Keough wraps up 22-year Senate odyssey

By DAVE GUNTER

Hagadone News Network

SANDPOINT — On Nov. 30, Sen. Shawn Keough wraps up a 22-year legislative odyssey that began with a staffer at the state capitol mistaking her for the new girl on the typing pool and ends with her being the longest-sitting female in the Idaho Senate, not to mention one of the chamber’s most influential members.

Over the course of two decades and change, Keough has watched what once was a strongly bi-partisan legislative body become a deep red institution. At the same time, she has witnessed her own party come under attack from within, as a new canon of political doctrine erupted to fuel ever-more-vitriolic campaigns across the state.

Throughout that tumult, the District I senator has managed to keep her eye on the prize and use her vote in Boise as a tool to support issues people care about back at home.

With her last legislative session behind her and only a couple of committee meetings left to attend, Keough was quick to point out that she — at least for the next eight months or so — is still very much involved in what she called “constituent service.”

“I still have work to do,” she said.

Q: Take us back to that first day, 22 years ago, when you walked into the Senate chambers. What was going through your mind and emotions?

A: I was awestruck — in awe and humbled by the responsibility of representing the people of our area. When you raise your right hand and pledge to uphold the Constitution of the United States and of this state, that’s a solemn oath. It comes with, in my opinion, a lot of weight.

And to be surrounded by the beauty of the state capitol and to have, up in the visitor’s gallery, my husband and our two little boys at the time made it a moment of great honor.

Q: What was the gender balance like back then? Were you walking into a boys’ club?

A: Definitely. In the early years, I was one of few women among mostly older men. There was just a handful of ladies in a 35-member Senate. So there was a difference in gender, but also generationally and culturally. I wasn’t supposed to be there as a young woman, a young wife and a young mother.

But I won them over with time. As with everything in life, it’s about relationships — building relationships and keeping an open mind and open lines of communication.

Q: Not to put too fine a point on it, but you looked really young when you were first elected. They must have thought some kid got lost and stumbled into the chambers when you arrived.

A: (Laughs) It’s funny that you mention that. I actually had one of our majority staff members, who did PR for us, think I was a secretary when I walked into his office. He turned bright red when he figured out I was a senator.

He and I chuckled about that over the years, that his first impression was that I was hired help for the session.

Q: Was the political environment still somewhat bi-partisan back then, or had we already taken a tilt toward being a strongly red state?

A: I was elected in 1996 and the wave to red had started in ’94. I was part of the second wave — the wave reaching to the north. The five northern counties had, for a long time, been “lunch bucket’ conservative Democrats. It was just at the start of Idaho becoming one of the most Republican states in the nation.

Once the session began and the work started, most of the battles were along other lines; rural issues versus city issues and pro-education versus not-so-pro-education.

Those things seemed to be the lines more so than the party. And that, for the most part, remains today in the Senate. There’s quite a bit of work across party lines and the splits tend to be issue-oriented.

Q: At what point did the Republican Party start to make the shift toward where it stands today?

A: In my journal, that happened in about 2010, when the state Republican Party took a definite turn further to the right and split into what we’re seeing today. I believe it’s couched in terms of “establishment Republicans” versus some who call themselves “liberty legislators.”

Q: Eight years later, has that trend abated or continued apace?

A: I think there’s a struggle in my party. There’s still very much a divide. You see that in the Republican governor’s race and, somewhat, in the congressional race on the Republican ticket.

Q: In our local races, hasn’t there been a resurgence of what you might call “traditional Idaho Republicans” throwing their hats into the ring?

A: My terminology is “Main Street Republicans.” Folks in our area are independent and they don’t want to be painted into any particular box. They tend to be common sense and fiscally conservative.

Q: It seemed like many in the party were caught flat-footed by some of the heated rhetoric and the dogma that came with that shift farther right. Is that a fair statement?

