Idaho prides itself on being one of the safest states in the nation. But behind the statistics and headlines, the truth is more complicated—and much of it begins in the courtroom. As 2026 judicial elections approach, it’s time for Idaho voters to take a hard look at the men and women presiding over our justice system.

In this first Judicial Watch Group episode, former law enforcement officers pull back the curtain on how judges in Kootenai and surrounding counties are shaping our community—for better or worse. What they uncovered may shock you.

Why You Can’t Find Info on Idaho Judges

One of the biggest problems? Transparency. Try searching online for which judges are even up for reelection in 2026—you won’t find it. While voters can easily look up candidates for governor, legislature, or local offices, judicial elections are buried in confusing appointment processes and quiet retention votes.

Judges are initially appointed for an 18-month “probationary” term, then stand for reelection. But incumbents rarely lose, largely because most voters arrive at the ballot box with little to no information. The default? Vote for the name you already see on the bench.

That complacency, according to the Judicial Watch Group, is dangerous.

The Power (and Problem) of Incumbent Judges

Just because someone is an incumbent doesn’t mean they’re serving the community well. In fact, patterns of lenient sentencing—especially for repeat offenders and serious felonies—have raised red flags.

One example: prosecutors recommended a 20-year prison sentence with parole after 7 for a repeat drug offender with a long criminal history. Instead, the judge imposed 7 years with parole eligibility after just 1. Within months, that individual was back on the streets.

This isn’t just about drugs. Cases involving sex crimes and crimes against children have seen similar leniency. Names like Judge Ross Pitman and Judge Barbara Duggan have surfaced repeatedly in discussions about questionable sentencing decisions.

The Clark Decision: When Arrests Became Impossible

Perhaps the most shocking case study is the Clark decision.

Here’s the short version: in 2019, Idaho’s Supreme Court ruled that officers can no longer arrest someone for a misdemeanor unless the crime occurred in the officer’s presence.

That means if police arrive at the scene of a DUI crash but didn’t physically witness the suspect driving, they can’t arrest. If a domestic violence victim has obvious injuries and probable cause exists, but the act wasn’t witnessed by the officer, no arrest.

Instead, victims are told to issue a “citizen’s arrest” against their abuser. Think about that for a moment. The ruling was based on language in Idaho’s 1889 Constitution—rules written for horse-and-buggy days—applied to modern crises like fentanyl distribution and domestic violence.

The result? Officers’ hands are tied, and public safety suffers.

Public Defender Loopholes and Courtroom Tactics

Another piece of the puzzle lies with Idaho’s public defender system. Unlike prosecutors, who are elected and accountable to citizens, public defenders are appointed and overseen by the state.

In Kootenai County, the public defender’s office is now run by an attorney who doesn’t even live in Idaho but across the border in Washington. His courtroom tactics are notorious—less about the merits of a case and more about exploiting loopholes, challenging officer credibility, and shopping for sympathetic judges.

This imbalance leaves citizens asking: why must prosecutors face voters while public defenders answer to no one?

Probation for Felons and Sex Offenders

Consider these recent cases:

• A man convicted of lewd conduct with a 14-year-old: prosecutors recommended life in prison with parole after 25 years. The sentence handed down? 25 years with parole after just 5.
  
  
• A rape case where the victim repeatedly said no: prosecutors pushed for 20 years in prison with parole eligibility after 8. The result? 5 years of probation and a no-contact order.
  
  

These are not isolated incidents—they reflect judicial discretion being used in ways many citizens would consider shockingly soft.

Why Idaho Needs Judicial Accountability

When violent offenders, child predators, and repeat drug traffickers receive probation or one-year sentences, communities are put at risk. Judges wield enormous power, but they rarely face meaningful scrutiny.

The 2026 judicial elections in Idaho will be a turning point. Voters must demand transparency, research judicial records, and hold the bench accountable. Because without oversight, judges don’t just interpret the law—they can reshape community safety for generations.

How to Research Judges Before You Vote

Want to be informed before stepping into the ballot box? Here’s where to start:

• Check the Kootenai County Prosecutor’s Office Facebook page – they publish sentencing decisions by case.
  
  
• Follow North Idaho News – often provides context and commentary where prosecutors cannot.
  
  
• Search Idaho iCourts – public records of cases, charges, and rulings are available if you’re willing to dig.
  
  
• Stay tuned to Judicial Watch Group updates – more case breakdowns will be shared quarterly (possibly monthly) as 2026 approaches.
  
  

Final Word

Idaho remains one of the best states to live in—but it’s not immune to decline. Without an informed voting population, judicial discretion can erode safety faster than any outside threat.

The mission of the Judicial Watch Group is simple: shine light on the decisions shaping Idaho’s future, equip voters with facts, and make sure the ballot box truly reflects the will of the people.

If you’re considering relocating to North Idaho—or if you already call this community home—stay informed, stay engaged, and remember: an informed population is a strong population.