MIAMI GARDENS, Fla. (AP) — The Miami Dolphins were ready to deal veteran defensive tackle Calais Campbell to the Baltimore Ravens ahead of the Nov. 5 trade deadline until Mike McDaniel stepped in. “I may or may not have thrown an adult temper tantrum,” Miami's coach said, confirming the news first reported by NFL Network Sunday morning. The Dolphins were 2-6 and had lost three straight at that point. They'd played four uninspired games without their starting quarterback, going 1-3 after Tua Tagovailoa went on injured reserve on Sept. 17 with a concussion. Campbell would have had a chance to rejoin the contending Ravens, and Miami would have received a 2026 fifth-round pick in return, NFL Network reported. McDaniel argued that Campbell was too valuable to lose. “I was happy that they brought me into the conversations," Campbell said after Miami's 34-15 win over the New England Patriots . “They didn't have to say anything to me at all. We had a really good conversation about what we think about this team, where we are. We felt like we had a good shot to get back into the fight.” Added McDaniel: “I think it wasn’t like it was (GM) Chris (Grier) versus me. ... That’s the tricky thing about Chris’ job is he has to look long-term and short-term at the same time, what’s the best for the organization.” Campbell, a 17-year veteran, signed with the Dolphins after playing for Atlanta last season. Players and coaches have praised the 38-year-old's contributions on the field and in the locker room. “There’s no one’s game I’ve come to respect more than Calais up front on the D-line,” defensive tackle Zach Sieler said, “being with him this year and just the energy, the attitude and the mindset he brings every week. It can’t be matched, and that’s the reason why he is who he is today and doing what he’s doing at 17 years.” Campbell leads the team with four sacks. With back-to-back sacks in Weeks 10 and 11, he became the eighth player 38 or older to record sacks in consecutive games since the 1970 merger. He also has nine tackles for loss, giving him at least five tackles for loss in 15 of his 17 seasons. He played for Baltimore from 2020-2022, totaling 11 sacks and 113 tackles. “I think he means a great deal to not only the defensive line room, but the entire defense as well as the entire team,” McDaniel said earlier this week. “It’s rare for a guy to get here when he did, and then be voted, with such conviction, captain. I think the way that he operates to be a pro, I think has had a substantial impact on a lot of players that hadn’t been fortunate enough to be around someone with sustained success like he’s had.” The Dolphins have won three straight games since the deadline. Miami's defense held the Patriots scoreless until the fourth quarter on Sunday. Campbell broke down the team's pregame huddle as he has done before most games this season. He was also seen coaching up rookie linebacker Chop Robinson, who is always seeking pointers from the six-time Pro Bowler. “My job is to speak on behalf of what’s the best thing for the 2024 Dolphins,” McDaniel said. “I’m just fortunate to work in an organization where myself and the GM can be transparent and work together. “And he didn’t want to see any more adult temper tantrums.” AP NFL: https://apnews.com/hub/NFLThe first reactions to Sonic the Hedgehog 3 are in, and it sounds like the third entry in the series ups the ante for the blue blur in a major way. Sonic the Hedgehog 3 is directed by Jeff Fowler and stars Ben Schwartz as the titular hedgehog. The cast also features Colleen O'Shaughnessey as Tails, Idris Elba as Knuckles, and Keanu Reeves as Shadow. Actors appearing in live action roles include James Marsden as Tom Wachowski, Tika Sumpter as Maddie Wachowski, and Jim Carrey in a dual role as both Dr. Robotnik and his grandfather Gerald. "sonic 3 rules. it’s the closest Hollywood has made to a dragon ball movie. there was plenty for a longtime fan to clap and cheer for, which i did in a mostly empty theater, and outside of a few expected cringe jokes, this was a hilarious story," Washington Post's Gene Park writes on Twitter. "#SonicMovie3 begs the question: What if Ben Schwartz made me cry as a blue guy who has to go fast? Just as action-packed and as fun as the first two films, Sonic the Hedgehog 3 really ups the anti and reminds us why we love these movies. Go TEAM SONIC!" says Rachel Leishman of The Mary Sue. "It’s not often that each movie gets better in a trilogy, but #SonicMovie3 is the best of the bunch. There’s action-packed goofiness a plenty thanks to Jim Carrey pulling double duty, but what I didn’t expect was a surprisingly moving performance from Keanu Reeves and a third act that might make Sonic fans a little weepy-eyed. Also - there are two big post credits scenes so AVOID SPOILERS. It’s clear [Fowler] and crew have a great affinity for the Blue Blur and he’s not going anywhere anytime soon," according to Chris Killian of ComicBook.com. "I’ve seen Sonic 3 and I was surprised that my favorite emotional arc was actually with Dr. Robotnik (!!) The cast is as wonderful and goofy as ever and I teared up when I heard [SPOILER]. Also, you are NOT prepared for the mid-credits scene," Jeffrey Vega of IGN says. "Surprising no one... #SonicMovie3 is the best Sonic yet! It's also the best video game adaptation to date. With electrifying action, truly touching moments, and Jim Carrey doing what he does best, Sonic 3 marks a wonderfully chaotic end to the year. What an utter blast!" says James Lister of Get Your Comic On. Sonic the Hedgehog 3 hits theaters on December 20 in the US and December 21 in the UK. For now, check out our guides to all the movie release dates and upcoming video game movies you need to know about.
esports team name generator
。
A Justice Department investigation into leaks during President-elect Donald Trump 's first administration stretched farther than previously known, including seizing the records of dozens of congressional staffers, according to a report from the department's inspector general released Tuesday. The far-reaching department probe came under fire in the 92-page report from DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Members of Congress and their staffers were largely targeted simply for reviewing information as part of their job, according to the report. Seizing records in those circumstances "risks chilling Congress’s ability to conduct oversight of the executive branch because it exposes congressional officials to having their records reviewed by the Department solely for conducting Congress’s constitutionally authorized oversight duties," the report states. Through such records, Justice Department personnel could gain sensitive information beyond the source of the leak, the report noted. That would include congressional employee communications with each other, with whistleblowers, and with interest groups. Tackling leaks became a major priority for the Trump administration early into his first term. Jeff Sessions, Trump's first attorney general, announced a broad crackdown in August of 2017 on what he described as a "staggering number" of leaks. The seized records, which were obtained from 2017 to 2020, largely didn't include the content of communications, but did look at who was contacting whom. Records were seized for two Democratic members of Congress and 43 congressional staffers, including 21 with Democratic affiliations, 20 with Republican affiliations, and two who worked in nonpartisan positions. The department also seized records for eight reporters as it tried to uncover the source of the leaks. The report largely avoids specifics about whose records were targeted and the content of the leaks. However, the New York Times and CNN have reported the members of Congress were California Democrats Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell, and that one of the congressional staffers was Kash Patel, Trump's pick to lead the FBI in the upcoming administration. Reporters at those two publications, as well as at the Washington Post, were the targets of the media record seizures. The records were obtained through what's known as a "compulsory process," according to the report. That can include subpoenas, search warrants, and court orders. The inspector general didn't find any evidence that the seizures were politically motivated or done for retaliation. But "unsurprisingly," members of Congress and staffers in both parties were concerned about those risks when news of the record grabs first broke, according to the report. The Justice Department has now updated its policies to ensure the attorney general and deputy attorney general receive notice before prosecutors take certain investigative steps dealing with Congress. It is also now requiring prosecutors to tell judges who are reviewing efforts to obtain records without providing quick notice to targets if the records belong to members of a congressional office. The department didn't commit to requiring prosecutors to exhaust other options before trying to seize those types of congressional records – a requirement that is already in place when it comes to seizing reporters' records. However, the department committed to evaluating whether that additional policy would be appropriate.
Jones When I learned of Dan Chadwick’s handling of a truancy case in Payette County, not long after I took office as attorney general in 1983, I was greatly impressed. The case produced headlines across the country. Dan was a deputy county prosecutor at the time, and he resolved the case by exercising a firm but reasonable approach. I decided he would be just the person to act as legal counsel to Jerry Evans, who was then the state school superintendent. Dan excelled in that job, which was just part of his record of distinguished public service, right up until he passed away this year on April 23. In 1985, I tapped Dan to serve as chief of my Intergovernmental Affairs Division. For the next five years, Dan and his staff provided legal advice to practically every unit of local government throughout the state, as well as a large collection of independent state agencies and commissions. He listened to the concerns of elected and appointed officials of every political persuasion and helped them stay in compliance with the law. His advice likely saved hundreds of thousands of tax dollars over those years. His reputation as a highly competent attorney and administrator resulted in his selection in 1991 as executive director and general counsel of the Idaho Association of Counties, a position he held for 27 years until his retirement in 2018. Dan was not a showboat who generated headlines, but he was well known as a go-to problem-solver among officials at all levels of government in Idaho. He was a trusted spokesman for county officials on so many issues, including opposition to unfunded mandates, advocating for state funding of county public defenders and improving county policies and practices for risk management, juvenile corrections, property taxes, substance abuse and mental health. It is no easy feat to work effectively with 132 headstrong county commissioners and over 260 other elected county officials for such an extended period of time and still be respected by the great majority of them. Dan pulled it off by actually listening to concerns and then working hard to find a solution. Former IAC President, Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson, was right on point in saying: "Dan's retirement brings us to the end of an era that cannot be equaled. His contributions have been immeasurable." The former IAC President, Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson, was right on point in saying “Dan’s retirement brings us to the end of an era that cannot be equaled. His contributions have been immeasurable.” Dan was also known and respected by his peers in the National Association of Counties. When word of his passing spread, tributes from NACO members and officials came in from across the country. A number attended Dan’s memorial service to show their respect for their friend and former associate. Paul Beddoe, a NACO legislative affairs director, was quoted in a Chadwick tribute in NACO’s May publication: “He taught me that in lobbying, you never make a permanent friend, and you never make a permanent enemy. You have to treat people with respect and if you just have a disagreement or a tough conversation, don’t take it personally. You can come back and work together on something with those folks on another issue.” That certainly epitomized Dan’s approach. Last year, Dan told me that he was a firm believer in Thomas Jefferson’s saying: “The government closest to the people serves the people best.” Dan said those in local government positions “use common sense to take care of problems,” while state legislators often choose to “micromanage local affairs and impose one-size-fits-all, statewide solutions for every perceived problem.” Amen. Although he did not often talk about it, likely because of security concerns, Dan served as a linguist in the U.S. Air Force during the Cold War, learning Serbo-Croatian and working with the National Security Agency and intelligence community to protect U.S. interests in that volatile region. He was a decorated patriot. Following his retirement from IAC, Dan and his lovely wife, Michele, a former county commissioner for Gem County, operated a government consulting firm. Dan also served as attorney for several cities. I rarely have known a couple so devoted to one another. They demonstrated that there is such a thing as a match made in heaven. I was privileged to have known Dan. Like the Boy Scout motto, he left his place on the Earth, the state of Idaho, much better than he found it. We sorely need many more dedicated public servants like Dan Chadwick. Jones Every business, interest group, civic organization, legal group, education entity, government agency and living-and-breathing human being in the Gem State should take heed of the chronic shortage of experienced and competent lawyers seeking to be district judges. It has become harder each year to recruit good candidates for district court positions because of a variety of factors — low pay, high stress, burnout and the prospect of having to gain the office through a contested election. The situation will only get worse if Senate Bill 1347 is approved by the Legislature this session. For those who may not know how Idaho’s court system is organized, there are three components. Magistrate courts, which currently have 101 magistrate judges, handle civil trials where up to $10,000 is at stake, plus domestic, traffic, estate, misdemeanor and a variety of other cases. District courts, with 49 district judges, handle the full range of felony and higher-stake civil trials. The appellate courts, with a total of 9 judges, handle and decide appeals from the two trial court components. Candidates for magistrate judge are thoroughly vetted and appointed by regional magistrate commissions. Lawyers seeking positions on the district and appellate court are vetted by the Idaho Judicial Council, which sends a list of the best candidates to the Governor, who appoints from the list. These largely non-political appointment mechanisms have made Idaho’s court system one of the best in the nation. Former Governor Otter reported on numerous occasions that he regularly received praise from other state governors about the high quality of Idaho’s judiciary. Former Idaho Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Burdick also received accolades from his counterparts in other states for the recognized excellence of Idaho judges. To keep an excellent judiciary up and running, lawyers must be incentivized to step forward and apply for judicial positions. Most will take a pay cut of more than 50% from what they can make in private law practice for the privilege of serving as a judge. I did and I do not regret it. But, if it appears to potential applicants that the burdens of the job substantially outweigh the privilege of being able to perform public service, few would be willing to step forward. That is where Idaho is with district court positions. Appellate positions — the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals — still have enough well-qualified applicants to fill court vacancies, despite the bargain basement compensation package. The same applies to the magistrate courts. The district courts simply don’t have enough competent, seasoned applicants to fill and replenish their ranks. That poses a serious danger to the ability of the district courts to do their work, and to the public that depends on those courts to decide cases quickly and competently. Magistrate judge openings often get at least twice as many applicants as district judge openings because they are assured of a merit-based appointment process, the pay disparity is not substantial and magistrate judges do not have to face the prospect of an election contest. On the other hand, district judges presently have a merit-based selection process that the sponsor of Senate Bill 1347 wants to largely disable by requiring district and appellate openings to be filled through contested elections. The sponsor wants to eliminate a retirement benefit that was put in place in 2000 as a recruitment incentive for district and appellate judges, even though she would leave in place a similar recruitment incentive that was adopted for magistrate judges in 2006. Lawyers could be excused for not wanting to apply for a district court position under such uncertainty as to job benefits and whether the benefits would be subject to future revision during their service. The failure of the Legislature to give all Idaho judges the 7% cost-of-living increase that all other state employees received in 2022 did not go unnoticed by those lawyers. But there is yet another significant consideration for district courts — the workload. District judges have the highest-pressure job in Idaho’s court system. They deal with heavy-duty felonies, like the Daybell and Kohberger murder cases, as well as complicated and high-dollar civil disputes that are litigated to the nth degree by deep-pocket parties. Handling the everyday work of managing a complex case and responding to the incessant demands of the lawyers involved takes long hours nights and weekends, which leads to stress and burnout. Who would want to take a pay cut of more than 50% for that kind of miserable job? Legislators should be considering measures to make all court positions more attractive to a broader range of competent, seasoned lawyers. Special emphasis should be placed on getting more applicants for district court positions, because that is where the recruitment problem has reached crisis proportions. Pursuing measures designed to discourage accomplished lawyers from applying for district court positions, where they are needed the most, does not make sense. The Stand up for Courts group, composed of Butch Otter, Patti Anne Lodge, Denton Darrington, Phil Reberger and a host of other concerned citizens, is urging that Senate Bill 1347 be stopped in its tracks in the Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee to help preserve Idaho’s excellent judiciary. Jones Every business, interest group, civic organization, legal group, education entity, government agency and living-and-breathing human being in the Gem State should take heed of the chronic shortage of experienced and competent lawyers seeking to be district judges. It has become harder each year to recruit good candidates for district court positions because of a variety of factors — low pay, high stress, burnout and the prospect of having to gain the office through a contested election. The situation will only get worse if Senate Bill 1347 is approved by the Legislature this session. For those who may not know how Idaho’s court system is organized, there are three components. Magistrate courts, which currently have 101 magistrate judges, handle civil trials where up to $10,000 is at stake, plus domestic, traffic, estate, misdemeanor and a variety of other cases. District courts, with 49 district judges, handle the full range of felony and higher-stake civil trials. The appellate courts, with a total of 9 judges, handle and decide appeals from the two trial court components. Candidates for magistrate judge are thoroughly vetted and appointed by regional magistrate commissions. Lawyers seeking positions on the district and appellate court are vetted by the Idaho Judicial Council, which sends a list of the best candidates to the Governor, who appoints from the list. These largely non-political appointment mechanisms have made Idaho’s court system one of the best in the nation. Former Governor Otter reported on numerous occasions that he regularly received praise from other state governors about the high quality of Idaho’s judiciary. Former Idaho Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Burdick also received accolades from his counterparts in other states for the recognized excellence of Idaho judges. To keep an excellent judiciary up and running, lawyers must be incentivized to step forward and apply for judicial positions. Most will take a pay cut of more than 50% from what they can make in private law practice for the privilege of serving as a judge. I did and I do not regret it. But, if it appears to potential applicants that the burdens of the job substantially outweigh the privilege of being able to perform public service, few would be willing to step forward. That is where Idaho is with district court positions. Appellate positions — the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals — still have enough well-qualified applicants to fill court vacancies, despite the bargain basement compensation package. The same applies to the magistrate courts. The district courts simply don’t have enough competent, seasoned applicants to fill and replenish their ranks. That poses a serious danger to the ability of the district courts to do their work, and to the public that depends on those courts to decide cases quickly and competently. Magistrate judge openings often get at least twice as many applicants as district judge openings because they are assured of a merit-based appointment process, the pay disparity is not substantial and magistrate judges do not have to face the prospect of an election contest. On the other hand, district judges presently have a merit-based selection process that the sponsor of Senate Bill 1347 wants to largely disable by requiring district and appellate openings to be filled through contested elections. The sponsor wants to eliminate a retirement benefit that was put in place in 2000 as a recruitment incentive for district and appellate judges, even though she would leave in place a similar recruitment incentive that was adopted for magistrate judges in 2006. Lawyers could be excused for not wanting to apply for a district court position under such uncertainty as to job benefits and whether the benefits would be subject to future revision during their service. The failure of the Legislature to give all Idaho judges the 7% cost-of-living increase that all other state employees received in 2022 did not go unnoticed by those lawyers. But there is yet another significant consideration for district courts — the workload. District judges have the highest-pressure job in Idaho’s court system. They deal with heavy-duty felonies, like the Daybell and Kohberger murder cases, as well as complicated and high-dollar civil disputes that are litigated to the nth degree by deep-pocket parties. Handling the everyday work of managing a complex case and responding to the incessant demands of the lawyers involved takes long hours nights and weekends, which leads to stress and burnout. Who would want to take a pay cut of more than 50% for that kind of miserable job? Legislators should be considering measures to make all court positions more attractive to a broader range of competent, seasoned lawyers. Special emphasis should be placed on getting more applicants for district court positions, because that is where the recruitment problem has reached crisis proportions. Pursuing measures designed to discourage accomplished lawyers from applying for district court positions, where they are needed the most, does not make sense. The Stand up for Courts group, composed of Butch Otter, Patti Anne Lodge, Denton Darrington, Phil Reberger and a host of other concerned citizens, is urging that Senate Bill 1347 be stopped in its tracks in the Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee to help preserve Idaho’s excellent judiciary. Jones Every business, interest group, civic organization, legal group, education entity, government agency and living-and-breathing human being in the Gem State should take heed of the chronic shortage of experienced and competent lawyers seeking to be district judges. It has become harder each year to recruit good candidates for district court positions because of a variety of factors — low pay, high stress, burnout and the prospect of having to gain the office through a contested election. The situation will only get worse if Senate Bill 1347 is approved by the Legislature this session. For those who may not know how Idaho’s court system is organized, there are three components. Magistrate courts, which currently have 101 magistrate judges, handle civil trials where up to $10,000 is at stake, plus domestic, traffic, estate, misdemeanor and a variety of other cases. District courts, with 49 district judges, handle the full range of felony and higher-stake civil trials. The appellate courts, with a total of 9 judges, handle and decide appeals from the two trial court components. Candidates for magistrate judge are thoroughly vetted and appointed by regional magistrate commissions. Lawyers seeking positions on the district and appellate court are vetted by the Idaho Judicial Council, which sends a list of the best candidates to the Governor, who appoints from the list. These largely non-political appointment mechanisms have made Idaho’s court system one of the best in the nation. Former Governor Otter reported on numerous occasions that he regularly received praise from other state governors about the high quality of Idaho’s judiciary. Former Idaho Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Burdick also received accolades from his counterparts in other states for the recognized excellence of Idaho judges. To keep an excellent judiciary up and running, lawyers must be incentivized to step forward and apply for judicial positions. Most will take a pay cut of more than 50% from what they can make in private law practice for the privilege of serving as a judge. I did and I do not regret it. But, if it appears to potential applicants that the burdens of the job substantially outweigh the privilege of being able to perform public service, few would be willing to step forward. That is where Idaho is with district court positions. Appellate positions — the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals — still have enough well-qualified applicants to fill court vacancies, despite the bargain basement compensation package. The same applies to the magistrate courts. The district courts simply don’t have enough competent, seasoned applicants to fill and replenish their ranks. That poses a serious danger to the ability of the district courts to do their work, and to the public that depends on those courts to decide cases quickly and competently. Magistrate judge openings often get at least twice as many applicants as district judge openings because they are assured of a merit-based appointment process, the pay disparity is not substantial and magistrate judges do not have to face the prospect of an election contest. On the other hand, district judges presently have a merit-based selection process that the sponsor of Senate Bill 1347 wants to largely disable by requiring district and appellate openings to be filled through contested elections. The sponsor wants to eliminate a retirement benefit that was put in place in 2000 as a recruitment incentive for district and appellate judges, even though she would leave in place a similar recruitment incentive that was adopted for magistrate judges in 2006. Lawyers could be excused for not wanting to apply for a district court position under such uncertainty as to job benefits and whether the benefits would be subject to future revision during their service. The failure of the Legislature to