The Idaho Republican Party v Ysursa

Filing 67

ORDER. The parties submitted electronic copies of depositions with the objections included as electronic sticky notes. The Court has written its rulings to the objections on those same electronic sticky notes. The Court will attach a print out of the relevant depositions pages, along with the electronic sticky notes, to this Order. These will constitute the Court's ruling on the objections. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (Attachments: # 1 Adams, # 2 Barrett, # 3 Beck, # 4 Bowers, # 5 Kulczyk, # 6 Mansfield, # 7 Maxwell, # 8 Ripley, # 9 Vance)(caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by cjm)

The Idaho Republican Party v Ysursa

Doc. 67 Att. 8

Page 14

Page 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

marked the "Affidavit of David Ripley," and that would be Exhibit 1. Now I need to just make some technical objections, and you don't really need to pay attention to these if you don't want to. 1 MR. GILMORE: I would like to make the following objections to Mr. Ripley's affidavit, which I guess we could call the first affidavit. I object to the second sentence of Paragraph 9, because Mr. Ripley has not provided a copy of the contract with his affidavit. This objection is under the thousand series of Rules of Evidence. I object to Paragraph 10 as hearsay concerning what IEA leadership determined in the 1980s. I object to the first sentence of Paragraph 11 to the extent that it refers to a contract that has not been produced. I object to Paragraph 11 to the extent it's based upon a contract that has not been produced. I object to Paragraph 12 to the extent it's based upon a contract that has not been produced.
Page 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Paragraph 8 of your affidavit, which is on the bottom of page 2, I think, and then continues over to page 3. Do you see a reference there to the Idaho Education Association's Executive Director, Don Rollie? A. Um-hmm. Q. Is Mr. Rollie still alive, do you know? A. I think so, but I don't know for sure. Q. And also on the bottom of page 2 you refer to a consulting contract? A. Um-hmm. Q. Was that a written contract? A. Yeah, probably. Q. Do you have a copy of it, or have you retained a copy of it over the years? A. Probably not, but all that information is public record. Q. Where would it be a public record at? A. The Secretary of State's office. Q. So it would have been filed within the Sunshine materials? A. The expenditures to my consulting firm would have been. Q. Okay. But the contract itself might
Page 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

I object to the second sentence of Paragraph 13 to the extent that it is based upon a contract that has not been produced. I object to Paragraph 16, Part A, Subpart 1, on the ground that it is based upon a direct-mailed document that has not been produced. I object to Paragraph 17 to the extent it is based upon a contract that has not been produced. I object to Paragraph 18 to the extent that it is based upon a contract that has not been produced. I object to Paragraph 19 to the extent that it is based upon a contract that has not been produced. And I'll tell you what, for the lawyers involved, I'll do a cut and paste of all my objections and mail you guys a document so you'll have it. MR. ALLEN: Thank you. MR. TROUPIS: That would be helpful. MR. GILMORE: Now, I think we're ready to start. Q. (BY MR. GILMORE) If you could turn to

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

not have been, just the expenditures? A. A mass of expenditures over probably a decade. Q. Now, in Paragraph 9 you say in the second sentence, "I was offered a consulting contract"; is that the same one you refer to in Paragraph 8 or is that yet another contract? A. Well, over the course -- you know, I had a long-term contractual relationship with the Idaho Education Association starting in -- would have been the primary of 1986 -- so all the way through -- I worked every election, general and primary election, for IEA PACE Committee from '86 through '92, at which point I became a staff person. Q. Now, can you look at Paragraph 10 of your affidavit, and I see -- do you describe the IEA as backing both Democrats and pro-education/moderate Republicans? A. Say that again. Q. Do you describe the IEA as backing both Democratic candidates and moderate Republican candidates, proeducation/moderate Republican candidates? A. Yeah, I think that's a fair
5 (Pages 14 to 17)

[phone]

M & M COURT REPORTING

[phone] (fax)

Dockets.Justia.com

Summary of Comments on Ripley Deposition.ptx
Page: 5
Number: 1 Author: user Objections to Ripley Affidavit Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/3/2010 11:39:20 AM Author: lwinmill Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/12/2010 7:42:16 AM Overruled as to second sentence of para 9 because reference is to an "offer" of a consulting contract. May have been oral, and no terms of contract are referenced. Fact of contract has independent relevance regardless of terms. Sustained as to para 10. Hearsay. Overruled as to para 11 because reference is to acceptance of contract and no indication that it was in writing. Existence of contract by way of offer and acceptance is independently relevant, regardless of terms. Overruled as to para 12. See above. Overruled as to para 13. See above. Sustained as to Para 16(b)(1), unless showing is made that original has been lost or destroyed. Rule 1002, 1003 and 1004. Overruled as to paragraphs 17-19.

