Dear Editor: I Cannot Take the JRCC Seriously

Dear Editor,

This letter is in response to a letter published in the Whitehall Ledger's April 19, 2024 issue, submitted by the Jefferson County Republican Central Committee (JCRCC). The JCRCC's letter states its opposition to rank-choice voting and ties it to Constitutional Initiatives CI126 and CI127. My intent is to use reliable sources to define the meaning of these initiatives more clearly.

If approved by the voters, CI126 would combine the Republican and Democratic primaries into one open primary in which all eligible voters, no matter their party affiliation, have the right to vote. In addition, any candidate, regardless of party affiliation, could enter the primary with or without a party endorsement. The top four candidates of each elective office (governor, for example) would then advance to the general election. If four candidates or fewer enter the primary for a specific elective office, then no primary is held, and all candidates advance to the general election. CI126 would not mandate rank choice voting as is implied in the JCRCC's letter. Please refer to the complete CI126 text.

I believe CI126's open primary system is an improvement over the current primary system. The one-voter, one-vote concept still applies, and it opens up the number of candidates voters have to choose from, including independent and third-party candidates. Of course, adapting an open primary will erode the political monopoly shared by the two major parties. Is that such a bad thing?

CI127 would mandate that the winning candidates in general elections receive a majority of votes. A majority is defined as 50% plus one vote. Currently, candidates can be elected with a plurality of the total vote, less than 50% of votes. If approved by the voters, CI127 does not mandate rank-choice voting. Although, rank choice voting could be an alternative to a costly runoff election if no candidate received a majority of votes in the general election.

I am disappointed but not surprised by the JCRCC's reasoning opposing CI126, CI127, and ranked-choice voting. One of their complaints is that voters would have to make informed decisions on all candidates. What? Would the JCRCC rather voters enter a voting booth in ignorance? I did attempt to locate an online article on ranked-choice voting the JCRCC recommended. I found no article on that subject on the recommended website.

I have based my opinions in this letter on information provided by the Montana Secretary of State's website and the complete texts of CI126 and CI127. After reading the JCRCC's letter once again, I have to infer that they probably did not read the texts of the initiatives and that there is no factual basis for their negative assumptions. In conclusion, I cannot take the JCRCC seriously.

DON LEPINSKY

Whitehall, Montana