give all Idaho judges the 7% cost-of-living increase that all other state employees received in 2022 did not go unnoticed by those lawyers. But there is yet another significant consideration for district courts — the workload. District judges have the highest-pressure job in Idaho’s court system. They deal with heavy-duty felonies, like the Daybell and Kohberger murder cases, as well as complicated and high-dollar civil disputes that are litigated to the nth degree by deep-pocket parties. Handling the everyday work of managing a complex case and responding to the incessant demands of the lawyers involved takes long hours nights and weekends, which leads to stress and burnout. Who would want to take a pay cut of more than 50% for that kind of miserable job? Legislators should be considering measures to make all court positions more attractive to a broader range of competent, seasoned lawyers. Special emphasis should be placed on getting more applicants for district court positions, because that is where the recruitment problem has reached crisis proportions. Pursuing measures designed to discourage accomplished lawyers from applying for district court positions, where they are needed the most, does not make sense. The Stand up for Courts group, composed of Butch Otter, Patti Anne Lodge, Denton Darrington, Phil Reberger and a host of other concerned citizens, is urging that Senate Bill 1347 be stopped in its tracks in the Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee to help preserve Idaho’s excellent judiciary. Jones Every business, interest group, civic organization, legal group, education entity, government agency and living-and-breathing human being in the Gem State should take heed of the chronic shortage of experienced and competent lawyers seeking to be district judges. It has become harder each year to recruit good candidates for district court positions because of a variety of factors — low pay, high stress, burnout and the prospect of having to gain the office through a contested election. The situation will only get worse if Senate Bill 1347 is approved by the Legislature this session. For those who may not know how Idaho’s court system is organized, there are three components. Magistrate courts, which currently have 101 magistrate judges, handle civil trials where up to $10,000 is at stake, plus domestic, traffic, estate, misdemeanor and a variety of other cases. District courts, with 49 district judges, handle the full range of felony and higher-stake civil trials. The appellate courts, with a total of 9 judges, handle and decide appeals from the two trial court components. Candidates for magistrate judge are thoroughly vetted and appointed by regional magistrate commissions. Lawyers seeking positions on the district and appellate court are vetted by the Idaho Judicial Council, which sends a list of the best candidates to the Governor, who appoints from the list. These largely non-political appointment mechanisms have made Idaho’s court system one of the best in the nation. Former Governor Otter reported on numerous occasions that he regularly received praise from other state governors about the high quality of Idaho’s judiciary. Former Idaho Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Burdick also received accolades from his counterparts in other states for the recognized excellence of Idaho judges. To keep an excellent judiciary up and running, lawyers must be incentivized to step forward and apply for judicial positions. Most will take a pay cut of more than 50% from what they can make in private law practice for the privilege of serving as a judge. I did and I do not regret it. But, if it appears to potential applicants that the burdens of the job substantially outweigh the privilege of being able to perform public service, few would be willing to step forward. That is where Idaho is with district court positions. Appellate positions — the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals — still have enough well-qualified applicants to fill court vacancies, despite the bargain basement compensation package. The same applies to the magistrate courts. The district courts simply don’t have enough competent, seasoned applicants to fill and replenish their ranks. That poses a serious danger to the ability of the district courts to do their work, and to the public that depends on those courts to decide cases quickly and competently. Magistrate judge openings often get at least twice as many applicants as district judge openings because they are assured of a merit-based appointment process, the pay disparity is not substantial and magistrate judges do not have to face the prospect of an election contest. On the other hand, district judges presently have a merit-based selection process that the sponsor of Senate Bill 1347 wants to largely disable by requiring district and appellate openings to be filled through contested elections. The sponsor wants to eliminate a retirement benefit that was put in place in 2000 as a recruitment incentive for district and appellate judges, even though she would leave in place a similar recruitment incentive that was adopted for magistrate judges in 2006. Lawyers could be excused for not wanting to apply for a district court position under such uncertainty as to job benefits and whether the benefits would be subject to future revision during their service. The failure of the Legislature to give all Idaho judges the 7% cost-of-living increase that all other state employees received in 2022 did not go unnoticed by those lawyers. But there is yet another significant consideration for district courts — the workload. District judges have the highest-pressure job in Idaho’s court system. They deal with heavy-duty felonies, like the Daybell and Kohberger murder cases, as well as complicated and high-dollar civil disputes that are litigated to the nth degree by deep-pocket parties. Handling the everyday work of managing a complex case and responding to the incessant demands of the lawyers involved takes long hours nights and weekends, which leads to stress and burnout. Who would want to take a pay cut of more than 50% for that kind of miserable job? Legislators should be considering measures to make all court positions more attractive to a broader range of competent, seasoned lawyers. Special emphasis should be placed on getting more applicants for district court positions, because that is where the recruitment problem has reached crisis proportions. Pursuing measures designed to discourage accomplished lawyers from applying for district court positions, where they are needed the most, does not make sense. The Stand up for Courts group, composed of Butch Otter, Patti Anne Lodge, Denton Darrington, Phil Reberger and a host of other concerned citizens, is urging that Senate Bill 1347 be stopped in its tracks in the Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee to help preserve Idaho’s excellent judiciary. Every business, interest group, civic organization, legal group, education entity, government agency and living-and-breathing human being in the Gem State should take heed of the chronic shortage of experienced and competent lawyers seeking to be district judges. It has become harder each year to recruit good candidates for district court positions because of a variety of factors — low pay, high stress, burnout and the prospect of having to gain the office through a contested election. The situation will only get worse if Senate Bill 1347 is approved by the Legislature this session. For those who may not know how Idaho’s court system is organized, there are three components. Magistrate courts, which currently have 101 magistrate judges, handle civil trials where up to $10,000 is at stake, plus domestic, traffic, estate, misdemeanor and a variety of other cases. District courts, with 49 district judges, handle the full range of felony and higher-stake civil trials. The appellate courts, with a total of 9 judges, handle and decide appeals from the two trial court components. Candidates for magistrate judge are thoroughly vetted and appointed by regional magistrate commissions. Lawyers seeking positions on the district and appellate court are vetted by the Idaho Judicial Council, which sends a list of the best candidates to the Governor, who appoints from the list. These largely non-political appointment mechanisms have made Idaho’s court system one of the best in the nation. Former Governor Otter reported on numerous occasions that he regularly received praise from other state governors about the high quality of Idaho’s judiciary. Former Idaho Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Burdick also received accolades from his counterparts in other states for the recognized excellence of Idaho judges. To keep an excellent judiciary up and running, lawyers must be incentivized to step forward and apply for judicial positions. Most will take a pay cut of more than 50% from what they can make in private law practice for the privilege of serving as a judge. I did and I do not regret it. But, if it appears to potential applicants that the burdens of the job substantially outweigh the privilege of being able to perform public service, few would be willing to step forward. That is where Idaho is with district court positions. Appellate positions — the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals — still have enough well-qualified applicants to fill court vacancies, despite the bargain basement compensation package. The same applies to the magistrate courts. The district courts simply don’t have enough competent, seasoned applicants to fill and replenish their ranks. That poses a serious danger to the ability of the district courts to do their work, and to the public that depends on those courts to decide cases quickly and competently. Magistrate judge openings often get at least twice as many applicants as district judge openings because they are assured of a merit-based appointment process, the pay disparity is not substantial and magistrate judges do not have to face the prospect of an election contest. On the other hand, district judges presently have a merit-based selection process that the sponsor of Senate Bill 1347 wants to largely disable by requiring district and appellate openings to be filled through contested elections. The sponsor wants to eliminate a retirement benefit that was put in place in 2000 as a recruitment incentive for district and appellate judges, even though she would leave in place a similar recruitment incentive that was adopted for magistrate judges in 2006. Lawyers could be excused for not wanting to apply for a district court position under such uncertainty as to job benefits and whether the benefits would be subject to future revision during their service. The failure of the Legislature to give all Idaho judges the 7% cost-of-living increase that all other state employees received in 2022 did not go unnoticed by those lawyers. But there is yet another significant consideration for district courts — the workload. District judges have the highest-pressure job in Idaho’s court system. They deal with heavy-duty felonies, like the Daybell and Kohberger murder cases, as well as complicated and high-dollar civil disputes that are litigated to the nth degree by deep-pocket parties. Handling the everyday work of managing a complex case and responding to the incessant demands of the lawyers involved takes long hours nights and weekends, which leads to stress and burnout. Who would want to take a pay cut of more than 50% for that kind of miserable job? Legislators should be considering measures to make all court positions more attractive to a broader range of competent, seasoned lawyers. Special emphasis should be placed on getting more applicants for district court positions, because that is where the recruitment problem has reached crisis proportions. Pursuing measures designed to discourage accomplished lawyers from applying for district court positions, where they are needed the most, does not make sense. The Stand up for Courts group, composed of Butch Otter, Patti Anne Lodge, Denton Darrington, Phil Reberger and a host of other concerned citizens, is urging that Senate Bill 1347 be stopped in its tracks in the Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee to help preserve Idaho’s excellent judiciary. During his first year as Idaho attorney general, Raul Labrador has placed most of his chips on the abortion issue in his quest for higher office. He has been aided and abetted, free of charge, by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a powerful extreme-right legal organization in the nation’s capital that is intent on stamping out any perceived form of abortion across the entire country. ADF played a major role in overturning Roe v. Wade. Labrador began his term as AG with a March 27 opinion declaring that Idaho’s strictest in the nation abortion laws criminalized Idaho doctors for “providing abortion pills” and “either referring a woman across state lines to access abortion services” or to obtain abortion pills. When the opinion was challenged in court, Labrador withdrew it, but refused to disavow it. Strangely enough, Idaho’s laws are so strict that the opinion was probably correct, even though seriously suspect under the U.S. Constitution. Since that time, Labrador has opposed a federal rule change that would protect the confidentiality of pregnant women’s medical records from snooping state attorneys general. The rule is designed to protect the privacy of women who travel out of state for pregnancy care. Labrador has also strenuously sought to enforce Idaho’s “abortion trafficking” law. With free help from ADF, Labrador was able to prevent women with dangerous pregnancy conditions from getting stabilizing medical care in Idaho’s hospital emergency rooms. The only exception is where an abortion is “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” Women who need care for a much-wanted, but nonviable, pregnancy have been forced out of state in order to get the care they need. The emergency care issue will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in late April. The Supreme Court will also consider in April whether to place restrictions on the dispensation of an abortion pill, mifepristone, which prevents pregnancy if taken within 10 days. That case, which originated in federal court in Amarillo, Texas, resulted in a ruling supported and cheered by Labrador and ADF last year. The district judge severely restricted use of the drug, but those restrictions were lessened by a federal circuit court and then lifted by the Supreme Court. The Court will rule on the extent of restrictions, if any, that will apply to dispensation of mifepristone. Labrador has established quite a track record for cracking down on abortions, even when necessary to protect the life and health of women who are desperate to have a child. But nothing can compare to the move he made in that federal court in Amarillo last November. He and two other state AGs asked the court for permission to file a complaint that seeks to totally ban the use of mifepristone and a follow-up drug, misoprostol, throughout the country. Misoprostol is used to induce a miscarriage. The lengthy complaint, which was likely drafted by ADF and its allies, is chock full of questionable assertions, including preposterous claims that both drugs are dangerous to patients. In the press coverage I’ve seen about the complaint, the request to ban the use of misoprostol has been overlooked. The requested ban is significant because that drug has been used safely and effectively for decades. Yet, right there at page 102, Labrador and the other two AGs ask the judge to order federal agencies “to withdraw mifepristone and misoprostol as FDA-approved chemical abortion drugs.” That is, to ban the use of both drugs throughout the country. On January 12 the judge granted the motion to file the complaint, so it will presumably proceed on a separate track from the case to be considered by the Supreme Court in April. AFD was lucky to have the three states front for it because it would not have had standing to get the case into court on its own — it’s good to have pliable, accommodating state attorneys general. If misoprostol is taken off the market, women like Kristin Colson of Boise will face the heart-breaking situation of a wanted, but non-viable pregnancy, made worse by having no medication available to safely manage the miscarriage. Colson had an anembryonic pregnancy and opted for misoprostol, rather than surgery or waiting weeks for her body to pass the tissue. She was surprised when the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription. She was able to get the prescription filled elsewhere but, if Labrador were to prevail in his Texas lawsuit, there would be no legal source for the drug anywhere in the country. It is unclear whether Labrador is aware of the impact that his extreme actions have on women who want to have viable pregnancies, but can’t, or whether he is simply blinded by his political ambitions. Regardless, it will be interesting to see how Idaho voters react to his all-in gamble on the abortion issue. Every legislative session brings some new “school choice” scheme that is touted as a way to improve elementary and secondary education in Idaho by offering more choices to families. Sometimes the plan is called a voucher, sometimes a stipend, sometimes a grant, sometimes a savings account. This year the scheme is called a “refundable tax credit.” What every plan has in common is the use of taxpayer money to subsidize private schooling, including religious and home schools. Because of the chronic failure of our legislatures in the last several decades to adequately fund public schools, the cost of such schemes will ultimately end up being forced upon local property taxpayers. The framers of the Idaho Constitution undoubtedly thought they had definitively dealt with the school choice issue. They placed a high priority on providing a foundational education for every Idaho child. The Constitution states: “The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.” The framers gave nary a hint that public monies could ever be used to pay for private education. Idaho law has always required parents to send their school-age kids to public schools. Parents can get around the compulsory attendance requirement by having their kids educated in a private school. So, Idaho parents have always had a school choice — they can either send their kids to taxpayer-funded public schools, or they can pay out of pocket for any authorized form of private schooling. Idaho’s constitutional framers made it an overriding responsibility for the Legislature to properly fund the public school system, both for the instruction of Idaho kids and for the construction and maintenance of school buildings. They undoubtedly believed that future legislatures would honor the constitutional mandate to maintain a “thorough system” of education, primarily funded out of the state treasury. They would be profoundly amazed and saddened to learn that legislators have seriously and consistently violated this sacred duty. Thanks to the school funding lawsuit filed against the state in 1990, it is well known that Idaho legislators have failed to adequately fund the instructional side of public education during the last three decades. Because of pressure brought to bear by the Reclaim Idaho school funding initiative, the state significantly upped the ante of public funding in the special legislative session in 2022, but there is still a shortfall. Local school districts have been left with the choice of doing without adequate resources or saddling local property taxpayers to make up the difference. In 2005, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature had flat failed to fulfill its duty to fund the construction and maintenance of school buildings, improperly placing the giant share of that burden upon local property taxpayers. The cost of bringing existing buildings up to just “good” condition is about $1 billion, let alone funding new buildings for a growing population. School districts either have to try to educate kids in substandard, sometimes hazardous buildings, or hit up local property owners with hefty school bonds. The current “school choice” tax credit boondoggle, House Bill 447, would give private school parents $50 million in tax credits or payments right off of the top of the state budget. Providing a tax credit or deduction of taxes owing under the tax code, is using public monies for a private purpose. And, just who do you think will ultimately end up footing the bill? You got it, those long-suffering local property taxpayers who just don’t seem to have a strong voice in our legislature. The bill sponsors say the $50 million is a ceiling, but experience in other states shows that it is the first step of many on a costly escalator. We ought to simply follow the choice plan adopted by Idaho’s constitutional framers — finance a high-quality public school system with public money. And allow those who wish to opt for private, religious and home schooling to pay the expenses with their own funds. If they want Idaho taxpayers to fund their private education costs, they should try to change the Constitution instead of defying it. Many people have literally been moved by the ugly performance of Idaho’s Republican extremists in recent years. That is, significant numbers of teachers, librarians, doctors and others have moved out of the Gem State to escape the false claims and oppressive legislation conjured by the dysfunctional branch of Idaho’s GOP, now presided over by Dorothy Moon. On the other hand, that same wretched conduct has caused like-minded folk from across the country to move to our state, attracted by headlines that portray Idaho as a sanctuary for political zealots of every stripe. Extremist legislators have been relentlessly and unjustifiably attacking libraries and librarians since out-of-state dark money groups placed them on the target list a couple of years ago. The Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) and its faithful legislative acolytes recognized the vote-getting potential of this fake culture war issue and jumped on the bandwagon. They have been cheered on by Moon and her minions. False claims that libraries were dishing out filth to young kids resulted in passage last year of a bill imposing a $2,500 bounty for making “available” books deemed “harmful to minors.” The bill had obvious constitutional problems, but that was beside the point. The purpose of the bill was to intimidate libraries into purging their shelves of anything that might be in any way suspect. Governor Little rightfully vetoed the bill, but libraries and librarians are being targeted again this year. The grief that librarians have faced from the continual sniping has taken its toll. The Idaho Library Association recently disclosed that more than half of Idaho librarians are thinking of leaving library work and many are moving out of state. I’m aware of a couple that just left for library jobs in Pennsylvania. The radicals have also chased off Idaho teachers with a laundry list of trumped-up charges, including that they are grooming kids, indoctrinating them with critical race theory and exposing them to pornography. When Idaho’s 2023 Teacher of the Year was attacked, she moved to Illinois where people would appreciate her excellent work. We have all heard of medical doctors, particularly OB-GYNs, leaving Idaho because its toughest-in-the-nation abortion laws have intimidated them out of treating women with troubled pregnancies. Thanks to Attorney General Raul Labrador, a woman cannot receive care for a dangerous pregnancy in a hospital emergency room until she is on death’s doorstep. In the words of the statute, the doctor can only act “ to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” No wonder Idaho doctors are moving away. Idahoans, particularly in our northern climes, will have an additional reason to hire a mover if a pending bill is enacted into law. Senate Bill 1220 would essentially gut Idaho’s domestic terror law. That law was passed in 1987 in response to the bombing of Father Bill Wassmuth’s home in Coeur d’Alene by members of the violent white supremacist Aryan Nations group. The law made it a serious felony for those who commit criminal acts that are “dangerous to human life” and intended to “intimidate or coerce” either the general public or governmental policymakers. The law announced to the world that Idaho would not put up with violent political zealots. The sponsor of SB1220 argued that it would protect the speech rights of groups like Moms for Liberty. Pardon me, but if that group were to engage in violent acts of intimidation, like the terror bombing of a civil rights icon’s home, wouldn’t most decent Idahoans hope the state’s laws could deal with it? Besides, Moms for Liberty has its hands full nowadays, dealing with the admitted three-way sex scandal in Florida among its founder, her husband and another woman. While these appalling political actions by IFF and the Dorothy Moon enablers have caused many decent Idahoans to move out of the state, the same actions have attracted an inward movement of like-minded extremists into the state. David Neiwert, a distinguish Idaho journalist, has written a must-read article titled “Idaho’s traditional Republicans realizing their new far-right transplant overlords are radicals,” disclosing that the in-migration of radicals from other states has been happening for years. They will continue to come in droves because out-of-staters are reading the ugly headlines and taking them as a sign that Idaho has put out the welcome mat for practically every brand of political and religious fanatic. In a special report that appeared in the January 30 issue of the Idaho Press, titled “Birds of a Feather,” the Adams Publishing Group indicates that political migration has become a national phenomenon in recent years, including Idaho. At least the moving companies are profiting. Idaho’s landmark Terrorist Control Act (TCA) will be rendered useless by passage of a bill recently introduced in the Idaho Senate. Among other things, the TCA makes it a serious felony for two or more people to conspire to threaten or intimidate any citizen in the enjoyment of any constitutional right by the use of violence. Senate Bill 1220 would decriminalize any violent conspiracy that was not done in cooperation with a “foreign terrorist organization.” Violent acts like the bombings carried out by the Aryan Nations hate group in northern Idaho in 1986 could no longer be prosecuted under the TCA. Aryan Nations members exploded a pipe bomb at Father Bill Wassmuth’s home in Coeur d’Alene on September 15, 1986, and set off three other bombs a few days later. Father Bill was shaken, but not physically injured, and there were no injuries sustained in the other blasts. The bombs were designed to intimidate and silence those like Father Bill who were exercising their constitutional right to speak out against the dangerous white supremacist group. Because the bombs did not result in bodily injury to Father Bill or others, Idaho law could not adequately punish the bombers for their violent actions. It was clear that Idaho needed to take action against violent domestic terrorists. As Idaho’s Attorney General, I proposed tough legislation in 1987, which failed in the House due to opposition from the National Rifle Association. I worked with the NRA and we were able to agree on strong language for the TCA, which remains on our law books today. The NRA proposed adding language from the federal Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which primarily targeted violent conspiracies by KKK members to prevent freed slaves from voting, speaking out, holding office and exercising other constitutional rights. The KKK Act language significantly improved and strengthened the TCA. The sponsor of SB1220 is a level-headed legislator who seems to have the misconception that the TCA, as written, could be used to prosecute school patrons. It simply would not happen, unless the patrons engaged in a violent conspiracy to deprive others of their constitutional rights. The KKK Act has been on the federal books since 1871 and I’m unaware of any case where non-intimidating, non-conspiring, non-violent school patrons have faced federal charges under that law. No inappropriate charges have been filed in Idaho