Hit Control F or CMD F and search or scroll down to find the different county propositions. Look on your ballot to find your districts etc. Then
do a search for them.
Find your voting location and scroll down on that page to find a sample ballot at this link below
(fill it out before you leave the house so you have it ready to copy over): https://elections.sos.idaho.gov/ElectionLink/ElectionLink/ViewPollingLocation.aspx
Judge Selection Reasoning:
Idaho contested judge races, May 19 primary
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.
Recommendations first
There are four contested judge positions.
District 1, Shoshone County: No recommendation
District 4, Ada County: Jeffrey Street Jr.
District 6, Caribou County: No recommendation
District 7, Madison County: Steven W. Boyce
Final voter slate:
District 1: No recommendation
District 4: Jeffrey Street Jr.
District 6: No recommendation
District 7: Steven W. Boyce
Why no recommendation in two races?
Because the purpose of this guide is not to anoint our favorite candidate.
The purpose is to warn voters when one candidate has a serious enough problem that we should recommend against him or her.
A slightly better resume is not enough.
Better rhetoric is not enough.
A higher Bar score is not enough.
A stronger campaign website is not enough.
We recommend only when the evidence gives us a clear reason to eliminate another option.
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.
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?
Public defender?
Government lawyer?
Civil litigator?
Property lawyer?
Family lawyer?
Bureaucratic defender?
Victim advocate?
Contract enforcer?
Those categories matter because they reveal instincts.
District 1, Shoshone County
No recommendation between Benjamin J. Allen and Lisa M. Chesebro
Benjamin Allen may have the stronger concrete record, but under the “eliminate bad apples” standard, that is not enough to recommend him over Lisa Chesebro.
Allen is the Shoshone County Prosecuting Attorney and is running to fill the First Judicial District seat being vacated by Judge Barbara Duggan. Public reporting says Allen joined the Shoshone County Prosecutor’s Office in 2014, became a deputy prosecutor in 2015, became chief deputy in 2018, and was appointed prosecuting attorney in 2022.
That history matters. A prosecutor is not automatically the better judge, but criminal prosecution is one of the clearest Romans 13 functions of civil government. The civil magistrate exists to punish real evil and protect the innocent. A prosecutor who has handled serious cases has seen what violence, drugs, abuse, and criminal disorder do to families and communities.
Allen’s public record also includes civil government work. That matters because district judges are not only criminal judges. They handle civil disputes, property disputes, government disputes, appeals from lower courts, and cases where the citizen stands across the courtroom from the state.
The strongest specific public case tied to Allen is Jutila v. County of Shoshone. The case involved a dispute over West Fork Pine Creek Road, a road long used for access to Bureau of Land Management land. The conflict involved whether the road should be validated as a public road and what access rights existed across private property. Allen represented Shoshone County in the dispute, and public reporting summarized that the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed denial of validation but also concluded the road constituted a public right-of-way.
From a minarchist natural law view, that kind of case is important because it forces the hard question: where does public access end and private property begin?
A lazy populist answer says, “The public wants access, therefore the public should get access.”
A lazy libertarian answer says, “Private land is involved, therefore nobody else matters.”
A serious judge must do something harder. He must ask what the law actually says, what the public right actually is, what property interests actually exist, and whether the government is trying to convert private land into public convenience without lawful authority.
Allen’s involvement in that type of case is a positive signal because he has touched real property rights, public access, county authority, and appellate-level legal conflict. That does not prove he will be a perfect judge. It does show he has worked in the kind of legal tension where a judge must restrain both private abuse and public overreach.
The concern with Allen is also clear. He comes heavily from the government side. Prosecutors and county lawyers can become too comfortable with state power. A prosecutor can begin to see the courtroom as a tool for the state instead of a place where the state itself is held under law.
That is the risk.
But that risk is not enough by itself to eliminate him.
Lisa Chesebro also has a respectable and balanced background. Her public background includes prosecution, criminal defense, private practice, and court administration. That is not a weakness. In fact, a former defense attorney can bring something valuable to the bench: the knowledge that the state can be wrong, police can overreach, prosecutors can overcharge, and due process is not a technicality.
That matters under a Christian natural law view. The innocent are not protected merely by punishing the guilty. They are also protected by preventing the state from punishing the wrong person.
Chesebro’s background in court administration also matters. A judge does not only decide legal issues. A judge runs a courtroom. He or she must control delay, keep proceedings fair, keep cases moving, and make sure people are not crushed by chaos and confusion.
