Salem Political Snark

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.

Deb Patterson and Raquel Moore-Green debate at City Club

Today it was pleasant to watch a polite substantive Salem City Club debate between the candidates for Oregon's Senate District 10, Democrat Deb Patterson (the incumbent) and Republican Raquel Moore-Green, who holds the District 19 seat in the Oregon House.

Deb Patterson (D) and Raquel Moore-Green (R) 

This was the first in-person meeting for the City Club in what seems like forever, but actually is just since Covid struck in early 2020. It felt great to be in the Willamette Heritage Center Dye House in physical reality, rather than watching the program via Zoom.

(That reality included made-to-order lunches by West Salem's Little Lois Cafe. I enjoyed my vegetarian cheese sandwich, plus a slice of yummy frosted banana cake that I added on for a very reasonable $1.)

Patterson and Moore-Green are nice women who struck me as moderates within their political parties. Neither staked out any extreme views. But there were clear differences between them, as you'd expect in a debate between a Democrat and Republican.

There wasn't a whole lot of room between them when it came to homelessness and affordable housing. Not surprisingly, both Patterson and Moore-Green want less of the former and more of the latter. Each said they support expanding the supply of buildable land, with Moore-Green saying she wants to take a look at Oregon's land use program without compromising farm and forest land.

When asked if they support Oregon's Climate Action Plan, Patterson sounded more enthusiastic than Moore-Green, who focused in her answer on transitioning from fossil fuels to clean energy. Patterson said climate change is one of Oregon's most important problems. 

Regarding four statewide measures on the November ballot, Patterson was in favor of Measure 111, which amends the state constitution to make access to health care a fundamental right. Moore-Green talked about the increase in taxes needed to make that happen, which sounded like she opposes the measure.

Measure 112 removes the use of slavery or involuntary servitude from the state constitution, and adds language authorizing an Oregon court or a probation or parole agency to order alternatives to incarceration for a convicted individual as part of their sentencing. Patterson said she supported this measure. Moore-Green didn't comment on it.

Measure 113 disqualifies Oregon legislators from re-election if they're absent from ten or more floor sessions without being excused. Patterson is in favor of it. Moore-Green said that she was part of a Republican walkout and wants to keep this as a tool for the minority party to use.

Measure 114 makes changes to firearm regulations by requiring a permit to buy a gun and limiting magazines to 1o rounds. Patterson said there should be universal background checks, but didn't explicitly say she supports the measure. Moore-Green didn't say anything about it.

On campaign finance reform here in Oregon, Patterson supports it, saying that people and groups shouldn't be able to buy access to politicians, and that races are too costly. Moore-Green wants voters to decide this issue.

In general, Patterson touted her legislative accomplishments and those of the state legislature. Moore-Green talked about the need to get away from one-party rule in Salem, namely the Democratic Party.

When it came time for questions from the audience, both candidates were open to taking a look at the special treatment in state law given the Marion County garbage burner, especially given the amount of medical waste incinerated there, some from outside the United States.

On rent control, both Patterson and Moore-Green said they'd also want to take a look at this. Moore-Green wants rent control to be a local decision; Patterson said we have to listen to all sides in legislation regarding this issue.

I didn't get to ask my question during the City Club program, but after it ended I went up to Moore-Green and said something like this: I'm not picking on you, as I think this question needs to be asked of all Republican candidates. Do you agree that Joe Biden is the legitimate president of the United States, having defeated Donald Trump in a free and fair election?

Moore-Green echoed how many GOP candidates in swing districts address that question. She told me that Biden is president, so he won. I pressed her on the "free and fair" part. She said that the election was free. 

But what about fair, I asked her? She wasn't sure about that, saying that Oregon needs to inspect its voter registration rolls. So Moore-Green did what I expected her to do, when before the program started,  I told a friend sitting next to me what I was going to ask and why it was such a good question.

It puts Republican candidates in swing districts in a tough spot. If they say that Biden won a free and fair election, they run the risk of alienating the Republican base they need for victory, which is full of election deniers. If they say the election wasn't free and fair, they run the risk of alienating independents they also need for victory.

So Moore-Green did the smart thing. She split my question down the middle, saying Biden won a free election but not a fair one. 

Being a loyal Democrat, I'm supporting Deb Patterson in her election. However, Raquel Moore-Green struck me as a perfectly fine Republican candidate for those who tilt in the rightward election.

