District 35A to see election battle between first-time Republican legislator and Democratic opponent
Published at
IDAHO FALLS — After securing the nomination in the May primary election, a first-time Republican state legislator is now facing off against a Democratic candidate in Idaho District 35A.
Mike Veile, R-Soda Springs, was appointed by Gov. Brad Little in 2025 to fill a position left by Kevin Andrus, who took a job as the state director of the U.S. Farm Service Agency. He successfully secured enough votes against Republican challenger Chad Christensen in the May primary election.
Now Veile will face the polls once again as candidate Walter Boyd looks to persuade voters to elect him as representative for District 35A.
District 35 lies right on the border between Idaho and Wyoming and casts a wide net, taking portions of cities and most of the towns that reside in eastern Idaho. Some of the places within this district include Soda Springs, Montpelier, Driggs, Paris, Inkom, and portions of Bonneville County.
The total population of the district is 50,982, according to VoteIdaho.org.
EastIdahoNews.com sent both candidates the same questionnaire and Veile’s and Boyd’s answers are listed below.
The general election will be held on Nov. 3. Polls are open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.
For more candidate questionnaires and information about the midterm election on Nov. 3, check out East Idaho Elects. To learn where to vote or what’s on your ballot, visit VoteIdaho.gov.
Tell us about yourself — include information about your family, career, education, volunteer work, and any prior experience in public office.
Veile: I grew up in Rexburg and have called Soda Springs home for nearly 30 years. My wife and I have been married for over 30 years, and we have four children. Family, community, and the opportunities that come with living in eastern Idaho are important to me.
I earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees in mechanical engineering from Utah State University and have spent more than 30 years working in engineering, business, and management. I currently own an engineering firm in Soda Springs, where much of my work involves water systems and infrastructure for rural communities.
Over the years, I’ve served on a number of local boards and committees, including our local school board. During the 2026 legislative session, I worked on six bills that passed. Listening, negotiating, and working with people who initially opposed those bills were important to getting them across the finish line.
I was appointed to the Idaho House of Representatives in September 2025 and served during the 2026 legislative session. That experience reinforced my belief that effective government requires preparation, careful consideration of the facts, and a willingness to work with others.
Outside of work and public service, I enjoy spending time with my family in Idaho’s outdoors, whether hunting, hiking, or simply enjoying the mountains and public lands we’re fortunate to have.
Boyd: My wife and I live in Ammon, and I am the father of four sons. I earned a B.S. in Economics from Brigham Young University and an MBA in Global Business. I previously volunteered as a Scoutmaster. My career of more than 40 years has been divided roughly between entrepreneurship and high-level information technology.
I began in our family controls-engineering business, which grew into an Inc. 500 company. Those entrepreneurial years demanded business judgment across finance, customers, employees, operations, and risk—and personal accountability for the results. I later held senior cybersecurity roles, including at Microsoft. Today I am a Principal Security Architect at a major financial institution, working on complex security systems and AI policy.
My wife and I are developing a 130-tree regenerative orchard without herbicides, fungicides, or insecticides. We maintain diverse living cover to feed soil microbes, encourage biological nutrient cycling, and measure soil microbial activity and plant nutrition. Our goal is more nutrient-dense fruit, healthier soil, and better water use—not simply an organic label. The orchard is a practical lesson in how interconnected systems respond to management and why claims must be tested against results. I would bring an uncommon combination to the Legislature: practical business judgment, deep technical expertise, and a commitment to evidence-based decisions.
Why are you seeking political office in your community? Briefly explain your political platform.
Veile: I’ve always been someone who wants to get involved and solve problems. I care deeply about District 35 and believe our communities deserve representation focused on finding solutions. Serving the people of this district has been one of the highest honors of my life.
My approach comes from more than 30 years in engineering and business, where solving problems requires understanding the facts, listening to those involved, and finding solutions that actually work.
Education is one of my highest priorities. We need to support our public schools, give local districts more flexibility, and reduce unnecessary regulations that take time and resources away from educating students.
