be the premier nuclear innovator in the country, even if Idaho does not get the NLIC designation. Just a couple of weeks ago, NASA’s Administrator announced in Idaho Falls that the “INL is key to NASA’s space plans.” Those plans call for using nuclear power to go to Mars, and perhaps beyond.

Oklo Inc. broke ground for its first Aurora Powerhouse sodium-cooled fast-neutron reactor at INL last September. The Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, is a former board member of Oklo and vitally interested in the success of that company.

Last December, the Trump Media and Technology Group became a nuclear power. Trump entered into a $6 billion merger with TAE Technologies, a fusion power developer. TAE is currently looking for a site to construct the world’s first utility-scale fusion power plant. Rather than making INL a waste dump, Governor Little might invite TAE to locate there. Giving Trump a piece of the action might incentivize him to protect his investment from nuclear waste contamination.

 

Less Idaho in Oregon

Less Idaho in Oregon

August 30, 2026

Enthusiasts of the Greater Idaho proposal, which proposes to shift much of eastern Oregon to jurisdiction of the state of Idaho, may have just suffered a setback.

Its nature is economic, not political.

Greater Idaho is an idea supported by significant numbers of eastern Oregonians to break away from the state of Oregon — which as a whole is led by Democrats whose policies often differ from those of the Republicans in the east of the state — and unite with Idaho, which tends to vote more the way they do.

Voters in many eastern Oregon counties have backed ballot issues supporting the idea, though the most recent such election, in Wallowa County in May, went down as a crashing loss for the Greater Idaho movement.

In the most eastern Oregon counties many people have connections to Idaho, from commercial and shopping to media links and broadcasts to social connections. Ontario in particular gets heavy shopping and service traffic from Idaho, sometimes involving buying whatever isn’t legal in Idaho (or avoiding the Idaho sales tax).

But the largest direct and firm organizational link Oregon has had to Idaho in the last century has been an investor-owned electric utility company.

Idaho Power, based in Boise since its 1915 founding, serves a large chunk of southern Idaho and about a century ago expanded into a parts of four eastern Oregon counties: Baker, Harney, Malheur and Wallowa, with about 20,000 customers.

The land area is significant, but the population and commercial and industrial base is small, amounting to only about 3% to 4% of Idaho Power’s overall reach. By around the 1950s and especially before the era of massive interconnected power grids, there was technical logic to it because much of Idaho Power’s electric generation came from the Hells Canyon dams located on the Oregon-Idaho border.

This may be the Idaho-based organization with the tightest local connection in Oregon. There are of course other Idaho-based businesses with Oregon operations, but none that reach so directly into the lives of Oregon communities, and few reach people so directly where they live.

Where it operates in Oregon, it has to abide by Oregon laws and rules and operate under its regulators. That need to work within the different rules of different states does complicate life for Idaho Power, as it does many other utilities ranging across states.

On May 21, Idaho Power and the Oregon Trail Electric Cooperative at Baker City said it filed a request with the Oregon Public Utility Commission for IPCo to sell its Oregon territory to the Baker City cooperative, for $154 million. Assuming no regulatory hangups, and none seem apparent, the agreement will be final next year.

Operationally, as Idaho Power noted, “As Idaho Power’s geographic neighbor, their teams and resources are well-positioned to serve Oregonians with quick outage response times, a new service center and customer-facing office in Ontario, and a local board of representatives made up of member-owners from across their territory.”

Geographically, the agreement also seems to make sense. The existing Idaho Power territory ranges across four counties but includes only one regional center city (Ontario) and a few smaller communities (such as Vale, Jordan Valley and Nyssa).

Oregon Trail is larger, serving four counties (Baker. Union, Grant and Harney) and cities including La Grande, John Day and Burns.

OTEC said, “Oregon represents a small portion of Idaho Power’s business, and reducing the complexity of operating in two states allows Idaho Power to focus on Idaho’s growing population and energy demand. Because OTEC’s existing service territory is adjacent to Idaho Power’s Oregon operations, OTEC is well positioned to welcome these customers as member-owners and serve them efficiently. Increasing membership also gives OTEC additional economies of scale.”

So how does all this relate to the Greater Idaho project, which would carve away most of Oregon east of the Cascades and make it part of the state of Idaho?

