The candidates running in legislative district 29 are all from Pocatello, which can be seen in the background from Idaho State University’s Red Hill. (Christina Lords/Idaho Capital Sun)
Idahoans will elect who they want to represent them in the Idaho Legislature on Nov. 5, and one of the districts to keep an eye on is legislative district 29.
District 29 is one of Idaho’s bluer districts, with Democrats holding two of the district’s three seats. The House Seat A race between Republican incumbent Dustin Manwaring and Democrat Mary Shea is one to look out for since Manwaring ran against Shea in 2022 and beat her by 644 votes.
Both candidates live in Pocatello and have a background in law. Manwaring is in his second term in the Idaho House of Representatives, and he currently serves as the majority caucus chair. Shea participated in the most recent legislative session as a substitute for state Sen. James Ruchti, D-Pocatello.
Candidates running for House Seat B include Democratic incumbent Nate Roberts and Tanya Burgoyne. Both candidates are from Pocatello. For the Senate seat, Ruchti is running unopposed.
The Idaho Capital Sun reached out to the candidates vying for the three seats in this district and asked them six questions about Idaho policies. Here are the responses from the candidates running for Idaho’s legislative district 29.
Idaho legislative district 29-House Seat A
Incumbent Rep. Dustin Manwaring, R-Pocatello, is running against challenger Mary Shea, D-Pocatello.
Rep. Dustin Manwaring (left) is running against Mary Shea (right) in the 2024 election for Idaho Legislative District 29-House seat A.. (Courtesy of the candidates)
Question 1: What are your top three state budget priorities?
Manwaring: Idaho’s top budget priorities are largely driven by the constitutional, statutory, and practical governance to provide for education, health and welfare, and public safety. In my time in office, I have prioritized investments in water and infrastructure projects, transportation, behavioral health, state parks, and college and career readiness to name a few.
I will continue to make these areas a priority, while always looking for performance-based outcomes in budget decisions. One budget priority is making sure we are not overtaxing and overspending, and we are continuously reviewing how money is used for
We can continue to do better with funding our judiciary, preserving and maximizing the public benefit of our natural resources like our forest lands and water while respecting private property rights and developing new sources of energy production. This means focusing on new technologies and supporting our research and development centers like Idaho’s colleges and universities and the Idaho National Laboratory.
Shea: I will prioritize our public-school funding including addressing our continued extraordinary $1 billion dollar deferred maintenance budget deficit, and addressing our now estimated $80 million-dollar special education budget gap. I would love to see Idaho restore our public education spending to inflation adjusted pre-recession levels to make public education in Idaho the best that it can be. I will vote against any private school voucher program that threatens public education, violates our State constitution, and that refuses accountability to Idaho taxpayers. Finally, I will support all efforts to secure and fully utilize all our allocated federal tax dollars to make sure we are serving Idaho interests. For example, we can leverage federal funds to close our Idaho Child Care Program projected budget deficit of $15 million. Lawmakers need to understand that in Pocatello, approximately half of our population now qualify as ALICE (Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed) households according to the United Way, due to housing inflation, food inflation, childcare costs, and wages that are not keeping up. I would guess other regions in Idaho are experiencing a similar troubling trend. We need to leverage every resource we have to help our Idaho families thrive.
Question 2: Do you support public dollars being used for private education, including through tax credits or education savings accounts available to parents, or any other means? Why, or why or not?
Manwaring: I support public dollars for results in education. This approach empowers parents to choose the best educational pathways for their children, fostering a competitive environment that enhances overall educational quality. By enabling choice through tax credits or education savings accounts with oversight and accountability, we not only respect parents’ wishes but also drive schools to excel and innovate.
In tying funds to outcomes, we should have performance metrics and reporting, accreditation requirements, and parental feedback mechanisms. I believe that investing in diverse educational options is crucial for preparing our youth for future challenges and ensuring every child can access high-quality education.