Page 66

Page 68

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Can you give me some examples of that? A. Most certainly on social issues I think you're talking about the guy who's as much to the left of the Republican Party and the platform of the Republican Party. Q. Which specific social issues? A. Abortion, homosexual marriage. I think you also have to take into account his voting behavior on spending and tax questions. Q. Have you ever done any surveying, specifically, of people in Latah County who identify themselves as Republicans to see whether they, in fact, are right in the center of the Republican mainstream statewide or off to one end or the other? A. I'm not sure of the answer to that. But I can tell you that the last primary demonstrates -Q. Well, my question was have you ever done any surveying to find that out, so you should be sure of the answer of whether you've surveyed or not surveyed. A. I'm not sure of the answer. Q. You're not sure if you've surveyed that issue?
Page 67

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

was most likely to give her the maximum vote, probably Latah? A. Ada County. Q. Ada. After Ada which is most likely, probably Latah? A. Nez Perce, maybe. Q. Somewhere up around there. You wouldn't expect her to have the same percentage vote in every county in the state? A. No. Q. 1 Now, I'm going to ask you -MR. GILMORE: I'm going to register first a technical objection. Christ, in the fourth paragraph under "Analysis of 2006 Congressional Primary" it says, "There were widespread rumors at the time that Sorensen's campaign was working Democrats in Latah County to support her bid to stop 'right-wingers' from taking control of the seat." I'll object to that as hearsay, but I will ask -Q. (BY MR. GILMORE) -- what was the source of those rumors or how did you find that out? A. I was very involved with the Sali
Page 69

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Right. But I am sure that the conservatives won that primary, which I think gives me some confidence in my -- you know, my thesis that there are more mainstream Republican than mainstream U of I. There are a lot of people there that don't have anything to do with the University of Idaho, you know, farmers and businessman. Q. Can we go, now, to page 2, and we'll start the second part of your analysis, the 2006 congressional primary. Now, am I correct, your thesis on this page, the bottom part of this page, has to do with crossover voting being manifested by the vote for Sheila Sorensen; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And you make a point that she got about 18 percent of the vote in the congressional district, as a whole, and 31 in Latah County? A. Yes. Q. Wasn't there going to be some county where she got her maximum vote and some county where she got minimum vote? A. I think that's irrefutable logic. Q. Okay. Well, which county do you think

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

campaign in that primary and, you know, she had problems running as a Republican across that district, given her voting record, particularly on social issues and a couple of text votes and spending questions that really created problems for her in terms of trying to appeal to the base of the Republican Party. And so as the campaign developed we began to hear numerous accounts that they had a strategy of trying to get crossover voting organized in Latah County, because it was a pool of, you know, socially liberal people that would be open to her message, frankly. Q. Were there six candidates in that race that year? A. I think that's right. Q. So was Representative Sorensen's strategy trying to cut herself out from everybody else that were all conservative, and "I'm the moderate, everybody ought to vote for me"; is that what she was trying to do? All she needed to do was get 25 to 30 percent to win. A. That may be a fair way to characterize it.
18 (Pages 66 to 69)

[phone]

M & M COURT REPORTING

[phone] (fax)

Page: 18
Number: 1 Author: user Objection to Ripley Memorandum Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/3/2010 2:21:14 PM Author: lwinmill Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/12/2010 7:45:18 AM Sustained. Hearsay and inadmissible unless expert establishes that this is the kind of information upon which experts in his field rely.

Page 131

Page 133

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

probably the greatest impact on voting behavior, followed by, you know, the information that a voter might have about a specific candidate or candidates. The difficulty that moderate candidates always face is struggling with that trust between the voter and that candidate. And that trust factor is oftentimes confused by moderate positions. Because, in fact, what it suggests to many voters is that they don't come to the office or won't come to that position with a set of convictions that's reliable. So while there is appeal to being -and I'm not arguing -- I mean, there is appeal to being a moderate, and there is a place for that in a campaign, it's also -- it's not as simple as, you know, it might seem. That, in fact, you do have questions where that moderate position or a moderate approach on some issues, if it becomes a wholesale deal where voters begin to perceive that it's not a question of being moderate and reasonable -- it's a question of being unprincipled, or perhaps even dishonest -- that becomes, you know, deadly to a candidate, of any
Page 132

