Scandals and Controversies in the Otter Administration (2007–2019)

Introduction

C.L. “Butch” Otter served as Governor of Idaho for 12 years (2007–2019), with Brad Little as his Lieutenant Governor for eight of those years (2009–2019). Over this period, a series of scandals, controversies, and costly debacles unfolded in Idaho’s state government. These ranged from failed big-money projects and legal imbroglios to ethical lapses and intra-party rebellions. What is striking – and the crux of this discussion – is that Brad Little remained publicly silent through virtually all of them, despite being second-in-command. This silence has been noted with surprise by observers: during Otter’s long tenure, Idaho endured numerous embarrassing episodes, yet Lt. Gov. Little “never said one word” about them in public. This compilation provides a comprehensive chronicle of those episodes, big and small, and the political backlash they generated – often from within the Republican Party itself. (In Idaho’s one-party-dominant environment, criticism from fellow Republicans was especially telling.)

It’s important to note that in politics, “scandal” doesn’t always mean criminal wrongdoing – true criminal charges were rare in these cases. Instead, the bar for controversy here is often mismanagement, ethical conflicts, waste of taxpayer money, or defying the will of voters. Many of these incidents did indeed spark voter backlash or at least outcry from constituents, legislators, and the press. Below, we document every significant scandal or controversy of the Otter years (2007–2019), and how Little’s handling (or lack of handling) of each paints a picture of his role. This is intended as a full compendium, organized by topic, with detailed citations for each incident.

Education-Related Controversies

Education policy was a central arena of controversy during Governor Otter’s tenure. Idaho’s education system saw ambitious reforms that backfired, costly technology initiatives that imploded, and battles over standards – all amid chronically low education funding. These issues not only angered voters but often split the Republican base. Brad Little, by virtue of office, chaired the Idaho Senate and had a bully pulpit to speak on education, yet he aligned with Otter’s positions and avoided public dissent on even the most controversial episodes.

The “Students Come First” Laws and Voter Repeal (2011–2012)

Early in Otter’s second term, Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna (with the Governor’s backing) advanced a trio of sweeping education laws branded “Students Come First.” These 2011 laws limited teachers’ collective bargaining rights, eliminated teacher tenure, instituted pay-for-performance bonuses, and mandated significant technology integration – including providing a laptop for every high school student and requiring online courses for graduation. Otter and Luna sold these reforms as forward-looking change; many educators and parents saw them as overreach that was done with minimal input from teachers.

The backlash was swift and bipartisan. Teachers’ unions and public school advocates organized a repeal referendum, and in November 2012 Idaho voters resoundingly rejected all three laws. The margins were not even close: Proposition 1 (limiting bargaining) was defeated 57%-43%, Prop 2 (teacher bonus pay) 58%-42%, and Prop 3 (the laptops and online class mandate) by an overwhelming 67%-33%. In fact, more Idahoans voted to reject Prop 3 than voted for Mitt Romney in that heavy GOP turnout year. It was a stunning rebuke in a conservative state – “a major blow,” as Education Week reported, to the agenda of Otter, Luna, and the GOP legislature.

The rejection of the Luna laws – often called the “Luna Laws” by detractors – stands as one of the biggest popular backlashes in Idaho history. It showed that education issues don’t always fall along party lines. Many Republican-leaning voters joined Democrats and independents in overturning what they saw as a top-down, anti-teacher package. As one leader of the repeal effort put it, “voters will hold their elected leaders accountable”. The defeat embarrassed Governor Otter and forced the legislature to go back to the drawing board on education reform.

Brad Little’s role: Little publicly supported the “Students Come First” reforms in 2011 – there is no record of him objecting to any aspect of them. As President of the Senate, he helped shepherd the bills through the legislature. And when voters repealed the laws, Little did not issue statements acknowledging the voters’ will or suggesting a need to heed their concerns. In 2012, Otter and Luna formed a campaign to urge voters to uphold the laws; they named co-chairs for this effort (including respected figures like former Gov. Phil Batt). Little was not a co-chair, but he was aligned with Otter in opposition to the repeal. After the referendum, the Governor’s office took a conciliatory tone about “listening” to voters, but neither Otter nor Little admitted outright that the reforms had been ill-conceived. Little’s silence in the face of the overwhelming public rejection was noted by political observers as a sign of his loyalty to the administration’s line. He certainly did not distance himself from the failed laws.

The Luna Laws episode was costly in multiple ways: a reported $6.4 million was spent by both sides campaigning for and against the propositionsedweek.org 1, precious political capital was burned, and the effort arguably set back Idaho’s education progress (time and resources were spent on reforms that never took effect, then on restoring elements like teacher salary grids afterward). It was precisely the kind of high-profile debacle one might expect a lieutenant governor with future ambitions to comment on – even if only to promise “we learned our lesson.” But Little stayed mum publicly, appearing to tacitly support the Otter/Luna approach even after voters had repudiated it. This would later be a campaign point for his opponents, who painted him as out of touch with voters on education.

The Idaho Education Network (IEN) Broadband Fiasco

One of the costliest scandals of the Otter years was the collapse of the Idaho Education Network, a statewide school broadband project. This saga combined contracting irregularities, legal battles, wasted taxpayer dollars, and loss of crucial services for schools – a textbook example of mismanagement. It unfolded over most of Otter’s tenure and became a byword for government failure in Idaho. An Idaho state representative even invoked it in 2018, saying “in light of the governor’s history regarding the state’s procurement process during the Idaho Education Network debacle, which cost Idaho taxpayers millions…” – a blunt reminder of this fiasco’s legacy.

Here’s the timeline of the IEN scandal:

• 2008: The Idaho legislature unanimously authorized the Idaho Education Network, aiming to connect every high school with high-speed internet and enable videoconference classes statewideidahoednews.org 2. Lawmakers were told the $60 million project would be funded by federal “e-Rate” funds (from phone bill fees) and not burden Idaho’s general fund. The contract to build and run the network was awarded to Qwest (now CenturyLink) and Education Networks of America (ENA) – a deal orchestrated by Mike Gwartney, Otter’s close friend and head of the Dept. of Administration.
• 2009: A small Idaho telecom firm, Syringa Networks, sued, alleging the contract award violated state procurement law. Syringa said it had been cut out unfairly in favor of the Governor’s friends – indeed, Gwartney had abruptly canceled the normal bidding and handed a chunk of the project to Qwest (the local telephone giant) via an amendment, which Syringa claimed was illegal. This lawsuit would hang over the IEN for years.
• 2010–2013: While the lawsuit crawled through the courts, the IEN was built out to schools. But by 2013, the FCC’s e-Rate program froze payments to Idaho because of the unresolved legal questions. That meant federal funds stopped, and Idaho suddenly had to pick up the tab to keep the network online. In January 2014, legislators were blindsided by a $14.45 million bill to pay IEN vendors for the shortfall. This was unbudgeted money that had to be coughed up from Idaho’s general fund, contrary to the project’s original promises.
• Early 2015: The court case reached a climax. District Judge Patrick Owen ruled the IEN contract illegal and void in November 2014. Otter’s administration appealed, but in March 2015 – with the network’s funding in limbo – the IEN went dark. The state could no longer pay ENA and CenturyLink without a valid contract. Idaho’s high schools lost their broadband service virtually overnight, and school districts scrambled to sign individual internet contracts to finish the school year. It was a chaotic situation; the new State Superintendent, Sherri Ybarra, had to coordinate emergency measures to keep schools online.
• 2016: The Idaho Supreme Court unanimously upheld the lower court – the contract was void. This left Idaho on the hook for potentially tens of millions: the federal government could demand repayment of ~$13 million already paid in e-Rate funds, and the vendors (CenturyLink/ENA) claimed they were owed $37 million for work done. Essentially, years of work and funding were in jeopardy because the state had not followed its own procurement laws.
• 2017: Finally, a settlement was reached. Governor Otter announced a deal in March 2017 to pay $3.5 million more to CenturyLink and ENA to settle all claims. In this deal, the companies agreed not to pursue the larger sums, and the state wouldn’t try to claw back payments. The settlement money came from funds the legislature had set aside (they had reluctantly earmarked $8 million in 2016 in hopes of a settlement). With those checks, the books were closed on the IEN debacle.

The bottom line: Idaho had directly spent at least $18.2 million on the failed IEN project – with nothing to show for it. That figure includes the emergency payments to keep it afloat ($11+ million) and legal settlement costs. It does not include the immeasurable costs of lost educational opportunities or the staff time consumed by litigation and re-procurement. What started as a visionary idea ended as a cautionary tale.

Political fallout was significant. The IEN scandal “drove a wedge between Republican state leaders,” notably between Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, who traded blame over the fiasco. (Wasden had warned about the contract’s flaws and ultimately refused to defend it further; Otter’s office pointed fingers elsewhere.) In the court of public opinion, the IEN was seen as a cronyism fiasco: the role of Mike Gwartney, the Governor’s confidant, was central. Syringa’s claims implied Gwartney steered the deal to favor Qwest (whose local executive, former GOP chairman Tom Kuropatkin, was also an Otter ally). This stench of favoritism, and the huge waste of taxpayer dollars, made the IEN a scandal that haunted the Otter administration for years. Even in 2018, Rep. Wendy Horman referenced the IEN mess when pushing back on Otter (as noted above).