Shea: No. I have had the opportunity to dig in and review the pros and cons since I first ran in 2022. I am an evidence-based decision maker, and I support school choice. Fortunately, Idaho has quite a lot of government supported choices, including charter schools, magnet schools, open boundaries, and free-range homeschooling. Idaho cannot afford to risk a budget blow out, as has happened in other states. Our state tax revenues are projected to be on a declining trend. We have not fully addressed our public education and other budget shortfalls yet. I am very troubled by the lack of taxpayer accountability. States like Arizona and Florida have had well documented cases of expensive fraud and grift. Additionally, the limited data we have on educational outcomes is not promising. I don’t think our taxpayer dollars should be spent without some measurable return on that investment. I am also troubled by how this can impact our rural areas most acutely, as they have limited choice by geography. I am troubled by the idea of allowing our taxpayer dollars to support discrimination. Our homeschooling community is largely opposed to this idea. For all these reasons, so am I.
Question 3: Unlike some of its cities, counties and businesses, the state of Idaho does not have a climate plan or climate goals. How does climate change pose a threat to Idaho? How would you address the threats that climate change poses — such as water management, wildfires and energy production — to Idaho?
Manwaring: Climate change poses significant challenges for Idaho, affecting water management, increasing wildfire risks, and impacting energy production. Effective responses include enhancing water conservation, upgrading infrastructure, and implementing strategic forest management like controlled burns. Building codes and land-use planning in fire-prone areas need tightening to protect communities.
Multiple energy sources and promoting energy efficiency and modernizing the energy grid and transmission capacity will help manage increased demands. Coordinated policies at state, local, and federal levels will ensure Idaho’s resilience against climate change impacts.
Shea: Idaho is experiencing the effects of global warming just like the rest of the planet. Much of our water supply comes from snowpack, which is declining and melting earlier in the year. Skiers like me notice the shorter seasons, and our ski resort economies feel the impact. The rising summer temperatures increase evaporation of our surface water, exacerbating water resource threats. Declining snowpack and streamflow and higher water temperatures threaten our salmon, steelhead, trout, and other cold-water fish. We may start to see desertification of large swaths of land in Idaho, and of course we have all experienced another smoky summer with increased wildfire risks. I am pleased to see Idaho’s major utility providers commit to a clean energy future. I would like to see Idaho prioritize climate friendly transportation such as electric vehicles. Our agricultural community can embrace sustainable ways to reduce methane emissions through established and emerging technologies; engage in reclamation agricultural practices that conserve soil and water and trap carbon in the ground; and be as efficient as we can be with water resources. I support comprehensive planning for the future, and government policies that promote positive change.
Question 4: What is your position on the Proposition 1 ballot initiative that would end closed party primary elections and create ranked-choice voting? If voters pass the ballot initiative in November and you are elected, would you work to implement the ballot initiative or repeal it?
Manwaring: I am against Proposition 1, which includes a “top-four primary” and ranked-choice voting. I believe it will primarily benefit the Democratic Party. It will be costly to implement, is confusing, and will discourage voter participation. This disrupts the way we have also voted in Idaho and the expectation of one-person, one-vote because thousands of ballots will be destroyed in successive rounds of voting.
How to request an absentee ballot for Idaho’s November election (Hint: You have until Oct. 25)
As happened in Alaska, less than a majority of the total votes cast were used to determine the final winner. We should not be making it more difficult in Idaho to vote or eliminate the party primary process. It is not helpful to voters and does not provide accountability to constituents if candidates may declare a preferred party without registering with a party. Unaffiliated voters may declare a party and vote in the primary, including on Election Day.
Proposition 1 will create extended and costly general election campaigns, alienate those with disabilities, and busy parents that work and do not have extra time to spend ranking candidates in the voting booth. I will watch closely how my district supports or opposes Proposition 1 and reserve judgment about how I would work to implement or repeal it after the election.