Her weakness is that I found less concrete public evidence of named cases, appellate arguments, or specific legal outcomes. Her public record shows broad legal exposure, but less public proof of how she reasons through hard questions.
Her language appears more institutional than philosophical. Fairness, dignity, accessibility, and experience matter. But those words do not answer the central question: will you interpret the law according to the lawmakers’ original intent, or will you shape it into what you personally think is better?
Allen scored higher than Chesebro in the Idaho State Bar survey. Allen’s overall average was 3.11. Chesebro’s overall average was 2.87. Again, that is not the moral standard. It is only a warning light. The gap is real, but not large enough by itself to eliminate Chesebro.
District 1 conclusion
Allen has the stronger concrete record: prosecution, county legal responsibilities, property and public-access litigation, and Idaho Supreme Court level involvement.
Chesebro has a broader balance of prosecution, defense, private practice, and court administration.
We do not have enough evidence to say Chesebro is a bad apple.
We do not have enough evidence to say Allen is a bad apple.
District 1 pick: No recommendation.
District 4, Ada County
Recommendation: Jeffrey Street Jr. over David Morse and Greg Woodard
This race is different.
Here, we do have a serious reason to eliminate one candidate: David Morse has a rule-of-law eligibility cloud.
Jeffrey Street Jr. is the cleanest recommendation in this race.
Street’s strongest point is his stated judicial philosophy. His public posture is closest to what we should want in a judge: apply the law as written, do not create law from the bench.
That is the central issue. A judge who starts with that premise is at least speaking the right constitutional language.
Street’s legal background is also broad. Public candidate information describes him as having handled cases involving individuals, families, businesses, civil disputes, and complex litigation.
That matters more than many voters realize.
A criminal prosecutor sees crime.
A government attorney sees agencies.
A civil lawyer sees people fighting over contracts, businesses, injuries, property, family obligations, reputations, abuse claims, and financial harm.
A judge needs that. Most of life is not a murder trial. Most of life is home, contract, injury, family, small business, debt, employment, landlord and tenant, and reputation. A minarchist judge must understand how law touches ordinary citizens, not just how government prosecutes criminals.
Street’s broad civil background is favorable under a limited-government view because private law matters. Contracts matter. Property matters. Family order matters. Business disputes matter. Injury and abuse claims matter. A government that cannot protect those things has abandoned one of its real jobs.
Street also had the strongest Bar score in the District 4 race. His overall average was 3.48, while Morse had 3.10 and Woodard had 2.54. That does not make Street morally superior. It does suggest that the lawyers and judges who responded considered him competent and suitable for the role.
David Morse is the strongest challenger to Street on the “punish evil” side of the ledger.
Morse is an Assistant United States Attorney and a former state prosecutor. His campaign describes him as an experienced prosecutor with a commitment to fairness and the rule of law.
Morse has prosecuted drug trafficking, firearms offenses, fraud, identity theft, public corruption, violent crime, elder abuse, and crimes against children. From a Romans 13 perspective, that is strong civil-magistrate work. A prosecutor who pursues violent crime, corruption, fraud, drugs, and crimes against children is operating in the legitimate sphere of civil government.
But there is a serious rule-of-law concern.
Idaho Capital Sun reported that it was unclear whether Morse met the legal requirements to be a judge by the May 19 election. The report identified Morse as a federal prosecutor running for the Fourth Judicial District seat and noted uncertainty over whether he satisfied Idaho’s continuous legal-practice requirement.
That is not a small matter.
A voter who believes judges must be bound by law cannot casually brush aside a candidate’s eligibility question. A judge candidate cannot ask voters to respect the law while beginning his campaign under a cloud over whether he legally qualifies for the office.
The issue is not personal character. The issue is judicial risk.
Greg Woodard is the most interesting candidate in the race, but not the best recommendation.
Woodard has long legal experience. His campaign says he has more than 26 years of practice in both the public and private sectors and believes he has the experience and temperament needed for the Fourth Judicial District bench.
His background includes private litigation and government legal work. He has handled civil cases, contract disputes, business disputes, and government defense work. He has also reportedly defended Idaho laws, including election laws, open-meetings laws, spending laws, and death penalty laws.
That creates both positive and negative signals.
The positive signal is that Woodard has touched important areas for a limited-government voter. Election laws matter because elections are how the people replace lawmakers. Open-meetings laws matter because government should not operate through secretive backroom rule. Contract disputes matter because lawful promises must mean something. Death penalty law, handled under strict due process, can fall within the Romans 13 function of punishing grave evil.
