STATESMAN PROFILES GOP PRIMARY IN DISTRICT 9
Today's Idaho Statesman profiled the GOP primary contest between appointed incumbent Diana Thomas and challenger Judy Boyle for Seat B in the Idaho House for District 9 (primarily Adams, Payette, and Washington counties). When this seat became vacant, Ms. Boyle's name was at the top of the list sent to the governor, who passed over Boyle to appoint Ms. Thomas to the legislature.
Voters here will have a clear choice in this election. Boyle seems clearly to be more in favor of school choice than Thomas: Boyle supports merit pay for teachers, education tax credits, ending "tenure" for public school teachers, and removing the cap on charter school expansion. She is also opposed to state 
funding for pre-K programs.
Thomas, on the other hand, seems to suffer from a lack of clarity in her educational philosophy. She is undecided on the issues of merit pay, tenure, and state-funded pre-K programs, an uncertainty that will naturally be of concern to voters for whom education is a priority concern. Additionally, she is opposed to education tax credits, although her written note indicated that her reason is her "concern over gov't involvement in private ed."
(Thomas often added that her support or opposition on a particular issued would "depend on (the) legislation" that was brought forward for consideration.)
There are marked differences between these two candidates on fiscal and tax policy issues as well. While Boyle supports eliminating the personal property tax on businesses, and opposes tax increases to boost transportation funding and local option taxes to build light rail, Thomas is undecided on the personal property tax issue and marked "undecided" on both tax increases for transportation and local option taxes for light rail.
While Thomas is undecided with regard to "car carry" legislation and opposes concealed carry on college campuses, Boyle gave unqualified support for both concepts.
Bottom line is that primary voters in District 9 will have quite distinct alternatives in this race, on education, tax policy, and gun rights issues.
Gem State Voter Guide: Thomas v. Boyle, House B, District 9
PRESS RELEASE MARCH 10, 2008
JUDY BOYLE ANNOUNCES FOR LEGISLATIVE SEAT
Midvale resident, Judy Boyle, announces she will seek election for the District 9 Idaho House of Representatives seat B. Boyle was the first choice of the District 9 precinct committeemen in August when Clete Edmunson resigned. “It is a citizen’s responsibility to be involved as our American form of government is not a spectator sport. I believe I have the background and experience to properly represent the citizens of District 9 and would be honored to be your Representative for seat B,” said Judy.
Judy has been involved in Idaho politics for over thirty years. She worked for Congressman Helen Chenoweth Hage as Helen’s Director of Natural Resources. Boyle stated, “Working for Helen was a tremendous learning experience and I share Helen’s conservative principles of corralling government to its proper role. Limited government is good government, which creates less rules, paperwork, bureaucracy and taxes while protecting personal freedom and private property as envisioned by America’s Founding Fathers.”
Boyle represented District 9 for two sessions as substitute Idaho Senator. “It was a privilege to serve the citizens of District 9 in the Idaho Senate. I was able to defeat proposed laws which would have harmed agriculture and our district’s economy and amend others making them more rural friendly. It gave me the opportunity to advocate issues for our district. I made many lasting friendships in the Senate and House and I am still asked to help with proposed laws.”
“I’m proud of my work as a volunteer for the National Rifle Association (NRA) and helped pass many laws strengthening our Second Amendment Rights---from the first conceal carry law to the NRA Idaho license plate, and several this session. Locally, I serve on the Friends of the NRA fundraising committee. I believe the Second Amendment protects the entire Constitution,” stated Judy.
Boyle is a member of the NRA, R-CALF (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund), the Weiser River Cattlemen, Vice-President of the Valley-Adams County Farm Bureau, and Pacific Legal Foundation Idaho Advisory Committee chair. She is a former 4-H leader, March of Dimes volunteer, past President of St Luke’s Hospital Parent Support Group, and helped establish the Idaho Ronald McDonald House. Judy is currently working with the local sage grouse group to enhance the birds and protect the ranches they rely on.
Judy’s family includes Brian, Kara, and Tyler Boyle and Peggy Boyle of Midvale where all are involved in raising beef cattle and quarter horses. Judy is also a freelance writer.
http://idahohuntingtoday.com/blog/index.php/2008/03/12/judy-boyle-announces
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/03/another-pro-gun-idaho-candidate.html
The Jon Marvel-Judge Winmill Kingdom
By Judy Boyle
When a radical environmental group and a federal judge team up against ranchers, everyone’s rights are threatened
Once upon a time, long long ago, there was a unique concept in America called Equal Justice. Justice was blind with balanced scales to equally weigh facts and make unbiased decisions. Constitutional law and property rights were actually taught in America’s law schools, educating the attorneys who became federal judges. Back then, Americans believed in the Justice system and thought it a legitimate way to redress grievances. They considered it their right to an unbiased court and that Due Process was genuinely recognized, understood, and applied by all federal judges.