Maybe she disguised some Republican craziness at the City Club debate, but on the whole she seemed in the mainstream of traditional GOP orthodoxy: low taxes, less government regulation, local control, that sort of thing.

I'm uncertain about who to vote for in the Democratic Governor primary

I'm usually quite opinionated when it comes to politics. But this morning my wife asked me who I favored in the upcoming May Democratic primary for Oregon Governor. 

I said, "I don't know. Tina Kotek and Tobias Read are the favorites. I'm not sure which is best."

A KGW story, updated as of April 12, shows 16 candidates in the Democratic primary. Wikipedia has 15 candidates, lacking Michael David. This is the Wikipedia list.

Again, Tina Kotek and Tobias Read seem to be the only viable candidates. Both are experienced in Oregon politics, have a decent amount of campaign funds, and have gotten high-profile endorsements, according to Wikipedia. (Highest profile is Elizabeth Warren endorsing Kotek.)

I find myself leaning toward Kotek for these reasons.

She knows how to play political hardball, given the nine years she spent as Speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives. Betsy Johnson, a former Democratic state senator with a decided independent streak, is running for Governor as -- no big surprise -- an independent. 

Johnson has more campaign funds than any other candidate. She's tough. I worry that Tobias Read, who strikes me as a very nice guy, albeit a bit too bland for my tastes, wouldn't be able to handle debates with Johnson and my guess who will win the Republican primary, Christine Drazan. 

Drazan was minority leader in the House for two years, 2019-21. If she's the GOP candidate, Drazan will attack the Democratic candidate even more vociferously than Johnson will. After all, until recently Johnson was a Democrat, so Johnson and Kotek will agree on more than Drazan and Kotek do.

And I like the idea of having three women vying to be Governor on the November ballot. 

Still, I'm open to arguments as to why I should vote for Tobias Read in the May primary rather than Tina Kotek. If you have one, share away in a comment or email (address is in right sidebar).

I'm curious about any substantive policy differences between Kotek and Read. However, my top priority for the Democratic Governor candidate is that they're able to defeat Betsy Johnson and the Republican candidate in the November election. 

Brad Witt jumps into Salem's HD 19 race, all the way from Clatskanie

Currently Brad Witt is a member of the Oregon House, representing HD 31 -- which consists of most of Columbia County and parts of Washington and Multnomah counties.

But recently Witt formed a campaign committee to be elected in HD 19 -- which is in Salem.

Here's a map of HD 19, which definitely doesn't include Clatskanie, where Witt says he lives.

So how is it that Witt appears ready to challenge two Salem city councilors, Tom Andersen and Jackie Leung, in the May HD 19 Democratic primary? Currently he isn't shown as having filed for this race, but as noted above, his current campaign committee is for election to HD 19 rather than HD 31.

Well, I've heard that fellow Democrats in the state legislature redistricted Clatskanie out of HD 31 so Witt couldn't run again in his old district. The map below shows that now Clatskanie (near the top) is just outside of the HD 31 boundary.

This could have happened because in June 2021 Witt was found to have violated a legislative sexual harassment rule, according to an OPB story. 

State Rep. Brad Witt violated workplace rules against sexual harassment and creating a hostile work environment with a series of texts to a fellow lawmaker in April, a House committee found Tuesday evening.

But the House Conduct Committee found that, contrary to an allegation against him, Witt did not intend to create a quid pro quo arrangement with Rep. Vikki Breese Iverson in which he would exchange his vote on a bill for a date or sexual favors.

So it's possible that Democrats viewed Witt as sufficiently politically damaged by this episode to make it unlikely that he could win re-election against a Republican challenger, hence the boundary change that took his home out of HD 31.

Regardless, I've been told that Witt owns a residence in Salem which he hopes makes him eligible to run in HD 19.

That's fine.

I just think it's unlikely that Witt could waltz into Salem from Clatskanie and defeat two Salem city councilors in the May primary who have vastly more local name recognition. However, Witt might be betting that in a three-way race with Andersen and Leung, he has a chance to win as an outsider.

Which his opponents probably would term "carpetbagger."

I'll end by saying that when I told my wife what I was writing about tonight, Laurel said she had positive experiences with Witt when she advocated ending coyote killing contests during a recent legislative session, something Witt supported.

Brad Witt probably holds policy positions that are close to those held by Tom Andersen and Jackie Leung. Unfortunately for Witt, they have to be viewed as front-runners in the HD 19 race given their connections in Salem.

