Sunday, October 18, 2026
SEARCH
Home Blog

Guest Columnist ID Rep. Lucas Cayler: Proposition 1 and the “Right” to Murder Unborn Babies

By
Observer Staff
-
0

October 15, 2026

Proposition 1 and the “Right” to Murder Unborn Babies

By: Representative Lucas Cayler, District 11

In eighteen short days, Idahoans will be able to vote in the 2026 General Election. And if you are one of the faithful voters who comes out to take part in their civic duty, you should be aware of an extremely dangerous ballot initiative titled “Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act” or better know as Proposition 1.

You can read the full ballot initiative HERE.

The ballot initiative, brought forward by Idahoans United for Women and Families, is being sold as simply “a reverse on Idaho’s abortion ban.”

It doesn’t take long to read the fine print of this bill, as it’s only 5 pages in length, but several things immediately stand out:

  • This bill creates a broad legal “right” to abortion on demand.
  • It removes parental consent for a minor to seek out and obtain an abortion.
  • It allows ANY licensed healthcare worker (think dentist, nutritionist, etc.) to perform an abortion.
  • It provides that anyone may assist, facilitate, aid (and a host of other actions), a person seeking an abortion.
  • It changes the definition of fetal viability.

I’d like to break down a few of these talking points.

The legal “right” – first, “rights” as we know them, outlined in our Declaration of Independence, are inalienable, given to us by our Creator, the Almighty God. The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not given to us by government, society, or any man-made institution. In our system of government, we American’s have enshrined our God-given rights in our Constitution, both at the state and federal levels. We have duly elected lawmakers who write and pass laws to protect those rights, but never to create rights, as our Supreme Court has tried to do with same sex marriage and abortion. In doing so, these efforts to create new “rights” violate the natural order and infringe upon the right to life of the unborn.

Yet here we are with this Prop 1 bill that does attempt to create a legal “right” for women in Idaho to murder their unborn babies.

Licensed healthcare workers – to address the allowance for any licensed healthcare worker to perform an abortion, aren’t we repeatedly sold the lie of “botched, back-alley abortions will happen if we ban all abortion?” I would like someone to explain to me how its occupationally-sound to create law that would allow a psychologist, a dentist, or even an acupuncturist the ability to perform a procedure as invasive and potentially life-threatening as an abortion, when clearly none of the above listed healthcare workers have specific knowledge, certifications or license in the OB/GYN world. This sounds like a perfect storm to create many botched abortions.

Persons assisting in abortion – in the part of the bill that discusses whom may obtain and who may assist with an abortion, consider this real-world example: your 14 year old daughter is pregnant. While the unplanned pregnancy is likely an embarrassing and extremely stressful situation for her to tell her parents about, under this new law, literally anyone, from friends, school teachers, counselors, or anyone else, can take your daughter to obtain an abortion and you will have precisely NO right to know, NO right to object, and NO right to seek redress with the justice system.

Fetal Viability re-defined – this topic is the second most startling and needs to be discussed in some detail.

Traditionally, it is understood that “Fetal viability is defined as the stage of fetal development at which a fetus has a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival outside the uterus, typically with the aid of advanced medical technology.” The gestational time figure used by most, if not all, medical and legal scholars, as well as the definition used in the historic case Roe vs. Wade (1973) holds that fetal viability is at 24 weeks. 1

Under Proposition 1, fetal viability is re-defined as “…the point in a pregnancy when, on the basis of a physician’s good faith medical judgment, based on the facts known at the time, and determined on a case-by-case basis, the fetus has a significant likelihood of sustained survival outside of the uterus without extraordinary medical measures” (italics added for emphasis).

This re-definition of fetal viability would quite literally change the playing field. In an era where we see states banning abortion or expanding abortion, this abortion law would make deep red Idaho on par with deep blue states like, California, New York, or Massachusetts, that recently passed a law allowing abortions up through the ninth month of pregnancy.2

What is the point I am trying to pass along to you, my reader? The unfortunate and quite possible passing of Prop 1 would not just “reset” Idaho back to the days post-Roe, it would dramatically increase the number of abortions in our state and make abortion legal up through the ninth month of gestation.

This is pure evil and inexcusable.

If Prop 1 passes, it will be incredibly difficult to get it repealed in the future. And if or when our legislature attempts to do so, the masses will scream “you can’t repeal it, this was voted in by a majority of Idahoans!” (We have heard this reasoning used on the repeal of Medicaid Expansion in the past two legislative sessions.) And lest we forget, a majority vote on an issue by the population doesn’t make a thing not evil. Slavery, an act once observed and widely practiced around the world for millennia, was supported by the majority of humanity.

Slavery is evil. Abortion, the murder of innocent, unborn babies, is evil.

How can you help? Read the ballot initiative. Spend the next three weeks educating your friends, coworkers and family members to 1) go vote, and 2) vote NO on Proposition 1. Quite literally, the future of Idaho’s children depends on you.

