Incumbent Republican facing Democratic opponent in District 34 Senate race
Published at
REXBURG — Former representative and current State Senator Doug Ricks, R-Rexburg, will face Democratic candidate Ethan Sanford this November to represent District 34’s constituents.
District 34 consists of all of Madison County, which includes the cities of Rexburg and Sugar City, along with a handful of smaller towns on the east side of the county. Madison County has a population of 52,913, according to 2020 U.S. Census data.
EastIdahoNews.com sent the same eight questions to each candidates. Their responses were required to be 250 words are less and are listed below.
The general election will be held on Nov. 3. Polls are open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Information on other state races is available here. 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.
Ricks: I am a Republican member of the Idaho State Senate representing District 34, serving Rexburg and Madison County. A lifelong Idahoan, I grew up on a potato farm in Madison County and graduated from Madison High School. Later I earned degrees from Ricks College and Brigham Young University–Idaho. Before entering public service, I owned a computer store in Rexburg and worked at BYU–Idaho.
My public service includes two years in the Idaho House of Representatives and six years in the Idaho Senate. I currently serve as a precinct committeeman and have previously served as both county chairman and region chairman. In the Senate, I chair the Local Government and Taxation Committee and serve on the Judiciary and Rules Committee.
I also chair the Idaho Broadband Advisory Board and co-chair the Uniform Accounting and Transparency Board, which oversees disclosures on the Transparent Idaho website.
My wife, Melissa, and I have been married for 42 years, and we have five children and four grandchildren. Outside of public service, I enjoy traveling, fishing, shooting, riding side-by-sides in the mountains, and spending time with family.
Sanford: Hello, everyone! My name’s Ethan Sanford, and I’m running for Idaho State Senator from Legislative District #34 (a.k.a. Madison County)!
I was born in Tennessee, moved to Ohio when I was three, grew up there, and moved back to Tennessee in summer of 2016. My very first semester at BYU-I was Fall of 2020, and I’ve been back since January of 2024.
I’ve lived here in Idaho for almost three years now, and I love it here so much that I’ve decided to start the next chapter of my life here. If all goes according to plan, Idaho is where I’ll have my first post-graduation job, and where I’ll be able to start a family one day.
Between January 2022 and December 2023, I served a volunteer mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
I was in the Boy Scouts of America (a.k.a. the BSA) from Cub Scouts all the way to the rank of Eagle. After a lot of hard, persistent work, I achieved my Eagle on October 6, 2019.
I’m currently a student at BYU-I, and I’m set to graduate December 2027. I’m Majoring in Political Science (with a Minor in Creative Writing), and I plan to pursue a career in public service and public administration post-graduation.
I served as the Democratic Chair of Idaho Legislative District #34 from May 2024 to November 2025, and since November 2025 I have served as Chair of the Madison County, ID Democratic Party.
In June of 2024, I
Why are you seeking political office in your community? Briefly explain your political platform.
Ricks: I am a fifth-generation resident of Madison County, and my commitment to this community is deeply personal. I am seeking office because I want to provide the no-nonsense leadership our district deserves, ensuring that the values we hold dear are represented and protected in our state government.
My platform is built on a foundation of faith and family. I believe that faith provides the essential moral compass for leadership and that the family is the most important unit of our society. In education, my priority is to ensure that the needs of students and parents always come before the needs of adults. I support increased funding for public education, prioritizing teachers, while remaining open to a variety of learning options—including charter and private schools—to give every child the best start possible.
I am also committed to absolute fiscal responsibility and economic freedom. I believe in limited government, free markets, and the preservation of the American Dream, which is why I firmly oppose any shift toward socialism. Protecting our Constitutional rights, particularly the First and Second Amendments, is non-negotiable for me. I have worked hard to turn these principles into results, such as sponsoring House Bill 292 & House Bill 521 to significantly reduce property taxes for Idaho homeowners and increase school facilities by $1 billion funding while lowering property taxes. I will continue to fight for a government that is transparent, accountable, and respectful of the taxpayer.
