Idaho State Capitol building on January 11, 2023. (Otto Kitsinger for Idaho Capital Sun)
In 2022, two out of the three Democrats running in Legislative District 26 won the election. Those same Democrats, who sit in the Idaho Senate and Idaho House Seat A seats, are running for reelection against the same challengers from two years ago.
This election, district 26’s legislative candidates include:
District 26-Idaho Senate: incumbent Sen. Ron Taylor, D-Hailey, is running against former Rep. Laurie Lickley, R-Jerome, and independent candidate Kala Tate, of Carey.
District 26-Idaho House Seat A: incumbent Rep. Ned Burns, D-Bellevue, is running against challenger Mike Pohanka, R-Jerome.
District 26-Idaho House Seat B: incumbent Rep. Jack Nelsen, R-Jerome, is running against challenger Chris Hansen, D-Hailey.
In 2022, Taylor won the district’s Idaho Senate seat over Lickley in a 52% to 48% vote. Both candidates ran unopposed in this year’s May primary.
The race between Burns and Pohanka is also likely to be a close one. In the 2022 general election, Burns won the House A Seat against Pohanka in a 50% to 49.9% vote.
The Idaho Capital Sun sent the same six questions to all candidates in the race. Republican candidate Mike Pohanka for House Seat A did not respond to the Sun’s questionnaire.
Idaho legislative district 26-Senate
(From left to right) The candidates running for Idaho Senate in Legislative District 26 include former Rep. Laurie Lickley, R-Jerome; incumbent Sen. Ron Taylor, D-Hailey; and independent candidate Kala Tate from Carey. (Courtesy of the Idaho Legislature, and Kala Tate)
Question 1: What are your top three state budget priorities?
Lickley (R): Infrastructure; Education; Property tax relief
Taylor (D): My number one priority is the Department of Education focusing on Health Education Programs and Agricultural Research and Extension Services. Health and Human Services would be another priority with a focus on Child Welfare, the Division of Medicaid and Public Health Services. Number three would be Idaho’s Natural Resources with an emphasis on the Department of Environmental Quality and the Department of Parks and Recreation.
Tate (I): 1. No DEI funding / woke ideology funding in Universities and schools.
2. Elimination of grocery tax, and property tax.
3. Heavy reduction / possible elimination of welfare funded programs.
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?
Lickley (R): I support school choice. Idaho is one of the top-rated states in the country offering educational choice for its students. I also support additional options for education in Idaho that include: the same or similar accountability as public education and not reducing funding to current public education.
Education is one of the most important constitutional provisions that Idaho offers. I am all in for new ideas to improve Idaho student’s educational opportunities. My children attended a private Christian school in their early years and finished at a public school. Both options provided a solid educational experience. While that was best for my family, I think every parent has the right to make those educational choices for their own family.
Taylor (D): I do not support public dollars being used for private education. Every public dollar spent on private education is a dollar taken from our public schools. Our public schools are underfunded, and our teachers are underpaid. Idaho’s Constitution says, “it is the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.” It further states that “sectarian appropriations are prohibited.” It is the legislature’s responsibility to adequately fund our public schools, that is what we should be doing.
Tate (I): No – I believe that the more handouts that we receive from the government the more control we give up to the overreach of governmental powers. We don’t need more government control in our education system. Over time there will be too many strings attached to the paycheck received as an education stimulus.
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?
Lickley (R): We have watched the devastating effects climate change has had on Idaho. Here, we pride ourselves in our willingness to pursue collaborative and innovative approaches to natural resource management issues, including water and wildfires. However, we must let Idaho lead, in cooperation with our federal agencies, an all-hands, all-lands, outcome base plan that protects our natural resources and our rural communities from the effects of climate change. Better partnerships with our federal agencies, our land grant institutions, conservation and sportsmen’s groups, and elected leaders are needed, but it will take level heads, uncomfortable conversations, and on-the ground public policy to make it happen.
We need a long-term, Idaho-centric plan to address her energy needs now and into the future that considers the historic value of multiple use on public lands and most importantly feedback from our citizens. The Biden Administration’s relentless push to place the large-scale wind and solar projects on federal lands — and sweetened the deal with enhanced incentives included in the Inflation Reduction Act — put a bullseye on Idaho’s federal lands. Not on our watch.