I’m also committed to protecting public access to Idaho’s lands and resources, securing our water future, and supporting critical industries that provide good jobs and strengthen our economy.
Local control is another important principle. Decisions should be made as close to the people affected as practical, and the state shouldn’t impose requirements on communities without providing the resources necessary to meet them.
Idaho will continue to grow. We need to manage that growth responsibly while encouraging economic opportunity that expands our tax base without continually asking families to pay more.
I don’t believe we solve difficult issues by simply taking sides and arguing. We make progress by listening, working together, and focusing on real solutions for rural Idaho families.
Boyd: I am running because Idaho cannot build a strong future by continually shortchanging the next generation. Education is a generational investment. The latest U.S. Census figures put Idaho last among states in public-school spending per student. Our children must be prepared to compete globally, and businesses considering investment need a skilled workforce. I support sustained investment in teachers, strong foundational academics, career and technical opportunities, and measurable educational outcomes—not spending without accountability.
Water security is an equally urgent, long-term economic priority. The 2026 drought and groundwater curtailment orders exposed the potential for devastating losses to eastern Idaho farmers and the communities that depend on them. We need a coordinated strategy: aquifer recharge, sound monitoring, fair water-rights administration, verified reductions in consumptive use, improved delivery systems, and healthier soils.
Artificial intelligence is transforming employment, education, and public life whether we welcome it or not. I am enthusiastic about its possibilities but deeply skeptical of technology companies setting their own rules. Idaho must put AI literacy into classrooms, prepare workers for disruption, and protect privacy, security, and public accountability. Data-center siting deserves transparent scrutiny of water and electricity demand, ratepayer costs, local impacts, and tax incentives. Growth should pay its fair share. This rapidly evolving technology requires legislators with genuine expertise—not blind faith in industry promises.
With rising housing, fuel, and food costs facing Idahoans, can the state government help bring relief to Idaho citizens? Is it the role of the Idaho Legislature to help deal with these issues?
Veile: Yes, I believe the Legislature has a responsibility to consider how its decisions affect the cost of living for Idaho families. But we also need to recognize that not everything driving higher prices is within the state’s control.
One of the most important things we can do is avoid making the problem worse.
For housing, we should examine regulations, permitting requirements, and infrastructure costs that unnecessarily increase the expense of building homes. At the same time, we need to respect local communities and their ability to manage growth responsibly.
With food and fuel, national and international markets play a significant role. Idaho cannot control those prices, but we can support our agricultural producers, transportation systems, and local businesses rather than placing additional burdens on them.
I also believe we need to look carefully at taxes and state spending. Tax relief matters, but it needs to be sustainable. Simply shifting costs from the state to local governments, schools, or property taxpayers isn’t meaningful relief.
Ultimately, a strong economy is one of the best ways to keep Idaho affordable. Responsible growth and good-paying jobs can generate additional revenue without continually raising taxes.
Our goal should be to create opportunities for families to earn a good living, keep more of what they earn, and still maintain the essential services our communities depend on.
Boyd: Yes. Idaho should be business-friendly, not business-submissive. Growth should improve life for existing residents, not shift its costs onto them. Economists call that externalizing costs; families see the result in property taxes, rents, and utility bills.
Housing illustrates why local judgment matters. In Ammon, growth puts pressure on roads, water systems, and other infrastructure. Rural Teton County faces extraordinary affordability pressures spilling over from the Jackson housing market. Rural Caribou County has a smaller, lower-priced housing market with very different challenges. These communities need locally tailored solutions, not a one-size-fits-all mandate from Boise.
The state should give local governments practical tools to increase housing supply and recover growth-related infrastructure costs fairly. Development should pay its proportionate share, without duplicative fees that make new housing less affordable. Existing homeowners and renters should not subsidize private expansion without a demonstrable public benefit.
The same principle applies to data centers and other industries. Major users should pay the costs of the electricity, water, and infrastructure they require; polluters should bear the costs they impose. Shifting an expense off a company’s books does not eliminate it—someone else pays. The Legislature cannot control national fuel prices, but it can support targeted food-tax relief, fair utility rates, and growth policies suited to each community.