Sanford: I want to be a part of my community’s decision-making process so that I can be a voice for those that can’t speak up for themselves.
I’ve had too many family members, friends, and other loved ones that have been ignored by their elected officials because they didn’t have nearly enough time in their busy lives to be politically active.
I’m very blessed and very grateful to be able to dedicate time for government service, and because of that, I’ve looked for every opportunity to serve.
I also want my fellow Democrats to have genuine representation on their local ballot; to me, if there’s only one option on the ballot, is it really a democracy?
My platform is this:
- Protect and Maintain our Water Resources
- Keep Public Lands in Public Hands
- Maintain an Adequate, Balanced Budget
- Protect Idaho’s Medicaid Expansion
- Protect our Schools, Public and Private
- Protect our Right to Ballot Initiatives
- Protect Reproductive Rights
- Protect and honor individual liberties
One of the many things about Idaho that I love is its “live and let live, and help each other out when needed” attitude. I want to keep it that way.
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?
Ricks: The reality is that the state government cannot control global supply chains or federal monetary policies that drive up the cost of fuel and food. It is not the role of the Idaho Legislature to attempt to micromanage the free market or implement price controls, as those measures typically create more shortages and higher prices in the long run.
However, I believe the state government absolutely has a role in providing relief. While we cannot lower the price of milk, we can lower the tax burden on the families buying it. The best way the Legislature can help Idahoans deal with inflation is by ensuring that the Idaho government isn’t adding to the financial pressure.
My approach has been to focus on delivering tangible tax relief to the people of Idaho. By co-authoring and sponsoring House Bill 292 and House Bill 40, we helped reduce property taxes by an average of 18% across the state and cut income taxes by 23.5% since 2000. By lowering the tax burden, we provide Idahoans with a little more room in their monthly budgets to better manage rising costs at the pump and the grocery store. I believe the role of the Legislature is to get government out of the way, eliminate regulations that inflate housing costs, and keep taxes as low as possible so that citizens keep more of their own hard-earned money.
Sanford: The state government absolutely can bring relief to its citizens amongst these rising food, fuel, and housing costs.
The Idaho Democratic Party recently came out in support of repealing the grocery tax, a stance I fully back.
We should also temporarily (for 90 calendar days) lower the state gas tax to 20 cents per gallon. That way, drivers feel less pressure at the pump during these rapidly increasing national gas and oil prices, and the resources that that revenue goes towards don’t take huge, permanent losses. Once national gas and oil prices go back down quite a bit, we would raise the gas tax back to 33 cents a gallon so that we can regain that revenue.
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?
Ricks: Being a fifth-generation resident of this community, I don’t just represent District 34 – I am a part of it. I am proud to represent a district that overwhelmingly shares a commitment to conservative values. My approach to representation is rooted in that shared identity. I believe the best way to serve is to be a steadfast champion for the principles that the vast majority of my constituents hold dear: faith, family, and the rule of law.
When it comes to those with differing views—whether they are from a different party or simply have a different take on a specific policy – I believe in treating every person with respect and listening to their concerns. However, my primary responsibility is to be a reliable voice for the values that define our district. I will always listen, but I will not compromise the conservative principles that you elected me to defend.
As for partisan politics, I don’t view my role as ‘playing a game’ for a political party. To me, being a Republican isn’t just about a label; it’s about a conviction that limited government and individual liberty are the only ways to ensure prosperity and freedom.
My loyalty isn’t to a political machine; it is to the people of District 34 and the Constitution. I am here to ensure that the conservative majority in our community has a strong, upright, and no-nonsense voice in the state capital – one that doesn’t waver and doesn’t back down when it comes to protecting our freedoms.
Sanford: To best represent the views of my potential constituents, I will stay tuned to what they’re saying (collectively and individually).
To do so, I’ll employ the following strategies: Frequent social media (such as Facebook and Instagram), frequent emails, frequent attendance at public events, texting, phone calling, and one-on-one meetings/get-togethers.