Taylor (D): Climate change is having a negative impact not just on Idaho, but on the whole earth. Idaho is experiencing hotter summers, and our winters are getting dryer. The effects touch everything from agriculture to tourism. Idaho leads the nation in water management, thanks to the collaborative efforts of surface and ground water users. There is still a great deal of work to be accomplished in water management, but the players are at the table talking. Wildfires have destroyed thousands of acres of Idaho’s wilderness over the last several years. Implementing a solid forest management plan to revive our forests and maintain the health of our forests is essential to keeping fires from becoming as devastating as they have been.
Corporations wanting to provide solar, and wind generated power need to include Idahoans and the communities affected by these projects at the beginning of the process. With collaboration and cooperation, Idaho is poised to be a leader in renewable energy sources.
Tate (I): Climate change plans / goals are another means by which the government can mandate control over the freedoms of the people. I will not support climate change language of any kind. I don’t believe that climate change poses any sort of threat to Idaho. Climate change in another spoke in the wheel of woke ideology.
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?
Lickley (R): I appreciate the opportunity to comment on Prop. 1 and the people’s ability to have a voice in making laws.
I respect the rights of the people to make their own decision on Prop. 1 and will follow the wish of the voters. While I do have concerns about the implementation and cost of Ranked Choice Voting in Prop. 1, I support opening the primary.
Taylor (D): I believe that having open primaries will provide Idahoan’s the opportunity to vote for the person they feel will best represent them regardless of party affiliation. Yes, I would work to implement the ballot initiative. If Proposition 1 passes, it is because the people of Idaho asked for this. I represent the people of Idaho.
Tate (I): I am 100% opposed to the Proposition 1 / Rank Choice Voting ballot initiative. If elected I will work to repeal this initiative.
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?
Lickley (R): Congress has failed to act on immigration reform, and I appreciate the efforts of Governor Little and the Idaho State Police’s supporting that call-to-action by Gov. Abbott.
Taylor (D): Security efforts and immigration at the southern border of the United States should be addressed by our federal government.
Tate (I): Yes, I support closed borders and believe that as the “states” we can do our part to keep our country as a whole safe. We will need much more training and resources in the coming years to deal with the border crisis that has affected every state drastically.
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?
Lickley (R): I hope to be able to create a safe environment to have a broad dialogue on women’s health. I commit to working on adding health exceptions for our pregnant patients and fixing the current law. I intend to treat it like the respectful issue that it is, protect that right, and keep the government out of the doctor’s office when that emotional decision must be made. I also wholly support protecting access to contraception and in-vitro fertilization.
Taylor (D): I would support any legislation that attempts to return women’s reproductive rights. Exceptions for pregnant patients would be a good start; re-instatement of abortion rights would be even better. Medical decisions are personal and should be between the patient, their medical care provider and their own conscience.
Tate (I): No – I am PRO LIFE with No exceptions. Life begins from conception and should be treated as so. No one person’s life is of greater importance than another’s. To abort a baby of any age of gestation is murder. I am a radical lover of Jesus Christ and my beliefs are aligned with the Holy Bible…. thou shall NOT MURDER. Period end of story.
Idaho legislative district 26-House Seat A
Question 1: What are your top three state budget priorities?
Rep. Ned Burns, D-Hailey, is in his second term for Legislative District 26-House Seat A. (Courtesy of Ned Burns)
Burns (D): 1. Fully funding public education including ensuring all the dollars that were allocated from the special session are sent to school districts.
2. Ensuring that Idaho Launch grants continue to be sent to graduating seniors, fulfilling our commitment to them.
3. Finding a way to continue funding the revolving loan account for local water and wastewater upgrades. We need to find a way to put around $400M annually for several more years as municipalities grapple with aging infrastructure, new requirements to remove lead pipes and forever chemicals, and growth so that Idaho residents can be assured that their drinking water is safe and clean, and that their wastewater systems are operating as needed to ensure clean discharge water.
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?
Burns (D): No. First and foremost, because doing so would violate Idaho’s Constitution. Secondly, the legislature has for decades chronically underfunded public education to the point that Idaho courts have found the legislature to be in violation of its constitutional obligations. By creating a separate and unequal funding of education in this state, we’d be facing costly lawsuits on top of risking the same runaway budgets as other states that have implemented school voucher schemes are now experiencing. Additionally, I have grave concerns about giving away tax dollars with zero accountability or oversight.