The caution is that government-defense work can train a lawyer to instinctively defend agencies and state power. That does not mean Woodard would be a bad judge. But it does mean voters should ask whether his legal instincts lean toward citizens or toward institutions.
Woodard’s Bar score was also materially weaker than Street’s and Morse’s. Again, the Bar score is not the compass, but it is a warning light. Woodard’s overall average was 2.54, compared with Street’s 3.48 and Morse’s 3.10.
District 4 conclusion
Morse has the strongest prosecution record, but his eligibility concern is too serious for a rule-of-law voter to ignore.
Woodard has valuable experience in contract, election, open-meetings, and government-defense law, but his public philosophy is less cleanly stated and his state-defense background raises caution.
Street has the clearest law-as-written, no-law-from-the-bench posture, and the broadest private civil background affecting families, businesses, contracts, injuries, abuse claims, and ordinary private disputes.
District 4 pick: Jeffrey Street Jr.
District 6, Caribou County
No recommendation between Cody L. Brower and Aaron N. Thompson
This is the hardest race.
We are not crowning the candidate whose words sound best. We are eliminating candidates only when the evidence justifies it.
In District 6, the evidence does not justify eliminating either candidate.
Cody Brower was appointed as a district judge in the Sixth Judicial District in 2023. Before that, he served as Oneida County Prosecuting Attorney.
His public posture emphasizes the Constitution, rule of law, judicial independence, dignity, fairness, restraint, and not bending the law to personal preference.
That language matters.
A judge who says the law must not be bent to personal preference is answering the central question. The danger in a courtroom is not always open corruption. Sometimes it is the smiling judge who thinks his compassion, his wisdom, or his political instincts are higher than the law.
Brower’s record includes several appellate outcomes.
In State v. Mitchell, Brower revoked probation and ordered execution of the underlying sentence. The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed the order. The appellate opinion identifies Brower as the district judge and affirms the probation revocation and execution of the sentence.
That matters because probation is not a right to mock the law. Probation is conditional mercy. If a defendant violates those conditions, a judge must decide whether continued leniency is just or whether it endangers order. Brower’s decision was affirmed, which suggests he acted within lawful discretion.
Brower also had an affirmed probation-revocation decision in State v. Smith. The Court of Appeals identified Brower as the Sixth Judicial District judge and affirmed the order revoking probation and ordering execution of the underlying sentence.
From a natural law perspective, that leans favorable. Mercy is good when it restores order and repentance. Mercy becomes injustice when it trains the guilty to laugh at the law.
The caution with Brower is serious. His Idaho State Bar score was weak. Brower’s overall average was 2.26, with 2.08 for knowledge and understanding of the law and 2.07 for legal ability and experience.
That cannot be ignored. If lawyers who have experience with him think he is weak in legal knowledge or legal ability, voters should pause.
But again, the Bar score is not the moral compass. It is a warning light. Sometimes the legal establishment dislikes someone because he is not part of its culture. Sometimes it dislikes someone because he is actually not good at the job. The survey alone cannot tell us which.
Aaron Thompson has a stronger professional-confidence record and more years on the bench. That is useful, but it is not the entire standard.
Thompson was appointed as a magistrate judge in Bannock County in 2018. He is now challenging Brower for the 6th Judicial District seat.
Thompson has served as a magistrate judge and has extensive experience in civil and criminal law. His campaign and public coverage emphasize long legal experience, trial experience, appellate experience, and treatment-court work.
His strongest public case is the Courtney Goody poisoning case.
Courtney Goody pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor battery counts related to poisoning her then-husband. Public reporting says she was sentenced to 180 days in jail.
That sentence angered many people because the facts sounded much worse than a misdemeanor battery case. The underlying allegation involved poisoning and elevated levels of toxic substances. But the charge posture matters. A judge does not get to sentence a person for the charge he wishes had been proven. He sentences according to the case legally before him.
That distinction is exactly why judges must not become lawmakers or prosecutors from the bench.
Thompson’s handling of the Goody case does not show softness by itself. It shows a judge sentencing according to the charges actually before him. So Thompson is not easily dismissed as soft.
Thompson’s campaign highlights his work presiding over Bannock County’s Mental Health Court. That is not automatically a negative. Mental health court may be positive if it restores responsibility, reduces repeat offenses, protects the public, and lowers taxpayer burden.
Publicly available information reviewed for this guide does not show that Thompson uses mental health court to excuse wrongdoing as sickness.