How will you best represent the views of your constituents – even those with differing political views? How do partisan politics play into your role as an elected leader?
Veile: I represent everyone in District 35, not just those who voted for me, and not just those who belong to my political party.
I believe that’s an important responsibility of holding public office.
People across our district may disagree on particular issues, but we often share many of the same concerns: good schools, safe communities, affordable living, access to public lands, and opportunities for our children and grandchildren.
My responsibility is to listen, understand those concerns, and make decisions based on the facts, my principles, and what I believe will best serve our communities.
I’m a Republican, and my conservative principles guide how I approach government. I believe in personal responsibility, limited and accountable government, local decision-making, and responsible spending.
But I don’t believe every issue needs to become a partisan fight. A good idea doesn’t become a bad idea simply because it comes from someone with a different political viewpoint.
My professional experience has taught me that difficult problems are rarely solved by refusing to listen to people who disagree with you.
I believe we need more thoughtful discussion, less political theater, and a willingness to work together where we can.
We won’t always agree, but we can disagree respectfully and still make progress for the people we represent.
Boyd: Too many voters in both parties vote for the letter beside a candidate’s name rather than examining the policies behind it. I remember when opposing viewpoints led to serious policy debates. Too often they have been replaced by partisan bickering, personal insults, and demands for ideological purity. Extreme voices on both sides crowd out practical problem-solving. None of that fixes a road, protects a water supply, or improves a school.
I would represent everyone in District 35A, including those who did not vote for me. Our five counties have different needs. Listening means meeting people where they are, asking what they are experiencing, and treating disagreement as information rather than disloyalty.
In business, engineering, and cybersecurity, difficult problems demand facts, honest consideration of competing risks, and testing proposed solutions against measurable results. People with different political values can each identify real problems. A successful legislator should be able to use those insights rather than dismiss them because of who offered them.
I have principles and will explain them plainly. But a party label does not relieve me of the responsibility to think independently, negotiate in good faith, and explain my votes. I will cooperate with Republicans, Democrats, and independents who want practical solutions. We need to replace performative partisan conflict with the sometimes difficult work of governing.
What parts of the Legislative budget could use more funding? Where are places in the budget where cuts could be made?
Veile: I believe we need to begin by identifying what services are essential, whether they’re being delivered effectively, and what results taxpayers are receiving for their investment.
Public education remains one of my highest priorities. We need a school funding formula that reflects the actual costs of educating students, particularly in rural districts. I want to continue working with Superintendent Debbie Critchfield on updating that formula.
We also need to recognize the challenges facing rural communities in providing emergency services, maintaining infrastructure, and meeting state requirements without continually increasing property taxes.
Water infrastructure and long-term water security are other areas where thoughtful investments today can prevent much greater costs in the future.
I believe Idaho generally operates responsibly, but there are opportunities for greater efficiency. One example is water and wastewater infrastructure. Funding individual systems for every community doesn’t always take advantage of economies of scale. Where practical, shared infrastructure and strategic consolidation can make limited dollars go further.
We should also examine state regulations and federal oversight requirements that add unnecessary costs without corresponding benefits.
During the 2026 session, we faced difficult budget decisions. One lesson was that reductions made at the state level can simply transfer costs to local governments or reduce services our residents rely on.
Responsible budgeting means looking beyond immediate savings, considering long-term consequences, measuring results, and changing approaches that aren’t working.
Boyd: Idaho should be fiscally disciplined, but discipline is not indiscriminate cuts. The 4% and 5% reductions imposed on most state agencies were choices, as were the tax policies that preceded them. Legislators should own both decisions and explain the consequences.
A public school, road, police department, or fire department does not become ‘socialism’ simply because taxpayers fund it. These are legitimate functions of government that support families and commerce. The serious questions are how effectively they work, what they cost, and who pays.
I would prioritize public education and career preparation, rural maternity and emergency care, and long-term water security. Before reducing essential services, I would scrutinize ineffective corporate incentives, underperforming contracts, and the nearly $50 million tax-credit program for nonpublic education. Government and business alike should be judged by demonstrable results.
