A judge is not a legislator in a robe.

Will this candidate faithfully interpret the law according to the legislators’ original intent, even when he personally disagrees with it? Or will he use the courtroom to create law that the people never voted for?

That is the first question every voter should ask.

A judge is not there to impose his will. He is there to apply the law formed by those the people elected.

Judges are never supposed to create law. That power belongs to the people through the lawmakers they personally elect. In Idaho, House members are elected every two years, which means the people have a direct and regular way to correct bad laws through elections.

The courtroom is not that place.

The only higher disagreement that can override civil law is when a law violates the objective moral laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. That is not judicial activism. That is recognizing that man’s law is always beneath God’s moral order.

This guide does not attempt to crown perfect candidates or become kingmakers. It recommends only when the public record gives a clear reason to warn voters away from another option. Where the evidence does not justify eliminating a candidate, the guide gives no recommendation.

This guide is based on publicly available information, public case records, candidate materials, news reports, and the Idaho State Bar contested judicial election survey.

Natural Law Minarchism

What does Natural Law Minarchism mean?

Minarchism is the belief that civil government should be limited to its proper duties.

It does not mean no government.

It means limited government.

It means the state should protect life, liberty, property, contract, due process, and family order. It should punish real evil, protect the innocent, enforce just laws, and defend citizens from violence, fraud, theft, and coercion.

But it should not become father, mother, priest, employer, doctor, schoolmaster, savior, or moral inventor.

The government is not the source of charity. Why? Because the government has no funds it can give someone unless it forcibly takes them from someone else. That is not charity. That is extortion and bribery. The government should never pick winners and losers in a situation that is not a moral issue. The government should never favor one morally valid business over another.

Natural Law means the Laws of Nature and the Laws of Nature’s God. It means the objective moral laws of God. It is the original law behind the claim that all men are created equal.

A minarchist judge should therefore be restrained. He should not ask, “What policy do I prefer?” He should ask, “What does the law actually say? What did the lawmakers intend? And just as importantly, does this law violate the higher objective moral law of Nature and of Nature’s God?”

That is the difference between a judge and a ruler.

Christian civil-government standard

For the Christian civil-government standard, the clearest governing text is Romans 13:1-7, KJV:

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid: for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour.

Context: Paul is not describing the state as a savior. He is describing a limited civil magistrate whose legitimate role is to restrain evil and protect the innocent.

So the question with judges is not, “Which candidate sounds nice?”

The question is, “Which candidate is least likely to become a lawmaker from the bench?”

What is the Bar score and what do we do with it?

The Idaho State Bar score is a survey of Idaho lawyers and judges. They rate candidates on integrity and independence, knowledge and understanding of the law, judicial temperament and demeanor, and legal ability and experience.

That can be useful, but it is not the final standard.

You do not treat a group of lawyers as moral authorities. Many of them may not share your Christian worldview, your natural law view, your view of limited government, or your belief that judges must be bound by original legislative intent.

So the Bar score is not the compass.

It is a warning light.

If a candidate has a bad Bar score, it does not automatically mean he is bad. Lawyers may dislike him because he is too conservative, too constitutional, too tough on crime, or too unwilling to bow to the legal establishment.

But you should still pay attention. Even a non-Christian lawyer can tell you whether someone is sloppy, arrogant, unprepared, dishonest, weak in the courtroom, or lacking legal skill.

So use the Bar score carefully.

Do not let it choose your candidate.

Do not ignore it completely.

Treat it as smoke, not fire.

Source limitation

For sitting judges, we can look at rulings and appellate outcomes.

For candidates who have not been judges, we mostly have public career descriptions, campaign biographies, news reports, and a few identifiable cases where they appeared as lawyers or prosecutors.

That matters because a judicial candidate who has never been a judge does not have judicial rulings to review. In those cases, the proper question becomes:

What kind of lawyer has this person been?

Prosecutor? Does he go after cases regardless of innocence to pad his resume or does he really want moral justice?

Public defender? 

Government lawyer? Does he go after citizens because they are the low hanging fruit or does he focus on real violators of rights. Does he go after the enemies of those in power?

Civil litigator?

Property lawyer?

Bureaucratic defender?

Victim advocate? Does support “victims” or real victims?

Contract enforcer?

Family lawyer? We have seen enough documentation of “Family Law” that shows it can be a corrupt business that lends itself to lawyers colluding with judges to fleece with both sides. The laws are written such that they are a moral hazard. 

Those categories matter because they reveal instincts. 

Our Goals

Our voter guide exists to help Christians and constitutional conservatives identify candidates who meet minimum moral, biblical, and constitutional standards for leadership. Our role is not to act as political kingmakers, nor to pretend that every election presents one perfect candidate chosen by God.

In some races, the choice is clear. A candidate may openly defend evil, oppose fundamental constitutional protections, reject biblical morality, or demonstrate conduct that disqualifies them from trustworthy leadership. In those cases, we believe it is appropriate to warn voters and make recommendations accordingly.

But there may also be elections where multiple candidates appear to be honorable, qualified, competent, and generally aligned with biblical and constitutional principles. Frankly, that would be a good problem to have. Our hope is that this becomes more common over time.

When two candidates both meet our minimum standards, we may choose not to issue a recommendation between them. That does not mean we are indifferent, nor does it mean the candidates are identical. It simply means neither candidate has violated a controlling moral, biblical, or constitutional principle serious enough to justify organizational opposition.

In those situations, the decision properly belongs to the voters. Citizens should prayerfully evaluate the candidates based on character, experience, judgment, leadership ability, policy positions, governing philosophy, and other matters where faithful people may reasonably disagree.

There may, however, be situations where prudence and electability must also be considered. For example, in a race with multiple acceptable candidates and one well-funded or popular candidate who clearly opposes our values, we may have to support an acceptable candidate, who is not the most Godly but has the strongest realistic path to victory. The goal in such situations is not to crown our favorite candidate. The goal is to move the outcome closer to biblical values and constitutional principles rather than allowing vote-splitting to hand victory to a candidate who opposes both.

And yet in other some, a reasonably acceptable candidate is favored to win, yet because of their less desirable traits we may choose to vote for a much better candidate with no chance of winning as low risk message.

That kind of strategic consideration should be applied carefully, cautiously, and only when circumstances genuinely require it.

When multiple good candidates remain viable and no overriding moral issue separates them, we believe those candidates should compete openly on their ideas, records, experience, and vision for the community. At that point, voters should decide without our organization pretending that faithfulness requires only one acceptable choice.