Brad Little’s role: Little was Lieutenant Governor throughout the IEN’s lifespan, but he was never directly managing it – the project was under the Dept. of Administration and the Governor’s office. However, as presiding officer of the Senate, he did advocate for continuing to fund the IEN while the litigation was pending, echoing Otter’s position that the network was valuable even as legal clouds gathered. Crucially, Little never voiced public criticism of the procurement process or how the Governor’s team handled the contract. If he had private reservations, he kept them to himself. When the scandal broke open (contract voided, network shut off), Little stayed on the sidelines publicly. He did not, for instance, support legislative calls for deeper investigation into how it went wrong. His silence aligned him squarely with Otter’s approach – which was to begrudgingly settle the matter but avoid acknowledging fault. The IEN debacle became a talking point for Otter’s critics (Russ Fulcher cited it while challenging Otter), and by extension it was a talking point against Little in 2018, as he was part of the administration that created “this costly mess.”

To put it bluntly, Brad Little never publicly held anyone accountable for IEN. Not Gwartney (who left in 2010 with no comment from Little), not Otter, not anyone. When Horman in 2018 quipped about Otter’s history on procurement, it underscored that many in Little’s own party remembered and resented the IEN fiasco. Little, however, made no such remarks. His critics argue that this was a missed opportunity to demonstrate independent judgment and fiscal guardianship.

Teacher Evaluation Software Contract Dust-Up (2018)

In the waning days of Otter’s administration, a mini-scandal erupted that illustrated ongoing tensions over procurement and transparency – and again, it was Otter versus members of his own party. In late 2018, Governor Otter publicly rebuked a fellow Republican, Rep. Wendy Horman (Idaho Falls), and Matt Freeman, the executive director of the State Board of Education, accusing them of attempting to circumvent state procurement laws.

The issue centered on a $1 million budget item that the legislature (JFAC, co-chaired by Horman on the House side) had approved for a software program to help school districts with teacher evaluations. When the State Board put out a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the software, it became clear that the timeline was too tight – the requirement was to have the system up by the start of the school year, which was unrealistic by the time funds were available. Freeman, the State Board director, in consultation with Rep. Horman, decided it would be more sensible to cancel the RFP and either reallocate the funds directly to districts or revert the money, rather than push through a likely failed procurement. They communicated these reasons (the school year had already started, etc.) in writing.

Governor Otter, however, was infuriated by this move. He insisted the RFP go forward and that the contract be awarded as intended. In an unusual step, Otter wrote a sharply worded letter accusing Horman and Freeman of flouting legal procurement procedures. He even hinted their actions might invite a lawsuit from a vendor if the RFP were canceled. Essentially, Otter believed the executive branch’s authority over contracts was being undermined by a legislator and an appointee. Freeman complied in the end – the RFP was reactivated on Otter’s orders.

Rep. Horman did not take kindly to Otter’s public scolding. She fired back with a statement reminding everyone of the Otter administration’s own procurement scandal – the IEN. Horman wrote: “In light of the governor’s history regarding the state’s procurement process during the Idaho Education Network debacle, which cost Idaho taxpayers millions of dollars, legislators need to ask the hard questions to do their homework.”. In other words, she implied Otter had little moral high ground on proper contracting, given the IEN mess, and that her due diligence was aimed at avoiding another debacle.

This back-and-forth happened in November 2018, after the elections (Otter was a lame duck). It was highly unusual to see such a public intra-GOP spat. Essentially, a respected lawmaker (Horman) and the State Board were on one side, and the outgoing Governor on the other. The dispute combined issues of timely use of funds, bureaucratic process, and legacy of mistrust from past scandals.

Brad Little’s role: Little had just been elected Governor a few days before this came out (he won the November 2018 election). Notably, he stayed completely out of this fight publicly. Given that the controversy was about a budget his legislature passed and something that would be his problem to handle as incoming governor, one might have expected Little to play peacemaker or at least comment. He did not. The incident quietly resolved: the contract was ultimately awarded under Otter’s directive (Otter insisted on “state-level oversight” of teacher evaluations). But the damage – in terms of reminding everyone about IEN and exposing rifts – was done.

For Little, this was perhaps an awkward situation: Horman was a key legislator he’d need on his side, but Otter was his mentor. His silence likely reflected not wanting to choose sides. However, it also was consistent with the pattern – Little rarely, if ever, intervened or spoke up when Otter clashed with others, even as those others cited very legitimate concerns.

Common Core and Idaho Content Standards

While not a scandal in terms of wrongdoing, the issue of Common Core education standards (branded in Idaho as “Idaho Core Standards”) was politically explosive and created controversy among voters and the GOP base. Otter’s administration, through Supt. Tom Luna, was an early adopter of Common Core around 2010–2011. Idaho joined the multistate initiative to raise math and English standards. Initially, many Republicans supported it, but the national backlash against “Common Core” soon seeped into Idaho. By 2014, conservative activists were equating Common Core with federal overreach in local schools.

In the 2014 GOP primary, both of Otter’s opponents (state Sen. Russ Fulcher and anti-Common Core activist Walt Bayes) hammered him on Common Core. Fulcher in an op-ed accused Otter of “supporting ... Common Core education standards in Idaho – things that are mostly unwanted in Idaho, and devastating to our future.”. This reflected the sentiment of many grassroots Republicans at the time. The Common Core standards were blamed (often inaccurately) for changes in curriculum and were opposed by those who wanted Idaho to chart its own course. Otter narrowly survived that primary challenge, but it was a signal that a chunk of GOP voters were rebelling on education policy.

Brad Little, during these years, steadfastly supported the state’s education standards. He never joined Common Core criticism. In fact, in 2014, Little said the standards were “necessary to help Idaho students be competitive” (paraphrasing from campaign forums). He positioned himself as an education moderate who worked on early literacy and wanted higher academic expectations. Thus, on Common Core he was aligned with Otter and the education establishment, and opposed by the insurgent wing of his party. There wasn’t a personal scandal here, but it’s notable because Little’s support for Common Core became part of the wider narrative of him being an establishment figure out of step with the party’s right wing. This narrative fed into controversies like the convention fight (discussed later) and voter distrust.

In summary, on education controversies, Brad Little stood by Governor Otter’s initiatives, even as some of those initiatives blew up spectacularly or drew heavy backlash. Whether it was the Luna Laws (rejected by voters), the IEN network (voided by courts, costing millions), or curriculum standards (reviled by many conservatives), Little did not publicly break ranks. He did not use his influence to pump the brakes on risky endeavors like the IEN, nor did he raise a red flag about public concerns like those that led to the referendum. This unwavering loyalty to the administration’s education agenda endeared him to Otter’s allies but provided ample fodder to critics who later said Little “slept through” the scandals on his watch.

State Contracting and Cronyism Issues

Several major controversies during Otter’s governorship revolved around state contracts, procurement practices, and allegations of cronyism or favoritism. We have already covered the largest of these (the IEN broadband contract) in the education section, but there were others across different agencies. These episodes often involved Otter appointing close friends or political allies to key positions, after which questions of favoritism arose. In some cases, the state ended up in legal trouble or had to pay settlements due to these issues. The recurring theme was concern – even among Republicans – that proper procedures were bypassed to benefit insiders. This eroded public trust and earned Idaho a poor reputation in some “state integrity” rankings.

Brad Little’s name doesn’t appear in the center of these contract disputes, but as the Lt. Governor and a long-time insider, he was inevitably associated with the administration’s way of doing business. Notably, Little did not publicly dissent or call for reforms in procurement or ethics; he maintained a supportive stance toward the Governor’s decisions and appointments.

Let’s examine the key instances:

Health Insurance Exchange Contract Conflict of Interest (2013)

In 2013, Idaho made the consequential choice (pushed by Gov. Otter) to create a state-based health insurance exchange under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This itself was controversial (many hardliners wanted to refuse anything to do with “Obamacare”), but Otter argued that a state exchange, later named “Your Health Idaho,” would keep Idaho in control of its insurance market. The legislature authorized the exchange, and Otter appointed a 19-member board to govern it.

No sooner had the exchange begun operations than a scandal hit in the fall of 2013. The exchange’s executive director, Amy Dowd, awarded a no-bid contract worth up to $375,000 to one of the exchange’s own board members, Frank Chan. Chan was an IT consultant. He resigned from the board the same day Dowd gave him the contract, which was to oversee the exchange’s technology as Idaho transitioned off the federal healthcare.gov platform. The deal would pay Chan’s company $180 per hour, up to $375k – a sizable sum – and it was not competitively bid due to claimed time constraints.

When this came to light (thanks to Associated Press reporting), it looked like blatant self-dealing: a board member essentially getting a lucrative contract from an organization he oversaw. The public and political backlash was fierce. Both Democrats and Republicans were unhappy. House Speaker Scott Bedke, a Republican, publicly called the no-bid insider deal “indefensible.” Within days, the contract with Chan was canceled amid the outcry.

The exchange board moved to damage-control. It severed ties with Amy Dowd not long after (she left for a job in New Mexico in 2014), and put in new rules: any future exchange contract over $15,000 would require full board approval, and board members were barred from bidding on exchange work. The board also commissioned an independent review by a private attorney of what went wrong with the Chan contract.

However, adding to frustration, the board kept that investigative report secret, citing attorney-client privilege. They revealed only that the lawyer found “lapses in judgment” but “no laws were broken.” The lack of full transparency didn’t sit well with many (media editorials slammed the decision to keep the report under wraps). It looked like another instance of Idaho’s government preferring opacity when things got embarrassing.

Where was Governor Otter in this? Formally, the exchange was an independent entity once created, but Otter had championed it and appointed most of its board. The scandal reflected on his administration’s oversight. Yet, Otter was largely silent publicly – his office commented that the board had handled it. Behind the scenes, reports later showed Otter’s staff knew about the contract in advance: emails indicated Dowd had informed Otter’s office of her intent to hire Chan before it was finalized. If true, that meant the Governor’s staff did not intervene to stop a clear conflict of interest. Fulcher alluded to this in his 2014 challenge, noting “when the Exchange Director awarded a six-figure contract to a board member that Otter’s staff knew about in advance, the Governor was silent. Even after an investigation, their findings were kept private. Otter was silent again.”.

