Salem Political Snark

Vote for Tina Kotek, because Christine Drazan is scary

Recently I tried to jump-start the discussion at the beginning of a meeting of like-minded liberals on a pleasant Saturday afternoon. 

"In the upcoming election, what outcome would make you the most unhappy? For me, it would be Republican Christine Drazan being elected Oregon governor, because she'd take our state backwards in so many ways."

I still feel that way, though I had to agree with someone that the Democrats losing control of the U.S. Senate would be dreadful also. 

Tina Kotek (D), Betsy Johnson (Unaffiliated), Christine Drazan (R)

But Drazan coming out on top over Democrat Tina Kotek still ranks as my #1 November 8 horror. That's because I'd have to endure four years of Drazan standing in the way of efforts to move Oregon forward, and doing her best to move Oregon backward.

Backward to loosening environmental protections, undoing commitments to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, restricting abortion rights, giving tax breaks to giant corporations, making state government a pawn of business interests.

Betsy Johnson is running as the unaffiliated spoiler in the Governor's race. She has essentially no chance of winning. Unfortunately, Johnson has a decent chance of taking enough votes away from Kotek to make Drazan Oregon's next governor.

I know, that sounds weird to those who view our state as reliably blue. But polling indicates that it's a toss-up between Kotek and Drazan. So says the well-regarded FiveThirtyEight forecast.

So, please, vote for Tina Kotek. Resist the urge to register your irritation with current Governor Kate Brown by casting your ballot for Johnson or Drazan. I'm not wild about the job Brown has done either.

But I know that Kotek isn't Brown. She's her own woman, competent, experienced, personable, a skilled leader. Oregon will be much better off with Kotek in the Governor's Office, I'm confident of that.

Democracy is at stake in the upcoming election

I put my Oregon ballot in the mail today. It felt good to vote. Ever since I was eligible to do so, I haven't missed voting in any election.

Per usual, I voted for every Democratic candidate because I believe more strongly in what Democrats stand for, than in what Republicans do.

But this year there was an extra reason for me to fill in the box next to people belonging to the Democratic party: I'm deeply worried about Republicans wanting to subvert our democracy.

That's never happened before in my 50+ years of voting. 

Until 2022, Oregon and the United States as a whole had two major parties who disagreed on important issues, yet stood together in supporting free and fair elections, the rule of law, and orderly transfers of power regardless of which candidate won an election.

Sadly, those days are gone. Hopefully they will return. 

At the moment, though, polls show that most members of the Republican Party don't believe that Joe Biden is the legitimately elected president of the United States, even though there's no evidence of substantial voter fraud in the 2020 election.

Worse, Republicans have nominated hundreds of candidates across our nation who subscribe to Donald Trump's Big Lie that the election was stolen from him. Many of those candidates are promising to view any election that Republicans don't win as fraudulent, echoing the cries of the insurrectionists on January 6, 2021.

Scary. Really scary. 

That's why, when you cast your ballot in the November midterms, you aren't just voting for candidates. You're also voting to decide whether the United States slips into authoritarianism or remains a democracy.

In the October 24-31 issue of TIME magazine, Jon Meacham has a piece called "Lincoln's Lesson: How Our Greatest President Saved Democracy." Here's how it ends, with lessons for today.

The work of a democracy is to lead a sufficient number of individuals to share a moral vision about power, liberty, justice, security, and opportunity in the hope that people -- and peoples -- might be in closer harmony with the good.

As a multitude of individuals, a nation possesses a collective conscience -- one that is manifest in how that nation chooses, through the means of politics, to view rights and responsibilities.

In the 1860s, war was required to bend the arc of the moral universe toward justice. That is the great fact of the American story: secessionist white Southerners chose to fight and to die rather than surrender an aristocracy of race.

The Civil War, Lincoln told Congress in 1861, "presents to the whole family of man the question of whether a constitutional republic, or democracy -- a government of the people by the same people -- can or cannot maintain its territorial integrity against its own domestic foes."

The battle of the third decade of the 21st century is, for now, of a different scale. But we have already seen attempted insurrection, and many adherents of one of our two major political parties refuse to accept the legitimacy of the 2020 election, setting the stage for subsequent denials of reality as soon as next month's midterms.

While the Civil War era, therefore, is not a precise analogy, we would be derelict in our duties as citizens if we did not reckon with what Lincoln reckoned with: the often self-sacrificing demands of decency and of democracy.