Nicholas Kristof's Governor run stumbles before it starts

When I heard that Nicholas Kristof, a former columnist for the New York Times, was running to be Oregon's Governor, I was enthused. 

Wow, a non-politician who, unlike Trump, was intelligent, knowledgeable about the world, and obviously a sophisticated communicator.

I started following Kristof on Twitter. I enjoyed his cogent well-written tweets, along with appealing photos of his family at their Yamhill County farm.

But now I've soured on Kristof.

Yesterday the Oregon Secretary of State, Shemia Fagan, ruled that Kristof didn't meet the residency requirement to run for Governor. The Oregon Capital Chronicle, a great news source, said in its story:

Oregon Secretary of State Shemia Fagan said Thursday that deciding former New York Times columnist Nick Kristof didn’t qualify to run for governor “wasn’t even a close call.”

Fagan’s staff notified Kristof’s campaign on Thursday morning that he didn’t meet a constitutional requirement to be a “resident within this state” for three years prior to the November 2022 election.

Fagan outlined findings by the state Elections Division in a Thursday morning news conference, citing the Democrat’s ties to New York and his failure to produce documents he said made his case.

Hours later at his own news conference in Portland, a defiant Kristof vowed to fight the ruling, calling it an act of self-protection by a “failing political establishment.”

If Kristof had simply said he disagreed with the ruling and would appeal it, that would have been fine by me. But when I saw this tweet by Kristof, I had to reply to it.

Note: It seemed obvious to me that "My candidacy was stolen by the Deep State" was my made-up quote to sound like something Trump would say, but a few people who can't appreciate literary subtlety somehow thought I was quoting Kristof. 

It's unlikely that a Republican will be elected Governor next November. But Betsy Johnson, a moderate Democrat, is running as an independent. It's unclear whether she'd pull more votes from the Democratic or Republican gubernatorial candidate. Regardless, I want to see a Democrat win.

If Kristof somehow were to win both his appeal of Fagan's ruling and the Democratic primary, he'd be saddled with carpetbagger "not really an Oregonian" epithets throughout the general election campaign.

So that's another reason I no longer support Kristof. Plus, the Capital Chronicle tried to get the documents that Kristof claims show that he truly has been an Oregon resident for the past three years, but he refused to share them.

With legal opinions by private attorneys and in a 15-page sworn affidavit, Kristof defended his right to run on two prongs. One is an analysis by his lawyers and others that concludes that Kristof meets the constitutional requirement to run for governor. The second is referring to a string of documents ranging from tax returns to incorporation papers he maintains show he has been an Oregon resident.

A long-time journalist, Kristof didn’t submit these records to the Secretary of State’s Office and rejected a request for them from the Capital Chronicle. Kristof also didn’t answer questions about other public documents obtained by the Capital Chronicle or about his sworn statements regarding his farming operation outside the rural community of Yamhill. He also didn’t respond to an email sharing elements of this story to check for accuracy.

On Dec. 23, the Capital Chronicle requested redacted copies of his New York and Oregon driver’s licenses, his 2018 and 2019 New York and Oregon personal income tax returns, the Yamhill County property tax bill for Kristof Farms for the past three years and the farm’s 2019 corporate tax return and workers’ compensation insurance policy. 

Kristof’s campaign didn’t respond with any documents or an explanation for why they weren’t being provided.

Instead, Kristof and his campaign basically say that because he feels like he's always been an Oregonian, that means he's a long-time Oregon resident. Which is absurd. I've grown accustomed to Trump elevating his feelings over facts, but I expected a lot more from Kristof.

He's appealing to the state Supreme Court. That Capital Insider story includes the 185 page brief his attorneys have filed. Which is really quick work, given that Fagan issued her ineligible-to-run ruling only yesterday. Sure seems like Kristof expected that to happen.

Glancing through the brief, it looks like some solid arguments are being made, along with, I'm sure, some dubious arguments. 

Like I said, even if Kristof wins the appeal, the way he handled the Secretary of State ruling leaves a bad taste in my political mouth. Sure, Kristof isn't a member of Oregon's Democratic establishment. But I find it hard to believe that Fagan was out to tank Kristof's candidacy when she made her ruling.

If the Oregon Supreme Court issues a scathing reversal order of Fagan's decision, that would help to rejuvenate Kristof's campaign. But I still think he's too wounded to win the Democratic primary.

