Bill Description: Senate Bill 1366 would move the Primary Election date earlier in May and require Idaho to hold a presidential primary election.
Rating: -2
NOTE: Senate Bill 1366 is related to House Bill 638 (2026) and Senate Bill 1415 (2024).
Does it in any way restrict public access to information related to government activity or otherwise compromise government transparency, accountability, or election integrity? Conversely, does it increase public access to information related to government activity or increase government transparency, accountability, or election integrity?
Senate Bill 1366 would amend Section 34-102, Idaho Code, which defines Idaho’s primary election, to change the date from the third Tuesday in May to the Tuesday following the first Monday in May. This means the primary election would take place two weeks earlier in most years.
Given that the Legislative Session typically lasts until the end of March or even early April, this change would result in meaningfully less time for legislative candidates to campaign and engage with constituents prior to the primary election.
It could also cause issues where the reporting requirements for electioneering communication within 30 days of a primary overlap with the Legislative Session, effectively limiting speech related to sitting legislators who are also candidates.
(-1)
The bill would add a provision stating that the (now earlier) primary election would also be “for the purpose of allowing voters to express their preference of candidate for nomination by a political party for president of the United States.”
The bill would amend Section 34-606, Idaho Code, by adding a subsection saying, “Any candidate for a political party participating in the nomination for president of the United States at the primary election shall file a declaration of candidacy with the secretary of state and pay a filing fee of one thousand dollars ($1,000) within the time period provided in section 34-704, Idaho Code. Such filing fee shall be deposited in the general fund.”
It would also amend Section 34-1214, Idaho Code, by adding a subsection saying, “Immediately after the primary election canvass in a presidential election year, the secretary of state shall certify to the state chair of each political party the number of votes received by that party’s candidates for president of the United States. A winner shall be declared as prescribed by rule of the state and national party.”
What this language ignores is that the major political parties in Idaho decide their presidential nominees through presidential caucuses conducted by the respective parties.
The nod to the “rule(s) of the state and national party” does not make it clear if awarding delegates based on the results of the presidential primary would be optional if party rules call for a caucus. Either scenario is problematic, however. Either this law would overrule a political party’s choice to choose its nominee via a caucus (which infringes on a private organization’s right to determine its own structure), or it would require the state to hold an unnecessary presidential primary (at taxpayer expense) after the parties have already selected their respective nominees.
Holding an irrelevant presidential primary after a party’s caucus undermines the party’s chosen candidate selection process and gives the appearance that the election, which serves no purpose, is a party function. Holding an irrelevant primary after a party caucus will confuse voters and undermine confidence in the election process.
(-1)
Does it increase government spending (for objectionable purposes) or debt? Conversely, does it decrease government spending or debt?
Senate Bill 1366 could increase the costs of the primary election in years that include a presidential election. While holding a presidential primary in conjunction with an existing primary election does not carry the same cost as a separate presidential primary (estimated at $2.5 million), it would still require additional time and increased printing costs.
In the case of a meaningless presidential primary held after a political party has already determined its nominee through a caucus, such costs would be entirely wasteful in addition to being confusing and misleading to voters.
(0)