One way to look at it: A large chunk of the pro-Greater Idaho area,which was divided between Idaho-based and Oregon-based utilities, now will be united under the Oregon operations.

Another way to look at it: Idaho is not terribly interested in eastern Oregon — at least to the point of concluding that, at least financially, it doesn’t pencil out as a long-range investment.

Meanwhile, the Oregon Trail cooperative saw enough value to spend what in its terms were a lot of money for the new service territory and physical operations.

For Greater Idaho, this may be another bit of air escaping from the balloon.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

Where Idahoans think of Trump

Where Idahoans think of Trump

August 28, 2026

We know what Idaho voters - in the aggregate - thought of Donald Trump in the last three presidential elections: They backed him 66.9% in 2024, and 63.8% in 2020 and 59.2% in 2016.

But how does that compare to now, as the midterm elections approach? And - less discussed - does his level of approval vary around the state?

Some clues emerge in an absorbing report in the polling analysis site Strength in Numbers, led by G. Elliot Morris (whose Substack is well worth a review), and drawing on an unusually large and detailed data set.

It gives Trump a national support average of 38.2%, which if anything is a bit higher than some others do. Like several other recent studies, it shows Idaho at 50.6%, ranked third nationally in Trump support, behind only West Virginia (54.3%) and Oklahoma (53%). It is immediately ahead of South Dakota (also 50.6%) and Wyoming (50.5%).

But how about within Idaho? Which parts of Idaho support Trump more or less?

The Strength in Numbers data isn’t extensive or precise enough for county breakdowns, but it does split the state into a dozen PUMAS - Census Public Use Microdata Areas, each with around 100,000 adults. They split up Idaho in ways most Idahoans won’t immediately recognize, but generally cohere.

Here are those areas, from strongest Trump support to weakest.

Central Idaho, Lewiston area south to Boise County and east to Lemi and Clark counties - 59.2%. This is geographically the largest area, the most rural, with people spread farthest apart.

The Coeur d’Alene, Post Falls and Hayden area - 57.5. Far smaller in square mileage, but dominated by the new and fast-growing suburbs in western Kootenai County.

Outlying southwest, from Washington, Payette and Gem to northern Canyon County- 56.1%. Most of the people here would be living in fast-growing Canyon, but parts of the other counties have a bedroom community feel.

Twin Falls and Cassia counties - 54.8%. A mix of growing industrial areas and quieter farm communities.

Southern Canyon and Owyhee counties - 54.1%. Most of the area is deeply rural, but most of the people live in new-growth Nampa and Caldwell: Again, lots of newcomers here.

Panhandle south through Latah County, except the Coeur d’Alene, Post Falls and Hayden area - 53.7%. Were you expecting a higher Trump percentage here? I was. But much of this is stable rural country with far less influx than the Kootenai suburbs. (Also, it includes the University of Idaho.)

Bingham (except Fort Hall), Madison, Fremont, Jefferson and Teton counties - 53.2%. This is very conservative, Republican territory, but it seems less Trump-enthusiastic than some other areas.

Bonneville County- 52.2%. The urban center of Idaho Falls may be driving down the numbers here.

Eastern Canyon County (Nampa) and western Meridian - 51.6%. Another high-growth area like western Kootenai or southern Canyon, but seemingly less Trump-centric. Could the closeness to Boise city be a factor?

Southeast Idaho including Pocatello, Power and Bear Lake counties and Fort Hall area - 50.9%. Pocatello, which even now is politically marginal, may dampen the Trump numbers a little, but the very rural areas around it aren’t pushing back as much as expected with higher figures.

Northern Magic Valley, from Elmore to Blaine to Jerome to Minidoka counties - 49%. True, the Wood River Valley is here, but that offers only a slice of Democratic countering to the other counties, which all are strongly Republican. Support this low is notable.

Eastern Meridian and western Boise - 46.1%. Boise is blue and Meridian has been red; the boundaries of this area may be just enough for Boise to outweigh in the balance.

Most of Boise, southern Ada through Kuna - 34.7%. Trump is about as popular in central Boise as you might expect.

North and west Boise and Garden City - 33.1%. Here too.

A few thoughts.

The dividing lines in Trump support aren’t entirely where you’d expect. Sure, Boise’s opposition is no surprise, since it has been a blue city for a couple of decades and more. There are some indications here too, maybe, of a little softening of support in the Meridian area - and in the northern Magic Valley.