Oregon Democrats thankful their redistricting maps are legal

Just in time for Thanksgiving, Oregon Democrats got a double dose of good redistricting news this week. So quite a few Dems will be happier at the dinner table tomorrow, while Republicans will stew about the legal decisions.

On Monday the state Supreme Court upheld the redistricting maps for the state legislature. 

Up, in, around or out?

It's a question facing dozens of incumbent lawmakers and scores of potential challengers after the Oregon Supreme Court on Monday removed legal obstacles to implementing new legislative political districts.

The justices dismissed two lawsuits against new maps for 60 House and 30 Senate seats approved by the Legislature and Gov. Kate Brown on Sept. 27.

The complaints filed in court claimed claimed Democrats had created districts that would build on their current supermajorities in Salem. At the end of the most recent session, Democrats had a 37-23 advantage in the House and 18 of the 30 members of the Senate.

In its decision, the court ruled that the plan for districts that would go into effect with the 2022 election was not illegal, even if it had a partisan lean.

Then today, Wednesday, a special panel of judges issued a ruling saying that the legislature's Congressional redistricting map, which could give Democrats at least four and maybe five of Oregon's six House seats, was legal.

Oregon is closer to moving ahead with its new Congressional district and new boundaries for five others after a panel of judges ruled Wednesday that work to draw the new boundaries didn’t illegally favor Democrats.

Most independent analyses have Democrats winning at least four, and likely five, of the state’s six congressional districts. Registered Democrats make up about one-third of the state’s voters – the largest party bloc in Oregon. Democrats have held four out of five seats in the U.S. House and both U.S. Senate seats.

Four Republicans led by former Secretary of State Bev Clarno sued to block the Congressional redistricting plan, arguing that a potential 5-1 Democratic split didn’t reflect the reality of the state. 

But in their unanimous 14-page opinion, five retired circuit court judges appointed to consider the case determined that the new map was better for Republican candidates than any in the past 30 years. 

“The evidence included expert testimony which compared 50 years of Oregon’s history with congressional districting,” they wrote. “That evidence demonstrated that the enacted map was well within the range of plans that legislatures and courts have adopted in Oregon for the past 50 years and that the enacted map is more favorable to Republicans than any map since 1990.”

The opinion is interesting reading, especially if you're a political junkie. Or, an avid Democrat. Republicans will find it infuriating, but hey, that's the nature of politics.

This passage about urban and rural voters likely will particularly irritate Republican leaders, since they objected mightily to the Congressional map splitting the Portland area among multiple districts. But the panel of judges found this to be a desirable feature.

Turning briefly to issues raised by the amicus curiae, it is evident on the record that the Legislative Assembly considered the importance of drawing districts with both rural and urban elements. FOF ¶¶ 59, 62, 101, 156-60. Indeed, because Oregon has only six congressional districts, “each will necessarily include diverse communities of interest. A plan that includes within one district communities having vastly different concerns does not violate either statutory or constitutional requirements.” Perrin v. Kitzhaber, No 0107-07021, slip op at 6 (Multnomah Cnty Cir Ct, Oct 25, 2001). There is no evidence that rural interests were disrespected. To the contrary, SB 881 amplifies rural voices by including substantial rural and agricultural communities in all six of Oregon’s congressional districts, thus ensuring that each of Oregon’s members of Congress represents rural interests and concerns.

Nonetheless, a Republican state legislator hopes to have the 2022 session of the Oregon legislature advance a proposal for an independent redistricting commission.

Sorry, Representative Bonham, but it's extremely unlikely that the Democrats who control both the state House and Senate are going to want to give up their control of the redistricting process.

In every state under Republican control, the GOP is busily drawing hugely gerrymandered Congressional districts in an attempt to regain control of the House of Representatives. If every state operated under the same independent redistricting rules, then sure, Oregon should be a part of this.

Just don't complain when Oregon Democrats play politics with redistricting in a considerably milder fashion. Bonham's Republican party isn't creeping toward anti-democratic authoritarianism, they're running headlong toward it.

So it's good that Oregon's maps have been upheld legally, even though the Congressional map approval by the special panel of judges can be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Since the panel voted unanimously against the Republican effort to overturn the map, almost certainly the Supreme Court would go along with this.

Bad and good news for Oregon Democrats after Tuesday's elections

Yesterday was horrible for Democrats. There's no other way to put it. 