On that March Monday in 1861, Lincoln spoke to the ages:

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

The words are immortal, as are angels -- but Lincoln teaches us even now that those angels will not take up the cause unless we do too.

Paul Evans debates Dan Farrington in HD 20 race

I'm not sure how fans of Paul Evans and Dan Farrington will take this, but it's what popped into my mind when a fellow Salem City Club member asked what I thought of the noon-time debate between the House District 20 candidates today.

I said, "It was like watching a debate between two slices of white bread." Not that there's anything wrong with white bread. I just prefer whole wheat, because it has a more interesting flavor.

Paul Evans (D) and Dan Farrington (R)

Neither candidate showed a lot of energy or enthusiasm. Now, I'm not sure whether this was due to both men having low-key personalities, the doldrums that come with the almost-end of a long campaign season, or whatever. 

Anyway, both Evans and Farrington were pleasant enough, and while they agreed on some issues, their disagreements reflected a basic fact: Evans is a Democrat; Farrington is a Republican.

This was made most clear in a final question from the audience about abortion rights, a.k.a. a woman's right to choose. Farrington said he's endorsed by Oregon Right to Life, adding incorrectly that Oregon allows a baby to be killed until it is born. Evans, on the other hand, said that he was thunderstruck by the Supreme Court decision and doesn't believe government should control a woman's body.

Asked about prescriptions for a healthy Willamette River, Farrington didn't have any ideas about this, saying that he'd go to professionals and ask their opinion. Evans gave a detailed multipoint answer, demonstrating that being an incumbent legislator brings some added expertise.

Evans was OK with what he called a "time out" on K-12 education standards. Farrington was dead-set against lowering standards, saying that Oregon needs to raise the bar, not lower it, adding that high school graduates aren't prepared to enter the work force.

The commercial activity tax that taxes the revenue of large businesses, not profits, was opposed by Farrington. Evans didn't sound enthusiastic about the tax, but noted that some big businesses have been paying no tax. 

The City Club moderator showed a slide indicating that the rate of violent crime in Salem has risen some over the past fifteen years, while property crime has decreased a bit. Asked about this, Evans said there's a problem recruiting police officers and we need to make sure police reform efforts are working. Farrington said that Measure 11o, which decriminalized drugs, is a failure, leading to more crime otherwise. Evans acknowledged that Measure 110 is "goofy."

Regarding their priorities as a legislator, Farrington said he'd work to eliminate Measure 110 and enhance public safety. Evans wants to help those affected by recent wildfires and provide more support for the Oregon State Police.

An audience member said they'd heard about a push to make marijuana illegal in Oregon.  Both candidates doubted this would happen, saying there's a problem making something legal, illegal.

Unions were backed by both Farrington and Evans, though Farrington said he doesn't believe workers should be forced to pay union dues. Schooling in the trades was given a big thumbs-up by both candidates. 

Asked about a universal health care report (from the legislature, I recall), Evans said he'll reserve judgement and see if Measure 111 passes that enshrines a right to access health care in the Oregon constitution. Farrington said he doesn't support universal health care at all, decrying a single payer system.

Here's the boundary of HD 20.

Ukraine aid another reason to vote for Andrea Salinas in CD 6

Like most Americans, I'm a big supporter of Ukrainians' fight against Russia's unprovoked invasion of their country.

The military and economic aid being supplied to Ukraine by the United States has done a lot to not only stop the Russian advance, but to help Ukraine gain back territory lost in the early days of the war.

However, Kevin McCarthy, who likely will be the Speaker of the House if Republicans take back that branch of Congress, has said that a GOP-led House probably will oppose more aid for Ukraine.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is signaling that if Republicans win the House majority in next month’s midterm elections, the GOP is likely to oppose more aid to Ukraine in its war with Russia.

Since the invasion in February the majority of congressional Republicans and Democrats have united in authorizing billions of dollars in U.S. military and humanitarian assistance to Kyiv as a geopolitical and moral stand against Vladimir Putin’s aggression.

McCarthy, who could be House speaker if Republicans triumph, indicated that that could end in a GOP-led House.

“I think people are gonna be sitting in a recession and they’re not going to write a blank check to Ukraine,” he recently told Punchbowl News. “They just won’t do it.”

McCarthy suggested that Americans want Congress to focus on issues closer to home.