Washington has given Americans ample reason to question whose interests government serves. Idaho should set a better example. I have no quarrel with financial success: a farmworker and a highly paid neurosurgeon both earn their living by going to work. My concern is special treatment for people whose enormous wealth gives them outsized influence, while ordinary Idahoans are left paying the bill. Our laws and budgets should serve the public, not the best-connected. Every tax break and spending decision should answer three questions: Who benefits? Who pays? And what do Idahoans get in return?
In 2026, Idaho suffered a historic drought, leaving eastern Idaho’s reservoirs at an all-time low. As a result, crop yields were significantly impacted. What specific strategy or legislation would you support to protect groundwater and surface water resources, and what is your timeline for measurable improvements?
Veile: Water is one of the most important long-term issues facing eastern Idaho. Agriculture, industry, and our communities all depend on a dependable supply, and the drought this year demonstrated how vulnerable that supply can be.
I believe we need a coordinated approach that includes additional water storage, improved infrastructure, aquifer recharge, and careful management of both groundwater and surface water.
Protecting existing water rights and honoring the agreements between water users must be central to that effort. We cannot solve one group’s water problem simply by transferring it to another.
I support continued investment in managed aquifer recharge and improvements to existing storage and delivery systems. We should also evaluate opportunities for new storage, recognizing that these projects require cooperation among water users, irrigation districts, the state, and federal agencies.
My engineering background has given me firsthand experience with water infrastructure and the importance of long-term planning.
Within the next legislative session, I would work to advance funding and planning for specific water projects and establish measurable annual milestones.
Within three to five years, we should be able to demonstrate progress through increased recharge capacity, completed infrastructure improvements, and projects moving toward construction.
We cannot control the weather, but we can make steady progress every year toward a more dependable water supply.
Boyd: The 2026 drought exposed an unacceptable weakness in Idaho water policy. Farmers faced curtailment under senior agricultural rights and a separate threat under the Swan Falls hydropower agreement. These conflicts have been known for decades. Farmers cannot plan their livelihoods around last-minute emergency negotiations.
Idaho Power serves customers in Idaho and Oregon and sells electricity into regional wholesale markets. When senior hydropower rights put Idaho farms at risk, the public deserves a clear accounting of how those rights benefit Idaho ratepayers, how much power is sold outside Idaho, and who bears the cost of curtailment. We must respect established water rights without assuming a utility’s commercial interests outweigh entire farming communities.
I would support an independent review of the 2026 curtailments and the Swan Falls framework, transparent aquifer and streamflow monitoring, managed recharge, voluntary compensated reductions in groundwater consumption, and targeted infrastructure investments. Regenerative soil practices that improve infiltration and water retention also belong in the strategy. Efficiency projects should demonstrate net basin-wide water savings, not simply reduced water applied per acre.
During the 2027 session, I would push for a durable regional water plan, with mitigation agreements in place before irrigation decisions are made. Publish annual measures of acre-feet recharged or conserved, aquifer trends, streamflows, farm impacts, and public expenditures. Review results after three years and adjust funding and targets after five.
One of the biggest issues on the November ballot is Proposition 1, a citizen-led ballot initiative that would repeal Idaho’s abortion ban. Do you support Proposition 1? Why or why not?
Veile: Shelly and I place a high value on protecting life, and we do not support Proposition 1. We will be voting against it.
I recognize that abortion is a deeply personal issue and that people have strongly held beliefs on both sides. I respect that, and I believe good people can disagree.
While I oppose Proposition 1, I also recognize that Idaho’s existing abortion law has some problems that need to be addressed. In our own circle of friends and family, we’ve known people who have had to travel to Utah to receive medical care related to pregnancy complications because that care wasn’t available to them in Idaho.
Those experiences are real, and I don’t believe we should ignore them simply because we oppose this initiative.
I believe we can protect unborn life while also making sure women experiencing serious pregnancy complications can receive the medical care they need here in Idaho. Clarifying the law to address serious threats to a mother’s health is a reasonable step we should consider.