Shea: I support Proposition 1, and I would implement the will of the voters for any ballot initiative that passes constitutional muster. It is only fair that all taxpayers should be allowed to vote in all primary elections regardless of party affiliation. Ranked choice voting is not confusing to most of us; it has been used by millions of voters in America since 2004. Ranked choice voting cannot change the Idaho electorate – that just isn’t possible. But it may change our campaigns and hopefully our lawmakers for the better. It will require all candidates to appeal to a majority of the voters. It will require all lawmakers to be responsive to more of their constituents. I think those are good things that Idaho needs a lot more of right now; it is the kind of campaign I am trying to run and the kind of lawmaker I want to be. Idaho is catering too much to special interest groups who represent a minority of our voting population. We are getting a lot of unpopular and unconstitutional laws passed that way. Open primaries and rank choice voting are demonstrated to improve voter engagement and turnout. That is always a good thing.
Question 5: In May 2023, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called on state governors to help with border security efforts. This year, Idaho spent nearly $206,000 to send 10 Idaho State Police troopers to the southern border for training. Do you support using Idaho taxpayer dollars to address issues at the southern border? Why, or why not?
Manwaring: I fully support our state’s decision to allocate funds towards enhancing security at the southern border. This issue goes beyond state borders and directly impacts the safety and well-being of Idahoans. By investing in border security, we proactively combat illegal activities like drug trafficking that affect our state.
The deployment of Idaho State Police troopers to the border also serves an educational purpose, providing them with invaluable training and experience. This training enhances our local law enforcement capabilities, ensuring our police forces are among the best trained in the nation.
Additionally, this initiative showcases Idaho’s commitment to national solidarity and shared responsibility among states. Border security is a critical national issue, and the funds allocated are an investment in our nation’s safety, demonstrating Idaho’s leadership in addressing national challenges.
Shea: I do not support using taxpayer dollars for an optical political stunt, but I do support Idaho using taxpayer dollars to make sure our law enforcement officers have adequate training, skills, and equipment to meet the challenges in our communities. America has faced a crisis at our southern border for the last decade, and I would like to see Congress and our next President embrace bipartisan solutions rather than continue to engage in political theater. There is also no question that Idaho generally and District 29 in Pocatello specifically are feeling the effects of a fentanyl epidemic. There is no question that human trafficking is a serious problem in Idaho and in my community. As a practicing child welfare lawyer, I see the damage nearly daily. If our state law enforcement officers feel they got $206,000 worth of additional training to meet those challenges, I support the use of that money. I can say that in my two decades of practicing in our local courts, I have never seen any evidence that undocumented immigrants are the ones trafficking humans or narcotics in my community. Pocatello is a kind and tolerant community, and I will work to keep it that way.
Question 6: Idaho’s abortion ban is one of the strictest in the nation. Many doctors and hospital administrators have said Idaho’s law is vague, making it difficult to practice medicine, resulting in more airlifted patients to other states and difficulty recruiting maternal medical professionals. Do you support adding health exceptions for pregnant patients to Idaho’s abortion law? Why, or why not?
Manwaring: I am guided by values that respect and uphold the sanctity of life. Idaho’s laws reflect a commitment to protect life at every stage, and introducing exceptions based on health could potentially lead to broader applications of abortion, undermining the intent of these laws.
However, I understand the concerns from the medical community regarding the law’s vagueness and the operational challenges it presents. Expanding the law to include health exceptions should be done carefully and cautiously so that such changes do not lead to interpretations that stretch beyond critical medical necessities, potentially diluting the law’s protective stance towards unborn life.
We should focus on providing clear, precise guidelines that help medical professionals navigate these laws without compromising our foundational values. This approach would support the medical community while continuing to protect the sanctity of life as intended by our laws. It’s about striking the right balance between upholding our moral commitments and ensuring that medical practitioners have the clarity they need to perform their duties effectively and ethically.