A: In 2010? Certainly. I think there was surprise at the division within the party. Ever since then, there has been a tussle across the state. And it goes back and forth, quite frankly.

Q: You have been the direct recipient of the nastiness that has infected politics. Did you see that coming? And what kept you coming back for more mud splattering each election cycle?

A: In 2012, and again in 2014 and 2016, I was targeted with the evolution of that nastiness at the national level expressing itself in our state legislative races. The majority of the voters continued to support me and that gave me confidence to keep slugging away in spite of the nastiness that ensued during those campaigns.

To say that a different way, the folks who took the time to vote and my procurement of the majority of those votes gave me the strength to continue, despite the baloney.

Q: You have a reputation for meat and potatoes, rural Idaho legislative success — infrastructure, roads, and schools. Did you go into office with that list of issues or did it evolve?

A: I’ve always tried to listen to people at home. That’s what inspired me to run in the first place. At the time and to a great degree today, the concerns were funding of public schools, getting our fair share of transportation dollars and having the state help with infrastructure like water and sewer systems.

Being responsive to those issues has helped me keep my focus. I feel like that’s what the job is about. Yes, it’s a partisan position and I still consider myself a Republican, but when the election is over, I’m elected to represent everybody in the district.

Q: What was your proudest legislative moment?

A: I’ve been blessed to work on a host of issues, but my good moments were when I could make a positive difference for a constituent issue — things like helping a veteran and his wife secure the benefits they’ve been denied.

Q: How about your most crushing defeat for something you believed in?

A: One of them was the “Luna Laws.” I argued and argued and thought I put my best debate out there as I walked through those bills and tried to show my fellow senators that the proposal to put one-to-one computers to students in the classroom was being directly funded from teachers’ salaries. I put my whole heart and soul into it and those laws passed anyway.

Eventually, the people of Idaho validated my concerns and the governor put a task force together that resulted in a lot of good things happening.

Overall, the crushing defeats are overshadowed by the positive things that have happened for our area.

Q: You are the longest-sitting female member of the Idaho Senate and ascended to a position of influence in that role. It stymies me that people who have primaried against you seemed to have been under the impression they could walk on and assume all of the influence on Day 1.

A: I don’t think enough people have been paying attention and they don’t understand that at all. And comments like the one that was made by a House member from our area two years ago that indicated that women got ahead by doing sexual favors don’t help.

There’s a lack of understanding of how the process works. If you want to do positive things that are within the proper role of government for our area and for our state, that involves getting 36 votes in the House and 18 votes in the Senate, as well as the governor’s support to either sign the bill or allow it to become law without his signature. And that means building positive, productive, working relationships. That’s really the root of the work that needs to be done.

Q: Has it become more difficult to attract the brightest and the best to run for office in the current political environment? Are good candidates still coming forward?

A: I’m encouraged by people like Jim Woodward and Mike Boeck stepping up from our area. That gives me hope and confidence. But it does give people pause. Sometimes, the political arena and the commitment of personal time it takes are barriers to people stepping up.

Q: You’ve completed your last legislative session and are on the home stretch for this chapter of public service. What’s your current state of mind — looking back longingly or palpable relief?

A: (Laughs) Bittersweet, would be a good description. It’s time. I have been blessed by the voters all these years and it’s been a tremendous honor and privilege to serve. I will miss having that vote and the gravitas that comes with that vote, because it gives you the opportunity to get things done for people.

But it is time for me, my family, my day job employer and, I believe, for the district, for me to step aside gracefully.

Q: Any outgoing words of wisdom for the electorate as you make this transition?

A: I’ll focus my comments on the people of our community who are of voting age. If you’re 18 or older, and you don’t vote, don’t complain. Statewide and in our area, too, we have people that sit out. They sit out the primary, they sit out the general, but yet complain about the folks who are in office.

I encourage all of us to participate. I know it sounds cliché, but the world really is run by those who show up. So I plead with all of us to show up. I can’t stress enough just how important that is.