With the headlines and chatter around the Superintendent of Public Instruction debates, I want you to have the whole story.

Several months ago, I was asked informally whether I would participate in live debates during this campaign. My answer was yes. As the campaign progressed, more invitations came and the details became more formal.

The first forum was hosted by the Idaho Association of School Administrators. I asked that all candidates who would appear on the November ballot be included and was told that was their intent. All three candidates participated. Idaho Education News recorded the forum and made it available for anyone to watch.

That was debate number one.

Idaho Education News later invited me to participate in a debate it was hosting. Again, I agreed. It was shared, informally, that the organization had internal criteria for determining participation, including fundraising thresholds. I personally disagreed with that premise.

I still participated.

That debate was held live at the College of Idaho before an audience, with a moderator and panel. It was livestreamed and recorded.

That was debate number two.

KTVB then invited me to participate in a live, televised debate. Once again, I initially agreed. But KTVB’s participation criteria also meant that not all three candidates on the November ballot would be invited.

At that point, I had a decision to make.

I contacted KTVB and respectfully asked them to reconsider and include all three candidates. They respectfully stood by their policy. I then let them know I would not participate in another debate that excluded one of my challengers.

Here’s why: By then, Idahoans were already voting by absentee ballot. I believed the most informative and balanced debate would include all three candidates asking voters for their support.

I had already debated my Democratic opponent twice. I had debated the Constitution Party candidate once. She had met the requirements to appear on Idaho’s November ballot, and I did not believe she should be excluded from another statewide debate because of a fundraising threshold established by a media organization.

There is no requirement that a media outlet invite every candidate to a debate. Organizations are entitled to establish their own criteria and structure their events as they see fit. I respect that.

But I am also entitled to decide whether I will participate.

And in this case, I chose to stand on a principle: If three candidates have qualified for the ballot, voters should have the opportunity to hear from all three.

I wasn’t asking to exclude anyone. I wasn’t asking to add a field of 10 candidates. I was asking to include one additional candidate—the third person whose name Idahoans will see on their ballots.

I also asked my Democratic opponent to join me in requesting that all three candidates be included. She declined.

My decision about a third debate was not about avoiding questions or avoiding an opponent. I have already participated in two public debates. It was about who gets to decide which candidates Idaho voters hear from.

I believe that decision should rest with voters—not with a fundraising threshold and certainly not by subjective criteria where others tell you who is viable.

The right to vote is most meaningful when citizens have access to the information they need to make their own decisions. There are three candidates in this race. I believe Idahoans deserve the opportunity to hear from all three and decide for themselves. The fact that my opponent and her party were unwilling to stand up for that principle says far more about their commitment to an informed electorate than it does about me.