So keep this in mind when you vote for your congressional representative. Andrea Salinas in the 6th Congressional District and Jamie McLeod-Skinner in the 5th Congressional District are Democrats who are much more likely to support aid to Ukraine than their Republican opponents.

Which, by the way, is a popular position according to recent polling: 71% said it is very important or better that Ukraine wins the war for the security of the United States; 53% said that the United States should either send more resources and weapons to Ukraine or stay with the current level of support.

Vote YES on all four Oregon ballot measures. Here's why.

Soon ballots will be mailed to Oregon voters. When you consider the statewide ballot measures, my advice is: vote YES on all four. 

This is why I believe each deserves to pass. 

Measure 111 amends the state constitution to require the state to ensure affordable health care access. The state must balance health care funding against funding for schools and other essential services. Courts must respect that balance.

So it isn't a blank check for Oregon to go wild on health care spending. The measure simply sets forth a laudable goal: people should be able to get health care at a reasonable cost. Not exactly a revolutionary idea. It's common sense.

Measure 112 amends the state constitution to remove language allowing slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment for crime. Really hard to argue against that. Unless someone favors slavery and involuntary servitude.

Measure 113 disqualifies state legislators with ten unexcused absences from legislative floor sessions from holding office as legislator for the term following their current term of office. Meaning, a legislator who fails to show up for work ten times without an excuse has to take a break from being a legislator.

This is so uncontroversial, there's no arguments against it in the Voter's Pamphlet. 

Measure 114 requires a background check, safety training, and a fee for a permit to acquire firearms. Magazines over 10 rounds are prohibited, though this doesn't apply to current owners of high capacity magazines.

Requiring safety training to buy a gun is comparable to passing a driving test before you're able to drive a car. We've all had to do that, once. Same with Measure 114. You just have to do it once. And if you have a concealed handgun license, you've probably met that requirement. So no big deal.

My simple election advice: Vote for Democrats

I'm often a verbose guy. But sometimes it only takes a few words to express how I feel. Here they are.

Today our monthly Salon discussion group met. At one point we talked about how back in the times after I moved to Oregon in 1971, there were moderate Oregon Republicans worth voting for.

Governor Tom McCall. Senators Mark Hatfield and Bob Packwood. Others who I can't remember.

But those days are gone. These days virtually every Republican politician has to bow at the altar of Donald Trump or they can't win a GOP primary.

So if you see a (R) after a candidate's name, it's almost a certainty that they're in favor of things Trump is: denying the validity of Biden's election, doing away with abortion rights, cutting taxes on the wealthy, making it harder to vote, letting the fossil fuel industry dictate energy policy, slashing social programs.

Democratic politicians aren't perfect. I'm not claiming that. However, almost always they are better than their Republican opponents. 

So please vote for Democrats in the November election. We need elected officials who will move us forward in the 21st century, not backward to a not-so-good past.

Salem's $300 million bond measure deserves a half-hearted "Yes" vote

I don't live in the city limits, so won't be voting on the $300 million infrastructure bond measure on the November ballot. But if I was able to vote on it, I'd sigh, grit my teeth, roll my eyes, and then reluctantly mark "Yes."

The Salem Reporter has an informative story about the bond measure. 

Salem voters next month will decide whether to fund repairs to streets and build new roads, replace aging fire trucks, improve parks and buy land for branch libraries and affordable housing over the next decade.

The city is seeking voter approval in the November general election for a $300 million infrastructure spending package, which would be paid for by issuing bonds paid back with property taxes over the next 30 years.

Salem has other bonds from older projects that are being paid off, so the measure won’t raise property tax rates if it passes. The city’s bond rate would remain at $1.20 per $1,000 of assessed value for Salem property owners.

If the measure fails, property owners would see their city bond tax rate fall to 75 cents per $1,000 of assessed value as voters continue to pay off other city projects.

One reason -- and its a big one -- why I half-heartedly support the bond measure is that it contains money to pave the parking lot of the Minto Brown dog park. Laurel, my wife and frequent user of the dog park with Mooka, our Husky mix, has worked to have this happen, so she'd be irked at me if I urged a "No" vote.

This personal anecdote points to both a strength and weakness of the bond measure: it has something for everybody, but fails to deliver on much-needed improvements in Salem. Meaning, it reflects what bothers me about the Salem City Council and city officials.

They're overly cautious about rocking the boat, even when the boat needs some rocking to get rid of serious problems sloshing around. The bond measure could have been transformative in its effect on Salem. 