under the TCA. In fact, the entire purpose of the TCA is to protect the constitutional rights of all Idahoans from violent conspiracists. That purpose is repeated throughout the present law. The problem with SB 1220 is that it would require a prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, even in an egregious situation like the Aryan Nation bombings in 1986, that the violent acts were “done in cooperation with any foreign terrorist organization.” Without that proof, the conspirators could not be held to account. The U.S. currently lists about 70 foreign terrorist organizations, including Hamas, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Boko Haram and ISIS-Mozambique. The chances that any of those groups would team up with conspirators in Idaho to commit violent acts is almost nil. The foreign cooperation requirement essentially guts the Terrorist Control Act. On the other hand, domestic terrorist incidents have increased dramatically in the United States in recent years. The Government Accountability Office reported last year that domestic terrorism-related cases increased 357% from 2013 to 2021. These are not cases involving foreign terrorist organizations. The 1986 Coeur d’Alene bombings finally awakened the entire state to the serious threat the Aryans posed to the safety of those in the area and to the image of the Gem State as a whole. Out of concern for the economic impact on commerce, the Idaho business community rose up in opposition to the group and its poisonous agenda. The TCA was enacted in response. With the growing threat of domestic terrorism in the U.S. and the consequent endangerment to the constitutional rights of Idaho citizens, this is not the time to neuter the TCA. That law was passed to rid our beautiful state of violent white supremacists. Let’s not put out the welcome mat for them. Judges are the heart of the American system of justice. Faith in our court system depends upon having judges who are competent and impartial. That, in turn, requires thorough vetting of judicial candidates to put the best qualified people on the bench. For over 50 years, Idaho has had procedures in place to ensure the appointment of highly qualified judges at every level of the court system. Magistrate judges, who handle misdemeanors and a wide range of specialty cases, are vetted and appointed by regional magistrate commissions. District and appellate judges are thoroughly vetted by the non-political Idaho Judicial Council. The Council sends a list of up to 4 candidates for each position to the Governor for selection of the finalist. The system has worked well. Former Governor Butch Otter, who appointed over 55 district and appellate judges during his 12 years in office, regularly received praise from other governors across the country for the high quality of Idaho’s judiciary. During his 8 years as Chief Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court, Roger Burdick received similar compliments from his high court colleagues from other states. While the appointment process is vitally important to a quality judiciary, it is critical that the state offer a compensation and retirement package that is attractive enough to bring in a significant number of judicial candidates. The package must be sufficient to ensure a decent standard of living for candidates who are making at least twice as much in private practice. That is where Idaho’s selection process has begun to fail. District court positions are the hardest to recruit for because of long hours, high stress and early burnout. Candidates must have 10 years of experience and most of those lawyers are getting close to their peak earning capacity. They are the highly qualified candidates we want and need to preside over our toughest, most challenging civil and criminal cases. Starting in 2021, the Judicial Council has averaged less than five applicants for the 16 district court openings. Previously, it was not unusual to get twice as many applicants for a vacancy. Part of the problem is that district court judges must stand for a possibly-contested election in the low turn-out primary every four years. Magistrates run every four years in a no-contest retention election. Magistrate openings, which pay $12,000 less than district court, generally get more than twice as many applicants. But compensation is the big problem with recruitment for district and appellate court positions. Idaho’s judicial salaries rank 49th in the nation. Last year we lost a talented Supreme Court Justice and a highly-regarded Magistrate Judge in Bonneville County because of the low pay. The pay for high court justices equates to $79 per hour, for district judges it is $72 per hour and for magistrate judges it is $69 per hour. In contrast, the Legislature often hires counsel to represent it in court for more than $470 per hour. In the last two years the Legislature has considered legislation to give a partisan slant to the Judicial Council process and to chip away at the retirement package that has previously attracted candidates to apply for district and appellate positions. They have never expected great wealth, but they have expected certainty as to the extent of the sacrifice they make in compensation in order to perform public service. To add insult to injury, judges were the only public employees who did not receive a 7% cost-of-living increase in 2022. Last January, Rep. Bruce Skaug, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, proclaimed that judges “were robbed” for the slight. Unfortunately, the Legislature failed to provide restitution for the robbery. A good case could be made that the theft violated a provision of the Idaho Constitution prohibiting the reduction of judge’s compensation during their term of office, but that is for a later column. The fact is that we risk getting enough qualified candidates for judicial positions unless there is an immediate and substantial pay raise for all judges. It makes no sense to have judges deciding complicated cases that vitally affect the lives and fortunes of litigants where lawyers for the parties may well be receiving many times the $69 to $79 per hour that the judges are being paid. A 10% across-the-board increase for judges, in addition to any cost-of-living increase that other state employees might receive, is essential to get more highly-qualified lawyers to apply. And the Legislature should cease its tinkering with judicial election and retirement laws. As per the old saying, if we continue to pay peanuts to our judges, the judicial selection process may well be swamped by unqualified monkeys. Representative Russ Fulcher has failed to grasp that his repeated failure to support Ukraine in defending against Russia’s genocidal war is extremely harmful to America’s national security interests. Ukraine’s valiant fighters are shedding their blood to protect the freedom of the Ukrainian people. But their dogged defense has the side effect of bleeding and degrading Vladimir Putin’s war machine, reducing its threat against the United States and our allies. If the Ukrainians win, we won’t face the possibility of future hostilities with Russia. If they lose, we are in for continued conflict with Putin’s regime. Make no mistake, Putin is allying with China, North Korea and other totalitarian regimes to try to take down America and its allies. Russia began using North Korean ballistic missiles against Ukraine in December and more are in the pipeline. But this is not the first dangerous flirtation between the two countries that has endangered the United States. North Korea would not have a nuclear arsenal to threaten the U.S. and its Asian allies without the help of Russian scientists. Putin’s alliance with China and North Korea, called the Trilateral Imperialist Partnership, combines Russia’s nuclear arsenal, China’s economic and military power and North Korea’s lunacy into an extremely dangerous threat. A Russian win against Ukraine, would provide rocket fuel for this malevolent alliance. The stakes are exceedingly high. Perhaps a short refresher course would be helpful for Rep. Fulcher. After the Second World War, Russia gobbled up practically every country on its borders and conglomerated them into a totalitarian state called the Soviet Union. It was our mortal enemy for decades. During the Vietnam War, where I served in 1968-69, the Soviets supplied weapons to the communists that killed thousands of U.S. troops. President Reagan correctly called it the “Evil Empire.” The Soviet empire fell apart in 1991 and its citizens had a brief respite from state terror. In 2005, Putin lamented the collapse of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century. He began working feverishly to recreate it, to seize former satellite countries, to enslave his people and do everything possible to break up America’s alliances and power around the world. Putin began hostilities against Ukraine in 2014, leading to the present barbarous war. Ukraine desperately needs massive military assistance from the U.S. and our NATO allies. We have a vital national interest in preventing Putin from winning his war of conquest. If he and his partners succeed, our NATO allies will be next in his sights and we will be obligated by treaty and our own vital security interests to join the war on their side. If Ukraine survives, it will provide a future NATO shield against Putin’s forces. Russ Fulcher does not seem to grasp the fact that aiding Ukraine is essential to America’s safety and security. In a December interview with columnist Chuck Malloy, Fulcher gave a rather garbled answer as to whether he would vote for further aid for Ukraine. He seemed to say that unless the President clarifies the Ukraine mission and addresses our southern border, it is “a deal-breaker” and “show-stopper” for him. It’s kind of like Congress telling FDR that no funding for the Normandy Invasion would be forthcoming unless the President clarified the mission and addressed some unrelated domestic problems. That’s really not the best way to protect our national security. If Fulcher needs clarity on the mission, he can bring up hundreds of news reports in which the President has outlined the mission and the drastic need for aid to achieve it by simply Googling “Biden calls for strong support for Ukraine.” Mention was made of the subject in two State of the Union speeches, which I assume Fulcher heard. Or, he could consult with Senator Jim Risch, who clearly understands the urgent need to help Ukraine, and protect the United States, in this critical moment. Risch told Malloy, “Putin is not going to stop with Ukraine if he wins the war. If we end up in war with Russia, what we’re spending here is a drop in the bucket by comparison. If we abandon Ukraine...there will be major consequences...I believe it would set up the largest arms race that the planet has ever seen.” I’m hoping that with such high stakes, Fulcher can see the drastic need to support the American side of this ugly war. Prior to 2023, Idaho’s Attorneys General handled the State’s legal business without outside entanglements. During his first year in office, Raul Labrador has changed that non-interference policy. He has intertwined his chosen political priorities with out-of-state legal partners that have their own ideological axes to grind. One partner is a dark-money-funded group, Alliance Defending Freedom, that gives Idaho “free” legal representation. Another partner is a high-priced Washington law firm, Cooper & Kirk, that is currently charging Idaho taxpayers a rate of $495 per hour. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is a Christian nationalist group that advances the most extreme anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ positions. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which took down the Aryan Nations and its Church of Jesus Christ Christian in Kootenai County in 2000, has listed ADF as a hate group. ADF and Labrador have teamed up in three separate cases, so far. They are defending Idaho’s law criminalizing emergency room medical care for pregnant women, defending the Legislature’s transgender bathroom law and have meddled in a Washington State abortion pill case. Labrador has signed rather one-sided agreements with ADF to obtain their free legal help. If the State and ADF must pay the other side’s attorney fees, ADF is off the hook and the Idaho pays. If the other side must pay, the attorney fees are divided between the State and ADF. The State must consult with ADF in communicating with the media and is obligated to put out favorable publicity for ADF. Labrador is effectively giving Idaho’s stamp of approval to this extreme-right legal behemoth, which has 100 staff attorneys, about 5,000 lawyers in its network and nearly $100 million in revenues. One other item of interest is that Lincoln Wilson, who served in Labrador’s office until October, is now ADF’s representative in Idaho. Another lawyer, Theo Wold, who served as Labrador’s much ballyhooed Solicitor General, also left the office in October. Wold campaigned hard for Labrador’s election in 2022 and was one of his first hires. A former official in the Trump White House, Wold is a Christian nationalist and supporter of the Great Replacement conspiracy. Although he is gone from Labrador’s office, he will not soon be forgotten. His wife, Megan, is a member of the Washington law firm that is getting Idaho tax dollars to advance Labrador’s personal political agenda. Ms. Wold’s firm, Cooper & Kirk (C&K), is the go-to firm for extremist dark-money-funded clients. The firm has partnered with Labrador on at least two cases, so far. On July 11, Lincoln Wilson signed a contract with the firm to help in defending the new law criminalizing medical care for transgender youth. State taxpayers will be paying Wold’s firm an hourly rate of $495 per hour for lawyers and $80 for non-lawyers. Now that Wilson has left the AG’s office, ADF and C&K will be doing the kind of work that previous Idaho Attorneys General handled with staff attorneys. The federal district court in Idaho found on December 26 that the transgender ban violated the U.S. Constitution and that the State would likely lose the case at trial. That means the case will go to trial, ensuring more fees for C&K. Many of us predicted this outcome and one wonders why Labrador, who claimed he would give the Legislature the best legal advice so as to avoid losing cases, did not see this result coming. Needless to say, Labrador blamed the judge, not bad lawyering, for his loss. C&K contracted again with Labrador in November to look over a motion to the U.S. Supreme Court that seeks to allow Idaho to enforce the strict prohibition against emergency maternal care, after he lost in the federal circuit court. C&K will get $10,000 for just reviewing his motion. The Wolds are doing well at the expense of Idaho taxpayers. Idaho should not allow its good name to be used for advancing the political or financial interests of out-of-state lawyers. Past practice in the Attorney General’s office is not to mix political agendas with the state’s legal business. The partnerships Labrador has formed with ADL and C&K lead one to wonder whose agenda is being served. All of these contracts seek to place documentation beyond the reach of Idaho’s public records law, so it may be tough to discover that important information. Jones During his first year as Idaho attorney general, Raul Labrador has placed most of his chips on the abortion issue in his quest for higher office. He has been aided and abetted, free of charge, by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a powerful extreme-right legal organization in the nation’s capital that is intent on stamping out any perceived form of abortion across the entire country. ADF played a major role in overturning Roe v. Wade. Labrador began his term as AG with a March 27 opinion declaring that Idaho’s strictest in the nation abortion laws criminalized Idaho doctors for “providing abortion pills” and “either referring a woman across state lines to access abortion services” or to obtain abortion pills. When the opinion was challenged in court, Labrador withdrew it, but refused to disavow it. Strangely enough, Idaho’s laws are so strict that the opinion was probably correct, even though seriously suspect under the U.S. Constitution. Since that time, Labrador has opposed a federal rule change that would protect the confidentiality of pregnant women’s medical records from snooping state attorneys general. The rule is designed to protect the privacy of women who travel out of state for pregnancy care. Labrador has also strenuously sought to enforce Idaho’s “abortion trafficking” law. With free help from ADF, Labrador was able to prevent women with dangerous pregnancy conditions from getting stabilizing medical care in Idaho’s hospital emergency rooms. The only exception is where an abortion is “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” Women who need care for a much-wanted, but nonviable, pregnancy have been forced out of state in order to get the care they need. The emergency care issue will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in late April. The Supreme Court will also consider in April whether to place restrictions on the dispensation of an abortion pill, mifepristone, which prevents pregnancy if taken within 10 days. That case, which originated in federal court in Amarillo, Texas, resulted in a ruling supported and cheered by Labrador and ADF last year. The district judge severely restricted use of the drug, but those restrictions were lessened by a federal circuit court and then lifted by the Supreme Court. The Court will rule on the extent of restrictions, if any, that will apply to dispensation of mifepristone. Labrador has established quite a track record for cracking down on abortions, even when necessary to protect the life and health of women who are desperate to have a child. But nothing can compare to the move he made in that federal court in Amarillo last November. He and two other state AGs asked the court for permission to file a complaint that seeks to totally ban the use of mifepristone and a follow-up drug, misoprostol, throughout the country. Misoprostol is used to induce a miscarriage. The lengthy complaint, which was likely drafted by ADF and its allies, is chock full of questionable assertions, including preposterous claims that both drugs are dangerous to patients. In the press coverage I’ve seen about the complaint, the request to ban the use of misoprostol has been overlooked. The requested ban is significant because that drug has been used safely and effectively for decades. Yet, right there at page 102, Labrador and the other two AGs ask the judge to order federal agencies “to withdraw mifepristone and misoprostol as FDA-approved chemical abortion drugs.” That is, to ban the use of both drugs throughout the country. On January 12 the judge granted the motion to file the complaint, so it will presumably proceed on a separate track from the case to be considered by the Supreme Court in April. AFD was lucky to have the three states front for it because it would not have had standing to get the case into court on its own — it’s good to have pliable, accommodating state attorneys general. If misoprostol is taken off the market, women like Kristin Colson of Boise will face the heart-breaking situation of a wanted, but non-viable pregnancy, made worse by having no medication available to safely manage the miscarriage. Colson had an anembryonic pregnancy and opted for misoprostol, rather than surgery or waiting weeks for her body to pass the tissue. She was surprised when the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription. She was able to get the prescription filled elsewhere but, if Labrador were to prevail in his Texas lawsuit, there would be no legal source for the drug anywhere in the country. It is unclear whether Labrador is aware of the impact that his extreme actions have on women who want to have viable pregnancies, but can’t, or whether he is simply blinded by his political ambitions. Regardless, it will be interesting to see how Idaho voters react to his all-in gamble on the abortion issue. Jones Every legislative session brings some new “school choice” scheme that is touted as a way to improve elementary and secondary education in Idaho by offering more choices to families. Sometimes the plan is called a voucher, sometimes a stipend, sometimes a grant, sometimes a savings account. This year the scheme is called a “refundable tax credit.” What every plan has in common is the use of taxpayer money to subsidize private schooling, including religious and home schools. Because of the chronic failure of our legislatures in the last several decades to adequately fund public schools, the cost of such schemes will ultimately end up being forced upon local property taxpayers. The framers of the Idaho Constitution undoubtedly thought they had definitively dealt with the school choice issue. They placed a high priority on providing a foundational education for every Idaho child. The Constitution states: “The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.” The framers gave nary a hint that public monies could ever be used to pay for private education. Idaho law has always required parents to send their school-age kids to public schools. Parents can get around the compulsory attendance requirement by having their kids educated in a private school. So, Idaho parents have always had a school choice — they can either send their kids to taxpayer-funded public schools, or they can pay out of pocket for any authorized form of private schooling. Idaho’s constitutional framers made it an overriding responsibility for the Legislature to properly fund the public school system, both for the instruction of Idaho kids and for the construction and maintenance of school buildings. They undoubtedly believed that future legislatures would honor the constitutional mandate to maintain a “thorough system” of education, primarily funded out of the state treasury. They would be profoundly amazed and saddened to learn that legislators have seriously and consistently violated this sacred duty. Thanks to the school funding lawsuit filed against the state in 1990, it is well known that Idaho legislators have failed to adequately fund the instructional side of public education during the last three decades. Because of pressure brought to bear by the Reclaim Idaho school funding initiative, the state significantly upped the ante of public funding in the special legislative session in 2022, but there is still a shortfall. Local school districts have been left with the choice of doing without adequate resources or saddling local property taxpayers to make up the difference. In 2005, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature had flat failed to fulfill its duty to fund the construction and maintenance of school buildings, improperly placing the giant share of that burden upon local property taxpayers. The cost of bringing existing buildings up to just “good” condition is about $1 billion, let alone funding new buildings for a growing population. School districts either have to try to educate kids in substandard, sometimes hazardous buildings, or hit up local property owners with hefty school bonds. The current “school choice” tax credit boondoggle, House Bill 447, would give private school parents $50 million in tax credits or payments right off of the top of the state budget. Providing a tax credit or deduction of taxes owing under the tax code, is using public monies for a private purpose. And, just who do you think will ultimately end up footing the bill? You got it, those long-suffering local property taxpayers who just don’t seem to have a strong voice in our legislature. The bill sponsors say the $50 million is a ceiling, but experience in other states shows that it is the first step of many on a costly escalator. We ought to simply follow the choice plan adopted by Idaho’s constitutional framers — finance a high-quality public school system with public money. And allow those who wish to opt for private, religious and home schooling to pay the expenses with their own funds. If they want Idaho taxpayers to fund their private education costs, they should try to change the Constitution instead of defying it. Many people have literally been moved by the ugly performance of Idaho’s Republican extremists in recent years. That is, significant numbers of teachers, librarians, doctors and others have moved out of the Gem State to escape the false claims and oppressive legislation conjured by the dysfunctional branch of Idaho’s GOP, now presided over by Dorothy Moon. On the other hand, that same wretched conduct has caused like-minded folk from across the country to move to our state, attracted by headlines that portray Idaho as a sanctuary for political zealots of every stripe. Extremist legislators have been relentlessly and unjustifiably attacking libraries and librarians since out-of-state dark money groups placed them on the target list a couple of years ago. The Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) and its faithful legislative acolytes recognized the vote-getting potential of this fake culture war issue and jumped on the bandwagon. They have been cheered on by Moon and her minions. False claims that libraries were dishing out filth to young kids resulted in passage last year of a bill imposing a $2,500 bounty for making “available” books deemed “harmful to minors.” The bill had obvious constitutional problems, but that was beside the point. The purpose of the bill was to intimidate libraries into purging their shelves of anything that might be in any way suspect. Governor Little rightfully vetoed the bill, but libraries and librarians are being targeted again this year. The grief that librarians have faced from the continual sniping has taken its toll. The Idaho Library Association recently disclosed that more than half of Idaho librarians are thinking of leaving library work and many are moving out of state. I’m aware of a couple that just left for library jobs in Pennsylvania. The radicals have also chased off Idaho teachers with a laundry list of trumped-up charges, including that they are grooming kids, indoctrinating them with critical race theory and exposing them to pornography. When Idaho’s 2023 Teacher of the Year was attacked, she moved to Illinois where people would appreciate her excellent work. We have all heard of medical doctors, particularly OB-GYNs, leaving Idaho because its toughest-in-the-nation abortion laws have intimidated them out of treating women with troubled pregnancies. Thanks to Attorney General Raul Labrador, a woman cannot receive care for a dangerous pregnancy in a hospital emergency room until she is on death’s doorstep. In the words of the statute, the doctor can only act “ to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” No wonder Idaho doctors are moving away. Idahoans, particularly in our northern climes, will have an additional reason to hire a mover if a pending bill is enacted into law. Senate Bill 1220 would essentially gut Idaho’s domestic terror law. That law was passed in 1987 in response to the bombing of Father Bill Wassmuth’s home in Coeur d’Alene by members of the violent white supremacist Aryan Nations group. The law made it a serious felony for those who commit criminal acts that are “dangerous to human life” and intended to “intimidate or coerce” either the general public or governmental policymakers. The law announced to the world that Idaho would not put up with violent political zealots. The sponsor of SB1220 argued that it would protect the speech rights of groups like Moms for Liberty. Pardon me, but if that group were to engage in violent acts of intimidation, like the terror bombing of a civil rights icon’s home, wouldn’t most decent Idahoans hope the state’s laws could deal with it? Besides, Moms for Liberty has its hands full nowadays, dealing with the admitted three-way sex scandal in Florida among its founder, her husband and another woman. While these appalling political actions by IFF and the Dorothy Moon enablers have caused many decent Idahoans to move out of the state, the same actions have attracted an inward movement of like-minded extremists into the state. David Neiwert, a distinguish Idaho journalist, has written a must-read article titled “Idaho’s traditional Republicans realizing their new far-right transplant overlords are