After going for Biden over Trump by ten points in 2020, Virginia elected the Republican candidate for Governor, Glenn Youngkin, by several points. He was endorsed by Trump, but avoided an overly close connection with Trump. And it looks like the GOP will recapture the Virginia House of Delegates

Almost equally disturbing for Democrats was the close race for New Jersey Governor. That state went for Biden over Trump by sixteen points in 2020. The incumbent Governor, Democrat Philip Murphy, beat his Republican challenger, Jack Ciattarelli, by just 1 percent or so.

What could this mean for Oregon?

Well, Oregon voted for Biden over Trump by sixteen points, 56% to 40%. Exactly the same margin as New Jersey. So, sure, Oregon could elect a Republican Governor in November 2022, and Democrats could see their margin in the state House and Senate whittled down or even eliminated.

But wasn't the bad showing for Democrats in Virginia and New Jersey caused by a much larger turnout of passionate Trump supporters, compared to other voters, something that's much less likely to happen in the 2022 midterm election?

Not really.

In Virginia at least, where there's been more analysis of yesterday's results, the problem for Democrats was that Republicans got a larger share of the vote across the board, including independent-leaning suburban voters who were a big part of Biden's victory in 2020. 

That said, there was indeed lower turnout among 2020 Biden voters, probably because they're disturbed by how little of Biden's agenda Congressional Democrats have been able to pass so far, even though they control both the Senate and House, albeit by very slim margins. 

The main good news for Democrats in Oregon and elsewhere is that this is November 2021, a year from the 2022 midterms and three years from the 2024 presidential election. 

There's still time for Congress to pass the two infrastructure bills, physical and social, hopefully along with some sort of immigration reform, policing reform, and most importantly, voting rights legislation. I've been bothered by the lack of urgency from Biden and Democratic leaders in Congress.

They seem to think there's a good chance Democrats will maintain control of both the Senate and House following the 2022 midterm election. Well, that chance was slim prior to yesterday's results in Virginia and New Jersey. 

Given how poorly Democrats performed, the odds now are considerably higher that Republicans will be in control of one or both houses of Congress after the 2022 election. So Biden needs to pull out all the stops, including pressuring Manchin and Sinema to do away with the filibuster for voting rights bills.

However, one more bit of bad news is that Virginia and New Jersey hadn't passed voter suppression legislation. This shows that Republicans can win elections in blue states fair and square. It'd be nice if the GOP realized this means they can stop with trying to make it harder to vote. But that isn't going to happen.

On the good news front, in Virginia Glenn Youngkin was chosen as the Republican governor candidate in an unusual fashion that seemed designed to prevent a Trumpist crazy candidate from being nominated. 

Seven candidates competed in an unusual and controversial "unassembled convention" Saturday, when 28,000 Republican voters and activists cast weighted and ranked-choice ballots at dozens of locations across the state after the party opted against a standard primary.

It seems unlikely that Oregon Republicans will be able to resist choosing a far right-wing candidate in their primary to pick the GOP candidate for governor. Youngkin would be viewed as too moderate by most Republicans, so I'm betting that Oregon will see a more Trump-like candidate go up against the Democrat nominee.

Youngkin benefitted from being a fresh face in Virginia politics, while McAuliffe had been governor before (Virginia doesn't allow the governor to serve two consecutive terms, for some weird reason).

This makes me think that former New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who has announced his candidacy for Oregon governor, could be an appealing choice. He wouldn't have the political baggage that other candidates like House Speaker Tina Kotek would bring to the race.

Regardless who the Democratic candidate is, it seems clear that their campaign can't be based on being opposed to Trump. That didn't work for McAuliffe in Virginia, though it was successful for Joe Biden when Trump was still president, still on Twitter, and still saying his usual crazy stuff.

My other piece of advice for Oregon Democrats in 2022 is to campaign as aggressively and with as much passion as Republicans have been doing. Social/cultural issues are going to keep on being emphasized by Republican candidates, since that worked well for them in Virginia.

Race has to be handled more wisely by Democrats than decrying attacks on Critical Race Theory. Sure, that isn't taught in schools other than colleges.

But Youngkin appeared to benefit by appearing Obama-like in his view that America's goal should be to view people as who they are, not as Black, Brown, White, or whatever. Wiser political minds than what I possess are arguing persuasively that Democrats have to find a way to talk about race that doesn't serve up Republican talking points like the horrible "Defund the Police."