Brad Little’s role: Little’s public involvement with the Your Health Idaho exchange was minimal. He supported creating the exchange in the 2013 legislature, aligning with Otter’s stance. When the Chan contract scandal broke, Little made no public comment (unsurprisingly, as it wasn’t in his purview). However, the significance is that this became another entry in the ledger of “Otter administration controversies.” It fed a narrative used by opponents that the Otter/Little team tolerated a culture of back-scratching and then opacity. Little did not push for any broader reforms like strengthening Idaho’s conflict-of-interest or procurement laws in response. In fairness, the exchange board itself implemented some fixes. But the episode reinforced distrust. It was a mini-scandal with outsized symbolic weight: even in implementing Obamacare (which was already contentious), the administration stumbled into ethics issues.

This incident was frequently mentioned alongside IEN and the CCA prison issue by those critical of Otter’s management. Each time, Little’s name wasn’t in the headlines, but his lack of critique and constant support of Otter tied him to the outcomes.

Firing of Transportation Director Pam Lowe (2009) – Cronyism and $750k Settlement

In mid-2009, the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) summarily fired its director, Pamela Lowe, under murky circumstances. Lowe had been the first woman to head ITD, a lifelong department employee who rose through the ranks and by all accounts was competent. Her dismissal raised eyebrows because no cause was given, and it came after she had clashed with powerful interests. Lowe fought back with a wrongful termination lawsuit, and over the next three years, details emerged painting a picture of political cronyism and retaliation – ultimately costing Idaho taxpayers a large settlement.

Key points of the Pam Lowe case:

• Lowe was appointed ITD Director in early 2007 (under Otter) and initially had support. But she soon moved to scale back a massive ITD contract with a group called “Connecting Idaho Partners,” led by URS Corporation (formerly Washington Group). This contract, worth up to $50 million, was to manage highway construction (the GARVEE bond-funded projects). Lowe found that the work could be done for less and tried to cut the contract value by roughly half – potentially saving taxpayers tens of millions.
• URS Corp. and its local partner WGI were not just any contractors – they were politically connected. URS/WGI had executives who were major donors to Gov. Otter’s campaigns, and also donated to key legislators like then-Senate Transportation Chair John McGee. In fact, WGI (Washington Group) was one of Otter’s top contributors in 2006. This raised red flags when Lowe’s effort to reduce their contract met resistance.
• According to Lowe’s lawsuit, Governor Otter’s chief of staff at the time (Jeff Malmen) pressured her not to cut the contract with URS/WGI. She persisted, believing it was in the public’s interest to eliminate waste. Subsequently, Senator McGee (an Otter ally) introduced a bill in the 2009 legislature to strip the Transportation Board of its power to hire the ITD director, effectively making it easier to fire Lowe. That bill didn’t pass, but the message was clear and ominous.
• July 2009: The Idaho Transportation Board (mostly Otter appointees) abruptly fired Pam Lowe. They gave no performance-related reason. Internal sources and later court filings indicated the firing was politically motivated – Lowe had stood up to pressure from the Governor’s office and certain legislators on the URS contract, and she also alleged gender discrimination (her successor, a male, was hired at a higher salary).
• Lowe filed suit in 2009, claiming wrongful termination due to political retaliation and sexism. During discovery, explosive allegations came out: Lowe said Board members told her that Senator McGee (the one tied to the URS contractor) had basically blackmailed the board – if they didn’t fire her, he’d push that bill to remove their authority. “More than one board member” told her it was “pure politics” and that pressure from McGee and the Governor’s office led to her ouster. McGee, for context, was a rising GOP star at the time (more on him later).
• August 2012: After three years of legal battle – which surely cost both sides a lot – the state agreed to settle with Pam Lowe. They paid her $750,000 and her attorneys $187,500, for a total of $940,000. On top of that, the state had already spent over $500,000 on its own legal defense (hiring private attorneys). All told, the case cost Idaho around $1.34 million. The settlement included no admission of wrongdoing (as typical) and a non-disparagement clause. But the facts that emerged spoke loudly. Notably, the very contract Lowe tried to shrink (to save money) ended up ballooning to $83 million after she was gone. So instead of saving $20 million as she attempted, Idaho paid even more – strongly suggesting Lowe’s concerns were valid.

The Pam Lowe saga is a classic instance of an honest public servant seemingly removed for doing the right thing, and taxpayers paying the price for the politics. It was covered in the press and drew criticism of Otter’s administration for fostering an environment where insiders’ financial interests trumped good governance. Even normally business-friendly observers were troubled: the Spokesman-Review editorialized about the hefty settlement and pointed out that firing Lowe ultimately cost Idaho money and allowed contract costs to soar.

What did Brad Little do about this? Nothing visible. At the time (2009), Little had just become Lt. Governor. These events were unfolding mostly behind closed doors. Little was not known to weigh in on agency personnel matters – that’s the Governor’s realm. And when the case settled in 2012, neither Otter nor Little made public comments beyond generic statements. If anything, Otter’s team maintained that the board had the right to fire Lowe at will (Idaho is an “at-will” employment state, but Lowe argued an exception since firing for refusal to break law or for discrimination is illegal).

For Brad Little, this case may have registered as an unfortunate spat, but he showed no inclination to distance himself from how it was handled. He did not champion any reform (e.g., protecting whistleblowers or scrutinizing contracts) in response. His silence here again signaled status quo. Importantly, Republican legislators noticed the Lowe case; some were upset at how a competent official was treated. It likely seeded some distrust toward Otter’s inner circle. By the time Little ran for Governor, the Lowe case was part of the litany of “Otter’s mistakes” that opponents could indirectly reference to question the culture Little came from.

In summary, the ITD/Pam Lowe scandal highlighted cronyism and misuse of power, costing Idaho financially and in reputation. It’s a clear instance where lack of internal resistance (i.e., no one inside state government took a stand then) led to a bad outcome. Brad Little, rather than being an internal watchdog, was perceived as just another figure in the establishment who went along.

Tax Commission “Secret Deals” and Chairman Resignation (2008–2011)

Another controversy involving favoritism and insiders occurred at the Idaho State Tax Commission – essentially the state’s tax collection agency. It was less publicly notorious than IEN or the Luna laws, but it was a big deal within government circles and prompted legislative hearings and resignations. The crux was allegations that politically connected taxpayers were getting sweetheart tax settlements in back rooms, depriving the state of revenue and undermining fairness.

In 2008, a longtime Tax Commission auditor, Stan Howland, turned whistleblower and filed an affidavit alleging that the Commission had a practice of signing secret agreements with certain large taxpayers (often multistate corporations) to forgive or reduce their tax bills. These settlements, he claimed, violated Idaho law because they bypassed procedures and gave undue breaks to those with insider access. Howland’s claims suggested Idaho was losing out on millions in revenue as a result. This caused an uproar – Democrats and some Republicans demanded answers.

Governor Otter responded by ordering an internal review. The Attorney General (Wasden) also reviewed it. In the end, the official line was that nothing illegal had occurred. A report in 2008 by a special counsel (Otter hired former federal judge Bob Sinclair to review) concluded the tax deals were within the commission’s authority, though the process could be improved. Idaho’s Attorney General similarly said no laws were broken by the practice of settling cases quietly. However, these findings didn’t entirely dispel concern. The legislature in 2009 passed a law requiring the Tax Commission to report more information on settlements to the Legislature (to shine some light, albeit aggregate data).

Fast-forward to 2011: A new scandal hit the Tax Commission, reinforcing those earlier fears. Royce Chigbrow, the Chairman of the Tax Commission (appointed by Otter in 2007), was accused by employees of intervening in tax cases to benefit personal associatesspokesman.com 3. Chigbrow was not just any appointee – he was Otter’s long-time friend and former campaign treasurer, a classic example of Otter putting a loyalist in a key post. The specific allegations were serious:

• Chigbrow allegedly provided confidential tax information to a Boise businessman friend (Skip Hofferber) who was involved in a dispute with his former employer. Hofferber wasn’t entitled to that info – potentially a violation of law since tax information is protected.
• Chigbrow allegedly tried to influence the outcome of that case, including summoning auditors to his office to discuss leniency and even trying to halt a particular tax collection action against the company that fired his friend.
• Separately, employees said Chigbrow intervened to reduce a payment plan for a taxpayer who was a client of Chigbrow’s son’s accounting firm – another blatant conflict.
• There was also an odd incident where Chigbrow handled checks from that friend at a private club, leading to a Boise police investigation (implying some impropriety in how those checks were processed).

When these allegations surfaced (through internal whistleblowers going to a legislator and AP reporter John Miller), it was a scandal. House Speaker Lawerence Denney (a Republican) said it warranted investigation. Ada County’s prosecutor began looking into whether confidentiality laws were broken. Essentially, it looked like Chigbrow was using his position to do favors for friends and family – exactly the kind of “good ol’ boy” behavior critics suspect in one-party states.

The pressure was intense and Chigbrow resigned immediately (Jan 2011) as soon as this became public. In his resignation letter to Otter, he said, “unfortunately, and perhaps unfairly, I have become the issue”. Otter accepted the resignation without addressing the allegations, merely praising Chigbrow as a friend and thanking him for his service. That lack of acknowledgment rubbed some the wrong way, but it was in keeping with Otter’s style of not airing dirty laundry.