radicals,” disclosing that the in-migration of radicals from other states has been happening for years. They will continue to come in droves because out-of-staters are reading the ugly headlines and taking them as a sign that Idaho has put out the welcome mat for practically every brand of political and religious fanatic. In a special report that appeared in the January 30 issue of the Idaho Press, titled “Birds of a Feather,” the Adams Publishing Group indicates that political migration has become a national phenomenon in recent years, including Idaho. At least the moving companies are profiting. Idaho’s landmark Terrorist Control Act (TCA) will be rendered useless by passage of a bill recently introduced in the Idaho Senate. Among other things, the TCA makes it a serious felony for two or more people to conspire to threaten or intimidate any citizen in the enjoyment of any constitutional right by the use of violence. Senate Bill 1220 would decriminalize any violent conspiracy that was not done in cooperation with a “foreign terrorist organization.” Violent acts like the bombings carried out by the Aryan Nations hate group in northern Idaho in 1986 could no longer be prosecuted under the TCA. Aryan Nations members exploded a pipe bomb at Father Bill Wassmuth’s home in Coeur d’Alene on September 15, 1986, and set off three other bombs a few days later. Father Bill was shaken, but not physically injured, and there were no injuries sustained in the other blasts. The bombs were designed to intimidate and silence those like Father Bill who were exercising their constitutional right to speak out against the dangerous white supremacist group. Because the bombs did not result in bodily injury to Father Bill or others, Idaho law could not adequately punish the bombers for their violent actions. It was clear that Idaho needed to take action against violent domestic terrorists. As Idaho’s Attorney General, I proposed tough legislation in 1987, which failed in the House due to opposition from the National Rifle Association. I worked with the NRA and we were able to agree on strong language for the TCA, which remains on our law books today. The NRA proposed adding language from the federal Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which primarily targeted violent conspiracies by KKK members to prevent freed slaves from voting, speaking out, holding office and exercising other constitutional rights. The KKK Act language significantly improved and strengthened the TCA. The sponsor of SB1220 is a level-headed legislator who seems to have the misconception that the TCA, as written, could be used to prosecute school patrons. It simply would not happen, unless the patrons engaged in a violent conspiracy to deprive others of their constitutional rights. The KKK Act has been on the federal books since 1871 and I’m unaware of any case where non-intimidating, non-conspiring, non-violent school patrons have faced federal charges under that law. No inappropriate charges have been filed in Idaho under the TCA. In fact, the entire purpose of the TCA is to protect the constitutional rights of all Idahoans from violent conspiracists. That purpose is repeated throughout the present law. The problem with SB 1220 is that it would require a prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, even in an egregious situation like the Aryan Nation bombings in 1986, that the violent acts were “done in cooperation with any foreign terrorist organization.” Without that proof, the conspirators could not be held to account. The U.S. currently lists about 70 foreign terrorist organizations, including Hamas, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Boko Haram and ISIS-Mozambique. The chances that any of those groups would team up with conspirators in Idaho to commit violent acts is almost nil. The foreign cooperation requirement essentially guts the Terrorist Control Act. On the other hand, domestic terrorist incidents have increased dramatically in the United States in recent years. The Government Accountability Office reported last year that domestic terrorism-related cases increased 357% from 2013 to 2021. These are not cases involving foreign terrorist organizations. The 1986 Coeur d’Alene bombings finally awakened the entire state to the serious threat the Aryans posed to the safety of those in the area and to the image of the Gem State as a whole. Out of concern for the economic impact on commerce, the Idaho business community rose up in opposition to the group and its poisonous agenda. The TCA was enacted in response. With the growing threat of domestic terrorism in the U.S. and the consequent endangerment to the constitutional rights of Idaho citizens, this is not the time to neuter the TCA. That law was passed to rid our beautiful state of violent white supremacists. Let’s not put out the welcome mat for them. Judges are the heart of the American system of justice. Faith in our court system depends upon having judges who are competent and impartial. That, in turn, requires thorough vetting of judicial candidates to put the best qualified people on the bench. For over 50 years, Idaho has had procedures in place to ensure the appointment of highly qualified judges at every level of the court system. Magistrate judges, who handle misdemeanors and a wide range of specialty cases, are vetted and appointed by regional magistrate commissions. District and appellate judges are thoroughly vetted by the non-political Idaho Judicial Council. The Council sends a list of up to 4 candidates for each position to the Governor for selection of the finalist. The system has worked well. Former Governor Butch Otter, who appointed over 55 district and appellate judges during his 12 years in office, regularly received praise from other governors across the country for the high quality of Idaho’s judiciary. During his 8 years as Chief Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court, Roger Burdick received similar compliments from his high court colleagues from other states. While the appointment process is vitally important to a quality judiciary, it is critical that the state offer a compensation and retirement package that is attractive enough to bring in a significant number of judicial candidates. The package must be sufficient to ensure a decent standard of living for candidates who are making at least twice as much in private practice. That is where Idaho’s selection process has begun to fail. District court positions are the hardest to recruit for because of long hours, high stress and early burnout. Candidates must have 10 years of experience and most of those lawyers are getting close to their peak earning capacity. They are the highly qualified candidates we want and need to preside over our toughest, most challenging civil and criminal cases. Starting in 2021, the Judicial Council has averaged less than five applicants for the 16 district court openings. Previously, it was not unusual to get twice as many applicants for a vacancy. Part of the problem is that district court judges must stand for a possibly-contested election in the low turn-out primary every four years. Magistrates run every four years in a no-contest retention election. Magistrate openings, which pay $12,000 less than district court, generally get more than twice as many applicants. But compensation is the big problem with recruitment for district and appellate court positions. Idaho’s judicial salaries rank 49th in the nation. Last year we lost a talented Supreme Court Justice and a highly-regarded Magistrate Judge in Bonneville County because of the low pay. The pay for high court justices equates to $79 per hour, for district judges it is $72 per hour and for magistrate judges it is $69 per hour. In contrast, the Legislature often hires counsel to represent it in court for more than $470 per hour. In the last two years the Legislature has considered legislation to give a partisan slant to the Judicial Council process and to chip away at the retirement package that has previously attracted candidates to apply for district and appellate positions. They have never expected great wealth, but they have expected certainty as to the extent of the sacrifice they make in compensation in order to perform public service. To add insult to injury, judges were the only public employees who did not receive a 7% cost-of-living increase in 2022. Last January, Rep. Bruce Skaug, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, proclaimed that judges “were robbed” for the slight. Unfortunately, the Legislature failed to provide restitution for the robbery. A good case could be made that the theft violated a provision of the Idaho Constitution prohibiting the reduction of judge’s compensation during their term of office, but that is for a later column. The fact is that we risk getting enough qualified candidates for judicial positions unless there is an immediate and substantial pay raise for all judges. It makes no sense to have judges deciding complicated cases that vitally affect the lives and fortunes of litigants where lawyers for the parties may well be receiving many times the $69 to $79 per hour that the judges are being paid. A 10% across-the-board increase for judges, in addition to any cost-of-living increase that other state employees might receive, is essential to get more highly-qualified lawyers to apply. And the Legislature should cease its tinkering with judicial election and retirement laws. As per the old saying, if we continue to pay peanuts to our judges, the judicial selection process may well be swamped by unqualified monkeys. Representative Russ Fulcher has failed to grasp that his repeated failure to support Ukraine in defending against Russia’s genocidal war is extremely harmful to America’s national security interests. Ukraine’s valiant fighters are shedding their blood to protect the freedom of the Ukrainian people. But their dogged defense has the side effect of bleeding and degrading Vladimir Putin’s war machine, reducing its threat against the United States and our allies. If the Ukrainians win, we won’t face the possibility of future hostilities with Russia. If they lose, we are in for continued conflict with Putin’s regime. Make no mistake, Putin is allying with China, North Korea and other totalitarian regimes to try to take down America and its allies. Russia began using North Korean ballistic missiles against Ukraine in December and more are in the pipeline. But this is not the first dangerous flirtation between the two countries that has endangered the United States. North Korea would not have a nuclear arsenal to threaten the U.S. and its Asian allies without the help of Russian scientists. Putin’s alliance with China and North Korea, called the Trilateral Imperialist Partnership, combines Russia’s nuclear arsenal, China’s economic and military power and North Korea’s lunacy into an extremely dangerous threat. A Russian win against Ukraine, would provide rocket fuel for this malevolent alliance. The stakes are exceedingly high. Perhaps a short refresher course would be helpful for Rep. Fulcher. After the Second World War, Russia gobbled up practically every country on its borders and conglomerated them into a totalitarian state called the Soviet Union. It was our mortal enemy for decades. During the Vietnam War, where I served in 1968-69, the Soviets supplied weapons to the communists that killed thousands of U.S. troops. President Reagan correctly called it the “Evil Empire.” The Soviet empire fell apart in 1991 and its citizens had a brief respite from state terror. In 2005, Putin lamented the collapse of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century. He began working feverishly to recreate it, to seize former satellite countries, to enslave his people and do everything possible to break up America’s alliances and power around the world. Putin began hostilities against Ukraine in 2014, leading to the present barbarous war. Ukraine desperately needs massive military assistance from the U.S. and our NATO allies. We have a vital national interest in preventing Putin from winning his war of conquest. If he and his partners succeed, our NATO allies will be next in his sights and we will be obligated by treaty and our own vital security interests to join the war on their side. If Ukraine survives, it will provide a future NATO shield against Putin’s forces. Russ Fulcher does not seem to grasp the fact that aiding Ukraine is essential to America’s safety and security. In a December interview with columnist Chuck Malloy, Fulcher gave a rather garbled answer as to whether he would vote for further aid for Ukraine. He seemed to say that unless the President clarifies the Ukraine mission and addresses our southern border, it is “a deal-breaker” and “show-stopper” for him. It’s kind of like Congress telling FDR that no funding for the Normandy Invasion would be forthcoming unless the President clarified the mission and addressed some unrelated domestic problems. That’s really not the best way to protect our national security. If Fulcher needs clarity on the mission, he can bring up hundreds of news reports in which the President has outlined the mission and the drastic need for aid to achieve it by simply Googling “Biden calls for strong support for Ukraine.” Mention was made of the subject in two State of the Union speeches, which I assume Fulcher heard. Or, he could consult with Senator Jim Risch, who clearly understands the urgent need to help Ukraine, and protect the United States, in this critical moment. Risch told Malloy, “Putin is not going to stop with Ukraine if he wins the war. If we end up in war with Russia, what we’re spending here is a drop in the bucket by comparison. If we abandon Ukraine...there will be major consequences...I believe it would set up the largest arms race that the planet has ever seen.” I’m hoping that with such high stakes, Fulcher can see the drastic need to support the American side of this ugly war. Prior to 2023, Idaho’s Attorneys General handled the State’s legal business without outside entanglements. During his first year in office, Raul Labrador has changed that non-interference policy. He has intertwined his chosen political priorities with out-of-state legal partners that have their own ideological axes to grind. One partner is a dark-money-funded group, Alliance Defending Freedom, that gives Idaho “free” legal representation. Another partner is a high-priced Washington law firm, Cooper & Kirk, that is currently charging Idaho taxpayers a rate of $495 per hour. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is a Christian nationalist group that advances the most extreme anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ positions. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which took down the Aryan Nations and its Church of Jesus Christ Christian in Kootenai County in 2000, has listed ADF as a hate group. ADF and Labrador have teamed up in three separate cases, so far. They are defending Idaho’s law criminalizing emergency room medical care for pregnant women, defending the Legislature’s transgender bathroom law and have meddled in a Washington State abortion pill case. Labrador has signed rather one-sided agreements with ADF to obtain their free legal help. If the State and ADF must pay the other side’s attorney fees, ADF is off the hook and the Idaho pays. If the other side must pay, the attorney fees are divided between the State and ADF. The State must consult with ADF in communicating with the media and is obligated to put out favorable publicity for ADF. Labrador is effectively giving Idaho’s stamp of approval to this extreme-right legal behemoth, which has 100 staff attorneys, about 5,000 lawyers in its network and nearly $100 million in revenues. One other item of interest is that Lincoln Wilson, who served in Labrador’s office until October, is now ADF’s representative in Idaho. Another lawyer, Theo Wold, who served as Labrador’s much ballyhooed Solicitor General, also left the office in October. Wold campaigned hard for Labrador’s election in 2022 and was one of his first hires. A former official in the Trump White House, Wold is a Christian nationalist and supporter of the Great Replacement conspiracy. Although he is gone from Labrador’s office, he will not soon be forgotten. His wife, Megan, is a member of the Washington law firm that is getting Idaho tax dollars to advance Labrador’s personal political agenda. Ms. Wold’s firm, Cooper & Kirk (C&K), is the go-to firm for extremist dark-money-funded clients. The firm has partnered with Labrador on at least two cases, so far. On July 11, Lincoln Wilson signed a contract with the firm to help in defending the new law criminalizing medical care for transgender youth. State taxpayers will be paying Wold’s firm an hourly rate of $495 per hour for lawyers and $80 for non-lawyers. Now that Wilson has left the AG’s office, ADF and C&K will be doing the kind of work that previous Idaho Attorneys General handled with staff attorneys. The federal district court in Idaho found on December 26 that the transgender ban violated the U.S. Constitution and that the State would likely lose the case at trial. That means the case will go to trial, ensuring more fees for C&K. Many of us predicted this outcome and one wonders why Labrador, who claimed he would give the Legislature the best legal advice so as to avoid losing cases, did not see this result coming. Needless to say, Labrador blamed the judge, not bad lawyering, for his loss. C&K contracted again with Labrador in November to look over a motion to the U.S. Supreme Court that seeks to allow Idaho to enforce the strict prohibition against emergency maternal care, after he lost in the federal circuit court. C&K will get $10,000 for just reviewing his motion. The Wolds are doing well at the expense of Idaho taxpayers. Idaho should not allow its good name to be used for advancing the political or financial interests of out-of-state lawyers. Past practice in the Attorney General’s office is not to mix political agendas with the state’s legal business. The partnerships Labrador has formed with ADL and C&K lead one to wonder whose agenda is being served. All of these contracts seek to place documentation beyond the reach of Idaho’s public records law, so it may be tough to discover that important information. Jones During his first year as Idaho attorney general, Raul Labrador has placed most of his chips on the abortion issue in his quest for higher office. He has been aided and abetted, free of charge, by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a powerful extreme-right legal organization in the nation’s capital that is intent on stamping out any perceived form of abortion across the entire country. ADF played a major role in overturning Roe v. Wade. Labrador began his term as AG with a March 27 opinion declaring that Idaho’s strictest in the nation abortion laws criminalized Idaho doctors for “providing abortion pills” and “either referring a woman across state lines to access abortion services” or to obtain abortion pills. When the opinion was challenged in court, Labrador withdrew it, but refused to disavow it. Strangely enough, Idaho’s laws are so strict that the opinion was probably correct, even though seriously suspect under the U.S. Constitution. Since that time, Labrador has opposed a federal rule change that would protect the confidentiality of pregnant women’s medical records from snooping state attorneys general. The rule is designed to protect the privacy of women who travel out of state for pregnancy care. Labrador has also strenuously sought to enforce Idaho’s “abortion trafficking” law. With free help from ADF, Labrador was able to prevent women with dangerous pregnancy conditions from getting stabilizing medical care in Idaho’s hospital emergency rooms. The only exception is where an abortion is “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” Women who need care for a much-wanted, but nonviable, pregnancy have been forced out of state in order to get the care they need. The emergency care issue will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in late April. The Supreme Court will also consider in April whether to place restrictions on the dispensation of an abortion pill, mifepristone, which prevents pregnancy if taken within 10 days. That case, which originated in federal court in Amarillo, Texas, resulted in a ruling supported and cheered by Labrador and ADF last year. The district judge severely restricted use of the drug, but those restrictions were lessened by a federal circuit court and then lifted by the Supreme Court. The Court will rule on the extent of restrictions, if any, that will apply to dispensation of mifepristone. Labrador has established quite a track record for cracking down on abortions, even when necessary to protect the life and health of women who are desperate to have a child. But nothing can compare to the move he made in that federal court in Amarillo last November. He and two other state AGs asked the court for permission to file a complaint that seeks to totally ban the use of mifepristone and a follow-up drug, misoprostol, throughout the country. Misoprostol is used to induce a miscarriage. The lengthy complaint, which was likely drafted by ADF and its allies, is chock full of questionable assertions, including preposterous claims that both drugs are dangerous to patients. In the press coverage I’ve seen about the complaint, the request to ban the use of misoprostol has been overlooked. The requested ban is significant because that drug has been used safely and effectively for decades. Yet, right there at page 102, Labrador and the other two AGs ask the judge to order federal agencies “to withdraw mifepristone and misoprostol as FDA-approved chemical abortion drugs.” That is, to ban the use of both drugs throughout the country. On January 12 the judge granted the motion to file the complaint, so it will presumably proceed on a separate track from the case to be considered by the Supreme Court in April. AFD was lucky to have the three states front for it because it would not have had standing to get the case into court on its own — it’s good to have pliable, accommodating state attorneys general. If misoprostol is taken off the market, women like Kristin Colson of Boise will face the heart-breaking situation of a wanted, but non-viable pregnancy, made worse by having no medication available to safely manage the miscarriage. Colson had an anembryonic pregnancy and opted for misoprostol, rather than surgery or waiting weeks for her body to pass the tissue. She was surprised when the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription. She was able to get the prescription filled elsewhere but, if Labrador were to prevail in his Texas lawsuit, there would be no legal source for the drug anywhere in the country. It is unclear whether Labrador is aware of the impact that his extreme actions have on women who want to have viable pregnancies, but can’t, or whether he is simply blinded by his political ambitions. Regardless, it will be interesting to see how Idaho voters react to his all-in gamble on the abortion issue. Jones Every legislative session brings some new “school choice” scheme that is touted as a way to improve elementary and secondary education in Idaho by offering more choices to families. Sometimes the plan is called a voucher, sometimes a stipend, sometimes a grant, sometimes a savings account. This year the scheme is called a “refundable tax credit.” What every plan has in common is the use of taxpayer money to subsidize private schooling, including religious and home schools. Because of the chronic failure of our legislatures in the last several decades to adequately fund public schools, the cost of such schemes will ultimately end up being forced upon local property taxpayers. The framers of the Idaho Constitution undoubtedly thought they had definitively dealt with the school choice issue. They placed a high priority on providing a foundational education for every Idaho child. The Constitution states: “The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.” The framers gave nary a hint that public monies could ever be used to pay for private education. Idaho law has always required parents to send their school-age kids to public schools. Parents can get around the compulsory attendance requirement by having their kids educated in a private school. So, Idaho parents have always had a school choice — they can either send their kids to taxpayer-funded public schools, or they can pay out of pocket for any authorized form of private schooling. Idaho’s constitutional framers made it an overriding responsibility for the Legislature to properly fund the public school system, both for the instruction of Idaho kids and for the construction and maintenance of school buildings. They undoubtedly believed that future legislatures would honor the constitutional mandate to maintain a “thorough system” of education, primarily funded out of the state treasury. They would be profoundly amazed and saddened to learn that legislators have seriously and consistently violated this sacred duty. Thanks to the school funding lawsuit filed against the state in 1990, it is well known that Idaho legislators have failed to adequately fund the instructional side of public education during the last three decades. Because of pressure brought to bear by the Reclaim Idaho school funding initiative, the state significantly upped the ante of public funding in the special legislative session in 2022, but there is still a shortfall. Local school districts have been left with the choice of doing without adequate resources or saddling local property taxpayers to make up the difference. In 2005, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature had flat failed to fulfill its duty to fund the construction and maintenance of school buildings, improperly placing the giant share of that burden upon local property taxpayers. The cost of bringing existing buildings up to just “good” condition is about $1 billion, let alone funding new buildings for a growing population. School districts either have to try to educate kids in substandard, sometimes hazardous buildings, or hit up local property owners with hefty school bonds. The current “school choice” tax credit boondoggle, House Bill 447, would give private school parents $50 million in tax credits or payments right off of the top of the state budget. Providing a tax credit or deduction of taxes owing under the tax code, is using public monies for a private purpose. And, just who do you think will ultimately end up footing the bill? You got it, those long-suffering local property taxpayers who just don’t seem to have a strong voice in our legislature. The bill sponsors say the $50 million is a ceiling, but experience in other states shows that it is the first step of many on a costly escalator. We ought to simply follow the choice plan adopted by Idaho’s constitutional framers — finance a high-quality public school system with public money. And allow those who wish to opt for private, religious and home schooling to pay the expenses with their own funds. If they want Idaho taxpayers to fund their private education costs, they should try to change the Constitution instead of defying it. Many people have literally been moved by the ugly performance of Idaho’s Republican extremists in recent years. That is, significant numbers of teachers, librarians, doctors and others have moved out of the Gem State to escape the false claims and oppressive legislation conjured by the dysfunctional branch of Idaho’s GOP, now presided over by Dorothy Moon. On the other hand, that same wretched conduct has caused like-minded folk from across the country to move to our state, attracted by headlines that portray Idaho as a sanctuary for political zealots of every stripe. Extremist legislators have been relentlessly and unjustifiably attacking libraries and librarians since out-of-state dark money groups placed them on the target list a couple of years ago. The Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) and its faithful legislative acolytes recognized the vote-getting potential of this fake culture war issue and jumped on the bandwagon. They have been cheered on by Moon and her minions. False claims that libraries were dishing out filth to young kids resulted in passage last year of a bill imposing a $2,500 bounty for making “available” books deemed “harmful to minors.” The bill had obvious constitutional problems, but that was beside the point. The purpose of the bill was to intimidate libraries into purging their shelves of anything that might be in any way suspect. Governor Little rightfully vetoed the bill, but libraries and librarians are being targeted again this year. The grief that librarians have faced from the continual sniping has taken its toll. The Idaho Library Association recently disclosed that more than half of Idaho librarians are thinking of leaving library work and many are moving out of state. I’m aware of a couple that just left for library jobs in Pennsylvania. The radicals have also chased off Idaho teachers with a laundry list of trumped-up charges, including that they are grooming kids, indoctrinating them with critical race theory and exposing them to pornography. When Idaho’s 2023 Teacher of the Year was attacked, she moved to Illinois where people would appreciate her excellent work. We have all heard of medical doctors, particularly OB-GYNs, leaving Idaho because its toughest-in-the-nation abortion laws have intimidated them out of treating women with troubled pregnancies. Thanks to Attorney General Raul Labrador, a woman cannot receive care for a dangerous pregnancy in a hospital emergency room until she is on death’s doorstep. In the words of the statute, the doctor can only act “ to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” No wonder Idaho doctors are moving away. Idahoans, particularly in our northern climes, will have an additional reason to hire a mover if a pending bill is enacted into law. Senate Bill 1220 would essentially gut Idaho’s domestic terror law. That law was passed in 1987 in response to the bombing of Father Bill Wassmuth’s home in Coeur d’Alene by members of the violent white supremacist Aryan Nations group. The law made it a serious felony for those who commit criminal acts that are “dangerous to human life” and intended to “intimidate or coerce” either the general public or governmental policymakers. The law announced to the world that Idaho would not put up with violent political zealots. The sponsor of SB1220 argued that it would protect the speech rights of groups like Moms for Liberty. Pardon me, but if that group were to engage in violent acts of intimidation, like the terror bombing of a civil rights icon’s home, wouldn’t most decent Idahoans hope the state’s laws could deal with it? Besides, Moms for Liberty has its hands full nowadays, dealing with the admitted three-way sex scandal in Florida among its founder, her husband and another woman. While these appalling political actions by IFF and the Dorothy Moon enablers have caused many decent Idahoans to move out of the state, the same actions have attracted an inward movement of like-minded extremists into the state. David Neiwert, a distinguish Idaho journalist, has written a must-read article titled “Idaho’s traditional Republicans realizing their new far-right transplant overlords are radicals,” disclosing that the in-migration of radicals from other states has been happening for years. They will continue to come in droves because out-of-staters are reading the ugly headlines and taking them as a sign that Idaho has put out the welcome mat for practically every brand of political and religious fanatic. In a special report that appeared in the January 30 issue of the Idaho Press, titled “Birds of a Feather,” the Adams Publishing Group indicates that political migration has become a national phenomenon in recent years, including Idaho. At least the moving companies are profiting. Idaho’s landmark Terrorist Control Act (TCA) will be rendered useless by passage of a bill recently introduced in the Idaho Senate. Among other things, the TCA makes it a serious felony for two or more people to conspire to threaten or intimidate any citizen in the enjoyment of any constitutional right by the use of violence. Senate Bill 1220 would decriminalize any violent conspiracy that was not done in cooperation with a “foreign terrorist organization.” Violent acts like the bombings carried out by the Aryan Nations hate group in northern Idaho in 1986 could no longer be prosecuted under the TCA. Aryan Nations members exploded a pipe bomb at Father Bill Wassmuth’s home in Coeur d’Alene on September 15, 1986, and set off three other bombs a few days later. Father Bill was shaken, but not physically injured, and there were no injuries sustained in the other blasts. The bombs were designed to intimidate and silence those like Father Bill who were exercising their constitutional right to speak out against the dangerous white supremacist group. Because the bombs did not result in bodily injury to Father Bill or others, Idaho law could not adequately punish the bombers for their violent actions. It was clear that Idaho needed to take action against violent domestic terrorists. As Idaho’s Attorney General, I proposed tough legislation in 1987, which failed in the House due to opposition from the National Rifle Association. I worked with the NRA and we were able to agree on strong language for the TCA, which remains on our law books today. The NRA proposed adding language from the federal Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which primarily targeted violent conspiracies by KKK members to prevent freed slaves from voting, speaking out, holding office and exercising other constitutional rights. The KKK Act language significantly improved and strengthened the TCA. The sponsor of SB1220 is a level-headed legislator who seems to have the misconception that the TCA, as written, could be used to prosecute school patrons. It simply would not happen, unless the patrons engaged in a violent conspiracy to deprive others of their constitutional rights. The KKK Act has been on the federal books since 1871 and I’m unaware of any case where non-intimidating, non-conspiring, non-violent school patrons have faced federal charges under that law. No inappropriate charges have been filed in Idaho under the TCA. In fact, the entire purpose of the TCA is to protect the constitutional rights of all Idahoans from violent conspiracists. That purpose is repeated throughout the present law. The problem with SB 1220 is that it would require a prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, even in an egregious situation like the Aryan Nation bombings in 1986, that the violent acts were “done in cooperation with any foreign terrorist organization.” Without that proof, the conspirators could not be held to account. The U.S. currently lists about 70 foreign terrorist organizations, including Hamas, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Boko Haram and ISIS-Mozambique. The chances that any of those groups would team up with conspirators in Idaho to commit violent acts is almost nil. The foreign cooperation requirement essentially guts the Terrorist Control Act. On the other hand, domestic terrorist incidents have increased dramatically in the United States in recent years. The Government Accountability Office reported last year that domestic terrorism-related cases increased 357% from 2013 to 2021. These are not cases involving foreign terrorist organizations. The 1986 Coeur d’Alene bombings finally awakened the entire state to the serious threat the Aryans posed to the safety of those in the area and to the image of the Gem State as a whole. Out of concern for the economic impact on commerce, the Idaho business community rose up in opposition to the group and its poisonous agenda. The TCA was enacted in response. With the growing threat of domestic terrorism in the U.S. and the consequent endangerment to the constitutional rights of Idaho citizens, this is not the time to neuter the TCA. That law was passed to rid our beautiful state of violent white supremacists. Let’s not put out the welcome mat for them. Judges are the heart of the American system of justice. Faith in our court system depends upon having judges who are competent and impartial. That, in turn, requires thorough vetting of judicial candidates to put the best qualified people on the bench. For over 50 years, Idaho has had procedures in place to ensure the appointment of highly qualified judges at every level of the court system. Magistrate judges, who handle misdemeanors and a wide range of specialty cases, are vetted and appointed by regional magistrate commissions. District and appellate judges are thoroughly vetted by the non-political Idaho Judicial Council. The Council sends a list of up to 4 candidates for each position to the Governor for selection of the finalist. The system has worked well. Former Governor Butch Otter, who appointed over 55 district and appellate judges during his 12 years in office, regularly received praise from other governors across the country for the high quality of Idaho’s judiciary. During his 8 years as Chief Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court, Roger Burdick received similar compliments from his high court colleagues from other states. While the appointment process is vitally important to a quality judiciary, it is critical that the state offer a compensation and retirement package that is attractive enough to bring in a significant number of judicial candidates. The package must be sufficient to ensure a decent standard of living for candidates who are making at least twice as much in private practice. That is where Idaho’s selection process has begun to fail. District court positions are the hardest to recruit for because of long hours, high stress and early burnout. Candidates must have 10 years of experience and most of those lawyers are getting close to their peak earning capacity. They are the highly qualified candidates we want and need to preside over our toughest, most challenging civil and criminal cases. Starting in 2021, the Judicial Council has averaged less than five applicants for the 16 district court openings. Previously, it was not unusual to get twice as many applicants for a vacancy. Part of the problem is that district court judges must stand for a possibly-contested election in the low turn-out primary every four years. Magistrates run every four years in a no-contest retention election. Magistrate openings, which pay $12,000 less than district court, generally get more than twice as many applicants. But compensation is the big problem with recruitment for district and appellate court positions. Idaho’s judicial salaries rank 49th in the nation. Last year we lost a talented Supreme Court Justice and a highly-regarded Magistrate Judge in Bonneville County because of the low pay. The pay for high court justices equates to $79 per hour, for district judges it is $72 per hour and for magistrate judges it is $69 per hour. In contrast, the Legislature often hires counsel to represent it in court for more than $470 per hour. In the last two years the Legislature has considered legislation to give a partisan slant to the Judicial Council process and to chip away at the retirement package that has previously attracted candidates to apply for district and appellate positions. They have never expected great wealth, but they have expected certainty as to the extent of the sacrifice they make in compensation in order to perform public service. To add insult to injury, judges were the only public employees who did not receive a 7% cost-of-living increase in 2022. Last January, Rep. Bruce Skaug, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, proclaimed that judges “were robbed” for the slight. Unfortunately, the Legislature failed to provide restitution for the robbery. A good case could be made that the theft violated a provision of the Idaho Constitution prohibiting the reduction of judge’s compensation during their term of office, but that is for a later column. The fact is that we risk getting enough qualified candidates for judicial positions unless there is an immediate and substantial pay raise for all judges. It makes no sense to have judges deciding complicated cases that vitally affect the lives and fortunes of litigants where lawyers for the parties may well be receiving many times the $69 to $79 per hour that the judges are being paid. A 10% across-the-board increase for judges, in addition to any cost-of-living increase that other state employees might receive, is essential to get more highly-qualified lawyers to apply. And the Legislature should cease its tinkering with judicial election and retirement laws. As per the old saying, if we continue to pay peanuts to our judges, the judicial selection process may well be swamped by unqualified monkeys. Representative Russ Fulcher has failed to grasp that his repeated failure to support Ukraine in defending against Russia’s genocidal war is extremely harmful to America’s national security interests. Ukraine’s valiant fighters are shedding their blood to protect the freedom of the Ukrainian people. But their dogged defense has the side effect of bleeding and degrading Vladimir Putin’s war machine, reducing its threat against the United States and our allies. If the Ukrainians win, we won’t face the possibility of future hostilities with Russia. If they lose, we are in for continued conflict with Putin’s regime. Make no mistake, Putin is allying with China, North Korea and other totalitarian regimes to try to take down America and its allies. Russia began using North Korean ballistic missiles against Ukraine in December and more are in the pipeline. But this is not the first dangerous flirtation between the two countries that has endangered the United States. North Korea would not have a nuclear arsenal to threaten the U.S. and its Asian allies without the help of Russian scientists. Putin’s alliance with China and North Korea, called the Trilateral Imperialist Partnership, combines Russia’s nuclear arsenal, China’s economic and military power and North Korea’s lunacy into an extremely dangerous threat. A Russian win against Ukraine, would provide rocket fuel for this malevolent alliance. The stakes are exceedingly high. Perhaps a short refresher course would be helpful for Rep. Fulcher. After the Second World War, Russia gobbled up practically every country on its borders and conglomerated them into a totalitarian state called the Soviet Union. It was our mortal enemy for decades. During the Vietnam War, where I served in 1968-69, the Soviets supplied weapons to the communists that killed thousands of U.S. troops. President Reagan correctly called it the “Evil Empire.” The Soviet empire fell apart in 1991 and its citizens had a brief respite from state terror. In 2005, Putin lamented the collapse of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century. He began working feverishly to recreate it, to seize former satellite countries, to enslave his people and do everything possible to break up America’s alliances and power around the world. Putin began hostilities against Ukraine in 2014, leading to the present barbarous war. Ukraine desperately needs massive military assistance from the U.S. and our NATO allies. We have a vital national interest in preventing Putin from winning his war of conquest. If he and his partners succeed, our NATO allies will be next in his sights and we will be obligated by treaty and our own vital security interests to join the war on their side. If Ukraine survives, it will provide a future NATO shield against Putin’s forces. Russ Fulcher does not seem to grasp the fact that aiding Ukraine is essential to America’s safety and security. In a December interview with columnist Chuck Malloy, Fulcher gave a rather garbled answer as to whether he would vote for further aid for Ukraine. He seemed to say that unless the President clarifies the Ukraine mission and addresses our southern border, it is “a deal-breaker” and “show-stopper” for him. It’s kind of like Congress telling FDR that no funding for the Normandy Invasion would be forthcoming unless the President clarified the mission and addressed some unrelated domestic problems. That’s really not the best way to protect our national security. If Fulcher needs clarity on the mission, he can bring up hundreds of news reports in which the President has outlined the mission and the drastic need for aid to achieve it by simply Googling “Biden calls for strong support for Ukraine.” Mention was made of the subject in two State of the Union speeches, which I assume Fulcher heard. Or, he could consult with Senator Jim Risch, who clearly understands the urgent need to help Ukraine, and protect the United States, in this critical moment. Risch told Malloy, “Putin is not going to stop with Ukraine if he wins the war. If we end up in war with Russia, what we’re spending here is a drop in the bucket by comparison. If we abandon Ukraine...there will be major consequences...I believe it would set up the largest arms race that the planet has ever seen.” I’m hoping that with such high stakes, Fulcher can see the drastic need to support the American side of this ugly war. Prior to 2023, Idaho’s Attorneys General handled the State’s legal business without outside entanglements. During his first year in office, Raul Labrador has changed that non-interference policy. He has intertwined his chosen political priorities with out-of-state legal partners that have their own ideological axes to grind. One partner is a dark-money-funded group, Alliance Defending Freedom, that gives Idaho “free” legal representation. Another partner is a high-priced Washington law firm, Cooper & Kirk, that is currently charging Idaho taxpayers a rate of $495 per hour. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is a Christian nationalist group that advances the most extreme anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ positions. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which took down the Aryan Nations and its Church of Jesus Christ Christian in Kootenai County in 2000, has listed ADF as a hate group. ADF and Labrador have teamed up in three separate cases, so far. They are defending Idaho’s law criminalizing emergency room medical care for pregnant women, defending the Legislature’s transgender bathroom law and have meddled in a Washington State abortion pill case. Labrador has signed rather one-sided agreements with ADF to obtain their free legal help. If the State and ADF must pay the other side’s attorney fees, ADF is off the hook and the Idaho pays. If the other side must pay, the attorney fees are divided between the State and ADF. The State must consult with ADF in communicating with the media and is obligated to put out favorable publicity for ADF. Labrador is effectively giving Idaho’s stamp of approval to this extreme-right legal behemoth, which has 100 staff attorneys, about 5,000 lawyers in its network and nearly $100 million in revenues. One other item of interest is that Lincoln Wilson, who served in Labrador’s office until October, is now ADF’s representative in Idaho. Another lawyer, Theo Wold, who served as Labrador’s much ballyhooed Solicitor General, also left the office in October. Wold campaigned hard for Labrador’s election in 2022 and was one of his first hires. A former official in the Trump White House, Wold is a Christian nationalist and supporter of the Great Replacement conspiracy. Although he is gone from Labrador’s office, he will not soon be forgotten. His wife, Megan, is a member of the Washington law firm that is getting Idaho tax dollars to advance Labrador’s personal political agenda. Ms. Wold’s firm, Cooper & Kirk (C&K), is the go-to firm for extremist dark-money-funded clients. The firm has partnered with Labrador on at least two cases, so far. On July 11, Lincoln Wilson signed a contract with the firm to help in defending the new law criminalizing medical care for transgender youth. State taxpayers will be paying Wold’s firm an hourly rate of $495 per hour for lawyers and $80 for non-lawyers. Now that Wilson has left the AG’s office, ADF and C&K will be doing the kind of work that previous Idaho Attorneys General handled with staff attorneys. The federal district court in Idaho found on December 26 that the transgender ban violated the U.S. Constitution and that the State would likely lose the case at trial. That means the case will go to trial, ensuring more fees for C&K. Many of us predicted this outcome and one wonders why Labrador, who claimed he would give the Legislature the best legal advice so as to avoid losing cases, did not see this result coming. Needless to say, Labrador blamed the judge, not bad lawyering, for his loss. C&K contracted again with Labrador in November to look over a motion to the U.S. Supreme Court that seeks to allow Idaho to enforce the strict prohibition against emergency maternal care, after he lost in the federal circuit court. C&K will get $10,000 for just reviewing his motion. The Wolds are doing well at the expense of Idaho taxpayers. Idaho should not allow its good name to be used for advancing the political or financial interests of out-of-state lawyers. Past practice in the Attorney General’s office is not to mix political agendas with the state’s legal business. The partnerships Labrador has formed with ADL and C&K lead one to wonder whose agenda is being served. All of these contracts seek to place documentation beyond the reach of Idaho’s public records law, so it may be tough to discover that important information. Jones During his first year as Idaho attorney general, Raul Labrador has placed most of his chips on the abortion issue in his quest for higher office. He has been aided and abetted, free of charge, by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a powerful extreme-right legal organization in the nation’s capital that is intent on stamping out any perceived form of abortion across the entire country. ADF played a major role in overturning Roe v. Wade. Labrador began his term as AG with a March 27 opinion declaring that Idaho’s strictest in the nation abortion laws criminalized Idaho doctors for “providing abortion pills” and “either referring a woman across state lines to access abortion services” or to obtain abortion pills. When the opinion was challenged in court, Labrador withdrew it, but refused to disavow it. Strangely enough, Idaho’s laws are so strict that the opinion was probably correct, even though seriously suspect under the U.S. Constitution. Since that time, Labrador has opposed a federal rule change that would protect the confidentiality of pregnant women’s medical records from snooping state attorneys general. The rule is designed to protect the privacy of women who travel out of state for pregnancy care. Labrador has also strenuously sought to enforce Idaho’s “abortion trafficking” law. With free help from ADF, Labrador was able to prevent women with dangerous pregnancy conditions from getting stabilizing medical care in Idaho’s hospital emergency rooms. The only exception is where an abortion is “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” Women who need care for a much-wanted, but nonviable, pregnancy have been forced out of state in order to get the care they need. The emergency care issue will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in late April. The Supreme Court will also consider in April whether to place restrictions on the dispensation of an abortion pill, mifepristone, which prevents pregnancy if taken within 10 days. That case, which originated in federal court in Amarillo, Texas, resulted in a ruling supported and cheered by Labrador and ADF last year. The district judge severely restricted use of the drug, but those restrictions were lessened by a federal circuit court and then lifted by the Supreme Court. The Court will rule on the extent of restrictions, if any, that will apply to dispensation of mifepristone. Labrador has established quite a track record for cracking down on abortions, even when necessary to protect the life and health of women who are desperate to have a child. But nothing can compare to the move he made in that federal court in Amarillo last November. He and two other state AGs asked the court for permission to file a complaint that seeks to totally ban the use of mifepristone and a follow-up drug, misoprostol, throughout the country. Misoprostol is used to induce a miscarriage. The lengthy complaint, which was likely drafted by ADF and its allies, is chock full of questionable assertions, including preposterous claims that both drugs are dangerous to patients. In the press coverage I’ve seen about the complaint, the request to ban the use of misoprostol has been overlooked. The requested ban is significant because that drug has been used safely and effectively for decades. Yet, right there at page 102, Labrador and the other two AGs ask the judge to order federal agencies “to withdraw mifepristone and misoprostol as FDA-approved chemical abortion drugs.” That is, to ban the use of both drugs throughout the country. On January 12 the judge granted the motion to file the complaint, so it will presumably proceed on a separate track from the case to be considered by the Supreme Court in April. AFD was lucky to have the three states front for it because it would not have had standing to get the case into court on its own — it’s good to have pliable, accommodating state attorneys general. If misoprostol is taken off the market, women like Kristin Colson of Boise will face the heart-breaking situation of a wanted, but non-viable pregnancy, made worse by having no medication available to safely manage the miscarriage. Colson had an anembryonic pregnancy and opted for misoprostol, rather than surgery or waiting weeks for her body to pass the tissue. She was surprised when the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription. She was able to get the prescription filled elsewhere but, if Labrador were to prevail in his Texas lawsuit, there would be no legal source for the drug anywhere in the country. It is unclear whether Labrador is aware of the impact that his extreme actions have on women who want to have viable pregnancies, but can’t, or whether he is simply blinded by his political ambitions. Regardless, it will be interesting to see how Idaho voters react to his all-in gamble on the abortion issue. Jones Every legislative session brings some new “school choice” scheme that is touted as a way to improve elementary and secondary education in Idaho by offering more choices to families. Sometimes the plan is called a voucher, sometimes a stipend, sometimes a grant, sometimes a savings account. This year the scheme is called a “refundable tax credit.” What every plan has in common is the use of taxpayer money to subsidize private schooling, including religious and home schools. Because of the chronic failure of our legislatures in the last several decades to adequately fund public schools, the cost of such schemes will ultimately end up being forced upon local property taxpayers. The framers of the Idaho Constitution undoubtedly thought they had definitively dealt with the school choice issue. They placed a high priority on providing a foundational education for every Idaho child. The Constitution states: “The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.” The framers gave nary a hint that public monies could ever be used to pay for private education. Idaho law has always required parents to send their school-age kids to public schools. Parents can get around the compulsory attendance requirement by having their kids educated in a private school. So, Idaho parents have always had a school choice — they can either send their kids to taxpayer-funded public schools, or they can pay out of pocket for any authorized form of private schooling. Idaho’s constitutional framers made it an overriding responsibility for the Legislature to properly fund the public school system, both for the instruction of Idaho kids and for the construction and maintenance of school buildings. They undoubtedly believed that future legislatures would honor the constitutional mandate to maintain a “thorough system” of education, primarily funded out of the state treasury. They would be profoundly amazed and saddened to learn that legislators have seriously and consistently violated this sacred duty. Thanks to the school funding lawsuit filed against the state in 1990, it is well known that Idaho legislators have failed to adequately fund the instructional side of public education during the last three decades. Because of pressure brought to bear by the Reclaim Idaho school funding