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

let's say. The moderates who would come in to -let's call them moderate Independents, or whatever -- they are largely not motivated by a desire to sabotage, you know, the opponent's party. It is more of a question of advancing an ideological aim, a set of policy objectives that is driven by their perception of constraints in which they work. For example, a Democrat voter in Canyon County would be a fairly frustrated voter. If you are a liberal in Canyon County, you would be a fairly frustrated person. Your hopes of winning a legislative seat for a Democrat in your lifetime are pretty narrow. So the notion is not really -- those people are not crossing over -- in a race like District 10, they are not crossing over to help elect a Democrat in the fall. They are crossing over because they want to help advance a policy objective and are looking for the Republican candidate who most agrees with them, or agrees with them on some core or set issues or issue. Q. (BY MR. ALLEN) So, today, isn't it true there is no way to tell what the membership
Page 134

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

party. 1 Q. So in your analysis, you did not identify -- wait a minute. Let me see. What evidence did you identify of strategic crossover voting in any of those elections? And by "strategic crossover voting," let me define that. It's somebody who votes for a candidate with a less broad general election appeal, so that the opposing candidate in a general election will have a better chance of defeating that candidate. MR. TROUPIS: And I'm going to tender an objection that that's a narrow definition of strategic crossover voting that is not consistent with the State's own expert report that describes three different categories of crossover voting. But you can go ahead and answer. THE WITNESS: Well, in my experience, in Idaho legislative primaries, which is where the most frequent and prevalent example of crossover voting happens -- most of this is taking place at the legislative level -- the motivations for that are not to enhance the chances of the -- the Democrats who go into those legislative primaries are not going in with a notion of trying to elect a Democrat in the fall,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

of the Republican Party is? A. As in, there is no such thing as a card-carrying Republican Party member? Q. There is no party registration; correct? A. That's correct. Q. And there is no membership list; correct? A. Not that I've ever heard of. Q. So, in your view, do you have to be a conservative to be a Republican? A. Not necessarily. I think there are some -- since there is no membership, I don't know that there is actually a hardcore definition of who's in and who's not. The platform, I think, is designed to be sort of a self-screening set of principles. And certainly from election to election, and candidate to candidate, that party platform remains fairly consistent -- I think it's fair to say -- for both parties, both political parties, at least in terms of their core values. And I don't know what -- there is no magic figure, you know, that says you must agree with 98.7 percent of the platform in order to be
11 (Pages 131 to 134)

[phone]

M & M COURT REPORTING

[phone] (fax)

Page: 35
Number: 1 Author: user Subject: Sticky Note Plaintiffs' objection to deposition question Date: 10/3/2010 8:14:13 PM Author: lwinmill Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/12/2010 7:46:40 AM Overruled. Counsel can point out the differences in the definition of "strategic crossover voting" and witness can refuse to accept that defintion if he is not comfortable using it.

Page 135

Page 137

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

a Republican. But I suppose there is some kind of critical mass which is based on the person's own integrity, you know, that says that, up to this point, you know, I can see myself as a Republican Party member. Past that point, I can't. You know, and I suppose that that changes over time based upon emotions and events and so forth. 1 Q. In this case, the Republican Party has requested registration as a remedy, to require everyone to register by party. And so my question is . . . MR. TROUPIS: I'm going to tender an objection. The only request is that Republicans register. There is no request that everybody register by party. MR. ALLEN: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Q. (BY MR. ALLEN) That's correct, that they want Republicans to register as Republicans. Now, this remedy would not have prevented the liberal candidates you identified from signing up as Republican candidates, would it? A. No.
Page 136

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

it could be advancing public schools, if you're, you know, talking about IEA members or those people around that orbit. So it's not a question of sabotaging and all that nonsense. It's more a question of trying to get pro-education or pro-environment Republicans elected, because they can't elect Democrats. That, however, is one -- that's one question. And for many Democrats and liberal voters, that's a difficult decision to make, to actually go in and cast a vote in the opposition party's primary. Because there is sort of a subtle implication that, you know, you've become one of them. Right? And that's not a small deal. Q. And that's true whether there is registration or not, is it not? A. It is true, whether there is registration or not. However, when you add the requirement of registration, that, I think, becomes a very large psychological barrier that will be too -- a bridge too far for many liberals and Democrat activists who just will . . . And, again, I think, the pattern that
Page 138

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. And it wouldn't have prevented IEA members or crossover Democrats from registering as Republicans either, would it? A. Well, that gets more problematic. Certainly if there is party registration required, even for primary elections, there will be IEA or liberal Democrats who will go ahead and make that decision, because the objective is that important to them. I think it will, however, impose a major impediment for most of those folks who can casually vote in a Democratic -- or in a Republican primary, for short-term political or policy reasons. And, again, in my experience, this crossover situation is not a cynical operation, for the most part. I mean, I'm sure there are some cynics out there, but I don't think that's really generally what goes on. It is, for the most part, an act of sincere public policy objective, you know, hopes. There is some principle at stake. And, you know, that could be -- in general terms, that could be protecting the environment, you know, for conservation voters;