Today, in certain federal courtrooms, those original American Jurisprudence concepts no longer apply---especially in cases dealing with environmental laws. Some judges have become rulers over their specific kingdom, retaining jurisdiction for years in cases unlucky enough to be before them. Their rulings have become quite predictable, based on past actions. They are the judges sought by radical environmental groups in a process known as “Judge Shopping.” Filing an environmental case within a certain federal Judge’s district has shown, time and again, to increase the odds for a successful outcome. Becoming friends with the Judge’s clerk adds even more to the odds of that Judge using specific portions of your legal brief in his decision.
Finding a friendly Judge not only allows the “non-profit” environmental groups to win their arguments and advance their agenda, but showers their organizations with taxpayer dollars. Whenever environmentalists win against a federal agency, the federal treasury is forced to shell out hundreds of millions each year to these green organizations in “attorney fees.” When a private citizen loses a lawsuit, they must pay the preservationist group’s attorney fees. On the rare occasion that the “non-profit” organization loses, they are usually exempted from paying any attorney fees. No fairness involved here.
In Idaho, the livestock-hating Western Watersheds Project (WWP) has hit the jackpot repeatedly in Federal District Judge Lynn Winmill’s courtroom. Judge Winmill is WWP’s sugar daddy who very seldom rules against them, often incorporating pieces of WWP’s briefs to justify his decisions. WWP files so many cases with Judge Winmill that his court calendar stays quite full. Sometimes, he has to give a case to another federal judge and that is when the comparison of a green bias glares brightly. To show an attempt at a balanced decision, Judge Winmill once ruled against WWP. BLM wanted to control a dense stand of juniper to improve sage grouse habitat. WWP sued to prevent this common sense action. The entire case became a moot issue as Judge Winmill’s ruling to allow juniper control came after the area had already burned in a wildfire.
WWP’s Jon Marvel is the self-appointed “ruler” of federal lands where ranchers have grazed their livestock for generations---long before the existence of federal land management agencies, or even state governments. The partnership between the feds and Western ranchers was approved and encouraged by Congress through the Taylor Grazing Act, the Homestead Act, and numerous other laws. Marvel’s single-minded vision of a livestock-free western landscape supposedly comes from an argument with a ranching neighbor. Marvel shows no regard for property rights, rural custom and culture, generations of ranching, fairness, or existing vested rights and certainly has no concept of Cowboy Principles. He appears to be a bitter, angry individual who lashes out at anyone who “interferes” with his concept that he alone knows what is best for the West. Marvel seems to relish the role of harming families with mental anguish, destroying lifelong dreams of passing on the family ranch to the next generation, forcing individuals to lose their income and future. He simply enjoys making life as miserable as possible for hardworking, honest people whose very business depends on their positive stewardship in caring for and protecting the environment and the wildlife.
Assisting in this viciously cruel and reprehensible method of forcing families from their chosen way of life, is a federal judge who grew up on a dairy farm. Perhaps it was a philosophy developed at Harvard University where Judge Winmill received his law degree, or the mentoring from a liberal law professor after returning to Idaho, or influence from Idaho Governor Andrus upon appointment as a state court district judge, or his clerk’s friendship with a preservationist bragged about by a WWP staffer that has allowed this unholy alliance to be cemented.
During President Bill Clinton’s first term, the sole Democrat in the Idaho Congressional delegation, Larry LaRocco, was tasked to find a judicial candidate to fill the vacant federal judgeship in Idaho’s Federal District Court. After several names were rejected by the Republican members of the delegation because of the candidates’ known environmental leanings, LaRocco offered Lynn Winmill’s name. Winmill had no prior history with crucial environmental cases so, with reservations, the rest of the delegation agreed to support his nomination. Easily confirmed, Judge Winmill immediately showed his bias, deciding in the first important case before him to restrict grazing in Owyhee County. WWP had secured their chosen judge.
WWP began searching for a “test case” in Idaho to use the federal endangered species act (ESA) against private property in a backdoor attempt to remove grazing from federal lands. They decided to attack a rancher’s water right to cripple his ability to raise hay for his cattle. They reasoned the lack of sufficient feed would force the sale of the livestock. Therefore, those cattle would not be grazing the next summer on federal lands. WWP needed a victim with no political connections, few assets or funds, who had not dealt with ESA issues or attorneys, someone who could be used and abused to further WWP’s agenda of eliminating ranching. They settled on taking out the Verl Jones ranch located close to the Montana border, a few miles from Challis, Idaho.
Verl was born on the family homestead in 1916. His formal education was limited but his on-the-ground experience with the natural world surpassed any Ph.D. level. The two most important things in Verl’s life were his family and his ranch. In 2001, WWP sued Verl. He was 85 years old and had no idea what a Notice of Intent to Sue under ESA meant. In 1961, Verl hand-dug several miles of ditch around a rocky mountainside in order to use his state recognized water right from Otter Creek. This backbreaking work allowed him to develop additional hay fields, increase his cattle herd, and support his growing family of seven children. Wildlife also enjoyed the improved habitat during the late fall, winter, and early spring seasons.
WWP claimed Verl’s water diversion created harm to the endangered bull trout, although none existed in Otter Creek. While WWP did not present evidence that the use of Verl’s water right actually resulted in injury to the listed fish, Judge Winmill ordered Verl to stop irrigating his hay fields and to pay WWP’s attorney fees of over $36,000. Without water, the family lost 100 tons of hay production yearly, were forced to reduce their cattle herd, and created enormous stress as the family tried to deal with reduced income and huge legal fees from the court battles. The final blow for Verl came when Judge Winmill ordered him to give WWP a list of all assets which were to be sold to pay WWP’s attorney fees. It was simply too much and Verl died. The Jones’ case was brought to the attention of Pacific Legal Foundation and their Seattle attorney, the late Russell Brooks, agreed to take their case on appeal to the 9th circuit court. Mr. Brooks successfully convinced the panel of judges to overturn Judge Winmill. The 9th circuit judges ruled that actual evidence of a species being harmed must be presented, not just alleged, before a judge can legally order an injunction.
Judge Winmill’s decisions seldom reach the 9th circuit court. Usually, WWP sues a federal agency and the agency settles. The harm done to the grazing permittees is by reductions of time and numbers. Grazing was reduced in the Curlew National Grasslands of SE Idaho after WWP sued, with Judge Winmill agreeing, that livestock created a “threat” to sage grouse, a species not listed under ESA. In Southern Idaho, WWP again used sage grouse with Judge Winmill slashing grazing in an area with lush grass production. The area burned during the 1,000 square mile wildfire of 2007, effectively eliminating sage grouse and their habitat for many years. (See RANGE Fall 2007 “All Creatures Lost—Large and Small.”)
A little farther to the west in Owhyee County, Judge Winmill decided to blame cattle for eating the forage to less than six inches along the creeks of rugged South Mountain, despite the fact that large herds of deer and elk roam there. He ordered immediate reduction of the BLM grazing allotments of Tim Lowry and Mike Stafford from their accustomed four months to just six weeks. The Judge told the ranchers they could easily buy hay to feed their cattle during the summer and fall months.
Using wolves to damage ranchers grazing in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area (SNRA), Judge Winmill ordered US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) to stop harming, harassing, or killing the predators when they attacked livestock. Wolves were reintroduced in Idaho in 1995 as an “experimental, non-essential” population. Under the special ESA rule, ranchers are given the right to kill wolves attacking livestock. USFWS has authority to remove livestock-killing wolves. Although grazing was recognized as an authorized and legitimate use in the Congressional act creating the SNRA, Judge Winmill reasoned that wolves are more valuable and must be protected over livestock, regardless of administrative rules or federal laws.
November 2007, Judge Winmill again agreed with WWP and denied sheep rancher, Mick Carlson of Riggins, Idaho, the use of his US Forest Service winter grazing allotment. This time the issue is non-listed bighorn sheep. Judge Winmill admitted that there is no documented scientific proof that domestic sheep pass disease to the wild sheep but he still sided with WWP to cripple another long-time rancher. The future of domestic sheep grazing on federal land is now in serious jeopardy if there are any bighorns within miles.
Today, the fate of Western users of federal lands twists in the wind with Judge Winmill’s December 2007 decision ordering USFWS to re-consider listing sage grouse. Once again, Judge Winmill appears to have cut and pasted WWP’s briefs into his ruling. Over the years, USFWS have denied WWP’s many listing petitions by repeatedly finding the species do not warrant listing. Not only ranchers but recreationists, miners, energy companies, future transmission lines and transmitter sites will face serious restrictions with a listing. Private property owners will be prey to individual lawsuits, such as the one faced by Verl Jones, if a sage grouse is harmed or killed on their lands. Instead of welcoming and sheltering the bird, landowners will live in fear of having them on their property.
These are only a handful of the cases in which WWP and Judge Winmill have teamed up to harm the real caretakers of the land---Western ranchers. No attorney, who may someday have a client before Judge Winmill, dared to be quoted for this article. No rancher could afford such a risk either. Federal Judges are appointed for life but the Founding Fathers never envisioned biased federal judges making law. The Founders carefully crafted provisions to separate executive, legislative, and judicial powers, expecting each branch to respect the Constitution. Unfortunately, the Judicial Branch too often stretches their power to become as overbearing as King George. Congress does have oversight on federal judges but rarely acts. When Constitutional restraints are ignored, all rights are endangered. Will Congress continue to fiddle as the rule of law and the Constitution is eroded by imperial federal judges?
Wildfire Article by Judy Boyle for Range Magazine
http://www.rangemagazine.com/features/winter-08/wi08-wildfire.pdf
Sweet Victory Article by Judy Boyle for Range Magazine
http://www.rangemagazine.com/features/summer-07/su07-victory.pdf