initiative, the state significantly upped the ante of public funding in the special legislative session in 2022, but there is still a shortfall. Local school districts have been left with the choice of doing without adequate resources or saddling local property taxpayers to make up the difference. In 2005, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature had flat failed to fulfill its duty to fund the construction and maintenance of school buildings, improperly placing the giant share of that burden upon local property taxpayers. The cost of bringing existing buildings up to just “good” condition is about $1 billion, let alone funding new buildings for a growing population. School districts either have to try to educate kids in substandard, sometimes hazardous buildings, or hit up local property owners with hefty school bonds. The current “school choice” tax credit boondoggle, House Bill 447, would give private school parents $50 million in tax credits or payments right off of the top of the state budget. Providing a tax credit or deduction of taxes owing under the tax code, is using public monies for a private purpose. And, just who do you think will ultimately end up footing the bill? You got it, those long-suffering local property taxpayers who just don’t seem to have a strong voice in our legislature. The bill sponsors say the $50 million is a ceiling, but experience in other states shows that it is the first step of many on a costly escalator. We ought to simply follow the choice plan adopted by Idaho’s constitutional framers — finance a high-quality public school system with public money. And allow those who wish to opt for private, religious and home schooling to pay the expenses with their own funds. If they want Idaho taxpayers to fund their private education costs, they should try to change the Constitution instead of defying it. Many people have literally been moved by the ugly performance of Idaho’s Republican extremists in recent years. That is, significant numbers of teachers, librarians, doctors and others have moved out of the Gem State to escape the false claims and oppressive legislation conjured by the dysfunctional branch of Idaho’s GOP, now presided over by Dorothy Moon. On the other hand, that same wretched conduct has caused like-minded folk from across the country to move to our state, attracted by headlines that portray Idaho as a sanctuary for political zealots of every stripe. Extremist legislators have been relentlessly and unjustifiably attacking libraries and librarians since out-of-state dark money groups placed them on the target list a couple of years ago. The Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) and its faithful legislative acolytes recognized the vote-getting potential of this fake culture war issue and jumped on the bandwagon. They have been cheered on by Moon and her minions. False claims that libraries were dishing out filth to young kids resulted in passage last year of a bill imposing a $2,500 bounty for making “available” books deemed “harmful to minors.” The bill had obvious constitutional problems, but that was beside the point. The purpose of the bill was to intimidate libraries into purging their shelves of anything that might be in any way suspect. Governor Little rightfully vetoed the bill, but libraries and librarians are being targeted again this year. The grief that librarians have faced from the continual sniping has taken its toll. The Idaho Library Association recently disclosed that more than half of Idaho librarians are thinking of leaving library work and many are moving out of state. I’m aware of a couple that just left for library jobs in Pennsylvania. The radicals have also chased off Idaho teachers with a laundry list of trumped-up charges, including that they are grooming kids, indoctrinating them with critical race theory and exposing them to pornography. When Idaho’s 2023 Teacher of the Year was attacked, she moved to Illinois where people would appreciate her excellent work. We have all heard of medical doctors, particularly OB-GYNs, leaving Idaho because its toughest-in-the-nation abortion laws have intimidated them out of treating women with troubled pregnancies. Thanks to Attorney General Raul Labrador, a woman cannot receive care for a dangerous pregnancy in a hospital emergency room until she is on death’s doorstep. In the words of the statute, the doctor can only act “ to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” No wonder Idaho doctors are moving away. Idahoans, particularly in our northern climes, will have an additional reason to hire a mover if a pending bill is enacted into law. Senate Bill 1220 would essentially gut Idaho’s domestic terror law. That law was passed in 1987 in response to the bombing of Father Bill Wassmuth’s home in Coeur d’Alene by members of the violent white supremacist Aryan Nations group. The law made it a serious felony for those who commit criminal acts that are “dangerous to human life” and intended to “intimidate or coerce” either the general public or governmental policymakers. The law announced to the world that Idaho would not put up with violent political zealots. The sponsor of SB1220 argued that it would protect the speech rights of groups like Moms for Liberty. Pardon me, but if that group were to engage in violent acts of intimidation, like the terror bombing of a civil rights icon’s home, wouldn’t most decent Idahoans hope the state’s laws could deal with it? Besides, Moms for Liberty has its hands full nowadays, dealing with the admitted three-way sex scandal in Florida among its founder, her husband and another woman. While these appalling political actions by IFF and the Dorothy Moon enablers have caused many decent Idahoans to move out of the state, the same actions have attracted an inward movement of like-minded extremists into the state. David Neiwert, a distinguish Idaho journalist, has written a must-read article titled “Idaho’s traditional Republicans realizing their new far-right transplant overlords are radicals,” disclosing that the in-migration of radicals from other states has been happening for years. They will continue to come in droves because out-of-staters are reading the ugly headlines and taking them as a sign that Idaho has put out the welcome mat for practically every brand of political and religious fanatic. In a special report that appeared in the January 30 issue of the Idaho Press, titled “Birds of a Feather,” the Adams Publishing Group indicates that political migration has become a national phenomenon in recent years, including Idaho. At least the moving companies are profiting. Idaho’s landmark Terrorist Control Act (TCA) will be rendered useless by passage of a bill recently introduced in the Idaho Senate. Among other things, the TCA makes it a serious felony for two or more people to conspire to threaten or intimidate any citizen in the enjoyment of any constitutional right by the use of violence. Senate Bill 1220 would decriminalize any violent conspiracy that was not done in cooperation with a “foreign terrorist organization.” Violent acts like the bombings carried out by the Aryan Nations hate group in northern Idaho in 1986 could no longer be prosecuted under the TCA. Aryan Nations members exploded a pipe bomb at Father Bill Wassmuth’s home in Coeur d’Alene on September 15, 1986, and set off three other bombs a few days later. Father Bill was shaken, but not physically injured, and there were no injuries sustained in the other blasts. The bombs were designed to intimidate and silence those like Father Bill who were exercising their constitutional right to speak out against the dangerous white supremacist group. Because the bombs did not result in bodily injury to Father Bill or others, Idaho law could not adequately punish the bombers for their violent actions. It was clear that Idaho needed to take action against violent domestic terrorists. As Idaho’s Attorney General, I proposed tough legislation in 1987, which failed in the House due to opposition from the National Rifle Association. I worked with the NRA and we were able to agree on strong language for the TCA, which remains on our law books today. The NRA proposed adding language from the federal Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which primarily targeted violent conspiracies by KKK members to prevent freed slaves from voting, speaking out, holding office and exercising other constitutional rights. The KKK Act language significantly improved and strengthened the TCA. The sponsor of SB1220 is a level-headed legislator who seems to have the misconception that the TCA, as written, could be used to prosecute school patrons. It simply would not happen, unless the patrons engaged in a violent conspiracy to deprive others of their constitutional rights. The KKK Act has been on the federal books since 1871 and I’m unaware of any case where non-intimidating, non-conspiring, non-violent school patrons have faced federal charges under that law. No inappropriate charges have been filed in Idaho under the TCA. In fact, the entire purpose of the TCA is to protect the constitutional rights of all Idahoans from violent conspiracists. That purpose is repeated throughout the present law. The problem with SB 1220 is that it would require a prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, even in an egregious situation like the Aryan Nation bombings in 1986, that the violent acts were “done in cooperation with any foreign terrorist organization.” Without that proof, the conspirators could not be held to account. The U.S. currently lists about 70 foreign terrorist organizations, including Hamas, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Boko Haram and ISIS-Mozambique. The chances that any of those groups would team up with conspirators in Idaho to commit violent acts is almost nil. The foreign cooperation requirement essentially guts the Terrorist Control Act. On the other hand, domestic terrorist incidents have increased dramatically in the United States in recent years. The Government Accountability Office reported last year that domestic terrorism-related cases increased 357% from 2013 to 2021. These are not cases involving foreign terrorist organizations. The 1986 Coeur d’Alene bombings finally awakened the entire state to the serious threat the Aryans posed to the safety of those in the area and to the image of the Gem State as a whole. Out of concern for the economic impact on commerce, the Idaho business community rose up in opposition to the group and its poisonous agenda. The TCA was enacted in response. With the growing threat of domestic terrorism in the U.S. and the consequent endangerment to the constitutional rights of Idaho citizens, this is not the time to neuter the TCA. That law was passed to rid our beautiful state of violent white supremacists. Let’s not put out the welcome mat for them. Judges are the heart of the American system of justice. Faith in our court system depends upon having judges who are competent and impartial. That, in turn, requires thorough vetting of judicial candidates to put the best qualified people on the bench. For over 50 years, Idaho has had procedures in place to ensure the appointment of highly qualified judges at every level of the court system. Magistrate judges, who handle misdemeanors and a wide range of specialty cases, are vetted and appointed by regional magistrate commissions. District and appellate judges are thoroughly vetted by the non-political Idaho Judicial Council. The Council sends a list of up to 4 candidates for each position to the Governor for selection of the finalist. The system has worked well. Former Governor Butch Otter, who appointed over 55 district and appellate judges during his 12 years in office, regularly received praise from other governors across the country for the high quality of Idaho’s judiciary. During his 8 years as Chief Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court, Roger Burdick received similar compliments from his high court colleagues from other states. While the appointment process is vitally important to a quality judiciary, it is critical that the state offer a compensation and retirement package that is attractive enough to bring in a significant number of judicial candidates. The package must be sufficient to ensure a decent standard of living for candidates who are making at least twice as much in private practice. That is where Idaho’s selection process has begun to fail. District court positions are the hardest to recruit for because of long hours, high stress and early burnout. Candidates must have 10 years of experience and most of those lawyers are getting close to their peak earning capacity. They are the highly qualified candidates we want and need to preside over our toughest, most challenging civil and criminal cases. Starting in 2021, the Judicial Council has averaged less than five applicants for the 16 district court openings. Previously, it was not unusual to get twice as many applicants for a vacancy. Part of the problem is that district court judges must stand for a possibly-contested election in the low turn-out primary every four years. Magistrates run every four years in a no-contest retention election. Magistrate openings, which pay $12,000 less than district court, generally get more than twice as many applicants. But compensation is the big problem with recruitment for district and appellate court positions. Idaho’s judicial salaries rank 49th in the nation. Last year we lost a talented Supreme Court Justice and a highly-regarded Magistrate Judge in Bonneville County because of the low pay. The pay for high court justices equates to $79 per hour, for district judges it is $72 per hour and for magistrate judges it is $69 per hour. In contrast, the Legislature often hires counsel to represent it in court for more than $470 per hour. In the last two years the Legislature has considered legislation to give a partisan slant to the Judicial Council process and to chip away at the retirement package that has previously attracted candidates to apply for district and appellate positions. They have never expected great wealth, but they have expected certainty as to the extent of the sacrifice they make in compensation in order to perform public service. To add insult to injury, judges were the only public employees who did not receive a 7% cost-of-living increase in 2022. Last January, Rep. Bruce Skaug, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, proclaimed that judges “were robbed” for the slight. Unfortunately, the Legislature failed to provide restitution for the robbery. A good case could be made that the theft violated a provision of the Idaho Constitution prohibiting the reduction of judge’s compensation during their term of office, but that is for a later column. The fact is that we risk getting enough qualified candidates for judicial positions unless there is an immediate and substantial pay raise for all judges. It makes no sense to have judges deciding complicated cases that vitally affect the lives and fortunes of litigants where lawyers for the parties may well be receiving many times the $69 to $79 per hour that the judges are being paid. A 10% across-the-board increase for judges, in addition to any cost-of-living increase that other state employees might receive, is essential to get more highly-qualified lawyers to apply. And the Legislature should cease its tinkering with judicial election and retirement laws. As per the old saying, if we continue to pay peanuts to our judges, the judicial selection process may well be swamped by unqualified monkeys. Representative Russ Fulcher has failed to grasp that his repeated failure to support Ukraine in defending against Russia’s genocidal war is extremely harmful to America’s national security interests. Ukraine’s valiant fighters are shedding their blood to protect the freedom of the Ukrainian people. But their dogged defense has the side effect of bleeding and degrading Vladimir Putin’s war machine, reducing its threat against the United States and our allies. If the Ukrainians win, we won’t face the possibility of future hostilities with Russia. If they lose, we are in for continued conflict with Putin’s regime. Make no mistake, Putin is allying with China, North Korea and other totalitarian regimes to try to take down America and its allies. Russia began using North Korean ballistic missiles against Ukraine in December and more are in the pipeline. But this is not the first dangerous flirtation between the two countries that has endangered the United States. North Korea would not have a nuclear arsenal to threaten the U.S. and its Asian allies without the help of Russian scientists. Putin’s alliance with China and North Korea, called the Trilateral Imperialist Partnership, combines Russia’s nuclear arsenal, China’s economic and military power and North Korea’s lunacy into an extremely dangerous threat. A Russian win against Ukraine, would provide rocket fuel for this malevolent alliance. The stakes are exceedingly high. Perhaps a short refresher course would be helpful for Rep. Fulcher. After the Second World War, Russia gobbled up practically every country on its borders and conglomerated them into a totalitarian state called the Soviet Union. It was our mortal enemy for decades. During the Vietnam War, where I served in 1968-69, the Soviets supplied weapons to the communists that killed thousands of U.S. troops. President Reagan correctly called it the “Evil Empire.” The Soviet empire fell apart in 1991 and its citizens had a brief respite from state terror. In 2005, Putin lamented the collapse of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century. He began working feverishly to recreate it, to seize former satellite countries, to enslave his people and do everything possible to break up America’s alliances and power around the world. Putin began hostilities against Ukraine in 2014, leading to the present barbarous war. Ukraine desperately needs massive military assistance from the U.S. and our NATO allies. We have a vital national interest in preventing Putin from winning his war of conquest. If he and his partners succeed, our NATO allies will be next in his sights and we will be obligated by treaty and our own vital security interests to join the war on their side. If Ukraine survives, it will provide a future NATO shield against Putin’s forces. Russ Fulcher does not seem to grasp the fact that aiding Ukraine is essential to America’s safety and security. In a December interview with columnist Chuck Malloy, Fulcher gave a rather garbled answer as to whether he would vote for further aid for Ukraine. He seemed to say that unless the President clarifies the Ukraine mission and addresses our southern border, it is “a deal-breaker” and “show-stopper” for him. It’s kind of like Congress telling FDR that no funding for the Normandy Invasion would be forthcoming unless the President clarified the mission and addressed some unrelated domestic problems. That’s really not the best way to protect our national security. If Fulcher needs clarity on the mission, he can bring up hundreds of news reports in which the President has outlined the mission and the drastic need for aid to achieve it by simply Googling “Biden calls for strong support for Ukraine.” Mention was made of the subject in two State of the Union speeches, which I assume Fulcher heard. Or, he could consult with Senator Jim Risch, who clearly understands the urgent need to help Ukraine, and protect the United States, in this critical moment. Risch told Malloy, “Putin is not going to stop with Ukraine if he wins the war. If we end up in war with Russia, what we’re spending here is a drop in the bucket by comparison. If we abandon Ukraine...there will be major consequences...I believe it would set up the largest arms race that the planet has ever seen.” I’m hoping that with such high stakes, Fulcher can see the drastic need to support the American side of this ugly war. Prior to 2023, Idaho’s Attorneys General handled the State’s legal business without outside entanglements. During his first year in office, Raul Labrador has changed that non-interference policy. He has intertwined his chosen political priorities with out-of-state legal partners that have their own ideological axes to grind. One partner is a dark-money-funded group, Alliance Defending Freedom, that gives Idaho “free” legal representation. Another partner is a high-priced Washington law firm, Cooper & Kirk, that is currently charging Idaho taxpayers a rate of $495 per hour. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is a Christian nationalist group that advances the most extreme anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ positions. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which took down the Aryan Nations and its Church of Jesus Christ Christian in Kootenai County in 2000, has listed ADF as a hate group. ADF and Labrador have teamed up in three separate cases, so far. They are defending Idaho’s law criminalizing emergency room medical care for pregnant women, defending the Legislature’s transgender bathroom law and have meddled in a Washington State abortion pill case. Labrador has signed rather one-sided agreements with ADF to obtain their free legal help. If the State and ADF must pay the other side’s attorney fees, ADF is off the hook and the Idaho pays. If the other side must pay, the attorney fees are divided between the State and ADF. The State must consult with ADF in communicating with the media and is obligated to put out favorable publicity for ADF. Labrador is effectively giving Idaho’s stamp of approval to this extreme-right legal behemoth, which has 100 staff attorneys, about 5,000 lawyers in its network and nearly $100 million in revenues. One other item of interest is that Lincoln Wilson, who served in Labrador’s office until October, is now ADF’s representative in Idaho. Another lawyer, Theo Wold, who served as Labrador’s much ballyhooed Solicitor General, also left the office in October. Wold campaigned hard for Labrador’s election in 2022 and was one of his first hires. A former official in the Trump White House, Wold is a Christian nationalist and supporter of the Great Replacement conspiracy. Although he is gone from Labrador’s office, he will not soon be forgotten. His wife, Megan, is a member of the Washington law firm that is getting Idaho tax dollars to advance Labrador’s personal political agenda. Ms. Wold’s firm, Cooper & Kirk (C&K), is the go-to firm for extremist dark-money-funded clients. The firm has partnered with Labrador on at least two cases, so far. On July 11, Lincoln Wilson signed a contract with the firm to help in defending the new law criminalizing medical care for transgender youth. State taxpayers will be paying Wold’s firm an hourly rate of $495 per hour for lawyers and $80 for non-lawyers. Now that Wilson has left the AG’s office, ADF and C&K will be doing the kind of work that previous Idaho Attorneys General handled with staff attorneys. The federal district court in Idaho found on December 26 that the transgender ban violated the U.S. Constitution and that the State would likely lose the case at trial. That means the case will go to trial, ensuring more fees for C&K. Many of us predicted this outcome and one wonders why Labrador, who claimed he would give the Legislature the best legal advice so as to avoid losing cases, did not see this result coming. Needless to say, Labrador blamed the judge, not bad lawyering, for his loss. C&K contracted again with Labrador in November to look over a motion to the U.S. Supreme Court that seeks to allow Idaho to enforce the strict prohibition against emergency maternal care, after he lost in the federal circuit court. C&K will get $10,000 for just reviewing his motion. The Wolds are doing well at the expense of Idaho taxpayers. Idaho should not allow its good name to be used for advancing the political or financial interests of out-of-state lawyers. Past practice in the Attorney General’s office is not to mix political agendas with the state’s legal business. The partnerships Labrador has formed with ADL and C&K lead one to wonder whose agenda is being served. All of these contracts seek to place documentation beyond the reach of Idaho’s public records law, so it may be tough to discover that important information. Jones During his first year as Idaho attorney general, Raul Labrador has placed most of his chips on the abortion issue in his quest for higher office. He has been aided and abetted, free of charge, by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a powerful extreme-right legal organization in the nation’s capital that is intent on stamping out any perceived form of abortion across the entire country. ADF played a major role in overturning Roe v. Wade. Labrador began his term as AG with a March 27 opinion declaring that Idaho’s strictest in the nation abortion laws criminalized Idaho doctors for “providing abortion pills” and “either referring a woman across state lines to access abortion services” or to obtain abortion pills. When the opinion was challenged in court, Labrador withdrew it, but refused to disavow it. Strangely enough, Idaho’s laws are so strict that the opinion was probably correct, even though seriously suspect under the U.S. Constitution. Since that time, Labrador has opposed a federal rule change that would protect the confidentiality of pregnant women’s medical records from snooping state attorneys general. The rule is designed to protect the privacy of women who travel out of state for pregnancy care. Labrador has also strenuously sought to enforce Idaho’s “abortion trafficking” law. With free help from ADF, Labrador was able to prevent women with dangerous pregnancy conditions from getting stabilizing medical care in Idaho’s hospital emergency rooms. The only exception is where an abortion is “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” Women who need care for a much-wanted, but nonviable, pregnancy have been forced out of state in order to get the care they need. The emergency care issue will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in late April. The Supreme Court will also consider in April whether to place restrictions on the dispensation of an abortion pill, mifepristone, which prevents pregnancy if taken within 10 days. That case, which originated in federal court in Amarillo, Texas, resulted in a ruling supported and cheered by Labrador and ADF last year. The district judge severely restricted use of the drug, but those restrictions were lessened by a federal circuit court and then lifted by the Supreme Court. The Court will rule on the extent of restrictions, if any, that will apply to dispensation of mifepristone. Labrador has established quite a track record for cracking down on abortions, even when necessary to protect the life and health of women who are desperate to have a child. But nothing can compare to the move he made in that federal court in Amarillo last November. He and two other state AGs asked the court for permission to file a complaint that seeks to totally ban the use of mifepristone and a follow-up drug, misoprostol, throughout the country. Misoprostol is used to induce a miscarriage. The lengthy complaint, which was likely drafted by ADF and its allies, is chock full of questionable assertions, including preposterous claims that both drugs are dangerous to patients. In the press coverage I’ve seen about the complaint, the request to ban the use of misoprostol has been overlooked. The requested ban is significant because that drug has been used safely and effectively for decades. Yet, right there at page 102, Labrador and the other two AGs ask the judge to order federal agencies “to withdraw mifepristone and misoprostol as FDA-approved chemical abortion drugs.” That is, to ban the use of both drugs throughout the country. On January 12 the judge granted the motion to file the complaint, so it will presumably proceed on a separate track from the case to be considered by the Supreme Court in April. AFD was lucky to have the three states front for it because it would not have had standing to get the case into court on its own — it’s good to have pliable, accommodating state attorneys general. If misoprostol is taken off the market, women like Kristin Colson of Boise will face the heart-breaking situation of a wanted, but non-viable pregnancy, made worse by having no medication available to safely