Instead, it's better than nothing, yet nowhere near as good as it could have been.

The Salem Reporter story says, "The bulk of the money, $157 million, would be spent to repair bridges and roads, improve signs, add pedestrian crossings and bike lanes on some streets and repair sidewalks." 

In an August post, the Salem Breakfast on Bikes blogger, who has a keen eye for policies that sound like they're doing something to deal with the key 21st century problem, climate change, yet actually aren't, had some cogent observations about the bond measure.

Here's some excerpts from "A Disappointing Bond Proposal - Council Work Session August 15." 

Framed up as an ostensibly responsible thing for "maintenance" and "community improvement," the proposed City bond doesn't really meet our moment. It looks to a backlog of wants and needs, formulated in largely 20th century modes, but does not do enough to sift the true needs from legacy wants, and then to identify what our 21st century needs might be.

...All in all the project list and total package is not very inspiring. 

At the same time, as we see in the diminution and reconfiguration from Build Back Better to Inflation Reduction Act, making the sausage is rarely inspiring. If the proposed bond package isn't inspiring, it's not terrible either. Maybe this was the best that was possible. But enough seams, gaps, and questions remain in it to make boosting for a hard sell.

The way the City is selling it as something for walking and biking is mainly puffery and does not inspire confidence. The transportation section leads in the City marketing materials with a bicycle and pedestrian category. But that's misleading, suspicious even, and evidence the City is doing a little bit of the bamboozle.

...The State Street project is $13 million for four blocks. It's not at all mainly a bike/ped project. It's a remodel for a "complete street" and a 4/3 safety conversion, and should be categorized instead as an "Urban Upgrade."

The Pringle Creek Path is a parks project, and belongs in the parks section.

That the McGilchrist project lacks a full set of protected bike lanesshows the City is not trying very hard. 

The evidence for strong walking and biking projects is considerably weaker than the City's rhetoric suggests.

...The whole doesn't look like anything designed to make meaningful progress on our climate needs. Sure, contemporary "urban upgrades" include sidewalks, bike lanes, and crosswalks, but these are generally legacy, 1980s style paint-only bike lanes and they are what the law requires on rebuilds anyway.

There's not a lot of "above and beyond," and the City is trying to position the bond as if it were full of "above and beyond" for walking and biking. It meets the minimum, but they want to say it is the maximum. It may not qualify as outright dishonest, but they are spinning when they could be concretely doing more.

So there's good reason for liberal environmentalists to view the bond measure as deserving of a "No" vote, and also good reason for conservative small-government types to view the bond measure as wasteful spending.

It probably will pass, since there's no organized opposition to it. But Salem could have done a lot better with the $300 million. 

My pet peeve is that the bond measure contains $26 million to replace Salem's entire fleet of fire trucks. This includes those giant trucks that race around town going to medical calls, which account for the vast majority of fire department calls.

It's ridiculous that the City Council didn't demand that the Salem Fire Department conduct a serious investigation into alternatives to the current highly inefficient way medical calls are responded to. A big reason why Salem's fire trucks are worn out is that they're rarely used to fight fires, and mostly used for medical calls.

Tom Andersen and TJ Sullivan debate in HD 19 race

Today the Salem City Club hosted a debate between Tom Andersen (D) and TJ Sullivan (R), who are vying to represent House District 19 in the Oregon legislature.

In Sullivan's opening statement he said that he'd had a reaction to the vaccine (Covid, I assume), causing a stroke. He's on the road to recovery. It was moving to hear Sullivan say that when he was finally able to touch his thumb and index finger together, that was so thrilling he kept doing it all day long. 

The first City Club question was about whether the candidates favored repealing Measure 110, a voter-passed initiative that decriminalized previously illegal drugs and allocated funds to treatment programs.  Andersen said no, but saw a need to spend the treatment money effectively. Sullivan does favor repeal, saying that people don't feel safe in their homes as drug use has risen.

The second question asked if Oregon's "kicker" program that refunds taxes exceeding what was projected to be raised by the state economist should be kept as is. I think this is a dumb idea, since it prevents Oregon from saving money in good times that can be spent in bad times. But both Sullivan and Andersen said it was a good idea. Probably politically wise to say that, since people like tax refunds.