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability
  2. https://www.mass.gov/news/governor-healey-signs-legislation-strengthening-abortion-protections-in-massachusetts

In liberty,

Lucas Cayler

State Representative for Caldwell District 11

Guest Columnist Martin Hackworth: A Flock of Boneheads

By
Observer Staff
-
0

October 14, 2026

A Flock of Boneheads
Flock ALPRs have come to my town. It’s not going well.

By: Martin Hackworth

Pocatello, ID, my town, is a small city in the Northern Rockies with some pressing issues. The economic fortunes of Pocatello have been swirling around the commode for most of this century. Most proposals from civic leaders and elected officials to fix what ails us might alter the direction of rotation but won’t stop the flush. Hard times.

Most of the large private sector employers who once provided jobs and a tax base in Pocatello are either leaving or gone. Union Pacific, Simplot and FMC—going, going and gone. AMI semiconductor—gone. Idaho State University, having been poorly run for decades, is on life support. And most recently, Amy’s Kitchen downsized to what’s required to keep the premises from being stripped for copper wire. There is no silver lining anywhere in this cloud.

All of this bounty of misery is, mind you, running against the drift of boom times for the state of Idaho, which is currently experiencing a population growth rate of 1.44%, second in the nation, and a GDP that’s growing at a current rate of 1.5%. Turning this cornucopia of good fortune into a screwupathon is quintessential Pocatello, where the government, from the mayor all the way down to cafeteria lunch ladies, consists of not-ready-for-prime-time players.

About the only things growing around here are gangs, illegal drugs, untreated mental illness, and a homeless population.

Oh, and Flock cameras, which are a solution to almost none of our problems. The City of Pocatello quietly installed a dozen or so about a year ago and most people around here were less than thrilled once this became known. I literally don’t know anyone in Pocatello, outside of city hall, who approves of Flock cameras. And for good reason.

Flock Safety, an Atlanta-based company valued at $8 billion, is known for their nationwide network of AI-powered automated license plate readers (ALPRs)—aka Flock cameras—that capture images of passing vehicles and store them in a database searchable by any Flock customer. This arrangement has caused alarm due to lack of accountability over frequent instances of inappropriate use and general privacy concerns.

Physically, Flock cameras are compact, black, pole-mounted, and solar-powered devices generally placed near intersections, neighborhood entrances, and parking lots. These devices photograph the rear of passing vehicles, logging the license plate number, make, model, color, and specific features such as bicycle racks or body damage, along with the time and location, and then upload this data to a cloud-based network that allows agencies across different jurisdictions to search the database with few restrictions.

While Flock Safety insists that its cameras identify vehicles rather than individuals, AI-powered search features accessible to Flock users allow queries that focus on individuals rather than vehicles. This has been verified in both reporting and to me personally by friends in law enforcement who use Flock.

Once you get past their aggressive sales pitch and the sunshine and rainbows gack on Flock’s website about benevolently locating missing children, it turns out that Flock Safety is a behemoth dedicated to AI-powered warrantless surveillance of Americans in public—with a twist that, though loathsome, is marketing genius. We’ll get to that presently.

Many communities or institutions that have signed up with Flock in the interests of public safety (who doesn’t want the public to be safe?) are having second thoughts after revelations of abuse and closer inspection of the contracts they signed. Those communities and institutions are the smart ones. Several within a few hundred miles of here are abandoning Flock and going to standalone systems that don’t raise as many privacy concerns.

But in many instances, that’s easier said than done.

Elgin Community College, located just west of Chicago, signed a one-year contract with Flock Safety in April 2025 to install six cameras on their campus. This was part of a greater movement that saw universities all over the Chicago area installing Flock cameras to enhance public safety. If you know very much about Chicago, you can understand how any port looks good in a storm.

But the Elgin administration almost immediately became concerned when it realized how widely others could search its camera images—specifically ICE. With a large undocumented student population, Elgin subsequently sought to end its contract with Flock and requested that the company remove the cameras.

This just might be the one instance in which I agree with a woke college administration about anything, although not for exactly the same reasons.

Within a day, Flock rejected the request because, as they informed Elgin, they were complying with their end of the contract. Elgin then offered to pay the rest of the contract without the cameras. Flock did not respond and subsequently ceased communicating with Elgin.

Because Elgin did not want the cameras used, and Flock would not remove them or even answer email, Elgin staff covered the cameras with zip-tied garbage bags. A day or so later, someone removed the garbage bags. A cat-and-mouse game ensued in which people arriving in unmarked vehicles would remove the garbage bags, after which staff at Elgin would cover them again. This continued until the contract expired this past April and the cameras were finally removed.

The problem with Flock is that places like Elgin (and Pocatello) don’t read the fine print well enough to understand what they are getting themselves into. Flock’s sales team bumrushes clients into signing up for the good of public safety (again, who doesn’t want that?), while glossing over or ignoring privacy concerns and the implications of misuse. If the reporting I’ve seen on Flock contracts is accurate, no city should ever sign one.

In places like Pocatello (or in most college administrations), good luck finding anyone with enough sense to figure out what Flock is up to until it’s too late.