manage the miscarriage. Colson had an anembryonic pregnancy and opted for misoprostol, rather than surgery or waiting weeks for her body to pass the tissue. She was surprised when the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription. She was able to get the prescription filled elsewhere but, if Labrador were to prevail in his Texas lawsuit, there would be no legal source for the drug anywhere in the country. It is unclear whether Labrador is aware of the impact that his extreme actions have on women who want to have viable pregnancies, but can’t, or whether he is simply blinded by his political ambitions. Regardless, it will be interesting to see how Idaho voters react to his all-in gamble on the abortion issue. Jones Every legislative session brings some new “school choice” scheme that is touted as a way to improve elementary and secondary education in Idaho by offering more choices to families. Sometimes the plan is called a voucher, sometimes a stipend, sometimes a grant, sometimes a savings account. This year the scheme is called a “refundable tax credit.” What every plan has in common is the use of taxpayer money to subsidize private schooling, including religious and home schools. Because of the chronic failure of our legislatures in the last several decades to adequately fund public schools, the cost of such schemes will ultimately end up being forced upon local property taxpayers. The framers of the Idaho Constitution undoubtedly thought they had definitively dealt with the school choice issue. They placed a high priority on providing a foundational education for every Idaho child. The Constitution states: “The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.” The framers gave nary a hint that public monies could ever be used to pay for private education. Idaho law has always required parents to send their school-age kids to public schools. Parents can get around the compulsory attendance requirement by having their kids educated in a private school. So, Idaho parents have always had a school choice — they can either send their kids to taxpayer-funded public schools, or they can pay out of pocket for any authorized form of private schooling. Idaho’s constitutional framers made it an overriding responsibility for the Legislature to properly fund the public school system, both for the instruction of Idaho kids and for the construction and maintenance of school buildings. They undoubtedly believed that future legislatures would honor the constitutional mandate to maintain a “thorough system” of education, primarily funded out of the state treasury. They would be profoundly amazed and saddened to learn that legislators have seriously and consistently violated this sacred duty. Thanks to the school funding lawsuit filed against the state in 1990, it is well known that Idaho legislators have failed to adequately fund the instructional side of public education during the last three decades. Because of pressure brought to bear by the Reclaim Idaho school funding initiative, the state significantly upped the ante of public funding in the special legislative session in 2022, but there is still a shortfall. Local school districts have been left with the choice of doing without adequate resources or saddling local property taxpayers to make up the difference. In 2005, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature had flat failed to fulfill its duty to fund the construction and maintenance of school buildings, improperly placing the giant share of that burden upon local property taxpayers. The cost of bringing existing buildings up to just “good” condition is about $1 billion, let alone funding new buildings for a growing population. School districts either have to try to educate kids in substandard, sometimes hazardous buildings, or hit up local property owners with hefty school bonds. The current “school choice” tax credit boondoggle, House Bill 447, would give private school parents $50 million in tax credits or payments right off of the top of the state budget. Providing a tax credit or deduction of taxes owing under the tax code, is using public monies for a private purpose. And, just who do you think will ultimately end up footing the bill? You got it, those long-suffering local property taxpayers who just don’t seem to have a strong voice in our legislature. The bill sponsors say the $50 million is a ceiling, but experience in other states shows that it is the first step of many on a costly escalator. We ought to simply follow the choice plan adopted by Idaho’s constitutional framers — finance a high-quality public school system with public money. And allow those who wish to opt for private, religious and home schooling to pay the expenses with their own funds. If they want Idaho taxpayers to fund their private education costs, they should try to change the Constitution instead of defying it. Many people have literally been moved by the ugly performance of Idaho’s Republican extremists in recent years. That is, significant numbers of teachers, librarians, doctors and others have moved out of the Gem State to escape the false claims and oppressive legislation conjured by the dysfunctional branch of Idaho’s GOP, now presided over by Dorothy Moon. On the other hand, that same wretched conduct has caused like-minded folk from across the country to move to our state, attracted by headlines that portray Idaho as a sanctuary for political zealots of every stripe. Extremist legislators have been relentlessly and unjustifiably attacking libraries and librarians since out-of-state dark money groups placed them on the target list a couple of years ago. The Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) and its faithful legislative acolytes recognized the vote-getting potential of this fake culture war issue and jumped on the bandwagon. They have been cheered on by Moon and her minions. False claims that libraries were dishing out filth to young kids resulted in passage last year of a bill imposing a $2,500 bounty for making “available” books deemed “harmful to minors.” The bill had obvious constitutional problems, but that was beside the point. The purpose of the bill was to intimidate libraries into purging their shelves of anything that might be in any way suspect. Governor Little rightfully vetoed the bill, but libraries and librarians are being targeted again this year. The grief that librarians have faced from the continual sniping has taken its toll. The Idaho Library Association recently disclosed that more than half of Idaho librarians are thinking of leaving library work and many are moving out of state. I’m aware of a couple that just left for library jobs in Pennsylvania. The radicals have also chased off Idaho teachers with a laundry list of trumped-up charges, including that they are grooming kids, indoctrinating them with critical race theory and exposing them to pornography. When Idaho’s 2023 Teacher of the Year was attacked, she moved to Illinois where people would appreciate her excellent work. We have all heard of medical doctors, particularly OB-GYNs, leaving Idaho because its toughest-in-the-nation abortion laws have intimidated them out of treating women with troubled pregnancies. Thanks to Attorney General Raul Labrador, a woman cannot receive care for a dangerous pregnancy in a hospital emergency room until she is on death’s doorstep. In the words of the statute, the doctor can only act “ to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” No wonder Idaho doctors are moving away. Idahoans, particularly in our northern climes, will have an additional reason to hire a mover if a pending bill is enacted into law. Senate Bill 1220 would essentially gut Idaho’s domestic terror law. That law was passed in 1987 in response to the bombing of Father Bill Wassmuth’s home in Coeur d’Alene by members of the violent white supremacist Aryan Nations group. The law made it a serious felony for those who commit criminal acts that are “dangerous to human life” and intended to “intimidate or coerce” either the general public or governmental policymakers. The law announced to the world that Idaho would not put up with violent political zealots. The sponsor of SB1220 argued that it would protect the speech rights of groups like Moms for Liberty. Pardon me, but if that group were to engage in violent acts of intimidation, like the terror bombing of a civil rights icon’s home, wouldn’t most decent Idahoans hope the state’s laws could deal with it? Besides, Moms for Liberty has its hands full nowadays, dealing with the admitted three-way sex scandal in Florida among its founder, her husband and another woman. While these appalling political actions by IFF and the Dorothy Moon enablers have caused many decent Idahoans to move out of the state, the same actions have attracted an inward movement of like-minded extremists into the state. David Neiwert, a distinguish Idaho journalist, has written a must-read article titled “Idaho’s traditional Republicans realizing their new far-right transplant overlords are radicals,” disclosing that the in-migration of radicals from other states has been happening for years. They will continue to come in droves because out-of-staters are reading the ugly headlines and taking them as a sign that Idaho has put out the welcome mat for practically every brand of political and religious fanatic. In a special report that appeared in the January 30 issue of the Idaho Press, titled “Birds of a Feather,” the Adams Publishing Group indicates that political migration has become a national phenomenon in recent years, including Idaho. At least the moving companies are profiting. Idaho’s landmark Terrorist Control Act (TCA) will be rendered useless by passage of a bill recently introduced in the Idaho Senate. Among other things, the TCA makes it a serious felony for two or more people to conspire to threaten or intimidate any citizen in the enjoyment of any constitutional right by the use of violence. Senate Bill 1220 would decriminalize any violent conspiracy that was not done in cooperation with a “foreign terrorist organization.” Violent acts like the bombings carried out by the Aryan Nations hate group in northern Idaho in 1986 could no longer be prosecuted under the TCA. Aryan Nations members exploded a pipe bomb at Father Bill Wassmuth’s home in Coeur d’Alene on September 15, 1986, and set off three other bombs a few days later. Father Bill was shaken, but not physically injured, and there were no injuries sustained in the other blasts. The bombs were designed to intimidate and silence those like Father Bill who were exercising their constitutional right to speak out against the dangerous white supremacist group. Because the bombs did not result in bodily injury to Father Bill or others, Idaho law could not adequately punish the bombers for their violent actions. It was clear that Idaho needed to take action against violent domestic terrorists. As Idaho’s Attorney General, I proposed tough legislation in 1987, which failed in the House due to opposition from the National Rifle Association. I worked with the NRA and we were able to agree on strong language for the TCA, which remains on our law books today. The NRA proposed adding language from the federal Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which primarily targeted violent conspiracies by KKK members to prevent freed slaves from voting, speaking out, holding office and exercising other constitutional rights. The KKK Act language significantly improved and strengthened the TCA. The sponsor of SB1220 is a level-headed legislator who seems to have the misconception that the TCA, as written, could be used to prosecute school patrons. It simply would not happen, unless the patrons engaged in a violent conspiracy to deprive others of their constitutional rights. The KKK Act has been on the federal books since 1871 and I’m unaware of any case where non-intimidating, non-conspiring, non-violent school patrons have faced federal charges under that law. No inappropriate charges have been filed in Idaho under the TCA. In fact, the entire purpose of the TCA is to protect the constitutional rights of all Idahoans from violent conspiracists. That purpose is repeated throughout the present law. The problem with SB 1220 is that it would require a prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, even in an egregious situation like the Aryan Nation bombings in 1986, that the violent acts were “done in cooperation with any foreign terrorist organization.” Without that proof, the conspirators could not be held to account. The U.S. currently lists about 70 foreign terrorist organizations, including Hamas, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Boko Haram and ISIS-Mozambique. The chances that any of those groups would team up with conspirators in Idaho to commit violent acts is almost nil. The foreign cooperation requirement essentially guts the Terrorist Control Act. On the other hand, domestic terrorist incidents have increased dramatically in the United States in recent years. The Government Accountability Office reported last year that domestic terrorism-related cases increased 357% from 2013 to 2021. These are not cases involving foreign terrorist organizations. The 1986 Coeur d’Alene bombings finally awakened the entire state to the serious threat the Aryans posed to the safety of those in the area and to the image of the Gem State as a whole. Out of concern for the economic impact on commerce, the Idaho business community rose up in opposition to the group and its poisonous agenda. The TCA was enacted in response. With the growing threat of domestic terrorism in the U.S. and the consequent endangerment to the constitutional rights of Idaho citizens, this is not the time to neuter the TCA. That law was passed to rid our beautiful state of violent white supremacists. Let’s not put out the welcome mat for them. Judges are the heart of the American system of justice. Faith in our court system depends upon having judges who are competent and impartial. That, in turn, requires thorough vetting of judicial candidates to put the best qualified people on the bench. For over 50 years, Idaho has had procedures in place to ensure the appointment of highly qualified judges at every level of the court system. Magistrate judges, who handle misdemeanors and a wide range of specialty cases, are vetted and appointed by regional magistrate commissions. District and appellate judges are thoroughly vetted by the non-political Idaho Judicial Council. The Council sends a list of up to 4 candidates for each position to the Governor for selection of the finalist. The system has worked well. Former Governor Butch Otter, who appointed over 55 district and appellate judges during his 12 years in office, regularly received praise from other governors across the country for the high quality of Idaho’s judiciary. During his 8 years as Chief Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court, Roger Burdick received similar compliments from his high court colleagues from other states. While the appointment process is vitally important to a quality judiciary, it is critical that the state offer a compensation and retirement package that is attractive enough to bring in a significant number of judicial candidates. The package must be sufficient to ensure a decent standard of living for candidates who are making at least twice as much in private practice. That is where Idaho’s selection process has begun to fail. District court positions are the hardest to recruit for because of long hours, high stress and early burnout. Candidates must have 10 years of experience and most of those lawyers are getting close to their peak earning capacity. They are the highly qualified candidates we want and need to preside over our toughest, most challenging civil and criminal cases. Starting in 2021, the Judicial Council has averaged less than five applicants for the 16 district court openings. Previously, it was not unusual to get twice as many applicants for a vacancy. Part of the problem is that district court judges must stand for a possibly-contested election in the low turn-out primary every four years. Magistrates run every four years in a no-contest retention election. Magistrate openings, which pay $12,000 less than district court, generally get more than twice as many applicants. But compensation is the big problem with recruitment for district and appellate court positions. Idaho’s judicial salaries rank 49th in the nation. Last year we lost a talented Supreme Court Justice and a highly-regarded Magistrate Judge in Bonneville County because of the low pay. The pay for high court justices equates to $79 per hour, for district judges it is $72 per hour and for magistrate judges it is $69 per hour. In contrast, the Legislature often hires counsel to represent it in court for more than $470 per hour. In the last two years the Legislature has considered legislation to give a partisan slant to the Judicial Council process and to chip away at the retirement package that has previously attracted candidates to apply for district and appellate positions. They have never expected great wealth, but they have expected certainty as to the extent of the sacrifice they make in compensation in order to perform public service. To add insult to injury, judges were the only public employees who did not receive a 7% cost-of-living increase in 2022. Last January, Rep. Bruce Skaug, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, proclaimed that judges “were robbed” for the slight. Unfortunately, the Legislature failed to provide restitution for the robbery. A good case could be made that the theft violated a provision of the Idaho Constitution prohibiting the reduction of judge’s compensation during their term of office, but that is for a later column. The fact is that we risk getting enough qualified candidates for judicial positions unless there is an immediate and substantial pay raise for all judges. It makes no sense to have judges deciding complicated cases that vitally affect the lives and fortunes of litigants where lawyers for the parties may well be receiving many times the $69 to $79 per hour that the judges are being paid. A 10% across-the-board increase for judges, in addition to any cost-of-living increase that other state employees might receive, is essential to get more highly-qualified lawyers to apply. And the Legislature should cease its tinkering with judicial election and retirement laws. As per the old saying, if we continue to pay peanuts to our judges, the judicial selection process may well be swamped by unqualified monkeys. Representative Russ Fulcher has failed to grasp that his repeated failure to support Ukraine in defending against Russia’s genocidal war is extremely harmful to America’s national security interests. Ukraine’s valiant fighters are shedding their blood to protect the freedom of the Ukrainian people. But their dogged defense has the side effect of bleeding and degrading Vladimir Putin’s war machine, reducing its threat against the United States and our allies. If the Ukrainians win, we won’t face the possibility of future hostilities with Russia. If they lose, we are in for continued conflict with Putin’s regime. Make no mistake, Putin is allying with China, North Korea and other totalitarian regimes to try to take down America and its allies. Russia began using North Korean ballistic missiles against Ukraine in December and more are in the pipeline. But this is not the first dangerous flirtation between the two countries that has endangered the United States. North Korea would not have a nuclear arsenal to threaten the U.S. and its Asian allies without the help of Russian scientists. Putin’s alliance with China and North Korea, called the Trilateral Imperialist Partnership, combines Russia’s nuclear arsenal, China’s economic and military power and North Korea’s lunacy into an extremely dangerous threat. A Russian win against Ukraine, would provide rocket fuel for this malevolent alliance. The stakes are exceedingly high. Perhaps a short refresher course would be helpful for Rep. Fulcher. After the Second World War, Russia gobbled up practically every country on its borders and conglomerated them into a totalitarian state called the Soviet Union. It was our mortal enemy for decades. During the Vietnam War, where I served in 1968-69, the Soviets supplied weapons to the communists that killed thousands of U.S. troops. President Reagan correctly called it the “Evil Empire.” The Soviet empire fell apart in 1991 and its citizens had a brief respite from state terror. In 2005, Putin lamented the collapse of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century. He began working feverishly to recreate it, to seize former satellite countries, to enslave his people and do everything possible to break up America’s alliances and power around the world. Putin began hostilities against Ukraine in 2014, leading to the present barbarous war. Ukraine desperately needs massive military assistance from the U.S. and our NATO allies. We have a vital national interest in preventing Putin from winning his war of conquest. If he and his partners succeed, our NATO allies will be next in his sights and we will be obligated by treaty and our own vital security interests to join the war on their side. If Ukraine survives, it will provide a future NATO shield against Putin’s forces. Russ Fulcher does not seem to grasp the fact that aiding Ukraine is essential to America’s safety and security. In a December interview with columnist Chuck Malloy, Fulcher gave a rather garbled answer as to whether he would vote for further aid for Ukraine. He seemed to say that unless the President clarifies the Ukraine mission and addresses our southern border, it is “a deal-breaker” and “show-stopper” for him. It’s kind of like Congress telling FDR that no funding for the Normandy Invasion would be forthcoming unless the President clarified the mission and addressed some unrelated domestic problems. That’s really not the best way to protect our national security. If Fulcher needs clarity on the mission, he can bring up hundreds of news reports in which the President has outlined the mission and the drastic need for aid to achieve it by simply Googling “Biden calls for strong support for Ukraine.” Mention was made of the subject in two State of the Union speeches, which I assume Fulcher heard. Or, he could consult with Senator Jim Risch, who clearly understands the urgent need to help Ukraine, and protect the United States, in this critical moment. Risch told Malloy, “Putin is not going to stop with Ukraine if he wins the war. If we end up in war with Russia, what we’re spending here is a drop in the bucket by comparison. If we abandon Ukraine...there will be major consequences...I believe it would set up the largest arms race that the planet has ever seen.” I’m hoping that with such high stakes, Fulcher can see the drastic need to support the American side of this ugly war. Prior to 2023, Idaho’s Attorneys General handled the State’s legal business without outside entanglements. During his first year in office, Raul Labrador has changed that non-interference policy. He has intertwined his chosen political priorities with out-of-state legal partners that have their own ideological axes to grind. One partner is a dark-money-funded group, Alliance Defending Freedom, that gives Idaho “free” legal representation. Another partner is a high-priced Washington law firm, Cooper & Kirk, that is currently charging Idaho taxpayers a rate of $495 per hour. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is a Christian nationalist group that advances the most extreme anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ positions. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which took down the Aryan Nations and its Church of Jesus Christ Christian in Kootenai County in 2000, has listed ADF as a hate group. ADF and Labrador have teamed up in three separate cases, so far. They are defending Idaho’s law criminalizing emergency room medical care for pregnant women, defending the Legislature’s transgender bathroom law and have meddled in a Washington State abortion pill case. Labrador has signed rather one-sided agreements with ADF to obtain their free legal help. If the State and ADF must pay the other side’s attorney fees, ADF is off the hook and the Idaho pays. If the other side must pay, the attorney fees are divided between the State and ADF. The State must consult with ADF in communicating with the media and is obligated to put out favorable publicity for ADF. Labrador is effectively giving Idaho’s stamp of approval to this extreme-right legal behemoth, which has 100 staff attorneys, about 5,000 lawyers in its network and nearly $100 million in revenues. One other item of interest is that Lincoln Wilson, who served in Labrador’s office until October, is now ADF’s representative in Idaho. Another lawyer, Theo Wold, who served as Labrador’s much ballyhooed Solicitor General, also left the office in October. Wold campaigned hard for Labrador’s election in 2022 and was one of his first hires. A former official in the Trump White House, Wold is a Christian nationalist and supporter of the Great Replacement conspiracy. Although he is gone from Labrador’s office, he will not soon be forgotten. His wife, Megan, is a member of the Washington law firm that is getting Idaho tax dollars to advance Labrador’s personal political agenda. Ms. Wold’s firm, Cooper & Kirk (C&K), is the go-to firm for extremist dark-money-funded clients. The firm has partnered with Labrador on at least two cases, so far. On July 11, Lincoln Wilson signed a contract with the firm to help in defending the new law criminalizing medical care for transgender youth. State taxpayers will be paying Wold’s firm an hourly rate of $495 per hour for lawyers and $80 for non-lawyers. Now that Wilson has left the AG’s office, ADF and C&K will be doing the kind of work that previous Idaho Attorneys General handled with staff attorneys. The federal district court in Idaho found on December 26 that the transgender ban violated the U.S. Constitution and that the State would likely lose the case at trial. That means the case will go to trial, ensuring more fees for C&K. Many of us predicted this outcome and one wonders why Labrador, who claimed he would give the Legislature the best legal advice so as to avoid losing cases, did not see this result coming. Needless to say, Labrador blamed the judge, not bad lawyering, for his loss. C&K contracted again with Labrador in November to look over a motion to the U.S. Supreme Court that seeks to allow Idaho to enforce the strict prohibition against emergency maternal care, after he lost in the federal circuit court. C&K will get $10,000 for just reviewing his motion. The Wolds are doing well at the expense of Idaho taxpayers. Idaho should not allow its good name to be used for advancing the political or financial interests of out-of-state lawyers. Past practice in the Attorney General’s office is not to mix political agendas with the state’s legal business. The partnerships Labrador has formed with ADL and C&K lead one to wonder whose agenda is being served. All of these contracts seek to place documentation beyond the reach of Idaho’s public records law, so it may be tough to discover that important information. Jim Jones served eight years as Idaho Attorney General (1983-1991) and 12 years as a Justice on the Idaho Supreme Court (2005-2017). His columns are collected at JJCommonTater.com . Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!Stock Traders Purchase Large Volume of Call Options on Royal Caribbean Cruises (NYSE:RCL)
The opinion article by Matthew Hooton (December 27) was both insightful and not politically partisan. It clearly shows the slow decline in most aspects of the New Zealand economy and world standing over the past 100 years. What he omitted to observe was the contribution to New Zealand over those years by the milking cow. From small beginnings, our milk production, year on year, and in spite of often adverse climatic and economic conditions, has continued to grow in value and in volume, and achieved in a mostly environmentally friendly way. The continuing security of that financial contribution to our country’s economy is unmatched by any other sector. May those heroines, the New Zealand dairy cows, be praised and keep on milking well into our future. Peter Jensen Tauranga.