Regarding the four statewide measures on the November ballot, the candidates were asked to state their position on two. Andersen said he favored all four, singling out Measure 113, which prevents a state legislator from running for office again if they have ten or more unexcused absences in a legislative session due to walkouts, and Measure 114, which controls firearms in several ways. Sullivan said he opposes Measure 111, which enshrines the right to health care in the state constitution and supports Measure 113.

Asked by the City Club if they favor decreasing state spending, Sullivan said he doesn't want a decrease, but wants spending to be more effective. He singled out mental health care as especially ineffective, a point he made repeatedly, often in regards to the plight of homeless people. Andersen agreed, saying he also wants effective spending. Andersen touted his skills as a lawyer in analyzing complex issues, communicating facts, and persuading people (a point he made repeatedly in the debate).

When it came time for questions from the audience, Sullivan said that he saw no reason to believe that Biden didn't win the presidency, though I don't recall him saying that the election was free and fair. Andersen said, of course Biden won.

Regarding campaign finance reform in Oregon, Andersen said he's always been outspent by political opponents. He mentioned Phil Knight's multi-million dollar contributions, noting that Oregon has no limits on individual contributions. Sullivan said the legislature is owned by the OEA (Oregon Education Association) and OPEU (Oregon Public Employees Union). Unlike Andersen, he wants to see political spending limited to individuals. 

Both Andersen and Sullivan said they favor a nonpartisan redistricting commission in Oregon. Andersen said he's willing to explore an open primary in Oregon while Sullivan said he's not sure about this idea.

Asked about a ban on gas powered vehicles and the use of natural gas, Sullivan said no to banning gas powered vehicles, noting that PGE has said there isn't enough power to charge electric vehicles if everybody used one. Andersen spoke about his leadership in getting the Salem Climate Action Plan created, saying that most emissions in our city come from single user cars, adding that cooking with natural gas is good, but heating with it is bad.

Both candidates are willing to look at ranked-choice voting. 

Regarding Oregon's overriding problems, Sullivan singled out mental health care and a need to work on the effects of climate change. Andersen said climate change, noting that this is a time of great peril for the climate. 

Not surprisingly, both candidates are enthusiastic about affordable housing. (I've never heard a politician say, "I want more unaffordable housing.") They also both like vocational career training programs. And both oppose capital punishment.

Sullivan's first bill in the legislature would refocus Oregon Health Authority spending on mental health. Andersen's first bill would ban the use and sale of pesticides that cause bees to die out. Andersen also wants to have each city be able to make its own rules regarding the open carry of firearms.

Asked about reproductive rights, Sullivan said he is pro life and that tax dollars shouldn't pay for abortions. Andersen said he's in favor of a woman's right to choose. 

The person who posed the abortion question told me after the debate that at a Salem Chamber of Commerce candidate forum a few weeks ago, Sullivan was asked about abortion rights and said:

"When I take the oath... if you are going to uphold the [Oregon] Constitution, right to life is one of the first things that's in there. I don't know how you pick and choose and say okay I am going to uphold this part of the Constitution and not that part of the Constitution."

Here's Section 1 of the Oregon Constitution. I don't see anything about a right to life there in the sense of banning abortion.

Here's a video of what Sullivan said at the Chamber of Commerce forum. 

Why Walsh deserves to win over Thatcher in SD 11 race

I could describe what happened in the main part of Friday's Salem City Club debate between Richard Walsh and Kim Thatcher before telling you who I think should win in the race for an open state senate race in District 11.

Richard Walsh and Kim Thatcher

However, the way Thatcher answered a question from an audience member near the end of the debate to my mind disqualifies her from serving not only as the SD 11 senator, but in any political office.

That's because I have no tolerance for those who spread the Big Lie that Joe Biden somehow stole the 2020 presidential election from Donald Trump even though there is zero evidence of this. And it was pretty damn obvious that Thatcher embraces the Big Lie, though she didn't say so absolutely directly.

The person who asked the question mentioned the Big Lie, asking Thatcher who she thought won the presidential election. Thatcher started off with the usual Republican trying to look halfway moderate in a swing district approach by saying Biden currently is the president, so he won.

But Thatcher didn't stop there, though she would have been politically wise to do so. 

Thatcher went on to say that there were questions about the 2020 election, and questions should be allowed from both sides. OK, so far, so good. But Thatcher then said that in Pennsylvania there were more votes than registered voters. 

That's part of the Big Lie. See here, here, and here. Actually 77% of registered voters in Pennsylvania cast a ballot in 2020.