My position is to vote no on Proposition 1 and then work to fix what isn’t working in our existing law.
This is an issue where thoughtful people will disagree. I respect those differences, and I believe we can have these conversations without questioning one another’s character or intentions.
Boyd: Yes. I support Proposition 1 as a reset of Idaho’s abortion laws, not a permanent settlement of the issue. Idaho’s current law is too extreme, even for many people who favor restrictions. Proposition 1 is a statutory initiative, not a constitutional amendment. It would establish reproductive-health protections, including abortion before fetal viability and in medical emergencies afterward. I do not expect the Legislature to leave those provisions untouched.
The consequences extend far beyond abortion. A peer-reviewed study documented a 35% net decline in Idaho OB/GYN physicians practicing obstetrics between 2022 and 2024. Some moved, others retired or stopped delivering babies. That leaves fewer doctors to manage normal pregnancies, emergencies, and complicated deliveries, particularly in rural communities.
We need clear medical protections for serious complications, including hemorrhage, infection, pregnancy loss, and threats to major organ function. Doctors should be able to act according to accepted medical standards before preventable harm occurs, rather than weigh the risk of criminal prosecution against the health of their patients.
If it passes, I expect the next Legislature to enact another restrictive abortion law. Nobody should assume this debate is over. The question is whether that next law corrects the failures of the current one, respects physicians’ clinical judgment, and reflects Idaho voters’ views. Idaho can value unborn life without treating the health of pregnant women as an afterthought. Proposition 1 gives voters a chance to demand that reset.
Idaho House Joint Resolution 4 (HJR 4) is a constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would give the legislature exclusive authority to legalize or decriminalize marijuana, narcotics, and psychoactive substances. It would also ban citizen initiatives that would allow voters to directly have a say on the issue. Do you support the passage of HJR 4? Why or why not?
Veile: Yes, I support HJR 4, although I recognize there is some nuance to this issue.
I believe in Idaho’s citizen initiative process and the right of citizens to bring issues forward. However, I am opposed to the legalization of recreational drugs because I believe the costs to families and society outweigh the benefits.
Drug addiction and its consequences affect far more than the individual making the decision. Families, schools, law enforcement, healthcare providers, and taxpayers often end up carrying those costs.
Legalizing drugs is a complicated issue that deserves a thorough legislative process. That means public hearings, testimony from medical professionals, law enforcement and other stakeholders, and careful consideration of the costs and consequences.
Even if drugs were legalized through an initiative, the Legislature would still be responsible for implementing the laws, establishing regulations, and funding the programs necessary to address the consequences.
I do recognize a distinction between recreational legalization and legitimate medical use. If a treatment has demonstrated medical benefits, appropriate regulatory approval, and is prescribed by a physician and dispensed through a pharmacy, I believe that’s a discussion worth having.
I understand why some people disagree with limiting the initiative process, and I respect that perspective. But on this particular issue, I believe the legislative process provides the scrutiny necessary to make responsible decisions.
That’s why I support HJR 4.
Boyd: No. My opposition to HJR 4 is not an endorsement of legalizing marijuana or adopting permissive drug policies. It is a defense of the citizen initiative process and the principle that political authority ultimately belongs to the people of Idaho.
HJR 4 would amend our Constitution to give the Legislature exclusive authority to legalize marijuana, narcotics, and other psychoactive substances. That means Idahoans could no longer use citizen initiatives to enact such laws, regardless of how many voters supported them. The separate proposed medical cannabis initiative did not qualify for the November ballot. This vote is not a referendum on cannabis legalization.
There are legitimate public-health and safety questions about drug policy, including addiction, impaired driving, youth access, and potential medical uses. Proposals deserve serious scrutiny, public hearings, and careful consideration of evidence. But none of those concerns requires taking away the voters’ right to propose a law when their elected representatives refuse to act.
The Legislature already has authority to amend or repeal laws enacted by initiative. HJR 4 goes further by permanently reserving one area of policy to legislators alone. A representative government should be accountable to its citizens, not insulated from them. I oppose HJR 4 because Idahoans should retain the ultimate authority to decide.