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?
Burns (D): This summer, hundreds of thousands of acres burned in Idaho. Resources are stretched to the breaking point, we’re losing homes, access to prime grazing land, timber, and Idaho wildlife. Without acknowledging and planning for future and emergent climate threats, the legislature is not properly planning for our future.
Idaho can be a leader in climate resiliency, we can increase our efficiencies in delivering water for farmers ensuring that there is water today, and well into the future. We can continue to lean in on and support the incredible work being done at the Idaho National Laboratory. We can become leaders in power generation from deep geothermal. We can work to make sure that we’re properly managing our forests so that when wildfires happen, they are restorative instead of devastating. We have the brainpower and the muscle to accomplish these things, and for future generations of Idahoans, we must find a better and more sustainable path forward.
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?
Burns (D): I am fully supportive of Proposition 1, and I believe in respecting the will of Idaho voters. Our current, closed primary system was put in place in 2011, barring voters who don’t affiliate with a political party from participating in some elections. Prop 1 restores access to an open primary system, like the one we had for decades and creates a system that better represents the will of Idaho voters, many of whom are independents who don’t want to affiliate with one party. I will never work to overturn a citizens ballot initiative that has been passed in good faith by Idaho voters.
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?
Burns (D): I support using taxpayer funds to provide additional training for ISP officers, but I would much rather see Congress pass comprehensive immigration reform. There hasn’t been any federal progress on immigration reform since Ronald Reagan was President. It is an abdication of duty that Congress continues to kick the can on such an important issue. Idaho agriculture needs immigration reform, Idaho industry needs immigration reform, and when there was the chance to pass an immigration reform bill this spring, politics got involved and progress was scuttled. The American people need Congress to start doing their job and pass comprehensive immigration reform.
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?
Burns (D): I absolutely support health exceptions for pregnant patients, but would be supportive of legislation that goes further to restore bodily autonomy and medical freedom for Idaho’s women. I believe in letting doctors and patients make the call on these very private and personal medical decisions, not lawyers and politicians. Our current abortion laws are causing specialized doctors and medical staff to leave Idaho due to fear of loss of licensure or jail time. Idaho’s abortion laws have created prenatal deserts in huge areas of this state, over 22% of our OBGYNs and fetal medicine specialists have left. We can’t afford to continue down this road.
Idaho legislative district 26-House Seat B
Chris Hansen, a Democrat, (left) is challenging incumbent Rep. Jack Nelsen, R-Jerome (right). (Courtesy of the candidates)
Question 1: What are your top three state budget priorities?
Hansen (D): 1- Education- specifically Early Childhood Education; 2- Health and Human Services; 3- Economic Development
Nelsen (R): Finding and funding solutions to address Idaho’s water issues is my number one priority. From infrastructure to invasive species state funding is crucial.
Education ranks at the top beside water. Idaho needs education pathways which provide employable skills for our future citizens and economy. For the state to continue to address the disparity in funding between public schools is one of my priorities.
The challenges in health care of access and affordability are common concerns of everyone. Statistics such as Idaho ranking last in the nation of nurses per capita illustrate the need to address the issues. Finding not only funds but consensus for solutions matter for all of us.
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?
Hansen (D): I do not support public dollars being used for private schools. Vouchers hurt rural communities most. Where is the school choice in a place like Shoshone or Richfield? In these towns the only school is the glue within the community, and has been so for over a hundred years. The Legislature has not funded these schools properly already, and would now take away money? From a district that can’t find bus divers – or that has repurposed janitor’s closets for reading intervention rooms? Teachers, principals, and paraprofessionals have always found a way to move forward. I will fund these frontline and essential workers properly, rather than being like Arizona, which ran a $300 million dollar deficit playing with out-of-state voucher schemes.
I would make one notable and influential exception: for early childhood education from the age of 3 to Kindergarten. In this case I think parents, daycares, and head start programs need greater financial support to ease families’ cost of living and retain qualified and capable employees.
Nelsen (R): I do not support public dollars being used for private education. Idaho already ranks near the top in education choice. If we fund private schools we also have to fund private religious schools. America has been great for centuries with a separation of church and state. I am a firm believer in keeping this separation.
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?