Shea: Yes, I fully support adding a health exception. I support listening to our medical community on this important issue. Excepting ectopic and molar pregnancies and pregnancies where the baby has already passed, pregnancies can only be terminated to save the mother’s life, and only if the baby cannot also be saved. Doctors must wait until fetal tones stop or mother’s life is threatened to act, even if fetal demise is nearly certain. Even if EMTALA is upheld ultimately, that federal exception applies only where the mother presents in an emergency room in medical decline and an abortion is required to stabilize her. Abortion cannot be offered before then to prevent the crisis from happening even if the risks to the mother are great. The delay in care is resulting in women losing their future fertility. They are experiencing lifelong health complications, and mental and emotional trauma. Our doctors are facing moral distress as they are forced to violate their Hippocratic oath to pregnant patients. No one should have to incur the financial and emotional burden of traveling out of state for medically necessary healthcare. Idaho abortion laws are causing real harm to real people, and they must be changed.
Idaho legislative district 29-House Seat B
Rep. Nate Roberts, D-Pocatello, is in his first term in the Idaho House of Representatives. (Courtesy of Nate Roberts)
Incumbent Rep. Nate Roberts, D-Pocatello, is running against Republican Tanya Burgoyne. Burgoyne did not respond to the Sun’s questionnaire.
Question 1: What are your top three state budget priorities?
Roberts: Funding Public Education: I am committed to ensuring that every child in Idaho has access to quality public education. This means fighting for adequate funding for our schools to maintain and improve facilities, like Highland High School, and opposing efforts to divert public funds to private or religious schools. We need to invest in our teachers, resources, and infrastructure to prepare our students for the challenges ahead.
Making Childcare More Affordable: Access to affordable childcare is critical for working families. I will push for increased funding for programs that support families with young children, helping parents remain in the workforce while knowing their children are safe and well cared for. Childcare should not be a barrier to economic participation.
Funding Job Training and Career Technical Education (CTE): As a union electrician, I know firsthand the value of career training programs like Idaho’s LAUNCH, which provides high school seniors with the tools to pursue technical careers. I will continue advocating to ensure our next generation of workers is prepared for high-demand fields like healthcare, construction, and the trades. By investing in job training and CTE, we are equipping Idaho’s future workforce with the skills necessary for good-paying, stable jobs.
Question 2: Do you support public dollars being used for private education, including through tax credits or education savings accounts available to parents, or any other means? Why, or why or not?
Roberts: I do not support using public dollars for private education. Our state constitution clearly outlines our responsibility to fund public schools, and I believe that every public dollar should go to strengthening our public education system. Diverting funds to private or religious schools through tax credits or education savings accounts takes critical resources away from the majority of Idaho students. I have seen firsthand how underfunded public schools are, with facilities like Highland High School struggling to maintain basic infrastructure. Our priority must be to invest in public schools so that every child, regardless of background or income, has access to a quality education.
Question 3: Unlike some of its cities, counties and businesses, the state of Idaho does not have a climate plan or climate goals. How does climate change pose a threat to Idaho? How would you address the threats that climate change poses — such as water management, wildfires and energy production — to Idaho?
Roberts: Climate change poses a real and growing threat to Idaho. Our state is particularly vulnerable to droughts, which strain our water resources, and wildfires, which threaten our communities and economy. Agriculture, one of Idaho’s largest industries, is at risk as water becomes scarcer and temperatures rise. We also face increased energy demand, which could strain our grid as we move toward hotter summers.
Addressing these threats requires a multi-faceted approach. First, we need to adopt sustainable water management practices to protect our rivers and aquifers for future generations. Second, we must improve wildfire prevention and response by better managing our public lands and investing in firefighting resources. Finally, I believe Idaho can lead in clean energy production — nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal – creating jobs and reducing our reliance on hydrocarbon based fuels. It’s time for Idaho to craft a comprehensive climate plan that includes these initiatives to safeguard our future.