Therein lies the twist. You can forget about signing a contract with Flock that adequately addresses privacy concerns or objections to misuse. You are not going to rewrite a Flock contract to restrict what you don’t like or want because their entire business model is based on the fact that you are not their customer as much as you are their product. Flock is selling your data to the entire country without your control. That’s where the money is for them

I am not a soft-on-crime kind of guy. I generally support and am grateful for robust law enforcement concerning serious crime. I’m all for exporting those who are in this country illegally, en masse. And I’m willing to give law enforcement the benefit of the doubt in most close calls, as long as they stay within certain boundaries.

But mass warrantless surveillance is not a close call, and it is way outside the lines. Before 9/11 and the subsequent enactment of the Patriot Act (which Congress used to betray their law-abiding constituents by stripping them of rights), a system of public surveillance accessible without a warrant by nearly anyone with an LE credential, for any purpose, would have been unthinkable. My how far we’ve fallen in just a quarter of a century.

Look at how well this has worked out in Great Britain, where warrantless public surveillance is a fact of modern life. In Great Britain, the police know exactly how to track you down for saying mean things about the government on the Internet—like how you disapprove of how they protect men in immigrant grooming gangs who sexually abuse children—but won’t arrest the abusers themselves. How’s that working out for them?

 

 

 

Associated Press and Idaho Press Club-winning columnist Martin Hackworth of Pocatello is a physicist, writer, climber, skier, motorcyclist, musician, and retired Idaho State University faculty member who now spends his time raising four kids. Follow him on X at @MartinHackworth, on Facebook at facebook.com/martin.hackworth, and on Substack at martinhackworthsubstack.com.

It’s Not a “Socialist Revolution.” It’s Misery, Starvation, and Death.

By
Observer Staff
-
0

(White House Communications Office Press Release, October 15, 2026)

A coordinated campaign is underway to sanitize, normalize, and romanticize one of history’s most dangerous and lethal ideologies. Newsweek is currently running a “little red test” that asks about oat milk, shorter workweeks, and tote bags — then scores readers on how ready they are for an “American socialist revolution.”

There’s nothing lighthearted about the reality that campaign is trying to hide. Socialist and communist regimes have killed some 100 million people through engineered famines, mass executions, and slave labor camps.

That same ideology is now being sold to Americans by the Democrat Socialists of America and the Radical Left that dominates the Democrat Party. Their agenda — Medicare for All, open borders, mass amnesty, abolishing police and prisons, and the Green New Deal chief among them — carries a staggering price.

A new report from the Council of Economic Advisers puts the ten-year cost of the socialist agenda at $49 trillion, or as much as $400,000 per American household — financed by massive tax hikes that slash wages by nearly 30%, shrink economic output, and drive inflation sky-high. Mortgage rates would soar, millions of jobs would vanish, and productivity would collapse as empty shelves, rationed care, and the slow grind of state control replace the abundance of American exceptionalism.

Socialism is a sick, perverse system that produces misery and death on an incomprehensible scale. Democrats are deliberately attempting to hasten the destruction of American prosperity, security, and freedom — and if given the chance, they’ll gleefully turn America into a third-world country.

President Donald J. Trump is said it best: “America the Beautiful will NEVER be a Communist Country!!!”

Labrador Letter: Federal Court Upholds Idaho’s Medical Freedom Act

By
Observer Staff
-
0

October 16, 2026 (Cover Photo Credit: Karyn Simmons)

Raul Labrador (Photo Credit: Raul Labrador FB)

Dear Friends,

Parents make important decisions about their children’s health and well-being every day. Idaho’s Medical Freedom Act protects their ability to make those decisions without automatically losing access to childcare, schools, jobs, or other services. A recent federal court ruling upheld that principle in a challenge brought by a Boise-area daycare and three parents who wanted the daycare to be able to require vaccinations as a condition of attendance.

The Legislature passed the Medical Freedom Act in 2025. It prohibits businesses, schools, and government entities from denying services, employment, or access to public buildings because of a private medical decision a person made for themselves or their child. During debate, some lawmakers raised concerns that the law could prevent schools from sending sick children home. Governor Little vetoed an earlier version over that concern before signing a revised bill in April 2025.

At the heart of the law is a principle the U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized: parents have a fundamental right to make decisions about the care, custody, and control of their children. Parents are the first line of defense for their children’s health, and I believe those medical decisions belong to the mothers and fathers raising them. The Medical Freedom Act protects that authority by ensuring a family’s medical choices cannot, by themselves, become a barrier to childcare, education, or employment.

The parents who challenged the law argued that their own parental rights include the right to choose a daycare that requires vaccination. I respect their concerns. However, as we argued in the case, and U.S. District Judge Amanda Brailsford agreed in Le Soleil Child Care v. Labrador, the law does not prevent parents from vaccinating their children, consulting medical professionals, or choosing a daycare that aligns with their preferences. It limits what a daycare can require of families as a condition of attendance.