On the other side, the most rural areas in Idaho generally stick with Trump the most. The massive central Idaho area from Lewiston to Cascade and east across to the Montana line is the Trumpiest part of Idaho. But it’s also true that the newest and fastest-growing suburbs are right behind. Heavy Trump support shows up in the most rural areas and in the fastest-growing suburbs.

Could be that the fault lines in Idaho politics are changing a little.

 

INL and the missing element

August 24, 2026

The recently announced proposal to greatly expand the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) is exciting. In order to become a Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Center (NLIC), Idaho merely needs to agree to take and store one-third of the nuclear waste generated across the country. The documents released by Governor Little extol the virtues of the plan, but I was unable to find a significant element in the sheaf of papers. There is no mention of where the water will come from to fuel the fantastic growth of the INL.

The Governor does say at page 14 of his plan: “Idaho is prepared to identify sources of readily accessible on-site water supplies capable of meeting industrial-scale needs, including cooling systems for reactors and reprocessing facilities.” However, it is not clear to many who are familiar with the water demands currently being made upon the East Snake River Plain Aquifer (ESPA), where those sources might be. The wording– “industrial-scale needs”--implies a lot of water. The Governor should identify those “readily accessible” water supplies to ease the concerns of Idaho water users.

Most water observers understand that the ESPA is greatly overburdened already, creating bitter conflicts over its declining water supplies. As Dan Davidson, a career water manager, succinctly put it, “Idaho does not have enough water.” He correctly says that the ESPA “remains at historic lows” and that this year’s “record water demand, drought conditions and depleted water availability are red flag warnings.” Water users are continually fighting over allocation and usage of Snake River waters, resulting in numerous curtailments of water for many users.

The US Department of Energy (DOE) entered into a Water Right Agreement with the State of Idaho in 1990. As Idaho Attorney General at the time, I signed that agreement along with former Governor Cecil Andrus. The Agreement set the terms and quantity of the INL’s water rights. The Agreement was approved by the Adjudication Court. In order to increase its water usage, as contemplated by Governor Little’s plan, INL must acquire a new water right, which would come at the expense of existing uses. That might cause the agricultural community to rise up in righteous anger.

Many Snake River water right holders have had their water usage curtailed in recent water shortage years, but the DOE has asserted that the State does not have “any right to curtail or otherwise administer DOE’s adjudicated water rights” at the INL. A recent decision by the Director of the Idaho Department of Water Resources found that this was a matter to be decided by the Adjudication Court. The State planned against such a claim years ago, so INL is likely to lose the claim that it should have its full water right while all other water users have their water curtailed.

Page 39 of the Governor’s plan throws another fly into the ointment. It says: “While water rights on-site are sufficient for current operations, precise management will be critical as NLIC activities increase water demand. The state anticipates significant adoption of sustainable water practices such as recycling and non-water cooling technologies for data centers to mitigate demand on the aquifer.” So, despite the uncontested fact that the ESPA is already significantly over-appropriated, there are plans for data centers? The Governor did state it in the plural.

One does not have to be an expert to understand that data centers require massive amounts of electricity and water to operate. The public is starting to awaken to the fact, as shown by two laws enacted by the Legislature this year. Rep. Stephanie Mickelsen’s House Bill 911 protects electric ratepayers from higher bills resulting from large electricity users like data centers. Rep. Britt Raybould’s House Bill 895 protects against excessive water grabs by data centers. We can’t allow data centers to cause electric rates to skyrocket for the general public or to impinge on the water rights of farmers, businesses and consumers. There must be clearcut requirements for data centers to be wholly responsible for their own electric and water usage.

The unfortunate thing is that data centers at the INL may not be subject to state and local control under the Governor’s plan. The Trump administration has been pushing to locate data centers on federally controlled property for this very reason.

The upshot is that the State should not rush headlong into signing a binding agreement to take one-third of the nuclear waste in the country unless and until there is a clear and binding agreement as to how the INL will obtain the supplies of water and electricity to fill its substantial and increasing needs, without jeopardizing the rights of existing water users and ratepayers. It would not be asking too much for the DOE to commit in writing that it will not use a declaration of national security necessity to get around existing state laws.