After Chigbrow’s resignation, lawmakers convened to consider reforms. The Tax Commission was seen as needing reorganization. That same year, a group of taxpayers had filed a lawsuit alleging that the Commission’s secret settlements (the ones Howland exposed) gave breaks to politically connected people, and while that suit was later dropped (perhaps due to Chigbrow stepping down and some policy changes), the whole affair left a bad taste. The State Integrity Investigation in 2012 gave Idaho a D- grade, citing the Chigbrow episode as evidence of weak ethical oversight.

Brad Little’s role: Little again was not directly involved in the Tax Commission – it’s run by a board of commissioners. But politically, this was Otter’s mess. Chigbrow was Otter’s guy. The scandal played into the narrative of an old-boy network doing favors behind closed doors. Little, as part of the administration, did not comment publicly on it. If anything, he maintained support for Otter’s overall stewardship. There’s no record of Little pushing for tougher ethics rules or supporting the whistleblowers. His silence could be interpreted as loyalty or simply keeping out of something that didn’t involve his office.

However, consider that these controversies (Lowe, Chigbrow, etc.) together paint a picture. By 2012, Idaho Democrats were routinely citing them as evidence the state needed a house-cleaning. Even some Republicans were frustrated. When Little ran for Governor in 2018, he had to contend with this history. Opponents would say, “Butch Otter’s administration had scandal after scandal – and Brad Little was there the whole time saying everything was fine.” Little’s response was usually that he would continue the good parts of Otter’s legacy but do some things his “own way.” The challenge was that he had no record of ever challenging the bad parts of that legacy. In debates, when asked about these prior issues, Little tended to deflect or downplay them, focusing on Idaho’s economic growth instead.

Other Patronage and Ethical Notes

Beyond the major cases above, Otter’s tenure had a general aura (at least to critics) of patronage politics – appointing friends and allies to positions, some of whom then had issues:

• Otter appointed his close friend and former campaign manager, Debbie Field, to head a new Office of Drug Policy. Field did fine in that role, but it was an example of a created position filled without search.
• He appointed Celia Gould, a former Republican lawmaker and ally, as Director of Agriculture. Gould was competent and remains in that post, but again it reinforced that Otter relied on a close-knit circle.
• Perhaps the most infamous appointment was Judge John Bradbury to a judgeship in 2009, which had to be rescinded when it was realized the appointment was illegal (Bradbury didn’t actually apply through proper channels). That was a minor embarrassment early on.
• Otter’s chiefs of staff revolved door into lobbying: Jeff Malmen left to lobby for Idaho Power, Jason Kreizenbeck left to lobby for private prison firm CCA. While not scandals per se, these moves fueled talk that Otter’s administration was an insiders’ club with cozy ties to industry. The Kreizenbeck-as-CCA-lobbyist situation, for example, was glaring during the prison scandal (next section)spokesman.com 4.
• First Lady Lori Otter even got in a bit of controversy in 2015 for lobbying (successfully) to exempt Girl Scout cookie sales from tax – hardly a scandal, but it raised questions since ordinarily you have to register as a lobbyist (the First Lady did not, and she was pushing a pet bill with the weight of the Governor’s office informally behind her).

The common thread in all these is that Idaho’s governance under Otter was tightly interwoven with personal relationships. That in itself isn’t illegal, but it can lead to trouble when watchdogs are few. State Sen. Dean Mortimer once remarked, after yet another problem emerged, that Idaho might need an Inspector General – an independent oversight figure – something Idaho lacks.

Brad Little, being a product of Idaho’s political establishment (his family is prominent; he was appointed to the senate originally by Gov. Dirk Kempthorne), was not seen as someone who would rock that boat. He never advocated for an Inspector General or an ethics commission. He projected a “business as usual” continuity. In private, Little is known as affable and honest in personal dealings – even adversaries don’t claim he’s personally corrupt. But his leadership style as Lt. Governor was non-confrontational, and that meant going along with the patronage system rather than questioning it.

To sum up this section: The Otter administration was marred by several state contracting and cronyism controversies – from the health exchange and ITD firing to the Tax Commission favoritism. Each had different details, but all underscored concerns about how Idaho’s government awarded deals and treated insiders. These incidents did have political costs: they motivated reform efforts (some successful, some not) and contributed to intra-party rifts. Through all of it, Brad Little did not emerge as a reformer or critic; he was seen, rightly or wrongly, as complicit by silence. This pattern would give plenty of ammunition to opponents labeling him a continuation of whatever they didn’t like about “the last 12 years.”

Corrections and Law Enforcement Controversies

Idaho’s handling of its prison system and law enforcement produced some of the most lurid headlines of the Otter era. The state experimented with prison privatization, sparking a scandal so notorious it became known nationally. There were also issues with how the state carried out capital punishment and how certain law enforcement matters were handled. These controversies not only cost money but also raised moral and legal questions. They often pitted the Otter administration against civil liberties groups or even against other Idaho officials (like the Attorney General). We will focus on the major items:

Private Prison “Gladiator School” Scandal (Idaho Correctional Center)

One of the darkest chapters was what happened at the Idaho Correctional Center (ICC), the state’s largest prison, located south of Boise. In 2008, early in Otter’s term, the state signed a deal to outsource the operation of ICC to Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) – part of a broader ideological push to privatize and save money on prisons. This actually had begun briefly under Gov. Jim Risch in 2006, but Otter embraced continuing it. For several years, CCA ran ICC while Idaho’s Department of Correction (IDOC) monitored the contract.

What unfolded was a humanitarian and management disaster that came to symbolize the pitfalls of for-profit prisons. Key points:

• Excessive Violence: ICC developed a reputation for extreme inmate-on-inmate violence. It got the nickname “Gladiator School” because inmates (and later lawsuits) alleged that guards were intentionally housing violent offenders with weaker ones and then not intervening in assaults** – effectively turning a blind eye to “prison justice” as a way to control the population on the cheap. In 2010, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of inmates, calling ICC “gladiator school” and claiming CCA was violating prisoners’ Eighth Amendment rights by letting this happen.
• Video Evidence: In 2012, an Associated Press investigation obtained a surveillance video from ICC that horrified viewers. It showed an inmate being brutally beaten unconscious by another prisoner in view of guards, who failed to stop the attack for several minutes. The victim, a man named Hoffer, was in a coma for days and suffered permanent brain damage. This video, which AP released, underlined the allegations that ICC guards were neglecting basic safety. It caused public outrage and spurred officials in Boise to finally pay attention.
• Understaffing and Falsified Records: Concurrently, CCA was found to be understaffing the prison and falsifying records to cover it up. In other words, CCA was billing the state for full staffing levels that they were not actually maintaining, leaving posts empty to save on labor costs. Documents unearthed (again by AP and also by IDOC internally) showed IDOC officials had suspected or known of these violations but failed to enforce the contract strictly. It was a potential fraud on taxpayers.
• State Response – Slow, then Sudden: For a long time, Gov. Otter defended privatization, insisting it could work if done right. Despite early warning signs (the ACLU suit, inmate complaints), the Otter administration didn’t act decisively until the evidence became overwhelming. Attorney General Wasden in early 2013 wrote to Otter and IDOC directors calling for a criminal investigation into CCA’s falsified staffing records. In July 2013, faced with mounting pressure, Gov. Otter finally directed the Idaho State Police to investigate CCA for possible fraud. However, ISP did little and eventually punted to federal authorities. (It later emerged ISP had conflicts of interest** in its investigation – they never searched CCA computers, partly because the lead ISP investigator sought a job with IDOC; the whole thing was bungled. The FBI ultimately declined to prosecute CCA executives, and no criminal charges were filed.)
• End of Privatization: In January 2014, with scandals boiling over, Gov. Otter announced that the state would not renew CCA’s contract when it expired that year – effectively ending the private-prison experiment. Otter’s tone was grudging; he said the state could run ICC for about the same cost as CCA’s $29 million/year fee, so it wasn’t worth rebidding. (Privately, it was clear CCA was toxified by then; even CCA had preemptively said it wouldn’t bid again.)
• $1 Million Settlement: Before turning the prison back to state control, Idaho’s government negotiated with CCA over the falsified staffing issue. CCA wanted to avoid lawsuits, and in February 2014 CCA agreed to pay the state $1 million to settle all claims of understaffing. Notably, this settlement amount was a pittance compared to what some thought CCA truly owed for hours understaffed – but Otter’s administration accepted it and even credited CCA for cooperating. (Critics called it insufficient accountability, essentially a slap on the wrist for a company with nearly $2 billion in annual revenue.)

Throughout this saga, the role of money and influence was scrutinized. It emerged that CCA and its top executives had donated generously to Otter over the years (at least $20,000 since 2003 in campaign contributions). Moreover, Otter’s former chief of staff, Jason Kreizenbeck, was CCA’s lobbyist in Idaho and had arranged meetings between CCA’s CEO and Otter. This looked bad: the Governor had a clear conflict of interest (friends and funds from CCA) even as his administration was supposed to be objectively handling CCA’s breach of contract. Otter eventually recused himself from direct settlement negotiations in 2014, admitting the appearance issue. But by then, the damage – to inmates, to taxpayers, and to Otter’s reputation – was done.

The public and political reaction to “Gladiator School” was strong. A.J. Balukoff, the Democrat who ran against Otter in 2014, hammered the Governor in ads for the prison fiasco, accusing him of cronyism and negligence. Even in the GOP primary, Russ Fulcher seized on it: “Only after I demanded that Idaho's privately run prison be investigated for overcharging taxpayers, understaffing, and mismanagement did Governor Otter grudgingly consent to an investigation,” Fulcher wrote. That statement was true – Otter dragged his feet until it became untenable. It’s rare to see a sitting Republican governor lambasted like that by his own party’s legislator, but it happened here.