The court agreed with us that recognizing the right the plaintiffs asserted would force the Legislature to favor one group’s views on vaccination over another’s when setting rules for daycares. Protecting one family’s choices should not mean allowing another family’s private medical decisions to dictate whether they can access childcare.

The daycare also argued that the law was too vague and could prohibit ordinary practices like handwashing or prevent daycares from excluding sick and contagious children. The court rejected those arguments, agreeing with our office that the word “medical” limits the law to actions that are medical in nature. Basic hygiene does not become a medical action simply because it can help prevent disease. And the law does not prevent a daycare from excluding a child who has a contagious illness—a concern raised during the legislative debate.

The law also does not restrict what a daycare can say about public health or vaccination. The court noted that Le Soleil remains free to express its views. The law limits what the daycare can require of families, not what it can say.

For Idaho families, the ruling preserves the protections the Legislature intended. The court found that the law serves legitimate state interests, including reducing barriers to childcare, protecting individual autonomy, and preventing discrimination based on medical decisions.

I recognize that some Idahoans disagree with this policy, and I do not question the sincerity of their concerns. The daycare’s attorney has indicated that they are considering an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Legislature is the proper place to revisit the policy and weigh competing concerns. As Judge Brailsford noted, the U.S. Supreme Court has cautioned courts against expanding constitutional rights in ways that take over “authority that the Constitution entrusts to the people’s elected representatives.”

Idaho’s elected representatives debated these concerns and made their decision. My office will continue to defend the law they enacted.

Best regards,

Image

ABOUT THE OFFICE

The Attorney General’s Office provides legal representation to the State of Idaho. The Attorney General and his deputies represent state agencies and offices, to better the lives of Idahoans.

For more information about the Office, visit our website here.

Guest Columnist Brian Almon: The Real RINOs Among Us

By
Observer Staff
-
0
(Image Credit: Gem State Chronicle)

October 14, 2026 (Cover Image Credit: Gem State Chronicle)

The Real RINOs Among Us

By: Gem State Chronicle Publisher Brian Almon

Brian Almon

I’ve said many times that I’m not a fan of the term “RINO”—Republican in name only. It’s deployed far too often during intraparty disputes to describe Republicans who disagree on any number of issues. If you ask some activists, not only is Gov. Brad Little a RINO, but so are House Speaker Mike Moyle, Sen. Brandon Shippy, and even Rep. Heather Scott. One disagreement is often all it takes to earn the RINO label.

There has always been a degree of ideological variety within the Republican Party. While that degree is shrinking, there is still room within the GOP for debate over the best tax rate, the role and scope of government, and how best to manage temperance and morality. Where I believe the RINO label is useful, however, is in identifying current or former Republican elected officials who publicly undermine the party’s own nominees.

A few weeks ago, in writing about Ronald Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment, I said that the primary was the time for Republicans to fight each other, but once the voters have spoken, it’s time to unite against the left. Unfortunately, some Idaho Republicans didn’t get the memo. Over the past few weeks, six current or former elected officials have publicly endorsed candidates running against Republican nominees:

  • Former Secretary of State Ben Ysursa endorsed Kelceymarie Warner, a candidate for Ada County commissioner running against incumbent Republican Ryan Davidson.
  • Outgoing state Sen. Jim Woodward endorsed independent candidate Steve Johnson, who is running against Republican Scott Herndon. Herndon defeated Woodward in the May Republican primary.
  • Former attorneys general Jim Jones and Lawrence Wasden endorsed Democrat Lori Hickman, who is running against incumbent Republican Raúl Labrador. Labrador defeated Wasden in the 2022 primary.
  • Former state Reps. Scott Syme and Julie Yamamoto endorsed independent candidate (and former Democratic legislator) Todd Achilles for U.S. Senate, running against incumbent Republican Jim Risch.
Collage of endorsements: Ben Ysursa for Kelceymarie Warner for Ada County commissioner; Jim Woodward for independent Steve Johnson for Senate District 1; Lawrence Wasden and Jim Jones with Democrat Lori Hickman for attorney general; and Scott Syme and Julie Yamamoto for Todd Achilles for U.S. Senate.

To be clear, everyone has the right of conscience. Every person, no matter their affiliation or past position, can support whomever they want. However, Idaho Republicans have the right, and I would say the responsibility, to enforce consequences for these decisions. A current or former Republican elected official who has been through the primary process themselves and counted on Republican support in the general election should see their career in the Republican Party come to an end if they endorse a candidate running against a Republican nominee. No more invitations to speak at Lincoln Day Dinners. No more positions of honor at Republican Party events. No more appointments to Republican boards or committees. And, above all, no more song-and-dance routines in which they play the part of “token Republican” for the left-wing news media.

Because that is what a lot of these endorsements are about. They’re meant to add impact to a campaign by having a known Republican endorse an independent or a Democrat, making voters believe that there must be something exceptionally wrong with the Republican nominee. Jim Jones has made a new career over the past few years as the token Republican supporting Democratic candidates or causes, and he, Syme, and Ysursa all endorsed Democrat Tom Arkoosh against Labrador in 2022. This most recent round of endorsements doesn’t really carry the weight they might have wanted. Were these six Republicans motivated by political concerns, or has it always been personal?