The caution is philosophical, not personal. From a limited-government view, treatment courts must be watched carefully. They are good only if they remain courts of accountability. They become dangerous if they turn into therapy bureaucracies that replace justice with excuses.
A Christian view of government can recognize mental illness and still insist on responsibility. Compassion cannot become a substitute for justice. A court must not become a social-service agency with a robe.
Thompson’s Bar score was very strong. His overall average was 3.66, with 3.68 for legal ability and experience.
That is a major point in his favor if the question is competence. But competence is not the only question. A highly competent judge who believes courts should engineer society is more dangerous than an average judge who knows his limits.
The problem is this: publicly available information does not show that Thompson is that kind of judge.
It also does not show that Brower is unfit.
So the fair answer is no recommendation.
District 6 conclusion
Brower speaks more clearly about constitutional restraint and the duty of a judge not to bend the law to personal preference. That is a real strength.
Thompson has more judicial experience, stronger courtroom credentials, a strong professional-confidence signal, and no clear evidence that his treatment-court work turns justice into therapy or excuses wrongdoing.
Because the goal is to eliminate clearly bad choices, not crown preferred candidates, this race does not justify a recommendation. Voters should compare Brower’s stronger constitutional rhetoric with Thompson’s stronger experience and decide which risk concerns them more.
District 6 pick: No recommendation.
District 7, Madison County
Recommendation: Steven W. Boyce over Randy Neal
Steven Boyce is the clearest recommendation.
This is not because Boyce is perfect. It is because Randy Neal carries enough warning signs that this race does justify a recommendation.
Boyce has the most concrete judicial record of all the candidates reviewed. He has handled serious criminal cases, family-law appeals, restitution issues, probation-revocation matters, and some of the most publicized criminal trial management questions in Idaho.
That matters because we are not merely guessing what kind of judge Boyce would be. We have a record.
In State v. Conser, Boyce sentenced Jessica Arleen Conser to life with 18 years fixed for second-degree murder. The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence.
From a Romans 13 perspective, that is squarely within the legitimate function of civil government. Murder is grave evil. The civil magistrate does not bear the sword in vain. A judge who imposes serious punishment for murder is not being harsh. He is recognizing the moral weight of innocent life.
In State v. Hjelm, Boyce imposed an 11-year unified sentence with 3.5 years fixed for aggravated battery. The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence.
Aggravated battery is not a paperwork offense. It is violence against a person. A judge who treats violent crime seriously protects the innocent and preserves public order.
Boyce also had affirmed decisions in other criminal matters, including DUI, firearm offenses, probation revocation, restitution, and Rule 35 sentence-reduction contexts.
These cases matter because many trial judges are tested not by one dramatic case, but by ordinary repeated decisions: sentencing, probation, restitution, motions for reduced sentence, and the daily question of whether court orders mean anything.
Boyce’s record suggests he is willing to hold defendants accountable while staying within lawful process.
His Daybell-related rulings are also important.
Boyce handled major trial management questions in the Lori Vallow Daybell and Chad Daybell proceedings. In those cases, he had to balance due process, public transparency, trial logistics, defendant rights, public attention, and courtroom control.
He stayed Lori Vallow Daybell’s case when competency was at issue. That is not softness. It is constitutional order. If the state can try a person who is not competent to understand the proceedings or assist in the defense, then the state can crush anyone. Due process protects the innocent and the guilty because the state must be kept under law.
Boyce allowed public access and broadcasting under restrictions in the Chad Daybell trial. That reflects a proper balance: courts should not operate in secret, but a murder trial should not become entertainment.
Boyce sanctioned an attorney over a last-minute filing that attempted to disrupt the Chad Daybell case. That also matters. A judge must not let chaos, spectacle, or procedural gamesmanship hijack a trial.
A judge should not turn the courtroom into a circus.
A judge should not ignore due process.
A judge should not let lawyers manipulate the system.
A judge should keep the courtroom under law.
Boyce’s Bar score was also very strong. His overall average was 3.66, with 3.70 for judicial temperament and demeanor.
Again, that score is not the moral standard. But in Boyce’s case, the professional signal supports the public record. He has been tested under pressure, and the record gives voters more than campaign language.
Randy Neal is not a weak candidate in every respect. He has real prosecution experience.
Neal is the Bonneville County Prosecutor. Public records from the Bonneville County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office show serious criminal prosecutions under his office, including the Compass Academy shooting case. In that case, Gabriel Aaron Perkins pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter in the death of Alex Barber and aggravated battery in the shooting of another Idaho Falls man.