Brad Little’s role: As Lt. Governor, Little had no operational control over prisons. He was not on record praising or condemning the CCA deal prior to the scandal – prison issues seldom crossed his desk officially. However, politically, Little was again in lockstep with Otter. He did not publicly dissent at any point in this process:

·         When news of violence at ICC came out, Little didn’t make statements advocating change.

·         When legislators like Fulcher and others demanded investigations or an end to the contract, Little did not join those calls.

·         After the fact, when Otter ended the contract and critics were saying “I told you so,” Little’s stance was effectively supportive of Otter’s decisions. He generally avoided commenting on the prison issue, possibly seeing it as a no-win topic for him.

During the 2018 campaign, some voters remembered the prison scandal and asked what Little would do to ensure better oversight. Little distanced himself only in the sense that, “Well, that was then; we’ll make sure things run right now.” But he couldn’t distance too much without implying Otter failed, which he has been loath to do.

One telling detail: Otter in the 2014 debates said he “recused” himself from the CCA settlement due to donations, which sounded noble until reporters found out he had in fact met with CCA execs in 2013 along with his lobbyist ex-chief of staff. It looked like he only recused at the very end, and perhaps under advice. Little never commented on that either.

The CCA fiasco was arguably the most disgraceful scandal of Otter’s tenure because it involved real physical harm to people and potential malfeasance. It showed lack of oversight, influence of money in policy (privatization driven by ideology and donor influence, not results), and resistance to accountability (ISP’s half-hearted investigation, minimal settlement). Little’s response was to effectively keep quiet and let Otter handle it. As a consequence, when opponents say “Little said nothing while guards were letting prisoners beat each other”, it resonates with some voters as a moral indictment of inaction. It’s harsh, but it’s the political narrative emerging from that silence.

Execution Secrecy and Death Penalty Drug Controversy

While not as high-profile as the prison issue, the Otter administration faced criticism over its handling of executions and lethal injection drugs. Idaho is a death-penalty state, and during Otter’s time, the state carried out two executions (in 2011 and 2012) after a long hiatus. Both were done by lethal injection, and both raised questions:

• Idaho, like other states, struggled to obtain the drugs for lethal injection as manufacturers (especially in Europe) stopped selling them for executions. In 2012, it came out that Idaho had participated in a sketchy drug importation: the state obtained sodium thiopental (an anesthetic) from a supplier in India for the 2011 execution of Paul Rhoades. This was done quietly and potentially in violation of FDA rules (the FDA was intercepting such shipments). When this surfaced in media reports and a Human Rights Watch investigation, it looked like Idaho officials had gone to the black market to get execution drugs. The Otter administration refused to confirm details, citing confidentiality.
• Moreover, a lawsuit by media organizations in 2018 revealed that Idaho officials had kept execution procedures secret, including activities like obtaining drugs through possibly improper means and not disclosing the source or quality of the drugs. In one case, emails showed IDOC officials joking about driving “fast and furious” to a meeting (implying the rush to get drugs).

These details are esoteric, but the upshot is that Idaho came under fire for lack of transparency in how it carried out the ultimate punishment. The Attorney General’s office at one point advised IDOC to come clean to the FDA about the imported drugs; IDOC balked. The courts eventually forced more transparency.

For Otter and Little, supporting the death penalty was standard GOP posture, but the potential illegality and secrecy of the means was problematic. Critics (like the ACLU and some lawmakers) argued Idaho risked lawsuits and was violating the law by how it acquired drugs. Otter’s team responded defensively.

Brad Little’s stance here wasn’t really recorded – as Lt. Gov., he had no direct role. However, it’s another instance where the administration did something arguably dodgy (importing drugs unlawfully) and Little never weighed in on the ethical or legal aspect. Only after he became Governor did Idaho finally pass a law in 2019 allowing firing squads as a backup method due to drug scarcity – implicitly acknowledging the drug problem.

This controversy likely didn’t penetrate widely with voters, but it contributed to the state integrity concerns in the eyes of watchdog groups. It was noted in the context of “Idaho is secretive on a lot of things, even execution drugs.”

Law Enforcement Misconduct and Other Issues

A few other smaller controversies in the law enforcement realm:

• Idaho State Police (ISP) Forensic Lab backlog & management: There were legislative hearings around 2013 about ISP’s lab being behind on DNA testing, partly due to understaffing and underfunding. Some crimes went unsolved or prosecutions delayed. While not exactly a scandal, it was a public safety concern tied to budgeting priorities. Otter’s budgets were frugal, and some argued public safety agencies were stretched thin. Little did not stake out a position pushing for more ISP resources separate from Otter’s policy.
• Fish and Game Commissioner Incident (2018): As briefly mentioned, a Commissioner (Blake Fischer) whom Otter had appointed caused outrage by emailing friends photos from an African hunt where he killed a family of baboons among other animals. The graphic nature (including a baby baboon) led to bipartisan calls for him to resign. Otter asked for his resignation, and Fischer stepped down. This was a mini-controversy highlighting judgment of appointees. Little, campaigning for governor at that time, wisely avoided comment beyond saying hunting ethics matter; he deferred to Otter’s handling.
• State Treasurer’s Office “gun badge” program: A weird one – in 2018, outgoing Treasurer Ron Crane created a special constable program for his staff to carry guns and badges while transporting money, which many saw as unnecessary and a political ploy. It got ridiculed. Otter actually canceled the program in his last days. Again, Little did not publicly get involved.

Broadly, on law enforcement and corrections, Brad Little projected support for law-and-order but did not involve himself in reforming or criticizing instances of mismanagement. When ISP misled others about the prison investigation (as the Statesman later found), or when corrections officials were making dubious decisions, Little stayed out of it publicly.

It’s worth noting that Attorney General Lawrence Wasden was often the one pushing for honesty or caution (as with CCA and with lethal injection), putting him at odds with Otter sometimes. Little, however, usually sided quietly with Otter or stayed neutral, even as many Republicans grew to admire Wasden’s stances on such issues. This dynamic (Wasden as independent, Little as loyalist) was part of the internal GOP conversation.

In sum, the Corrections and Law enforcement domain gave Idaho arguably its worst black eye (the CCA “Gladiator School”), plus other troublesome issues. Governor Otter’s handling was widely panned as slow and influenced by the very interests being criticized. Brad Little’s silence and passivity throughout these events linked him to that legacy. Where some might expect a leader to step up against obvious wrongs – e.g., “hey, private prison letting inmates be beaten is not okay” – Little chose the route of not publicly breaking ranks. This again fulfilled his self-image as a “steady, loyal second-in-command,” but at the cost of giving opponents an opening to question his judgment and moral leadership.

Financial Management and Budget Controversies

Idaho prides itself on balanced budgets and fiscal conservatism. Under Otter (and continuing with Little), the state generally maintained healthy finances, even rebuilding reserves after the Great Recession. However, budgeting in Idaho was not without controversy. There were disputes over tax policy, instances of miscalculation or waste, and battles over funding priorities. While not “scandals” in the sense of wrongdoing, these issues often angered voters or legislators, resulting in political fallout. And notably, in several cases the Governor found himself at odds with his own party’s legislators or with public opinion on budget matters – creating mini-showdowns that Brad Little had to navigate carefully.

State Treasurer Mismanagement and Costly Transactions (2014)

We touched on this earlier in the context of a political scandal. To recap with more detail: State Treasurer Ron Crane, a Republican in office since 1999, oversaw an investment debacle that came to light in 2014. A legislative audit discovered that Crane’s office had engaged in risky transfers – specifically, moving money between state accounts to execute overnight investments – without proper accounting controls, resulting in an unzipped transfer of $20 million that technically left one fund owing another for a period. Even though the money was replaced, the lack of transparency and potential interest losses were alarming. The audit also found Crane’s team lost at least $10 million in a failed mortgage-backed securities investment during the 2008 financial crisis, by deviating from typical safe investment practices. Additionally, Crane had been previously flagged for using a state credit card for personal expenses, though he reimbursed and said it was accidental.

These findings led to front-page news and rare bipartisan concern about the Treasurer’s competency. Gov. Otter publicly rebuked Crane, somewhat. He convened a meeting of the State Board of Examiners (which Otter chaired and Crane sat on) to adopt policies to ensure such transfers wouldn’t happen again. But Otter stopped short of calling for Crane’s resignation or anything. Crane, an elected official, dug in and blamed the audit as overblown.

Political backlash: Two Democratic candidates ran for Treasurer in 2014 explicitly because of the scandal, arguing Crane had to go. (Idaho hadn’t elected a Democrat statewide in years, so it was a long shot; Crane narrowly beat the Democrat in 2014 by about 5 points, a sign of his damaged standing.) Many Republicans privately hoped Crane would retire – which he eventually did in 2018, rather than face a primary or general fight.

Brad Little’s position on this was not recorded in detail. As Lt. Gov., he was not involved in the Treasurer’s operations. But philosophically, it presented a tricky scenario: a fellow Republican causing financial loss and bad press. Little, as a consistent party man, did not publicly criticize Crane. In 2014, during the heat of it, Little was running for re-election as Lt. Gov and kept his head down about other offices’ issues. He even shared a ticket with Crane (since Idaho GOP runs all state offices together). There’s no evidence Little pressured Crane to change procedures beyond what Otter did.