Through all of these methods, I will utilize frequent Q&A sessions/time periods. I pride myself on answering asap as many inquiries that I receive as possible.
I am a registered Democrat because I genuinely agree with the Idaho Democratic Party’s platform, and I have had too many negative experiences with the Republican Party as a whole.
However, when it comes to representing my potential constituents, I would follow the motto of State Senator James Ruchti (D) of Pocatello; vote with my party’s leadership when it serves my constituents, and vote against my party’s leadership when it serves my constituents.
If a candidate is going to ask for someone’s vote, they have an inherent obligation to make themselves present and available as much as possible for voters’ consideration.
My personal philosophy on political parties is this: they are meant to support elected officials and run candidates that they seem the best fit for their respective constituencies. They are meant to be a mouthpiece for those that are closest to them politically. However, they are not meant to dictate the actions of those elected officials; they are not meant to punish those officials for offending them, whether or not they’re a fellow party member.
What parts of the Legislative budget could use more funding? Where are places in the budget where cuts could be made?
Ricks: As a steward of taxpayer money, my guiding principle is that every dollar spent must be justified. I believe in a lean, efficient government that prioritizes results over bureaucracy.
Regarding funding, we must prioritize investments that directly impact the safety and future of our families. This means ensuring law enforcement and first responders have the resources to keep our communities safe, and ensuring education funding reaches the classroom to empower students and parents rather than fueling administrative overhead. Idaho spends over 63% of its general fund on education – only 4 states give a higher percentage.
When it comes to cuts, we must target administrative bloat. Almost every agency suffers from ‘budget creep,’ where the number of administrators grows while actual service to the citizen declines. We need to scrub the budget for redundant programs and outdated regulations.
Over the last six years, lowering Idaho income tax rates has actually increased state revenue by fostering a stronger, more vibrant economy. This proves that when we trust citizens with their own money, the entire state benefits. By cutting waste and bureaucracy, we can fund our essential priorities—like public safety and education—without ever raising taxes on the hardworking people of District 34. Our goal is a government that does its job effectively and then gets out of the way.
Sanford: We need a lot more funding in our state budget for our public schools (preK-12 and secondary).
We would then balance it out by greatly reducing the state budget allotment for the private school voucher program. Public tax dollars should primarily remain in public schools for those that rely on public schools (public schools are a public service).
I fully support public and private schools, but those that can pay for private school tuition should pay for it themselves.
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?
Ricks: I am supportive of efforts to help preserve our water supply and to make it more efficient, and legislation if necessary. I attend water meetings and water college field trips to stay informed. Any changes to the current water agreement would require a large group effort initiated by the stakeholders – farmers.
Protecting Idaho’s Groundwater and Surface Water Resources
In recent years with drought conditions, Idaho has taken significant farmer-led steps, with support from the legislature, to protect both groundwater and connected surface-water supplies. In 2024, the Groundwater Users and the Surface Water Coalition completed an updated mitigation plan for the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer (ESPA). The agreement provides a long-term framework to improve aquifer health, protect senior surface-water rights, prevent injury to water users, and reduce the risk of widespread losses to productive farmland.
Since 2019, Idaho has also:
- Committed approximately $500 million over three years to water-supply and conservation projects.
- Provided an additional $10 million annually in 2024 for projects designed to improve ESPA health.
- Convened a statewide Water Summit in 2023 to identify water challenges and develop solutions.
- Created the ESPA Groundwater Management Plan Advisory Council to help develop a durable management plan.
Together, these efforts combine sustained investment, conservation, local farmer collaboration, and enforceable water-management commitments. They are strengthening the ESPA, supporting reliable surface-water deliveries, protecting water rights, and keeping Idaho’s water decisions under state leadership (not federal).
Sanford: My campaign website provides specific solutions for our current water crisis.
As far as a specific timeline for measureable solutions, I propose a period of two consecutive calendar years for tracking and analyzing the results of those solutions. This two-year period would allow for appropriate trial-and-error in implementation, and it would enable the state’s water officials to gather plenty of data for analysis.