Minneapolis voted down a proposal to do away with the police department, even though that's where George Floyd's murder happened. Blacks don't want to do away with police; they want common sense reforms of how police departments operate.

The woke far left can't be allowed to dominate Democratic politics, not in Oregon, not anywhere else. There's a big difference between pushing popular issues like paid family leave and lowering the price of prescription drugs, and pushing highly controversial topics like all whites are racist, even if they don't know it.

Here's a sampling of tweets I've come across that are related to yesterday's election.

 

GOP state legislature walkout over redistricting likely tomorrow

Oregon Republicans absolutely love to walk out of the state legislature to deny a quorum when they're unable to get their way. Which is often, since this is a blue state with Democrats firmly in control.

The current GOP hissy-fit is about House Speaker Tina Kotek changing the agreement she made with Republicans to have a 3-3 Democrat-Republican split on the House Redistricting Committee.

That deal gave Republicans veto power over maps to redistrict both legislative and congressional seats following the 2020 census. At the time I thought what Kotek did was a bad idea.

Recently I wrote a post, "Oregon Democrats should hang tough with redistricting map," expressing hope that Oregon Dems would stick with a plan that could give Democrats five of Oregon's six congressional seats. (We added one due to population growth.)

Today the state Senate approved the Democratic redistricting maps, sending them to the state House. There, Kotek undid the deal she'd made with Republicans. Good for her. 

When Republicans play fair across the nation, so should Democrats.

But red states are hard at work gerrymandering their way into what they expect will be a takeover of the House of Representatives in the 2022 midterms. It makes no sense for Oregon Democrats to unilaterally disarm when it comes to redistricting, since control of the House could rest on the outcome of a few races -- like here in Oregon.

What Kotek did is described in a Statesman Journal story.

House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, reneged on a deal Monday that gave House Republicans equal representation on the chamber's redistricting committee in an attempt to pass new congressional district maps which would likely give Democrats disproportionate representation in the state's congressional delegation.

Instead of one evenly split six-member committee that has been working on redistricting since the spring, there will be two House committees for the special legislative session which started Monday: one handling the state legislative maps and the other the congressional map.

The new legislative maps committee has eight members and is evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. The second new committee, handling congressional maps, has only three members — two Democrats and one Republican.

Naturally Democrats are trying to put a positive spin on this, claiming that Republicans violated the spirit of the original committee power-sharing agreement by not acting in good faith in coming up with new maps.

I'm inclined to a more cynical view, which usually is more accurate when it comes to figuring out why politicians act as they do.

Many progressives were furious with Kotek for agreeing to an even D-R split on the House Redistricting Committee. Kotek is running for Governor. Winning the Democratic primary would be tougher for Kotek if she was saddled with a soft on Republicans when it came to redistricting.

So acting tough in this special session should help redeem her reputation among the progressives who she needs to vote for her in the Democratic primary for governor.

Sure, now Republicans are threatening a walkout, which could happen tomorrow. But Kotek has given them quite a bit to ponder, walkout-wise. If they walk out, Secretary of State Shemia Fagan, a Democrat, would approve legislative maps, while the congressional map would be fashioned by a panel of judges.

The current legislative map is fairly favorable to Republicans.

Thus a walkout could lead to Fagan drawing maps for the state Senate and House that lead to Democrats increasing their majorities in both chambers. On the plus side for Republicans, the panel of judges probably would draw a congressional map more favorable to the GOP.

I think it's more likely than not that a walkout will happen. This would please the Republican base, though it could irritate independents who think GOP legislators should do their job rather than heading for Idaho when they're about to lose a vote.

As I said in my previous post, a walkout always was possible, given Oregon's crazy requirement that two-thirds of each chamber be present for a quorum. Kotek got some concessions in the last regular legislative session when she agreed to evenly split the seats on the House Redistricting Committee between D's and R's.

On the whole, Kotek has played this political game quite well.

If Republicans show up for tomorrow's special session in the House, she'll look even better. It's possible that GOP House members won't walk out, figuring they can always file a lawsuit against the congressional redistricting map, which would land it in the courts, where it would go whether or not a walkout occurs.

That could be the closest thing to a win-win for both sides. Republicans can play the Victim of Kotek game, and Democrats will be pleased that their congressional map was passed by the legislature -- even if a court later deemed it unlawful.