That is not minor work. A prosecutor handling homicide-related and violent-crime cases is operating in the proper sphere of civil government.
Neal also has public involvement in human-trafficking and prostitution-related cases, according to public reporting. That matters because trafficking is a grave violation of human dignity. A civil magistrate should punish those who exploit others, especially the vulnerable.
The Costco baby-kidnapping case cuts both ways for Neal. A BYU-Idaho student was accused of kidnapping a baby at Costco, but after video review, the charges were dropped. That initial charge looked aggressive. But the later dismissal after evidence review is a restraint signal. A prosecutor who can back away when evidence does not support the charge is doing something morally important. The state must not crush a person merely to avoid embarrassment.
That is to Neal’s credit.
But Neal has two major weaknesses in this race.
First, he does not have Boyce’s judicial record. Prosecuting is not judging. A prosecutor is an advocate. A judge is a neutral legal officer. A good prosecutor can become a good judge, but the voter has to ask whether the prosecutor can stop advocating and start judging.
Second, Neal’s Bar score was extremely weak. His overall average was 1.66, with 1.58 for integrity and independence, 1.53 for judicial temperament and demeanor, and 1.75 for legal ability and experience.
That is not just a mild warning light. That is a bright warning light.
Could the legal establishment be punishing him because he is tough or conservative? Possibly. That is why the score should not be treated as moral authority.
But when the opponent is a sitting judge with a strong record, affirmed rulings, high-pressure trial management, and a strong professional signal, Neal would need strong counterevidence to overcome that.
There has also been public reporting that a defense attorney accused Neal of serious misconduct in the Compass Academy shooting case, and that Neal denied the allegations. An allegation is not proof. It should not be treated as a conviction. But it is relevant enough for voters to know that the issue exists because prosecutorial conduct and judicial temperament matter when a prosecutor wants to become a judge.
District 7 conclusion
Neal has legitimate prosecution experience and some positive restraint signals.
But Boyce has the better record for the office being sought. He has already shown how he judges. His record includes affirmed serious criminal sentences, probation accountability, due process management, courtroom control, and high-profile murder-trial administration.
This is not kingmaking. This is eliminating a higher-risk option.
Boyce is not merely the safer institutional choice. He is the better demonstrated judge.
District 7 pick: Steven W. Boyce.
Final voter slate after detailed review
District 1, Shoshone County: No recommendation
District 4, Ada County: Jeffrey Street Jr.
District 6, Caribou County: No recommendation
District 7, Madison County: Steven W. Boyce
Final voter takeaway
In District 1, Allen has the stronger concrete record because of prosecution, county legal responsibilities, property and public-access litigation, and Idaho Supreme Court level involvement. Chesebro has a balanced background in prosecution, defense, private practice, and court administration. Neither candidate has enough clear negative evidence to justify eliminating him or her. No recommendation.
In District 4, Street has the clearest judge-not-legislator posture and broad civil practice affecting families, businesses, contracts, injuries, abuse claims, and private disputes. Morse has a serious eligibility concern. Woodard has valuable legal experience, but not enough to overcome Street’s cleaner fit and Morse’s rule-of-law problem. Recommendation: Jeffrey Street Jr.
In District 6, Brower speaks more directly about constitutional restraint and not bending the law to personal preference. Thompson has stronger experience, stronger professional confidence, and a serious accountability signal in the Goody poisoning case. Neither candidate has enough clear negative evidence to justify eliminating him. No recommendation.
In District 7, Boyce has the strongest judicial record overall, with affirmed rulings across serious criminal cases and major Daybell trial management. Neal has a real prosecutor’s record, including serious violent-crime work, but his very low Bar score and public misconduct allegation, even though denied and not proven, create enough warning signs to recommend Boyce. Recommendation: Steven W. Boyce.
Final thought for voters
Do not ask whether a judge agrees with you on every issue.
Ask whether he knows he is not God, not king, and not legislature.
A good judge must be bound by law. He must interpret the law according to the legislators’ original intent, not his own preferred outcome. He must protect life, liberty, property, contract, due process, and family order. He must punish real evil and protect the innocent.
And when man’s law violates the objective moral laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, he must recognize that no government has authority to make evil righteous by writing it into statute.
That is the test.
By that test, this voter guide recommends Street in District 4 and Boyce in District 7. District 1 and District 6 receive no recommendation because the evidence does not justify eliminating either candidate.
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, supporting the acceptable candidate with the strongest realistic path to victory may be necessary to prevent the worst outcome. 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.
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.