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?
Ricks: My Position
No. I oppose Proposition 1 because I believe it would roll back Idaho’s pro-life laws far beyond Roe v. Wade and weaken protections for unborn children.
Why I Oppose It
First, Prop 1 would allow abortion until fetal viability while redefining viability as survival without “extraordinary medical measures.” Imagine an abortion into eight months of pregnancy. This would make Idaho extreme compared to most states. For example, Virginia has a constitutional amendment on the ballot to prevent abortion in the third trimester. Nevada has a similar constitutional amendment ballot question that would prevent abortion beyond 24 weeks.
Second, the measure grants the right to abortion to “every person,” regardless of age. I am concerned this would undermine Idaho’s parental-consent requirements and exclude parents from a minor daughter’s decision. Liability shielding would also cover “anyone assisting;” and likely the boy who impregnated your daughter and drove her to the clinic.
Third, Prop 1 would replace the requirement that a physician perform an abortion with a broader “health care provider” standard. I believe this could allow non-physicians to perform abortions and reduce an important medical safeguard for women.
Bottom Line
I believe Prop 1 goes far beyond restoring the framework that existed before Idaho’s current law. It would expand access to late-term abortion, weaken parental involvement, and broaden who may perform the procedure. For these reasons, I urge Idahoans to vote no on Proposition 1.
Sanford: I fully support Proposition 1 (a.k.a. the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act). Since the repeal of Roe v. Wade triggered Idaho’s abortion ban, Idaho has lost roughly 90 OBG-YNs, and current Idaho law also requires a police report to be filed if a s****l assault should unfortunately occur. Many women needing reproductive and abortion care (key word “needing”) have had to be life-flighted out of state just to receive that needed medical attention.
Having to file a police report in order to receive an abortion after a s****l assault does two things to the victim: 1) it forces them to relieve that traumatic experience, and 2) it makes them feel guilty/responsible for that attack (not reporting it immediately somehow makes it look like they’re liable for that attack).
If passed, Proposition 1 would make it much less likely for doctors to be penalized (including the potential suspension/loss of their license) and/or jailed just for providing necessary abortion care. It would also allow all women in Idaho to have a lot more say over their own bodies, and it would greatly reduce the chances of them being made to feel like the guilty one in the case of a s****l attack.
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?
Ricks:My Position
Yes. I support HJR 4 because decisions to legalize or decriminalize marijuana, narcotics, or psychoactive substances should remain with Idaho’s elected Legislature—not be decided through a citizen initiative.
What Would Remain
HJR 4 would preserve the legislative process: public hearings, debate, votes in both chambers, and action by the Governor. Citizen initiatives would remain available for all other issues.
What Would Change
The Legislature already has authority to legalize or decriminalize these substances. HJR 4 would reserve that authority for the legislative process only.
What It Would Not Do
- It would not legalize or prohibit any drug by itself;
- It would not change marijuana’s current legal status in Idaho;
- It would not prevent legislative consideration of medical marijuana or another regulated treatment; or
- It would not end Idaho’s initiative process for all other subjects.
Sanford:I fully oppose H.J.R. #4.
The citizens’ ballot initiative serves two purposes: 1) it provides an additional route for legislation when the state legislature does not adequately address a particular topic that Idahoans want/need addressed. 2) In the case that the legislature intentionally goes against the wishes of a majority of Idahoans (something that happens every year in every state), it is a backup option for Idahoans.
If Idahoans indeed want marijuana to remain illegal in their state, they should get to decide. The state legislature should obviously also get a say in the matter, but everyday Idahoans not in positions of power should not be left out of the decision-making process.
Additionally, I must admit that I find it very hypocritical for marijuana to remain illegal in the state while we let other substances like alcohol, tobacco, and even coffee remain legal to varying degrees. Marijuana could very well have potential health benefits, while substances like alcohol and tobacco obviously don’t.