Question 4: What is your position on the Proposition 1 ballot initiative that would end closed party primary elections and create ranked-choice voting? If voters pass the ballot initiative in November and you are elected, would you work to implement the ballot initiative or repeal it?
Roberts: I am in support of Proposition 1 because I believe it will give more Idahoans a voice in our elections. Ending closed primaries will allow independent voters — who make up a significant portion of our electorate — to participate fully in choosing their representatives. Ranked-choice voting, on the other hand, encourages candidates to appeal to a broader base and reduces the chances of extreme partisanship. If voters pass this initiative, I will absolutely work to implement it as the will of the people. A healthy democracy depends on fair and open elections, and this initiative moves us in the right direction while encouraging dialogue about how to create a more equitable system.
Question 5: In May 2023, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called on state governors to help with border security efforts. This year, Idaho spent nearly $206,000 to send 10 Idaho State Police troopers to the southern border for training. Do you support using Idaho taxpayer dollars to address issues at the southern border? Why, or why not?
Roberts: I do not support using Idaho taxpayer dollars to address issues at the southern border. Idaho’s law enforcement resources should be focused on protecting and serving our communities here in Idaho. Spending over $200,000 to send troopers to Texas does little to solve the issues we face at home, such as rising crime rates, substance abuse, and public safety needs. Our local law enforcement is stretched thin as it is, and those dollars could be better spent supporting Idaho communities and ensuring our officers are adequately trained and equipped for their duties here.
Question 6: Idaho’s abortion ban is one of the strictest in the nation. Many doctors and hospital administrators have said Idaho’s law is vague, making it difficult to practice medicine, resulting in more airlifted patients to other states and difficulty recruiting maternal medical professionals. Do you support adding health exceptions for pregnant patients to Idaho’s abortion law? Why, or why not?
Roberts: Yes, I support adding health exceptions to Idaho’s abortion law. The current law is not only one of the strictest in the nation but also dangerously vague, creating a chilling effect on doctors who are unsure of what is legal and what is not. When medical professionals hesitate to provide necessary care, it puts patients’ lives at risk. Women in Idaho deserve access to life-saving care. Doctors deserve to not be prosecuted for performing necessary medical procedures. Idaho’s abortion law must be clarified to protect both patients and healthcare providers, ensuring that women receive the care they need when their health is in danger.
Idaho legislative district 29-Senate
Incumbent Sen. James Ruchti, D-Pocatello, is running unopposed.
Sen. James Ruchti, D-Pocatello, is in his first term in the Idaho Senate. He served in the Idaho House of Representatives between 2006 to 2010, and between 2020 to 2022. (Courtesy of James Ruchti)
Question 1: What are your top three state budget priorities?
Ruchti: 1. Funding Public Education: Our public schools need consistent and robust funding to ensure every child receives a high-quality education. Education is the cornerstone of a prosperous future for Idaho, and I will continue to fight for increased funding that supports teachers, reduces class sizes and modernizes our schools. By doing so, we create better opportunities for our children, from which our state’s economy will benefit in the long term.
2. Making Childcare More Affordable: Affordable and reliable quality childcare is essential for Idaho’s working families. Without it, parents cannot contribute effectively to the workforce, which stunts economic growth. Families deserve to know their children are in good hands and learning while the parents are focusing on their jobs. I’m committed to ensuring that our childcare providers have the support they need to maintain high-quality services while keeping costs manageable for families.
3. Building Infrastructure for the Future: Idaho’s rapid growth demands significant investments in our infrastructure. This includes roads, bridges, and broadband, which are vital for supporting not only economic development but also education and healthcare access. Investing in these areas ensures that Idaho remains competitive and provides the necessary foundation for future generations.
Question 2: Do you support public dollars being used for private education, including through tax credits or education savings accounts available to parents, or any other means? Why, or why or not?