Why include this here? Because it angered voters and GOP legislators that the state’s money was mishandled. It was a mini financial scandal entirely within the ruling party. It reinforced a narrative (for Democrats) that one-party control led to sloppy stewardship. For the Otter/Little team, it was another headache where loyalty vs. accountability came into play. Otter did impose some fixes; Little remained loyal and quiet. One could argue this was prudent – it wasn’t his lane. But cumulatively, these things added up in voters’ minds.

“Instant Racing” Gambling Machines Veto Fiasco (2015) – Revisited Financial Angle

We have covered the 2015 historical horse racing terminals saga under controversies with the legislature, but it bears a brief revisit here for its financial implications and backlash:

When Otter vetoed the repeal of the “instant racing” machines (aka slot-like terminals) – and did so late, prompting the Supreme Court to invalidate his veto – it wasn’t just a political defeat. It had concrete fallout: Les Bois Park, the largest horse racing track in Idaho, shut down after the machines were outlawed, because those terminals had become a key revenue source. This meant loss of jobs and local economic impact in the Boise area. Otter had vetoed the repeal to protect those jobs (and appease the track owners who donated to him), but by mishandling the veto, he arguably worsened the outcome. The machines were pulled, and the track folded. Otter’s attempt to have it both ways (veto but not timely) failed. The Coeur d’Alene Tribe, which pushed the repeal, was financially pleased (less competition for their casino), but others weren’t.

Local newspapers reported on the cost of maintaining an idle track and the broader hit to the horse industry. Otter in 2016 tried to float ideas to revive racing in some form (perhaps a state subsidy or a new commission), but legislators were not eager after that saga. In short, the veto fiasco cost Idaho’s economy and eroded trust. Many Republicans in the legislature were furious that their near-unanimous vote was almost thwarted by a procedural stunt.

Brad Little’s stance: As president of the Senate, Little did sign the enrolled bill that went to Otter’s desk (a perfunctory duty). After the veto, Little had no role except to watch the Senate’s override attempt (which failed to reach the floor due to the veto being invalidated by court before they could override). Little did not voice his personal view on instant racing publicly – likely because it was a hot potato. But it’s known that many establishment Republicans (Little’s circle) had been okay with the original 2013 legalization of the machines. Regardless, Little stood by Otter’s action in the sense that he never criticized the late veto or the influence involved. The whole affair reinforced the perception among some conservatives that the Otter administration was cavalier with the law and cozy with donors. That spilled onto Little by association.

For Idahoans who simply wanted the grocery tax gone but saw it remain, or who wanted integrity in government dealings, these veto dramas in 2015 and 2017 were instructive. They might not blame Little directly, but he was part of the leadership team.

Veto of Grocery Tax Repeal (2017) – Fiscal Philosophy Conflict

In 2017, a major tax policy confrontation occurred. Idaho is one of the few states that taxes groceries without a full credit to offset it. Many had long wanted to repeal the 6% sales tax on food to provide broad tax relief. In the 2017 session, the legislature overwhelmingly passed a grocery tax repeal. It was popular with voters (virtually every constituent buys groceries), and it had bipartisan support in the legislature.

Governor Otter, however, vetoed the repeal. His stated reason: concern over the budget, specifically that removing the tax would blow a ~$80 million hole in the general fund annually, jeopardizing funding for other services. Otter had a point about the fiscal impact, but many lawmakers were willing to trim budgets or use surpluses to cover it. They believed giving that money back to citizens was the higher priority.

The backlash to Otter’s veto was swift and sharp – and from within his party. Dozens of Republican legislators (30 of them) joined a lawsuit arguing the veto was invalid because Otter took too long. This led to the Idaho Supreme Court case discussed earlier, which Otter narrowly won. But the mere fact that GOP lawmakers sued the GOP Governor speaks volumes. They accused Otter of defying the will of the people and the legislature. Public sentiment was also against Otter on this; many Idahoans couldn’t understand why he’d nix something that helped every family afford food, especially when the state had a surplus. Editorials criticized the move as well.

Brad Little, at this time (spring-summer 2017), was ramping up his campaign for governor (he declared in 2016). The grocery tax issue put him in a delicate spot. Little had historically not been an outspoken proponent of the repeal. In fact, Little was known to be more cautious on revenue – he often echoed Otter’s concerns about ensuring stable funding for education and infrastructure. Publicly, Little did not contradict Otter’s veto. He tried to avoid directly commenting on it during the pending court case. When pressed on the campaign trail, Little carefully said he supports tax relief in general (indeed, in 2018 a modest income tax cut passed which he supported), but he didn’t promise to repeal the grocery tax if elected. This arguably hurt him with some voters who deeply wanted that tax gone – one of his primary opponents, Raul Labrador, loudly promised to repeal it and used the issue to paint Little as status-quo.

So, in sum, the 2017 grocery tax repeal veto was a major controversy where Otter was on the opposite side of public opinion. It highlighted a gulf between the Governor’s office and much of the legislature (and populace) on tax policy. Brad Little, rather than use it as an opportunity to show independence, sided with Otter by remaining silent/neutral and not criticizing the veto. The Supreme Court decision in favor of Otter spared Little the need to deal with immediate repeal, but the political damage was done. People remembered that Little didn’t fight for the tax relief. To this day (as of 2025), Idaho still taxes groceries, and it’s an issue often brought up by those who feel the Otter/Little administration ignored everyday folks’ struggles.

Child Support Enforcement Standoff (2015) – Fiscal Crisis Narrowly Averted

We covered this under political controversies, but it’s worth noting here as a budgetary/federal funds issue. The 2015 House committee’s rejection of the child support compliance bill threatened $46 million in federal funds for Idaho’s child support system. Losing that would have blown a hole in the Health & Welfare budget and forced Idaho to run a standalone (and inferior) child support collection mechanism. It also put at risk $200 million in child support payments that flow through Idaho from other states/countries.

Governor Otter’s swift call of a special session was motivated by those fiscal and human catastrophe stakes. Fortunately, the special session fixed it, and the money flowed. But had that not occurred, Idaho would have faced an unplanned, chaotic financial obligation to keep child support services going for hundreds of thousands of children.

Little’s role in this was minimal but supportive. He presided over the Senate during the special session (which passed the bill cleanly). He didn’t need to speak to it, as all major figures including Otter and legislative leaders were on the same page. However, it’s one more example where extremism in the legislature (ironically from members of Little’s own party) almost caused a budget disaster, and leadership had to scramble. Little as incoming Governor would later face similar battles with a small far-right faction; how he handled 2015 (by essentially not publicly lambasting the radicals, leaving that to others) showed his conflict-averse approach. Some observers think a stronger stand against the fringe then might have prevented future mischief; others say it would have made no difference.

Budget Surpluses, Tax Cuts, and Education Funding Debates

On a broader level, the Otter administration after the recession often had to balance tax cuts vs. funding needs. Otter generally favored targeted tax relief (e.g., cutting top income and corporate rates by small increments, not the grocery tax). The legislature often wanted bigger, broader cuts. Meanwhile, schools were still trying to restore funding from recession-era cuts until about 2015. There was constant tension: Idaho was attracting newcomers and businesses (fast growth especially after 2015), revenue was coming in above forecasts, yet teacher pay and infrastructure lagged behind. Otter initiated a “tax competitiveness” package in 2012–2013 that cut corporate and top bracket income taxes by 0.2% each, and removed the unpopular personal property tax on business equipment (for most businesses). These were business-friendly moves but arguably did little for the average citizen. Some GOP legislators wanted more dramatic cuts (like eliminating the income tax over time, or at least the grocery tax). Democrats and some moderates urged using surpluses to invest in roads, education, or rainy funds.

Brad Little consistently positioned himself as a fiscal conservative but not an extremist. He supported Otter’s incremental tax cuts and also backed Otter’s budgets that modestly increased education funding each year. Little was on the task force that developed the 20-year Idaho transportation funding plan, which led to a gas tax hike and registration fee hike in 2015 to fund roads (Otter pushed that through over some GOP opposition). Little helped lobby for that, which was controversial but arguably necessary – it passed in late-night drama in 2015. So, on tax-and-spend issues, Little largely mirrored Otter’s policies.

The controversies here were more philosophical/political: for instance, when Otter approved certain tax cuts (like special interest exemptions) but vetoed the broad grocery cut, people cried foul that he was picking winners (corporations) over regular families. That’s a point Paulette Jordan made in the 2018 governor race against Little. She labeled the Otter/Little approach as favoring the wealthy and connected. Meanwhile, far-right Republicans accused Otter/Little of being “too liberal” for not slashing government more aggressively.

Little had to carefully thread this needle in 2018: he campaigned on continuing the pro-business, low-tax environment (which pleases moderates and businesses), but also pitched himself as someone who would “invest in education” – somewhat moderating the message to neutralize Democratic attacks. His primary opponents Labrador and Ahlquist hammered that Idaho still had some of the highest per capita tax burden in the West (depending on measures) and that Little wouldn’t cut enough. Labrador specifically brought up that Little didn’t fight for the grocery tax repeal and had supported gas tax increases, painting him as a tax-and-spend establishment guy.

In truth, Little’s record and stances were quite mainstream Republican for Idaho. But any controversy in budgets or taxes during Otter’s time inevitably splashed onto Little due to their close association. Little did not create distance, even when maybe politically it would have been advantageous to say, “You know, I thought we should’ve let the grocery tax repeal slide through.” That’s something he never said publicly.