Ysursa, Woodward, Jones, Wasden, Syme, and Yamamoto each benefited from Idaho GOP support in the past, and presumably at the time they expected Republicans to unite behind them following the primary. While having once won office as a Republican certainly doesn’t obligate someone to forever support Republicans in the future, actively opposing a Republican nominee shows that they are no longer part of the team and should not be treated as such. It also calls into question how much they really believed what they said while on the campaign trail themselves. Were these Republicans really as pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax, and anti-regulation as they once claimed? Or was it always about political power, first and foremost, with ideology merely a costume for the campaign?

At the 2025 Idaho GOP Winter Meeting, the state central committee voted to censure a Republican precinct committeeman who had taken a leading role in campaigning for ranked choice voting, contrary to the party’s position. As a member of the state central committee, I voted in favor of the censure, despite knowing it was merely words, because I felt it was important for the party to establish ground rules for those who carry its banner. An NFL team would be well within its rights to discipline a player or coach who gave material support to its opponents, such as sharing its playbook or even just expressing support. Nations at war exact harsh justice against those who give aid and comfort to the enemy. Partisan politics falls somewhere between those two examples, and I think it’s appropriate for a party to establish consequences for campaigning against its own nominees.

After all, the primary is how we as a party select our champions. Ysursa, Woodward, Jones, Wasden, Syme, and Yamamoto aren’t just opposing Republican nominees; they are spitting in the faces of the Republican voters who chose those nominees. They’re essentially saying that the primary process is pointless, that it’s only useful to them if it results in their favored outcomes. An organization cannot survive if it allows such treachery to become routine.

In the privacy of the polling place, your vote is your vote. If you don’t believe that the Republican nominee is the right man or woman for the job, then you have every right to vote for someone else or leave that race blank. But that’s a far cry from former Republican elected officials who enjoyed the support of the Republican infrastructure when they were on the ballot are today using their cachet to campaign against Republican nominees. To me, that is the definition of a RINO—a Republican in name only—someone who uses the party label when it suits them but then stabs the party in the back the moment it doesn’t.

About Brian Almon

Brian Almon is the Editor of the Gem State Chronicle. He also serves as Chairman of the District 14 Republican Party and is a trustee of the Eagle Public Library Board. He lives with his wife and five children in Eagle.

Editor’s note:  This article originally appeared in the Gem State Chronicle.  I encourage our readers to visit their website and consider subscribing.  Find this and other informative articles at the Gem State Chronicle here: About – Gem State Chronicle

Guest Columnist Julianne Young – As Plain as the Nose on Your Face: Why HJR 4 Is a “Yes”

By
Observer Staff
-
0

October 15, 2026

As Plain as the Nose on Your Face: Why HJR 4 Is a “Yes”

By: Julianne Young

Julianne Young

In 2020, Oregon voters passed Measure 110 and became the first state to decriminalize hard drugs. Possessing fentanyl, heroin, or meth became a $100 ticket with a treatment hotline number attached. Voters were promised that marijuana tax dollars would build a recovery system for everyone who called.

Only 4 percent called. Treatment money crawled out the door while open-air drug use took over Portland’s streets. Between 2022 and 2023, Oregon’s overdose deaths rose 11 percent while the national number barely moved.

Oregonians didn’t write Measure 110. The New York-based Drug Policy Alliance did, and they bankrolled the campaign to pass it. Then they went home. Oregon families paid the price for three years. Finally, Oregon’s Democrat-controlled Legislature voted, with bipartisan support, to roll the measure back.

This election, HJR 4 can protect Idaho from the same foul play.

Of the 24 states with recreational marijuana, most got there through initiatives, including Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and Montana. And drug legalization no longer stops at marijuana. Oregon legalized psilocybin mushrooms in 2020, and Colorado followed in 2022. That’s why HJR 4 covers “other psychoactive substances.”

What does HJR 4 do?

HJR 4 amends the Idaho Constitution so that only your representatives in the State Legislature can legalize marijuana, narcotics, or other psychoactive substances. Since 1934, our Constitution has given the Legislature full authority over alcohol. HJR 4 applies the same rule to drugs. And every year, when lawmakers update Idaho’s drug schedules, any Idahoan can testify. Now it needs your approval, because only voters can amend our Constitution.

What’s at stake

Drug abuse is never a private choice. Even after a sharp drop in 2024, overdoses killed an estimated 80,391 Americans that year, and overdose remains the leading cause of death for Americans ages 18 to 44. Nearly 19 million children live with a parent or caregiver who has a substance use disorder, and more than 321,000 lost a parent to overdose in the decade ending in 2021. Parental drug use was the main reason for 36 percent of children entering foster care by 2017, up from about 15 percent in 2000. The opioid epidemic alone cost the nation nearly $1.5 trillion in 2020.