Ruchti: Absolutely not. I do not support using public dollars for private education through tax credits, education savings accounts, or any similar means. Regardless of the method, these are voucher schemes. Anytime we spend taxpayer money, it must be done with accountability and transparency. In other words, when citizens pay taxes out of their hard-earned money, they deserve to know where it goes and what society is getting for it. These voucher schemes lack that transparency and accountability. They siphon taxpayer money away from our community schools. Public funds should be used to strengthen our community schools, which serve all students regardless of their background. Shifting money away from public education to private schools, religious schools or home-schooling initiatives creates a two-tiered system that benefits a few at the expense of many. Voucher programs, in particular, would drain resources from public schools, which are already underfunded, and would disproportionately hurt rural communities that rely heavily on public education.
Question 3: Unlike some of its cities, counties and businesses, the state of Idaho does not have a climate plan or climate goals. How does climate change pose a threat to Idaho? How would you address the threats that climate change poses — such as water management, wildfires and energy production — to Idaho?
Ruchti: Climate change presents significant challenges to Idaho’s way of life, particularly with respect to water management, wildfires, and energy production. With less predictable snowpacks and higher temperatures, our water supply is at risk, threatening both agriculture and residential needs. Wildfires have become more frequent and intense, endangering lives, property, and public lands. I believe Idaho needs a comprehensive climate plan that includes better forest management, investment in renewable energy, and strategies for sustainable water usage. A long-term, balanced approach is necessary and will mitigate the risks climate change poses to our communities and protect Idaho’s economy and natural resources.
Question 4: What is your position on the Proposition 1 ballot initiative that would end closed party primary elections and create ranked-choice voting? If voters pass the ballot initiative in November and you are elected, would you work to implement the ballot initiative or repeal it?
Ruchti: I support efforts that promote a more inclusive and democratic election process, which is why I support Proposition 1. Extremism has infected our politics and is taking control of the majority party in Idaho. Every election cycle more and more extreme legislators get elected because of closed primaries. Those legislators bring more extreme legislation and public policy. It’s why we spend more time talking about “porn in libraries” instead of solving the housing and child care affordability problems facing Idaho families. If Proposition 1 passes, it will moderate our politics. It will encourage more reasonable candidates to run for office and will make it more likely they will get elected. The open primaries system envisioned by Proposition 1 encourages candidates to appeal to a broader electorate, not just party extremes. If voters pass this initiative, I would work to implement it, as it represents the will of the people and has the potential to strengthen our democracy by giving voters more power and choice.
Interested to see how much Idaho candidates have raised? Here’s how to find out.
Question 5: In May 2023, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called on state governors to help with border security efforts. This year, Idaho spent nearly $206,000 to send 10 Idaho State Police troopers to the southern border for training. Do you support using Idaho taxpayer dollars to address issues at the southern border? Why, or why not?
Ruchti: Spending $206,000 to send 10 Idaho State Police troopers to Texas was a political stunt and a waste of Idaho taxpayer dollars. We need our State Police troopers in Idaho making our highways and our state safer. Border security is very important, but it is a federal responsibility. Idaho taxpayer money shouldn’t be used to help the Governor of Texas score political points. We should be more fiscally responsible than that.
Question 6: Idaho’s abortion ban is one of the strictest in the nation. Many doctors and hospital administrators have said Idaho’s law is vague, making it difficult to practice medicine, resulting in more airlifted patients to other states and difficulty recruiting maternal medical professionals. Do you support adding health exceptions for pregnant patients to Idaho’s abortion law? Why, or why not?
Ruchti: Yes, I absolutely support adding health exceptions for pregnant patients to Idaho’s abortion law. As it stands, the law is too restrictive and creates uncertainty for medical professionals and their patients, which puts the health and lives of pregnant women at risk. It is essential that doctors are able to make the best medical decisions for their patients without fear of legal consequences. Medical professionals should be able to rely on their education, training, experience, science and their patient’s condition in determining what medical treatment to provide. The government should not interfere in those efforts. We need laws that allow for health exceptions so women can receive the care they need and our state can retain and attract qualified healthcare providers.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX