On September 8, the Idaho Attorney General’s office filed a brief in Daien v Ysursa, the case challenging Idaho’s ban on out-of-state circulators for independent candidates. The plaintiff, Donald Daien, lives in Arizona but says he wants to help future independent presidential candidates get on the Idaho ballot. Idaho is in the 9th circuit, which ruled in an Arizona case last year that states may not ban out-of-state circulators, at least for the purpose of working on independent presidential petitions.

Idaho’s brief says the 9th circuit precedent from Arizona should not apply in the Daien case, because Arizona required circulators to be eligible to register in Arizona, but Idaho only requires circulators to be Idaho residents. The difference, as the brief points out, is that Idaho lets minors and non-citizens circulate such petitions.

Idaho’s brief also says that Idaho requires fewer signatures for an independent presidential candidate than Arizona does. Idaho is mistaken. Arizona requires a petition signed by 3% of the number of registered independents (although any registered voter may sign). Idaho’s brief misstates the Arizona law and claims that Arizona’s petition is 3% of the entire electorate. Idaho requires independent presidential candidates to submit a petition of 1% of the last presidential vote, and Idaho claims this is obviously easier.

The truth is that Arizona’s 3% of the number of registered independents is virtually tied with Idaho’s 1% of the last presidential vote. It is expected that the attorneys for Daien will point this out in the next brief.