Canyon County judge declines to halt pro-Prop 1 ballot initiative ads amid lawsuit

This story was first published by Boise State Public Radio on Oct. 30, 2026.

A Canyon County judge has rejected a request by anti-Proposition 1 campaigners to halt TV ads from airing that promote the ballot measure days before the election.

In an opinion released late Friday night, Judge Davis VanderVelde found the ads did not violate Idaho campaign finance laws and declined to keep them from being broadcast by local stations.

A Republican Party operative and three board members of Too Extreme for Idaho, which opposes restoring abortion rights under Prop 1, filed their lawsuit Tuesday morning.

They said the scheme used by Idahoans United for Women and Families (IUWF), the Idaho Democratic Party and its gubernatorial candidate, Terri Pickens, concealed the true origin of who paid for the ads.

IUWF, which qualified Prop 1 for the ballot, gave the Idaho Democratic Party more than $720,000 in recent weeks. The party then purchased advertising through Pickens’ campaign.

All political candidates receive significant discounts on ads in the 60 days leading up to an election compared to political groups.

“Ultimately, Plaintiffs’ assertion that the monies from IUWF were specifically contributed for support of Proposition 1 with the intent of concealing the original donor for such advertisements requires logical leaps that are not fully supported by the evidence,” VanderVelde wrote.

Each of these transactions is publicly available in the state’s campaign finance database, which the plaintiffs cited in the evidence presented to the judge.

VanderVelde said there’s also no evidence showing that IUWF still controlled the hundreds of thousands of dollars it donated to the state Democratic Party.

An attorney for the defendants argued in court Thursday that the party had the final say in how any of that money was spent, which VanderVelde said was not proven otherwise by the plaintiffs.

“The Court recognizes that the parties have had a short time to advance this lawsuit and that if there was additional time, additional facts may be developed by either party which could lend further credence to their claims or defenses,” he wrote.

That said, the judge found there may still be outstanding legal questions about whether the ads are truly for a candidate or a proposition and whether the lower rates should apply.

“However, without further law or authority significant questions remain as to what constitutes an appropriate advertisement under the law in order to qualify as an advertisement promoting a candidate.”

Tom Luna, one of the plaintiffs, released a statement saying he and the three other men who brought the lawsuit disagree with the decision, but that it was important voters know who paid for the ads.

“I’m sure many voters are as mad as I am about these dirty tricks. Let’s make sure we turn our frustration into action by showing up on Election Day, making our voices heard, and standing for life,” Luna said.

A request for comment from the Idaho Democratic Party wasn’t immediately returned late Friday night.