Tributes to Walker's patriarch who ‘brought Scotland to the world’
Cellectar Biosciences Provides Strategic Update on Clinical Development, Pipeline Programs and Corporate RestructuringWho Is Luigi Mangione, the Suspect In UnitedHealthcare CEO Shooting? By On Monday, November 9, was arrested as a suspect in the murder of . This has led many people to wonder who Luigi Mangione is and what background hails from. Notably, Thompson was in New York City while heading toward a meeting with the investors. Here are all the available details about Mangione and his suspected connection to the shooting. Who is Luigi Mangione? The authorities apprehended Luigi Mangione, the suspect in the Brian Thompson murder case, at a McDonald’s restaurant in Altoona, Pennsylvania. The arrest happened after someone recognized him. The police reportedly found, among other things, a black 3D-printed pistol with a loaded Glock magazine a 3D-printed black silencer, and several fake IDs on Mangione’s person. Mangione belongs to an affluent family from Baltimore, Maryland. He grew up there and also reportedly has connections to California. Mangione’s last known address before his arrest was in Honolulu, Hawaii. He seemingly didn’t have any reports of arrest in New York and other states. According to the police, Luigi Mangione might have received schooling at a college in Pennsylvania, something that handles attributed to him appear to corroborate. A Gilman School graduate, he reportedly attended the University of Pennsylvania, earning Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in computer and information science in 2020. Moreover, the attributed to Mangione claims that he is a data engineer working for TrueCar, Inc. He served as an intern at UI Programming and was the founder of UPGRade, the purported first-ever video game development club. According to Freddie Leatherbury, a former classmate of Mangione, the latter “had everything going for him.” Meanwhile, another friend dubbed him as a “super normal” and “smart person.” (via ) The police claim that the three-page, handwritten document they discovered on Mangione sheds light on why he might have taken such a drastic action. An officer reportedly informed that Mangione wrote in the document, “These parasites had it coming.” He also wrote, “I do apologize for any strife and trauma, but it had to be done.” Further, multiple outlets reported that Luigi Mangione was struggling with issues with his back and underwent surgery. It’s unclear whether his experience of directly dealing with the US healthcare system has anything to do with his purported actions. Entertainment and pop-culture writer at ComingSoon. In his spare time, Tamal dreams of dragons. Share article
Six-time Olympic gold medallist Emma McKeon has announced her retirement from competitive swimming as one of the most successful Australian athletes. The 30-year-old confirmed the news on her Instagram on Monday morning, saying she was "proud" and she had gave her swimming career "absolutely everything". "Today I am officially retiring from competitive swimming. Leading into Paris, I knew it would be my last Olympics, and the months since have given me time to reflect on my journey, and think about what I wanted my future to look like in swimming," she wrote. "I am proud of myself for giving my swimming career absolutely everything, both physically and mentally. I wanted to see what I was capable of - and I did." McKeon added she had been "given so much" since taking the sport up at the age of five through to representing Australia on the world stage at three consecutive Games. "I have so many lessons, experiences, friendships and memories that I am so thankful for. Along with every person who supported me, worked hard with me, and cheered me on. THANKYOU," she continued in the social media post. "Now I am excited to see how I can push myself in other ways, and for all the things that life has in store." The post was accompanied by a video showing her highlights in and out of the water. McKeon - who has won six golds, three silvers and five bronze medals at Rio, Tokyo and Paris - previously said she has a "love-hate" relationship with swimming. In her teenage years she stopped going to the pool, but quickly found out she missed being in the water, as well as "working hard for a goal". As her career grew she had to learn to cope with the pressure of the sport which included on missing out on making the Australian team at the 2012 London Games. McKeon won her first gold four years later at Rio, but it was not until 2021 during the COVID-interrupted Tokyo Games when she caught the world's attention. The then 27-year-old became the first woman to win seven medals at a Games, four of which were gold, and also set three Olympic records and one world record. Her first Olympic gold in the 100 metre freestyle in Rio is one of her highlights. McKeon struggled leading up to the Paris Games this year. She missed out on qualifying for her individual pet events in the Australia trials a few months before the Olympics, only advancing into the relays and the 100m butterfly. The champion swimmer did however help Australia win gold in the 4x100m freestyle alongside Mollie O'Callaghan, Shayna Jack and Meg Harris to beat the USA and China. This is a breaking story. More to come.Is Supermicro Stock a Buy in 2025?RIVERWOODS, Ill.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov 25, 2024-- Discover Financial Services (NYSE: DFS) (the “Company”) today announced, as required under the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”) Listed Company Manual, that it received a notice (the “NYSE Notice”) from the NYSE on November 19, 2024 that the Company is not in compliance with Section 802.01E of the NYSE Listed Company Manual as a result of its failure to timely file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2024 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) prior to November 18, 2024, the end of the extension period provided by Rule 12b-25 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The NYSE Notice has no immediate effect on the listing of the Company’s common stock on the NYSE. On July 19, 2023, the Company disclosed that beginning around mid-2007, the Company incorrectly classified certain credit card accounts into its highest merchant and merchant acquirer pricing tier (the “card product misclassification”). Based on information available as of June 30, 2023, the Company recognized a liability of $365 million that was accounted for as the correction of an error. The Company determined that the revenue impact was not material to the consolidated financial statements of the Company for any of the impacted periods. While it was therefore determined that it was not necessary for the Company to restate any previously issued interim or annual financial statements, the cumulative misstatement was deemed material to the three and six months ended June 30, 2023 condensed consolidated financial statements, and therefore the Company determined that adjustment of the full $365 million only through 2023 earnings was not appropriate. Therefore, the $365 million liability (the “Initial Liability”) was recorded as of June 30, 2023 with offsetting adjustments to merchant discount and interchange revenue and retained earnings, along with consequential impacts to deferred tax accruals. Comparable corrections were made for all prior periods presented in the Company’s Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarters ended June 30, 2023 and September 30, 2023 and subsequently in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023. On February 19, 2024, Discover and Capital One Financial Corporation (“Capital One”) jointly announced that they entered into an agreement and plan of merger pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction (the “Merger”). In the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2024, the Company disclosed that it had determined to increase its liability to $1.2 billion (the “Liability Increase”) through a charge to other expense for the three months ended March 31, 2024, to reflect the total amount the Company then expected was probable to be disbursed in relation to the card product misclassification. The Company determined the Liability Increase was appropriate based on its experience through that date with remediation efforts, discussions through the first quarter of 2024 with its regulators, Board of Directors and other stakeholders, the pending Merger, which was approved by the Company’s Board of Directors during the quarter, and a desire to advance resolution of the matter more quickly to mitigate further risk. As part of the review of the Company’s historical financial statements by the Staff of the SEC (the “Staff”) undertaken in connection with the Staff’s review of the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed by Capital One in connection with the Merger (and the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus contained therein) (the “Registration Statement”), the Staff provided comments to the Company relating to the Company’s accounting approach for the card product misclassification. The Company has responded to these comments and has engaged in several verbal discussions with the Staff. The Staff has indicated that it disagrees with the Company’s application of revenue recognition guidance issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board in connection with the Company’s recording of the Initial Liability. The Staff has, however, indicated that it would not object to an approach whereby the Company determined the cumulative revenue error related to the card product misclassification to be the maximum amount agreed to be paid by the Company in restitution in respect of the card product misclassification (excluding interest and legal expenses) (the “Alternative Approach”). This amount is approximately $1,047 million. On November 25, 2024, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Audit Committee”), acting on the recommendation of management, and after discussion with Deloitte & Touche LLP (“Deloitte”), the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm, concluded that (i) the Company’s audited financial statements as of December 31, 2023 and 2022 and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2023 included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023 and (ii) the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements included in the Company's Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q previously filed with the SEC for the fiscal quarters ended March 31, 2023, June 30, 2023, September 30, 2023, March 31, 2024 and June 30, 2024 (collectively, the “Prior Periods”), should no longer be relied upon and should be restated to reflect the Alternative Approach. In addition, the Audit Committee concluded that management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2023 and Deloitte’s report on the consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2023 and 2022 and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2023 as well as Deloitte’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2023, should no longer be relied upon. In order to implement the Alternative Approach in the Restated Financial Statements (as defined below), approximately $600 million of the Liability Increase will be reallocated from being recorded as other expense in the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2024 to a revenue error correction in prior periods. In addition, $124 million of the Liability Increase representing interest that the Company committed to pay as part of its counterparty restitution plan will also be reallocated from the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2024 to the third and fourth quarters of 2023. Cumulative historical earnings, capital and the aggregate amount of the counterparty restitution liability will not be affected by application of the Alternative Approach. However, separate work being done to validate the remediation methodology with a third-party consultant has resulted in the identification of approximately $60 million of incremental overcharges, which will be reflected in the Restated Financial Statements. As a result, the Company expects the Restated Financial Statements to reflect the following approximate impacts: as of December 31, 2023, (i) an increase in assets of $190 million, (ii) an increase in accrued expenses and other liabilities of $783 million, and (iii) a decrease in retained earnings of $593 million. For the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, pre-tax income would be reduced by approximately $190 million to $3,636 million and $77 million to $5,641 million, respectively. For the third quarter of 2024, pre-tax income would decrease by approximately $6 million to $1,282 million while pre-tax income for the nine months ended September 30, 2024 would increase by approximately $700 million to $4,462 million (as compared to the pre-tax income reported in the financial information with respect to the quarter ended September 30, 2024 in the exhibits furnished with the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on October 16, 2024). Amendments to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023 (the “Form 10-K/A”), and the Company’s Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarters ended March 31, 2024 and June 30, 2024 (the “Form 10-Q/As” and together with the Form 10-K/A, the “Restated Financial Statements”), are expected to be filed prior to or concurrently with the filing of the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2024 in order to reflect the Alternative Approach and the other modifications described above to the Prior Periods. The Company is working expeditiously to file the Restated Financial Statements as soon as reasonably practicable. The Company currently expects to complete the filings prior to year-end, however there can be no assurance of the actual timing. The Company expects that Capital One will file a pre-effective amendment to the Registration Statement promptly following the Company’s filing of the Restated Financial Statements, and that as soon as practicable following the effectiveness of the Registration Statement and the mailing of the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus contained therein to each company’s stockholders, each company will hold its respective special meeting of stockholders for purposes of obtaining the requisite stockholder approvals of the Merger. About Discover Discover Financial Services (NYSE: DFS) is a digital banking and payment services company with one of the most recognized brands in U.S. financial services. Since its inception in 1986, the company has become one of the largest card issuers in the United States. The Company issues the Discover® card, America's cash rewards pioneer, and offers personal loans, home loans, checking and savings accounts and certificates of deposit through its banking business. It operates the Discover Global Network® comprised of Discover Network, with millions of merchants and cash access locations; PULSE®, one of the nation's leading ATM/debit networks; and Diners Club International®, a global payments network with acceptance around the world. For more information, visit www.discover.com/company . Cautionary Note Regarding Forward Looking Statements: This communication contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements, which speak to our expected business and financial performance, among other matters, contain words such as "believe," "expect," "anticipate," "intend," "plan," "aim," "will," "may," "should," "could," "would," "likely," "forecast," and similar expressions. Other forward-looking statements may include, without limitation, statements with respect to the restatement of the Company’s financial statements. Such statements are based on the current beliefs and expectations of the Company’s management and are subject to significant risks and uncertainties. Actual results may differ materially from those set forth in the forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this communication and there is no undertaking to update or revise them as more information becomes available. Actual future events could also differ materially due to numerous factors that involve substantial known and unknown risks and uncertainties including, among other things, risks relating to the final impact of the restatements on the Company’s financial statements; the impact of the restatements on the Company’s evaluation of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures; delays in the preparation of the consolidated financial statements and/or the declaration of effectiveness of the Registration Statement; the risk that additional information will come to light that alters the scope or magnitude of the restatement; the risks and uncertainties set forth under “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in the Company’s reports on Form 10-K and Form 10-Q; and the other risks and uncertainties discussed in any subsequent reports that the Company files with the SEC from time to time. Although the Company has attempted to identify those material factors that could cause actual results or events to differ from those described in such forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that could cause actual results or events to differ from those anticipated, estimated or intended. Given these uncertainties, investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Important Information About the Merger and Where to Find It Capital One has filed the Registration Statement with the SEC to register the shares of Capital One’s common stock that will be issued to the Company’s stockholders in connection with the Merger. The Registration Statement includes a preliminary joint proxy statement of Capital One and the Company that also constitutes a preliminary prospectus of Capital One. The definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus will be sent to the stockholders of each of the Company and Capital One in connection with the Merger. INVESTORS AND SECURITY HOLDERS ARE URGED TO READ THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND JOINT PROXY STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS WHEN THEY BECOME AVAILABLE (AND ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE SEC IN CONNECTION WITH THE MERGER OR INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE JOINT PROXY STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS) BECAUSE SUCH DOCUMENTS WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING THE MERGER AND RELATED MATTERS. Investors and security holders may obtain free copies of these documents and other documents filed with the SEC by the Company or Capital One through the website maintained by the SEC at http://www.sec.gov or by contacting the investor relations department of the Company or Capital One at: Discover Financial Services Capital One Financial Corporation 2500 Lake Cook Road 1680 Capital One Drive Riverwoods, IL 60015 McLean, VA 22102 Attention: Investor Relations Attention: Investor Relations investorrelations@discover.com investorrelations@capitalone.com (224) 405-4555 (703) 720-1000 Before making any voting or investment decision, investors and security holders of the Company and Capital One are urged to read carefully the entire Registration Statement and joint proxy statement/prospectus, including any amendments thereto, because they contain important information about the Merger. Free copies of these documents may be obtained as described above. Participants in Solicitation The Company, Capital One and certain of their directors and executive officers may be deemed participants in the solicitation of proxies from the stockholders of each of the Company and Capital One in connection with the Merger. Information regarding the directors and executive officers of the Company and Capital One and other persons who may be deemed participants in the solicitation of the stockholders of the Company or of Capital One in connection with the Merger will be included in the joint proxy statement/prospectus related to the Merger, which will be filed by Capital One with the SEC. Information about the directors and executive officers of the Company and their ownership of the Company common stock can also be found in the Company’s definitive proxy statement in connection with its 2024 annual meeting of stockholders, as filed with the SEC on March 15, 2024, as supplemented by the Company’s proxy statement supplement, as filed with the SEC on April 2, 2024, and other documents subsequently filed by the Company with the SEC. Information about the directors and executive officers of Capital One and their ownership of Capital One common stock can also be found in Capital One’s definitive proxy statement in connection with its 2024 annual meeting of stockholders, as filed with the SEC on March 20, 2024, and other documents subsequently filed by Capital One with the SEC. Additional information regarding the interests of such participants will be included in the joint proxy statement/prospectus and other relevant documents regarding the Merger filed with the SEC when they become available. View source version on businesswire.com : https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20241125018559/en/ CONTACT: Investor Contact: Erin Stieber, 224-405-4555 investorrelations@discover.comMedia Contact: Matthew Towson, 224-405-5649 matthewtowson@discover.com KEYWORD: UNITED STATES NORTH AMERICA ILLINOIS INDUSTRY KEYWORD: BANKING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FINANCE SOURCE: Discover Financial Services Copyright Business Wire 2024. PUB: 11/25/2024 06:06 PM/DISC: 11/25/2024 06:06 PM http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20241125018559/en
Infamous 'sofa problem' that boggled mathematicians for decades may finally have a solution(Azacitidine + cedazuridine) is under clinical development by Taiho Oncology and currently in Phase III for Refractory Anemia With Excess Blasts. According to GlobalData, Phase III drugs for Refractory Anemia With Excess Blasts have a 67% phase transition success rate (PTSR) indication benchmark for progressing into Pre-Registration. GlobalData tracks drug-specific phase transition and likelihood of approval scores, in addition to indication benchmarks based off 18 years of historical drug development data. Attributes of the drug, company and its clinical trials play a fundamental role in drug-specific PTSR and likelihood of approval. (Azacitidine + cedazuridine) overview ASTX-030, a fixed dose combination of azacitidine and cedazuridine is under development for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), chronic myelocytic leukemia (CML), refractory anemia with ringed sideroblasts, refractory anemia with excess blasts, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML), and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). It is administered by oral route. It acts by targeting DNA (cytosine 5) methyltransferase 1 and cytosine deaminase (CDA). The drug candidate is being developed based on Pyramid technology. Taiho Oncology overview Taiho Oncology, a subsidiary of Taiho Pharmaceutical Co Ltd, is a provider of cancer treatments and solutions. The company manufactures and markets cancer anti-metabolites as well as targeted small molecule inhibitors. Its products portfolio includes oral drugs for the treatment of gastric cancer, colorectal cancer and a variety of solid tumours. Taiho Oncology’s pipeline products includes anti metabolic agents and selectively targeted agents. The company’s LONSURF is an anti-cancer drug for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Taiho Oncology is headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey, the US. For a complete picture of (Azacitidine + cedazuridine)’s drug-specific PTSR and LoA scores, This content was updated on 12 April 2024 From Blending expert knowledge with cutting-edge technology, GlobalData’s unrivalled proprietary data will enable you to decode what’s happening in your market. You can make better informed decisions and gain a future-proof advantage over your competitors. , the leading provider of industry intelligence, provided the underlying data, research, and analysis used to produce this article. GlobalData’s Likelihood of Approval analytics tool dynamically assesses and predicts how likely a drug will move to the next stage in clinical development (PTSR), as well as how likely the drug will be approved (LoA). This is based on a combination of machine learning and a proprietary algorithm to process data points from various databases found on GlobalData’s .CM Mamata Banerjee In Sandeshkhali Today
BUFFALO, N.Y. — The big question is will Sean Ryan announce this weekend that he is running for mayor of the City of Buffalo ? 2 On Your Side's Claudine Ewing caught up with him at an event where he was announcing millions of state funding coming to help rental properties. When asked about his Saturday announcement, Ryan said, "It's a surprise." 2 On Your Side also asked if the city needs to move forward. Ryan said, "The city does need to move forward, but looking at things in a different way. So we've had 20 years of the same leadership, sort of the same way to look at solving, but this gives us a new opportunity to look at our problems through a fresh lens with a fresh set of eyes." RELATED: Is Sean Ryan starting a Buffalo mayoral campaign? Ryan is focusing a lot on neighborhoods in the city, even though he is a New York State senator. "If you go around the city, Seneca-Babcock will tell you our neighborhoods are are suffering. Lovejoy says our neighborhoods are are suffering. Cold Springs says neighborhoods suffering. Black Rock, Riverside, they all say the same thing because there hasn't been a plan that helps lift up the neighborhoods in 20 years," Ryan said Friday at the event. "So we need really need to look at our neighborhoods because, you know, after all, what's the city all about? We call ourselves the City of Good Neighbors, but we want to be the City of Good Neighborhoods."
Best Bets for NCAA Basketball Picks Against the Spread for Monday, December 30Trastuzumab rezetecan by Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine for Transitional Cell Carcinoma (Urothelial Cell Carcinoma): Likelihood of Approval
Take it to the people, says Merriwa over 'treasured' Gumman Place Hostel
esports squad names
A look at how some of Trump's picks to lead health agencies could help carry out Kennedy's overhaul
inplay esport 06
psg esports