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

we've discussed in my analysis, you're looking at -- I think the strongest evidence of crossover voting are those anomalous races where you start to see a disproportionate turnout in a specific race regardless of what's happening in the rest of the ballot. And the reason that I use that analysis, in part, is because of my own experience in organizing these crossover efforts. It's one thing -- it is possible to talk a Democrat voter, in an organized fashion, into going in and voting in a specific legislative race because of either the problems with the incumbents or because of the -- or opponent, or because of the value of one of the candidates. But to talk them into voting on the entire, you know, opposition party ballot, that's just not going to happen. Q. Well, they've already voted on the whole opposition party ballot, don't they, because they have to go in and they have to select a Republican or a Democratic ballot today, do they not? A. Yeah; except that what we're seeing is -- and it's consistent with the picture I'm
12 (Pages 135 to 138)

[phone]

M & M COURT REPORTING

[phone] (fax)

Page: 36
Number: 1 Author: user Subject: Sticky Note Plaintiffs' objection to deposition question Date: 10/3/2010 8:15:02 PM Author: lwinmill Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/12/2010 7:47:23 AM Overruled. Question rephrased to accommodate objection.

Page 183

Page 185

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

school concept, and challenges to public education. I would also point out that Senator Schroeder has, or had, a perfect voting record with the Planned Parenthood and with the abortion lobby, which was, I think, at odds with both the platform and the majority opinion of the Republican caucuses in the Legislature. And, again, I offer those votes in legislative history as -- I have no doubt that if we had the time and the money, that we would find a very long list of examples where these particular individuals were using their office to advance an ideological view that was at odds with the Republican majority and at odds with the party platform. But I think it covers more than just social issues. I think it covers -- there are disagreements on economic/tax policy issues, and that kind of development issues, and budget questions, certainly. So I think part of what is missed in that analysis by Martin is, not all votes are the same. And that blanket analysis, I think, covers over a multitude of sins, as it were.
Page 184

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. GILMORE: Do we need to make copies right now to give to the reporter? MR. TROUPIS: We could do it at the end, if you want. MR. GILMORE: We'll do it at the end, sure. MR. TROUPIS: Okay. I have nothing further. 1 MR. GILMORE: Okay. Well, I have some follow-up. And, first, I'll make official what I just said a second ago. I'll object to all of the additional questions that Mr. Troupis raised as being far beyond the scope of the deposition and far beyond the scope of the original documents. MR. ALLEN: The Intervenors join. MR. GILMORE: However, I will have some follow-up questions, because, as we say, we never know if our objections will be overruled or sustained. FURTHER EXAMINATION QUESTION BY MR. GILMORE: Q. I think one of the first things you referred to was votes by Bastian, Andreason, and
Page 186

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. The notes that you were referring to, are those the summaries of what you just talked about and the votes of those three individuals? A. Yes. MR. TROUPIS: Would you guys like -- I realize this is additional information, and the only reason I introduced it at this point is so that Dr. Martin can have an opportunity to review it and to respond. Q. (BY MR. TROUPIS) Would you mind if we make copies of that so that counsel can have a copy of the notes? A. Yeah, I think that's fine. MR. GILMORE: I think -- well, as soon as you were done with your additional questions, I was going to object as being far beyond the Affidavit. MR. ALLEN: Yes. MR. GILMORE: But, be that as it may, I may want to review this, so I'm going to have some follow-up questions. MR. TROUPIS: No, that's fine. I just wanted to introduce it at this point because we're going to depose Dr. Martin, and I want to make sure that you were apprised of the issues.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Bunderson on Senator Risch's property tax bill in the special session, I believe. A. Schroeder. Q. Schroeder, okay. That was the summer of 2006; is that right? A. Yes. Q. Have you done -- well, first of all, let me ask about the bill that you've characterized as property tax relief. Was that also tied to an increase in sales tax? A. Yes. Q. So there was some tax shifting from property taxes to sales tax; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Do you know whether voters in Mr. Bastian's district were advantaged or disadvantaged by the property tax shift? A. As a matter of fact, I believe it's the case that Ada County property owners and taxpayers received a substantial benefit from that legislation. Q. Well, the question was, do you know whether, in particular, in Senator Bastian's district, whether those voters wound up paying more in sales tax than they saved in property tax
24 (Pages 183 to 186)

[phone]

M & M COURT REPORTING

[phone] (fax)

Page: 48
Number: 1 Author: user Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/3/2010 8:17:04 PM Defendant and Intervenor-Defendants' objection to series of questions Author: lwinmill Overruled. Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/12/2010 1:19:39 PM