Governor’s Mansion Boondoggle

One quirky fiscal controversy under Otter was the saga of the Idaho Governor’s Mansion – or lack thereof. J.R. Simplot (Otter’s former father-in-law, a billionaire) had donated his grand Boise hilltop mansion to the state in 2004 as a future governor’s residence. But Otter refused to live in that house, partly because of personal reasons (it had been his ex-wife’s family home) and partly due to its needed renovations. So it sat empty at taxpayer expense. Upkeep on the vacant mansion cost Idaho upwards of $177,000 per year (utilities, gardening, security). Meanwhile, the state paid Otter a housing stipend of $4,500 per month to live in his own ranch in Star, ID – totaling about $54,000 a year.

This became a minor scandal in terms of waste. By 2012, the empty mansion had cost the state over $600,000 in maintenance. The press occasionally ran stories and editorials about the “Idaho’s Empty Governor’s Mansion – a thorn in residents’ sides”. Otter brushed aside criticism, and in 2013 the Simplot family took the house back (the state returned it). The mansion was demolished in 2016, ending that chapter. But Idaho remains without an official governor’s residence. A legislative committee in 2018 finally gave up the 15-acre land the state had held for a potential mansion, turning it into a city park.

For taxpayers, the perception was that Otter wasted money out of pride or comfort. Otter essentially got a comfortable stipend and the state got nothing in return. Some lawmakers proposed eliminating the stipend if the mansion wasn’t used; that never passed. This isn’t the biggest dollar scandal, but it was symbolic. It angered some constituents that even as Otter sometimes said budgets were too tight for certain projects, the state was bleeding six figures a year to water the lawn at an empty estate.

Brad Little, for his part, never commented on this publicly. It was a sensitive issue for Otter personally. After the Simplot house was gone, Idaho gave future Gov. Little the same $4,500/month housing allowance (Little also lives in his own home). By 2019, some questioned if Idaho should finally build or buy a proper Governor’s house. Little’s answer typically was, “I’m fine where I am, and that stipend is much cheaper than maintaining a mansion.” Perhaps true, but it glosses over the earlier waste.

In any case, the Governor’s mansion snafu contributed to an image of mismanagement: the state was given a valuable asset for free and ended up demolishing it after years of paying upkeep for nothing. It’s a footnote compared to other scandals, but every footnote added to the narrative.

Summary of Fiscal Controversies:

Throughout 2007–2019, Idaho’s finances were managed conservatively, yet episodes like the Treasurer’s investment loss, the expensive IEN debacle (>$18M)idahoednews.org 5, the $1.34M Pam Lowe settlement, the $1M CCA settlement, the mansion upkeep ($1M+ total), etc., show that millions of taxpayer dollars were squandered due to missteps and poor decisions. These are tangible hits to the public purse. Additionally, policy choices (like not expanding Medicaid until forced by a 2018 ballot initiative, or delaying certain education investments) had their own human and financial costs, albeit harder to quantify.

Brad Little stood by during these years, seldom if ever voicing concern that taxpayer money was being wasted or that priorities were off. If anything, he often defended the administration’s record of fiscal responsibility – which, to be fair, had its successes (rebuilt rainy-day funds, maintained a AAA credit rating, etc.). But to those attuned to the failures, Little’s unwavering support looked like willful blindness.

For example, when Democrat Balukoff in 2014 criticized Otter for the IEN $18 million waste and the $36 million “Luna Laws” cost (they appropriated funding for those reforms that got repealed), Little as part of the Otter campaign dismissed Balukoff as “just wanting to spend more.” There was no acknowledgment from their side of having wasted money. That lack of introspection irked people who wanted someone in power to at least say, “Yeah, we screwed up there and will do better.” Little didn’t say that, at least not publicly.

Thus, on the budget and finance front, the controversies usually boiled down to choices or errors where the Otter administration went one way and many Idahoans or legislators wanted another – and Little consistently backed Otter. Whether it was tax policy (grocery tax veto), spending priorities, or cleaning up mistakes, Little offered continuity, not criticism. This solidified both the support of the establishment (who appreciated steadiness) and the skepticism of opponents (who saw him as indifferent to the problems).

Political and Ethical Controversies

Beyond specific policy areas, the Otter/Little tenure was marked by a number of political firestorms and ethical debates that don’t fit neatly into one category. These include intense intra-party conflicts, culture-war flare-ups, and questions of transparency and leadership style. Many of these controversies had less to do with money and more to do with values, representation, and the soul of the Republican Party in Idaho. And in these contests, Brad Little’s strategy was largely to stay low-key, projecting the image of a unifier while rarely taking a hard public stand on divisive issues. This appeased no one completely – the hard right thought he wasn’t vocal enough on their causes, and moderates/Dems thought he showed a lack of courage – but it got him through politically intact.

Let’s delve into some of these episodes:

Intra-Party Rebellion and the 2014 GOP Convention Meltdown

One of the most dramatic political events was the Idaho Republican Party’s state convention in June 2014, which ended in chaos and made national news. To understand, recall that Otter barely won the May 2014 GOP primary (51% to 44% over Russ Fulcher). Fulcher’s challenge was fueled by discontent on the right with Otter’s scandals and perceived moderation (Common Core, health exchange, gas tax talk, etc.). Although Otter prevailed, the party was badly split between the establishment (pro-Otter) and the insurgent conservatives (pro-Fulcher). This fight came to a head at the convention in Moscow, Idaho.

The convention was supposed to elect a new state party chair and set the platform. But it devolved into a factional fistfight (metaphorically) over credentials and rules. Otter’s allies and the Tea Party/liberty faction couldn’t even agree on who the legitimate delegates were. The convention ended without a quorum, with no party chairman elected, no platform adopted, basically nothing accomplished. Angry delegates from both sides traded recriminations. Otter’s faction had (according to later court findings) improperly disqualified some of the opposing faction’s delegates at the onset, which prompted procedural warfare. After two days, the presiding officer (a supporter of one side) adjourned amid shouting.

This was hugely embarrassing for the party. The Idaho GOP essentially had no functioning state leadership for months until courts intervened and declared former chairman Barry Peterson (a hardliner) was out and allowed the state central committee to choose a new chair. Donors were uneasy, relationships were poisoned. It underscored how deep the rift was between what each side called the “establishment” vs “true conservatives.”

Governor Otter had a hand in this – he personally backed a candidate for chair (moderate Mike Mathews) and reportedly orchestrated some delegate challenges to knock out counties that were pro-Fulcher. The liberty faction never forgave him for what they saw as cheating. It’s noteworthy that Otter himself at the convention, in an unprecedented move, moved to nominate two young delegates (who supported him) from districts that weren’t credentialed, to try to tip the balance on a key vote. This was against party rules, and delegates erupted in boos and chaos. That moment symbolized how Otter’s side tried to steamroll the opposition and how the opposition erupted.

Where was Brad Little? Little was present at the convention (as a delegate and official) but kept a very low profile in the disputes. He was aligned with Otter’s wing, of course, but he did not step to the microphone to cool tempers or mediate. Perhaps he wisely stayed out of the fray, but the fact is, the convention highlighted a leadership void: no one could control the factions. Afterward, some in the party wished someone like Little had played elder statesman to broker peace. Instead, he let Otter and others handle it, which they failed to do.

This matters because it was a huge controversy among Idaho Republicans. For regular voters, it looked like the dominant party was in disarray – “if they can’t govern themselves, how can they govern the state?” The next morning’s headlines were brutal. Late-night comedians even poked fun at Idaho Republicans’ inability to conduct a meeting. It certainly signaled the rise of a militant right wing that would continue to challenge party leadership (something Little would face when governor, with people like Rep. Heather Scott or the Freedom Foundation types).

Little’s response to the convention fiasco was essentially to say this was unfortunate and we need to come together. He supported the eventual compromise to elect a new chairman later. In 2015, the GOP finally got a more establishment chair (Steve Yates) and healed somewhat. Little worked with Yates amicably. But the memory lingered. In that feud, Little was firmly on the establishment side that the insurgents despised. They saw him as Otter 2.0, part of the machine that shut them out.

In the 2018 primary, that sentiment remained; many of Fulcher’s supporters moved to Labrador, who pitched himself as the anti-establishment choice. Labrador explicitly campaigned on “ending cronyism” and cited the convention and other fights as evidence the Otter/Little cadre disrespected the base. Little, for his part, kept emphasizing unity – he rarely acknowledged the party’s civil war beyond generic statements like “we’re all Republicans with shared values.” Some hardcore folks interpreted that as sweeping issues under the rug.