Thatcher could have learned this, just as I did, from a few minutes of Googling. That she didn't do so, or knew the truth and spewed the lie at the City Club debate anyway, shows that Kim Thatcher doesn't respect facts -- a very bad attribute for a state legislator.

Otherwise, the debate was fairly predictable. Walsh is a Democrat. Thatcher is a Republican. Their views on various policies mostly matched their party.

Asked about which of the four ballot measures on the November ballot are most important, Thatcher said that she doesn't support Measure 111, which puts a right to health care in the state constitution, while Walsh likes that measure.

Both candidates support the police. What a non-shock.

On fighting inflation, Walsh mentioned lowering prescription drug costs and supporting higher wages, which gives workers more money to spend on stuff. Thatcher favored doing away with government red tape and lowering taxes, which also gives workers more money to spend on stuff.

Regarding Measure 110 that decriminalized drugs, Walsh supports the voter's decision, noting that resources were supposed to be committed to treatment programs, which has been slow in happening. Thatcher agreed with Walsh, adding that she'd like to send the measure back to voters with modifications aimed at strengthening incentives to seek treatment.  

Lastly, Thatcher talked several times about bringing "balance" to the Oregon legislature. Meaning, more Republicans to counter the current Democratic majority. She believes rural Oregonians are underrepresented in the legislature. 

Well, my attitude is that this is how democracy works. Does Thatcher feel that the legislatures in Oklahoma, Alabama, Mississippi, and other red states are out of balance because they're controlled by Republicans? I deeply doubt it. 

This "out of balance" argument by Oregon Republicans seems to be rooted in the false GOP attitude that any election where Republicans don't win is unfair. Which is just one step away from the Big Lie spewed by Trump that Thatcher echoes.

Kotek only Governor candidate who will fight climate change

If you're an Oregonian who cares about fighting climate change, there's only one Governor candidate who deserves your vote: Tina Kotek, a Democrat.

The other candidates -- Republican Christine Drazan and unaffiliated Betsy Johnson -- oppose what Oregon is doing now to combat the global warming that's causing hotter weather, more intense wildfires, and other nasty effects in our state.

So says a well-researched OPB story, "Oregon governor's race will dictate the state's direction on battling climate change," that I learned about via Twitter. 

Here's some excerpts from the story. 

In the last decade, Oregon has sought to position itself as a bulwark against human-caused climate change. Alongside Washington and California, state leaders have passed laws that chart a path to carbon-free power, require cleaner-burning auto fuel and regulate emissions from major polluters.

In many ways, the outcome of the Nov. 8 gubernatorial election will dictate whether Oregon stays the course or pares back its climate efforts.

The three women leading the race for the state’s top elective office have been some of the fiercest warriors in bruising political fights over the issue, and bring very different viewpoints.

As House speaker for nearly a decade, Democrat Tina Kotek played a leading role in passing many of the state’s most notable climate policies.

...House Republican Leader Christine Drazan and unaffiliated candidate Betsy Johnson – a former longtime Senate Democrat – are promising to undo some of Oregon’s signature climate regulations the moment they take over.

...All three candidates bring a greater history on climate issues than the cap-and-trade fights of 2019 and 2020. During their time in the Legislature, each has built a record on policies aimed at stemming Oregon’s impact on global warming. (Johnson was first elected in 2000, Kotek in 2006 and Drazan in 2018.)

Though she was a Democrat during her 20 years in the Legislature, Johnson often worked against her party’s major climate proposals. That included a 2016 bill requiring power companies to generate more of their energy from renewable sources. The bill ensured that the state would wean itself off of coal-fired power by 2035. (Johnson did support a 2007 bill that sought to speed the transition to more renewable sources of power.)

Johnson also opposed the creation of a Clean Fuels Program that limits the carbon intensity of auto fuel. The program has prevented millions of tons of emissions since 2016, according to the DEQ. The state says the regulations hiked gas and diesel prices by about 5 cents a gallon in 2021.

And both Johnson and Drazan opposed a major 2021 piece of legislation that will require the state’s largest power companies to transition to 100% clean energy by 2040. That’s among the most ambitious such goals of any state – one many acknowledge might not be possible.

Kotek, meanwhile, supported all of those bills and helped usher them through the Legislature during an influential nine years as House speaker. She has been credited by environmental groups with saving policies like the Clean Fuels Program from attacks by industry groups and their allies.