Voters Oust Justice Silak For Eismann After Campaign Marred By Controversy, Challenger Says He Ran A Clean Race

For the first time since 1944, Idaho voters appear to have ousted a sitting Supreme Court justice, after a bitter campaign heavy on accusations made by groups supporting challenger Daniel Eismann.

With 72 percent of the precincts reporting, the vote was:

Eismann, 60 percent

Cathy Silak, 40 percent

“From our point of view, we ran a very positive campaign,” said Eismann, a 4th District judge, as early results were tallied. “There were obviously some third parties that got involved and created an uproar or some controversy, but we had nothing to do with that.”

In the final days before the election, ads run by various groups across the state charged that Silak would support everything from gun registration to partial-birth abortion to gay marriage - though no such cases have ever come before the Idaho Supreme Court, and Silak has expressed no views on them.

“It has been very political. I tried not to make it that way, but others did,” Silak said. “I think it’s very regrettable.”

Eismann aroused controversy by coming out against abortion and evolution, issues that could come before the court.

Silak is one of two members of the high court originally appointed by former Gov. Cecil Andrus, a Democrat. Two were appointed by Republican Gov. Phil Batt, and the fifth, Justice Wayne Kidwell, is a former Republican attorney general who won election to an open seat. Nevertheless, about 90 percent of the court’s rulings are unanimous.

Eismann, who as a district judge ruled that the state has no responsibility for the condition of Idaho’s school buildings, sharply criticized the unanimous Supreme Court ruling that overturned his decision, and angrily withdrew from the case. It was reassigned to another judge and a ruling is pending.

Eismann supporters focused their criticism of Silak on a 3-2 opinion she authored that gave the federal government rights to water in designated wilderness areas. After an outcry from the state’s Republican political leadership, however, the court is rehearing that case.

In two previous water rights cases in the past year, Silak and the court ruled against the federal government.