Marijuana is no exception. Today’s product is far more potent than a generation ago, and a National Institutes of Health study estimated that as many as 30 percent of schizophrenia cases among men ages 21 to 30 could have been prevented by avoiding cannabis use disorder.

Follow the money

The pro-drug lobby knows it’s cheaper to buy a signature drive than to persuade a legislature. Your legislator has to face you at the grocery store and live under the laws they pass. A national PAC never does.

In Florida in 2024, a single marijuana company, Trulieve, spent roughly $145 million pushing legalization. Measure 110’s backers outspent Oregon opponents 35 to 1.

Whom do we trust?

My youngest son recently played Pinocchio in a community play, complete with a mechanical nose that actually grew. Everyone could tell when Pinocchio lied. His harder lesson was learning whom to trust: Geppetto, who loved him; Jiminy Cricket, who told him the truth; or the Fox, who told him just what he wanted to hear.

Initiative campaigns don’t have growing noses to warn us, and they have no Jiminy Cricket. They disband the day after they win, and no one answers for what the ads promised.

Idaho has learned this. Medicaid expansion was sold in 2018 as help for working Idahoans, yet when the Legislature added a work requirement, critics called it defying the voters. I said then on the House floor, and I believe now: there is no such thing as freedom without personal responsibility.

Idaho saw it again this year. Medical cannabis backers reportedly spent more than $2 million, hired a professional signature firm, and claimed 150,000 signatures. The state verified 58,024. The Secretary of State referred problems to law enforcement, including a dead voter’s signature and 293 circulators of unverified residency. The campaign blamed its contractor. But it will be back.

The decision belongs here

Without a nose-ometer, Idahoans must learn from experience, including our neighbors’ hard experience. The Fox always has a good pitch, and he never stays to live with the consequences. Our elected representatives do. On November 3, vote YES on HJR 4, shut out big-money special interests, and keep these decisions with people who have to look Idahoans in the eye.

Julianne Young is a Bingham County Mom who loves faith, family, and freedom; a former state representative; founder of the nonprofit Idaho Family Strong; regional coordinator for Idaho Chooses Life; and 2nd Vice Chair of the Idaho State GOP.

Herzog Foundation Launches 2026 Bill of Rights Essay Contest for Middle, High School Students

By
Observer Staff
-
0

(Herzog Foundation Press Release, October 12, 2026)

The Herzog Foundation is excited to announce the launch of its fifth annual Bill of Rights Essay Contest, inviting middle and high school students enrolled in Christian schools or homeschools to participate. This year, essays will be accepted until Nov. 23, with winners announced on Dec. 15, coinciding with Bill of Rights Day.

“America’s 250th anniversary provides a unique opportunity to reflect on the ideas and freedoms that have shaped our nation,” said Herzog Foundation President Darrell Jones. “By engaging with the Bill of Rights, students gain a deeper appreciation for the liberties we enjoy and the constitutional principles that continue to guide the American experiment.”

In recognition of America’s semiquincentennial and the 235th anniversary of the Bill of Rights, the Herzog Foundation is inviting students to reflect on the document’s significance through the following essay prompt: “What made the Bill of Rights revolutionary and unique at the time of its ratification? As the United States celebrates its 250th anniversary, why do these rights remain essential and how can today’s citizens preserve them for future generations?”

The contest will recognize one winner in each category: middle school (grades 6-8) and high school (grades 9-12). Each winner and their school will receive a $300 award from the Herzog Foundation. A select number of runners-up also will receive $150 awards.

“For 235 years, the Bill of Rights has protected fundamental freedoms and helped define what it means to be an American citizen,” Jones said. “We are proud to encourage students to study its history and recognize their role in preserving those freedoms for future generations.”

For more details about the Herzog Foundation’s Bill of Rights Essay Contest, including submission guidelines, please click here. Revisit the inspiring work of our past winners:

About the Stanley M. Herzog Charitable Foundation

The Stanley M. Herzog Charitable Foundation is a charitable foundation dedicated to catalyzing and accelerating the development of quality Christ-centered K-12 education so that families and culture flourish.

Learn more at HerzogFoundation.com.

Sen. Risch: Helping Idahoans & Returning $8.5M through Casework

By
Observer Staff
-
0

(From the Desk of Senator James E. Risch, October 16, 2026)

My mission as your U.S. Senator has always been to pass policies that make life easier, more affordable, and safer for Idahoans.

But we all know that too often getting answers or resolving an issue with the federal government can be complicated and downright frustrating.

That’s where me and my staff come into the picture. We work day-in and day-out with federal agencies on behalf of Idahoans to help them find information, access critical care and earned benefits, and get results.