Tensions with the Far Right: Bundy, Refugees, and Militias

Idaho, especially from 2009 onward, saw the resurgence of “patriot” militia influence and hard-right activism. While much of this wasn’t directly caused by state leaders, it created controversies they had to react to:

• In 2014, Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s armed standoff with federal agents over grazing fees made national news. Many Idaho conservatives cheered Bundy. Gov. Otter even issued a statement sympathizing with Bundy’s plight (if not the armed resistance). Later, Bundy’s son Ammon Bundy moved to Idaho and in 2016 led the armed takeover of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. That incident had support from some Idahoans; about a dozen state legislators wrote a letter praising the occupiers. Afterward, those same fringe legislators (Heather Scott, etc.) were reprimanded by the House leadership for aligning with lawbreakers. This intra-party divide over how far to go in anti-federal sentiment was real. Little’s position: he was quietly on the side of law and order. He did not praise the Bundy militants. But he also didn’t loudly condemn them in public forums – likely avoiding alienating voters sympathetic to them. It was a balancing act emblematic of his careful style.
• Refugee Center Controversy (2015–2016): In Twin Falls, the College of Southern Idaho hosted a refugee resettlement program for decades. Suddenly in 2015, with Syrian refugees in the news, far-right activists (including some linked to ACT for America, an anti-Islam group) agitated to shut down CSI’s refugee center. Rumors and conspiracy theories flew (one false story about refugee children raping a girl gained traction and became a mini-scandal before being debunked). The Otter administration’s response was measured – Otter said he’d ask the feds to halt Syrian refugee influx after the Paris terror attack, but he didn’t try to close the center. This drew fire from extremists who accused him (and Little) of endangering Idahoans. Little, in public events around 2016, maintained that Idaho must uphold the law but should ensure vetting of refugees. He avoided inflammatory language. This earned him the distrust of anti-refugee activists, one of whom ran for governor (Janice McGeachin tapped into that base in 2018, though she ran for Lt. Gov and won). Thus, on this cultural controversy, Little again sided gently with Otter’s pragmatic stance rather than the loud demands of the far right.
• “Add the Words” Protests (2014) and LGBTQ Rights: Idaho’s Human Rights Act does not include sexual orientation or gender identity. A movement called “Add the Words” sought to change that. For years, the GOP legislative leadership refused even a hearing on the issue. This led to notable protests in 2014 where activists silently blocked Capitol hallways with their hands over their mouths (symbolizing silencing), leading to dozens of arrests. It was a major story in Idaho – peaceful protesters, including former Republican Sen. Nicole LeFavour, being arrested for seeking a hearing on gay rights. Otter and Little’s stance: basically silence. Otter said he’d veto such a bill anyway. Little said nothing publicly about the protests or the issue. In 2015, under pressure, a hearing was granted in the House State Affairs Committee. People gave emotional testimony over three days. The committee, dominated by GOP conservatives, then killed the bill. Little never weighed in on adding LGBT protections. Likely he opposed it (given the party platform), but he kept quiet to avoid controversy. To Idaho’s LGBTQ community and their allies, this silence from leaders like Little was hurtful and showed lack of courage. To social conservatives, his silence was fine as long as he didn’t support the change. Essentially, Little tried to sidestep the culture-war minefields. But doing so meant one side saw him as unsupportive and the other wasn’t fully sure of his commitment. For example, in 2018 a group attacked Little for supposedly being too friendly to LGBT rights because he once signed an LGBT Pride proclamation as acting governor (routine courtesy). That was used against him in whisper campaigns despite his overall neutral stance.
• Abortion and Related Issues: Otter’s tenure saw fewer big fights on abortion until the end, when some national groups wanted Idaho to pass “trigger laws” or restrictions. In 2018, the legislature passed a bill requiring abortion providers to report abortion complications to the state, which opponents said was designed to harass providers. Otter signed it. Earlier, Otter had quietly allowed a 20-week abortion ban to be struck down without appeal, perhaps on advice from legal counsel. Little, when stepping in as acting governor on occasion, signed a couple of minor bills but nothing controversial. This area didn’t explode until after Little became governor (when Roe was overturned). But it’s worth noting that the pro-life vs pro-choice debate simmered. And while Little is pro-life, he largely avoided grandstanding on it during Otter’s time, as Idaho already had many restrictions in place.
• Transparency and Open Government: As mentioned, independent analyses (like the 2015 State Integrity score) rated Idaho poorly in transparency – citing, for example, the lack of personal financial disclosure for legislators or state officials, weak ethics rules, limited public record access in some areas, etc. Otter and the GOP legislature did little to improve this. One could argue some controversies (like Tax Commission and exchange) might have been prevented or caught sooner with stronger transparency. There were calls, especially after the 2012 Chigbrow and Lowe stuff, to create an independent Ethics Commission. Otter did not support that (Idaho remains one of few states without one). Brad Little also did not champion any reforms like that. He was comfortable with the status quo that legislative leadership polices its own. This became a campaign issue used by Democrats: they argued Little represented a secretive, closed culture in Boise. Little countered that Idaho had low corruption and he saw no need for big changes. Reasonable people disagree on that, but from a controversy standpoint, it’s clear Idaho’s relative lack of transparency contributed to many of the aforementioned scandals (things weren’t public until it was too late).

Cumulative Impact and 2018 Election

By the time Governor Otter was retiring in 2018, Idaho had undergone 12 years of Republican single-party rule with both achievements and black marks. The controversies listed in this compendium – education debacles, prison scandals, contract fiascos, veto showdowns, internal party wars, etc. – formed a litany of talking points for anyone running against the “establishment.” Brad Little, as the establishment’s standard-bearer, had to answer (or deftly not answer) for all of it.

Little’s two main primary opponents in 2018, Raul Labrador and Tommy Ahlquist, hammered the idea that it was “time for a change” from Otter’s way. Labrador (a sitting congressman and hero of the Tea Party wing) cited many of these controversies, at least in broad strokes: he mentioned the millions wasted on Otter’s watch and lack of transparency. Ahlquist, a businessman outsider, ran ads about “ending the good ol’ boy network” and portrayed himself as a problem-solver who wouldn’t allow fiascos like IEN or CCA to happen. Meanwhile, Little was endorsed by Otter and by most of the state’s lobby and donor class. He campaigned on experience and steady leadership, implicitly promising no disruptive changes. He pointed to Idaho’s strong economy (the fastest job growth in the nation) and tax cuts achieved, trying to frame the narrative around positives.

Many voters in the primary were indeed swayed by the economy argument and Otter’s endorsement. Little won the GOP primary with 37% in a three-way race – hardly a mandate, but enough. In the general election, Democratic nominee Paulette Jordan (a young progressive) tried to capitalize on discontent, referencing these various scandals as evidence Idaho needed a political shake-up. For instance, she’d bring up the broadband fiasco or the party infighting as signs Idaho was poorly run. However, Idaho’s partisan lean and Little’s more moderate positioning helped him win by around 59-40%. The controversies likely shaved some support off – Little underperformed typical GOP margins – but not enough to cost him victory.

In voters’ minds, especially Republicans, Otter/Little’s negatives (the scandals) were balanced by positives (stable low unemployment, tax cuts, etc.). Little benefited from that balance. But it’s telling that even today, a common criticism of Little from his detractors is that he’s “an empty suit who went along with Otter’s corruption and never stood up.” On the flip side, his admirers say he “kept the ship steady” and avoided rash moves.

Conclusion

After examining this exhaustive list of controversies during 2007–2019, one can see why some Idaho political watchers have said: “The most stunning thing about Brad Little was that in eight years as Lt. Governor, he never said a word about all of the scandals that took place during Otter’s 12 years in office.” That statement encapsulates the core observation: there was no scandal or debacle – no matter how costly or controversial – that led Brad Little to publicly break with Governor Otter or the party’s direction. From the $18 million Idaho Education Network broadband debacle to the “gladiator school” private prison scandal that put inmates’ lives at risk, from the education reform repeal by voters to the illegal vetoes and internal GOP rebellions, Little maintained a loyal, low-profile No. 2 stance.

To be fair, a Lieutenant Governor in Idaho has limited formal power – Little could not unilaterally fix these issues. And loyalty and unity are valued by many. But leadership sometimes calls for speaking out or at least demanding accountability, especially when “taxpayers’ money” or “public trust” is at stake. Little chose a different approach: work behind the scenes, don’t rock the boat, assume problems will be handled within the system. If he ever had harsh words in private for how things were handled, the public never heard them.

What were the consequences of this silence?

• It secured Little’s rise to the governorship by not alienating Otter or his network – he was the heir apparent and smoothly got the establishment’s backing. In that sense, his strategy worked politically.
• It also left a trail of unaddressed grievances among various constituencies: fiscally conscientious conservatives angry about wasted money, transparency advocates frustrated with stonewalls, reformers in education upset at the lack of admission of mistakes, and so on. Little inherited all those hard feelings along with the office.

This compendium showed that Idaho’s Republican Party was not monolithic during Otter’s tenure – far from it. Many controversies saw Republicans themselves split or criticizing their party’s governor (as with the veto showdowns or the prison and broadband issues). In such instances, one could argue leadership might involve mediating those splits or correcting course. Yet, Little stayed almost studiously neutral publicly, aligning by default with the incumbent power.

In wrapping up, consider Idaho’s condition at the end of Otter’s 12 years: The state was enjoying rapid growth, low unemployment, and relative prosperity – achievements Otter and Little tout. But Idaho also had among the lowest wages, a teacher shortage tied to past education cuts, and infrastructure funding shortfalls (some addressed belatedly). It also bore the scars of the missteps we’ve chronicled – some institutional trust was eroded. The voter-initiated Medicaid expansion in 2018, for example, was a direct rebuke to Otter/Little’s refusal to act on health coverage for the working poor.

Brad Little became Governor in 2019 with a promise of “continuity with change.” He has since navigated new crises (like COVID-19) and, interestingly, has shown at times more willingness to push back on the far right (e.g., vetoing a bill he found irresponsible, at the risk of party ire). Perhaps the experiences of 2009–2019 informed him on what not to do. But that is another story.

For the period in question, every scandal and controversy listed here contributes to the complex legacy of the Otter administration – a legacy that Brad Little was intertwined with at every step. His choice to “never say one word” publicly against these debacles may speak to his character as a loyal lieutenant. It also provided ample ammunition to critics who ask: Where was Brad Little when X happened? The answer: He was there, but he kept quiet.

In the end, Idahoans elected Brad Little, indicating a majority were comfortable with his approach or at least more comfortable with him than with the alternatives. The state’s Republican bent certainly plays a role in that. But informed voters – including many Republicans – haven’t forgotten these past episodes. They keep them in mind as they watch how Governor Little handles current challenges. Will he repeat the patterns of silence and insularity, or chart a more transparent, accountable course? That remains a subject of Idaho’s ongoing political story, influenced heavily by the full compendium of controversies he witnessed – and weathered – during the Otter years.