Hansen (D): Yes, the changing climate poses a threat to Idaho. Farmers understand this first and best. I celebrate the fact that more crops are grown on far less acreage. Always adapting, Idaho’s farmers have installed more efficient irrigation systems and practices. I support giving incentives, not curtailments, to reward our farmers’ good faith efforts at feeding the world and recharging our aquifers.
Idaho must continue its transition to greener energy – for our own sake. Power generated in Idaho should be used in Idaho, not shipped to California. Projects like large-scale wind energy hurt viewsheds, wildlife, and quality of life in rural Idaho, and yet the residents that endure these negatives don’t see smaller bills. Solar energy can play a positive role — especially if Idaho Power properly compensated small scale solar producers.
Wildfires are more frequent and larger, and wildfire season lasts into the late fall now. Smoke from wildfires hurts the air we breathe and our quality of life is lower. Forest managers must use all available options to control and mitigate the spread of pine beetles, which along with climate change have turned our forests into tinderboxes.
Nelsen (R): I believe Idaho is actively addressing its water management. This is an ongoing task which needs to be revisited on an ongoing basis.The active management of lands to limit fuels needs to become a priority for wildfire management long before fire season. Idaho needs a state energy plan. Reasons for this include keeping our low energy rates, protecting our reliable energy base, and managing energy projects lining up to use our lands. Recognizing and mitigating effects on local communities as well as requiring carbon neutral plans for removal at project’s end would be a great start. Using the example of how mines are taxed and required to bond for restoration would be a good template.
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?
Hansen (D): Independent-minded voters in Idaho deserve more. It’s a shame to see a candidate that gathered barely more than 20% of a vote make it to Boise. Representative democracy should send the candidate who gets 50% +1 of ALL voters in November, not just some in a May election. I have heard concerns from constituents that this would weaken Political Parties. Perhaps, but I have to ask: would we rather strengthen a political party, or give power back to an entire citizenship of voters- Right, Left, and Center? I’m not worried about the political parties – I have an obligation to my constituents. The Open Primaries Initiative gives greater power to the nearly 300,000 independent-minded voters that are found throughout our great state. I will vote yes on Prop 1 for that reason alone.
Nelsen (R): I support the constitutional right of voters to bring ballot initiatives. I will respect the decision of the voters.
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?
Hansen (D): I support training State troopers for issues at the southern border that they could see here in Idaho like fentanyl and human trafficking. I support Idaho Police learning how to investigate, arrest, and charge people committing crimes. Those members on the Thin Blue Line that keep our society safe need every tool they can get to continue to perform that job with bravery and compassion.
Idaho needs the labor of workers coming up from the border. The Idaho Dairymen’s Association and Idaho Farm Bureau both know full well how dependent our state is on unauthorized immigrants. Until our federal government can come up with a compassionate solution for the border and also extend a pathway to citizenship we are stuck between a rock and hard place. One of the more productive things a State Legislature could do would be to pass Driving Without Fear legislation – which would issue restricted drivers licenses. A restricted license would NOT allow someone to vote in an election, but rather certify that they had taken proper instruction on the rules of the road in our country and could be insured. Restricted licenses make the work of Idaho State troopers easier and our roads safer.
Nelsen (R): I support sending them. I do not support an open border. For law enforcement to see the issues at the border and receive training how best to address the effects here in Idaho is important. Training to take fentanyl off the street is absolutely worth it. I support Governor Little’s efforts.
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?
Hansen (D): Women’s reproductive health is a personal issue. I will never forget holding my wife Melissa’s hand as we sat in the doctor’s office for the ultrasound of our first baby. We were elated to be having a child we had long waited for when the doctor said, “I’m sorry, I can’t find a heartbeat.” The days and weeks following our miscarriage were some of the most helpless times of both our lives. I cannot imagine having to make decisions about our child without the full confidence and straightforward advice of our doctor. And yet doctors like ours, who stand with women and men in their most vulnerable times, are leaving our state. Over 22% of qualified OB-GYN’s in Idaho have left – unwilling to practice in place that will not make an exception for the life of a mother, or incest, or rape. It’s especially bad in rural communities. Having fewer qualified doctors is bad for our economy, bad for our hospitals, and bad for women. Idaho’s women deserve to make their own decisions about their body, and to bring life into the world knowing they can give it the sanctity and support it needs.
Nelsen (R): It is impossible to list all the exceptions needed to make this law workable. There is no place for the government in the doctor’s office. Decisions should be between a woman and her healthcare provider.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.