In 2026 alone, my incredible casework team has returned $8,563,183.20 to Idahoans owed to them by a federal agency. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Here’s just a few examples of what our office has accomplished for Idahoans this year:

  • Helped an expectant mother and her daughter receive Social Security survivor benefits following her husband’s passing;
  • Brought a U.S. Marine home in time to attend his grandfather’s funeral;
  • Helped a veteran schedule an expedited appointment when his motorized wheelchair stopped working;
  • Eliminated IRS penalties and interest imposed on a disabled man and his family because of errors in their tax return;
  • Helped a family secure Social Security benefits for their son’s care earlier than expected, including more than $20,000 in retroactive payments during their final months together; and
  • Corrected an error that threatened a woman’s lawful permanent resident status, Social Security benefits, and Medicare coverage.

I’m proud of the work our office does for Idaho.

If you or an Idahoan you know needs assistance with a federal agency, me and my team are ready to help. Contact one of my six regional offices across the state at risch.senate.gov.

For the latest press releases and constituent services visit risch.senate.gov.

To receive email updates on what I’m working on as your Senator, click here.
To connect with me on Twitter, visit my Twitter page.
To connect with me on Facebook, visit my Facebook page.

 

Cannabis, Amphetamines among Most Common Drugs Found in ISP Toxicology Testing

By
Observer Staff
-
0

(Idaho State Police Press Release, October 15, 2026)

MERIDIAN, Idaho — Cannabis-related compounds remained the most commonly detected drugs in adult toxicology samples tested by Idaho State Police Forensic Services, followed by amphetamine and methamphetamine, according to the newly published Fiscal Year 2026 Toxicology Report.

At least one drug was detected in 84% of adult toxicology samples tested, and 45% contained multiple drugs.

The most commonly detected substances across toxicology casework were cannabinoids, amphetamine/methamphetamine and cocaine or its breakdown product, benzoylecgonine. Together, these accounted for more than 63% of the drugs reported.

Among adult DUI samples tested for alcohol or other volatile substances, 82% had alcohol concentrations at or above 0.08%.

The annual report examines alcohol and drug testing of blood and urine samples submitted in connection with DUI and other investigations. This testing provides evidence to support investigations and court proceedings while identifying trends in substances detected across Idaho.

The findings reflect samples submitted to ISP laboratories for testing and do not represent all DUI incidents or substance use across Idaho.

The full report and an accompanying fact sheet summarizing the findings are available at isp.idaho.gov/forensics/news.

Guest Columnist Brian Almon: Everything You Want to Know About Mail-In Voting

By
Observer Staff
-
0
(Image Credit: Gem State Chronicle)

October 13, 2026 (Cover Image Credit: Gem State Chronicle)

Everything You Want to Know About Mail-In Voting

By: Gem State Chronicle Publisher Brian Almon

Brian Almon

Early voting started this morning in several Idaho counties. Yet some voters cast their ballots days or even weeks ago. According to the Secretary of State’s absentee ballot dashboard, approximately 127,500 absentee ballots have been issued to Idaho voters, with 35,797 returned thus far, a 28% return rate. The total number of absentee ballots issued is lagging behind 2024 numbers but is ahead of 2022, the previous midterm election.

Line chart of Idaho absentee ballots issued by days until the election, comparing 2026 with the 2022 and 2024 general elections. At 22 days out, 2026 stands at about 123,000, behind 2024's pace but ahead of 2022's.

Breaking those numbers down by party, registered Republicans have been issued 74,311 absentee ballots and returned 20,179, for a return rate of 27.2%, just below the overall average. Democrats have been issued 24,804 and returned 8,538, a 34.4% return rate, while unaffiliated voters have been issued 25,016 and returned 6,724, or 26.9%.

Idaho absentee ballot stats by party: Republicans 74,311 issued and 20,179 returned (27.2%); unaffiliated 25,016 and 6,724 (26.9%); Democrats 24,804 and 8,538 (34.4%); Libertarians 672 and 181 (26.9%); Constitution 182 and 47 (25.8%).

As of this month, Republicans make up 62.5% of all registered voters in Idaho, with unaffiliated voters accounting for 24% and Democrats just under 12%. However, the breakdown of absentee ballots issued is 59.5% Republican, 20% Democrat, and 20% unaffiliated. The share of absentee ballots thus far returned is 56.5% Republican, 24% Democrat, and 19% unaffiliated.

Note that these numbers are a snapshot in time. Check the Secretary of State’s dashboard for the latest data.

My sense is that conservative Republicans have long eschewed voting by mail, especially after so many questions arose from the 2020 presidential election, but followed President Trump’s lead in 2024 when he encouraged his supporters to vote early or by mail. Cliff Maloney, CEO of Citizens Alliance, predicted that if Republicans could reach a 33% absentee vote threshold in Pennsylvania, President Trump would win the state. They just barely hit that number, and Trump went on to win Pennsylvania and the presidency.

Yet many conservatives remain skeptical of mail-in voting, and rightly so, in my opinion. Unlike in-person voting, whether early or on Election Day, mailed ballots pass through more hands, creating additional potential points of failure. When the American Postal Workers Union and National Association of Letter Carriers both endorsed Joe Biden for president in 2020, it created even more concern among Republicans about whether their ballots would be properly handled.

