Fuhriman provides counterevidence against inferring bad-faith party entry from issue divergence alone

The alignment audit should preserve counterevidence alongside policy divergence. Rep. Ben Fuhriman is a useful example. He opposed 2025 HB 93, a parental-choice tax-credit policy consistent with the Idaho GOP platform's stated support for money following students and private/parochial options; Defend and Protect Idaho and the Idaho Dairy Industry PAC later supported him in the 2026 Republican primary. However, separate Idaho GOP records show Fuhriman participating directly in formal party governance rather than merely using the Republican ballot label. A 2026 proposed party-rule amendment identifies him as Bingham County Republican Central Committee State Committeeman and presenter of a county-passed amendment intended to let county central committees offset dues by financially supporting Republican candidates and State Fair outreach, expressly framed as strengthening the Republican Party's grassroots foundation and protecting the Republican name and brand. A 2026 GOP winter-meeting resolution on Idaho water likewise lists Fuhriman as a submitter/presenter. The GOP's 2026 Integrity in Affiliation page says Fuhriman had not returned the requested statement by the listed deadline, but non-return is an administrative fact and does not establish motive or ideological identity. The correct conclusion is narrow: Fuhriman has issue-level divergence on school-choice policy while also holding/performing formal Republican Party organizational roles. This is evidence against treating platform disagreement by itself as proof of deceptive party infiltration. His broader voting record and funding relationships should still be audited issue by issue.