Idaho’s Low Marks for Integrity

In 2015, the Center for Public Integrity gave Idaho a D-grade for state integrity, citing weak ethics laws, lack of independent oversight, and poor transparency in governance. Idaho ranked near the bottom nationally for accountability. Other watchdogs have echoed these concerns. The Better Government Association, in its state integrity reviews, has consistently placed Idaho near the bottom of the pack for ethics enforcement and transparency.

But what does a “D-grade for state integrity” really look like on the ground? How does it show up in the courts where ordinary citizens seek justice?

One need only look at how summary judgment is being handled in Idaho’s courts.

The Law on Summary Judgment

The rules here are clear and well-settled, both by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Idaho Supreme Court.

  • Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c): Summary judgment is only proper when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.”
  • Tidwell v. Blaine County (Idaho 2023): If reasonable persons could reach differing conclusions, summary judgment must be denied.
  • Bronco Elite Arts & Athletics v. 106 Garden City (Idaho 2023): All facts and inferences must be construed in favor of the non-moving party.
  • Stoddart v. Pocatello Sch. Dist. 25 (Idaho 2014): When facts are in conflict, those conflicts must be resolved by a jury, not a judge.
  • Celotex v. Catrett (U.S. Supreme Court, 1986): The moving party bears the burden of showing an absence of genuine factual disputes.

The courts have said over and over: judges cannot weigh credibility, resolve disputed facts, or pick winners when the evidence conflicts. That is the job of a jury.

The Case Study: Disputed Facts Ignored

In a recent Canyon County case presided over by Judge Thomas Whitney (Case No. CV14-25-06656), a motion for summary judgment was granted despite a record full of disputed facts.

The plaintiff’s Response in Opposition pointed out:

  • Disputed Termination Date: Defendants could not agree on when the plaintiff was removed from the Board. The Defendants own filings listed five different dates!
  • Disputed Board Authority: One defendant claimed to be a board director despite no corporate record of lawful appointment
  • Questionable Documentation: The only evidence of an April 24, 2025 meeting were backdated “minutes” created months later, and undated handwritten notes with no contemporaneous email or official records
  • Disputed Eviction: Multiple declarations contradicted the defendants’ narrative about who orchestrated the eviction and property removal
  • Bank Control: Evidence suggested defendants may have improperly seized control of church bank accounts in violation of a freeze order

These are not trivial disputes. They go to the very heart of corporate governance, property rights, and lawful authority.

The Judge’s Response

Despite citing the correct legal standard, Judge Thomas Whitney concluded that “sufficient facts” had already been presented and proceeded to grant summary judgment. The disputed facts — dates, authority, validity of documents — were brushed aside as though immaterial.

That raises the core question: if a judge can declare that backdated, one-sided documents are sufficient to extinguish factual disputes, what is the value of Rule 56 at all?

The Bigger Picture: Why This Matters

Imagine the chaos if this precedent were universal:

  • Corporate Boards: Anyone could create backdated resolutions years after a board ceased to exist and present them as fact.
  • Publicly Traded Companies: Executives could retroactively “decide” they were owed different compensation, draft paperwork years later, and demand courts accept it.
  • Property and Contracts: One party could unilaterally rewrite history, erasing disputes by drafting retroactive notes.

The law is supposed to prevent this kind of chaos. That is why both the U.S. Supreme Court and Idaho Supreme Court have made it clear: disputed material facts must go to trial.

Conclusion: D-Grade in Action

When the Center for Public Integrity gave Idaho a D-grade, this is what they meant. It isn’t just a statistic. It’s real cases where judges accept one-sided, backdated documents over live disputes of fact. It’s courts that fail to enforce the basic protections of Rule 56.

When domestic and international financiers look to invest money in different regions, a stable and predictable rule of law is a major determining factor. And when the interpretation or violation of corporate and business law becomes erratic, depending on what judge you get, it can definitely turn off investors – and that affects everyone.

If this type judicial behavior becomes the norm in Idaho — where judges can decide disputed facts on summary judgment — then the people are left without a meaningful day in court. And that is exactly what a D-grade for state integrity looks like.