Earlier this month, the Idaho GOP sent absentee ballot request forms to Republican voters throughout the state. I noticed some outrage from conservatives on social media, characterizing the move as using the enemy’s tools and giving up on election integrity. I saw things differently, however, posting on X that it was a “brilliant play” by the state party.

Two Idaho GOP mailers marked "Election Notice: Absentee Ballot Request Enclosed, Action Required"

Anyone who refuses to use legal and legitimate tools to win, whether we’re talking football, politics, or war, deserves to lose. How many Republican voters who support our candidates and oppose Prop 1 might otherwise not bother voting, but could be persuaded to request an absentee ballot this way? While I currently handle communications and social media for the Idaho GOP, I was not involved in the absentee ballot request campaign.

Even if election integrity is your number one issue, we cannot change current policy without first gaining a critical mass in the Legislature. Several attempts to curtail no-excuse absentee voting have failed over the past few years. There simply aren’t enough lawmakers who want to make a change. There are also many citizens who appreciate the convenience of voting by mail, and vehemently oppose efforts to make it more difficult.

It turns out that mail-in voting has been part of our election system for a long time. In 1970, the Idaho Legislature passed House Bill 555, which authorized no-excuse absentee voting. Idaho Code §34-1001 says:

Any registered elector of the state of Idaho may vote at any election by absentee ballot as herein provided.

The rest of the chapter explains how the absentee voting process is regulated, but for all intents and purposes, Idaho has had a no-excuse absentee voting option for more than half a century. Absentee voting was historically associated with special circumstances, such as military service, travel, old age, or disability, but its use has expanded over the years. Some states, such as Oregon and Washington, conduct their elections almost entirely by mail, requiring a great deal of public trust in the process, especially in two states that haven’t voted Republican at any level of consequence in more than a generation.

The COVID-19 lockdowns in 2020 accelerated the move toward mail-in balloting. Here in Idaho, the 2020 primary was conducted entirely by mail. However, conservatives began pushing back around this time, while many progressives embraced mail-in voting. It became a tribal shibboleth, with some Democrats describing 2020 as the most secure election in history, while some Republicans began to look askance at election systems in general.

While I have pushed back on some of the more extreme claims regarding election security, I am troubled by the way in which mail-in voting separates the voter from the ballot. The bedrock of a republican system of government is the idea that popular will is determined by a vote, and each ballot represents the will of a single eligible voter. That connection is easy to see with in-person voting: a citizen goes to a polling place, checks in, receives a ballot, makes his marks, then casts it in the ballot box.

Mail-in voting makes this much more abstract. States with absentee-only voting create situations where paid partisan actors can go to an apartment complex or nursing home and carry away dozens or even hundreds of ballots, and there’s no way to be sure that they actually represent the will of eligible voters. 2020 put this concept on steroids when many states mailed absentee ballots to every name on their list, while at the same time reducing signature verification measures to almost nil.

Idaho has generally banned ballot harvesting and requires signature verification for returned absentee ballots. Idaho also requires all absentee ballots to be received by election officials by 8 p.m. on Election Day, while states such as California continue counting ballots that arrive days later. Yet these safeguards do little to reassure skeptical voters who have lost trust in the system.

Still, so long as no-excuse absentee voting is the law of the land in Idaho, it makes sense for conservative Republicans to use it to its full extent. We can lament the state of the system all day long, but when it comes down to it, we have to play by the rules on the field.

Three years ago, Mike Lindell debated Matt Braynard regarding early and absentee voting on Tim Pool’s show. I noted at the time how Lindell came across as naive, complaining about the way things were but having no plan to change them. Just over a year after that debate, Donald Trump took back the White House, partly on the strength of Republican get-out-the-vote efforts that emphasized early and absentee voting.

We can and should continue deliberating the best ways to secure our elections. But right now, today, the system is what it is, and if we want our side to win elections, we must play the hand we’ve been dealt. As Idaho GOP Chairwoman Dorothy Moon put it last week:

I don’t care whether you vote early, absentee, or on Election Day, so long as you vote. Our future depends on you!

Absentee voting is already underway, and completed ballots must reach election officials by 8 p.m. on November 3. Early voting starts today in 16 Idaho counties, with many more opening up next week. Check the Secretary of State’s website for information about your county. Then make a plan to vote, in whatever way seems best to you. Our future depends on it.

About Brian Almon

Brian Almon is the Editor of the Gem State Chronicle. He also serves as Chairman of the District 14 Republican Party and is a trustee of the Eagle Public Library Board. He lives with his wife and five children in Eagle.

Editor’s note:  This article originally appeared in the Gem State Chronicle.  I encourage our readers to visit their website and consider subscribing.  Find this and other informative articles at the Gem State Chronicle here: About – Gem State Chronicle

123...828Page 1 of 828
The Pocatello Chubbuck Observer seeks to be a fair and objective portal, where readers can find the local, regional and national news, recent facts and entertainment.
Contact us: jcrowder@pocatellochubbuckobserver

POPULAR POSTS

POPULAR CATEGORY

© Newspaper Theme | All rights reserved