Salem Political Snark

Democrats need to hang tough on Senate GOP walkout

Republicans are doing their best to make my blood boil. (So far, figuratively.)

Nationally, House Republicans seem determined to make their demands so extreme to raise the debt ceiling that the federal government will be unable to pay all of its bills soon, creating a financial catastrophe. 

Here in Oregon, the walkout of Senate Republicans entered its 15th day. And they just announced that they'll keep on not doing the job they were elected to do all the way to the last day of the current legislative session, June 25.

A story in the Oregon Capital Chronicle describes their unreasonable demand, and the totally appropriate response of the Democratic Senate President, Rob Wagner.

Oregon Senate Republicans on Tuesday declared they’re willing to return to the floor to pass bipartisan legislation and budget bills on June 25, the final day of the session.

Senators continued to participate in the GOP-led walkout on Tuesday, boycotting the floor session for the 15th day and preventing the Senate from reaching the two-thirds quorum needed to conduct business. 

...Republicans object to a few bills they want killed. These include House Bill 2002, a bill expanding abortion rights and access to transgender health care, and House Bill 2005, which deals with firearms and raises the minimum age for most gun purchases from 18 to 21 years old and allows local agencies to ban firearms in government-owned property.

Knopp’s statement came out as Wagner was on the Senate floor.

“We’re here to do the people’s work,” Wagner told reporters afterwards. “All the bills should be considered. This is our democracy. People need to show up to the floor, and if they object to legislation, then come tell the voters, tell your citizens, tell your constituents. Really, the place to have that debate is on the floor.”

Wagner said Democrats have no interest in changing House bills 2002 or 2005.

Democrats get to decide what bills are considered by the Senate. They should hang tough on not giving in to Republican hostage-taking, the hostage being a budget for state government and bills that are Democratic priorities.

Senate Republicans are acting like a toddler who refuses to eat their dinner, but demands dessert. (Ah, I remember those days well when my daughter was young.) 

No, Republicans, you don't get to pick and choose what bills you want to vote on. Oregonians have made Democratic legislators a majority in both the House and Senate. If the GOP wants to enjoy that power, win more elections. 

It's that simple. All the crying and wailing about Democrats running roughshod over the poor Republican minority runs counter to how democracy works: majority rule. 

But since Oregon Republicans aren't able to convince voters to put them in charge of this state, they're choosing to give democracy their middle finger by walking out of the Senate in a hissy-fit. Every parent learns that child temper tantrums can't be rewarded.

Same applies to adult temper tantrums in the Oregon legislature.

Oregon law allows state troopers to track down legislators who walk away from their constitutional duty.  So far, Governor Kotek hasn't done this. I think she should, if possible. All that is needed is to bring a few Senate Republicans back to have a quorum.

Another approach is to keep scheduling special sessions of the legislature if the GOP walkout extends past the statutory deadline of June 25 for the regular legislative session. Eventually enough Senate Republicans will return to vote on a must-pass bill, a budget to fund state government.

Here's another excerpt from the Oregon Capital Chronicle story.

If the walkout continues to June 25 and the session ends, Kotek could call lawmakers back in a special session to pass a budget. The current budget ends June 30, but state agencies can continue operating without any disruptions through Sept. 15 because of a continuing resolution that keeps the current levels of funding in place if a budget isn’t set yet.

So when September arrives, Kotek could schedule a special session. When a sufficient number of Republicans in both the House and Senate produce a quorum, state troopers should be ordered to lock the doors of the Capitol.

Bring in cots, blankets, and food. I'll be glad to contribute to a pizza fund. Force Republicans to remain in the Capitol, along with Democratic legislators, until all of the bills that are Democratic priorities have bene voted on.

Hardball? Absolutely. Legal? I'm not sure. But I sure like the idea. When Republicans are in power in red states, they ram through conservative bills with no concern for Democratic feelings. Turnabout is fair play here in Oregon.

Give Republicans exactly zero rewards for their walkout. Make the walkout as painful as possible for the GOP. This is what Republicans would do if they were in power in our state. It's what Democrats should do given that voters have put them in charge of Oregon.

Senate Democrats shouldn't negotiate over GOP walkout

Last Thursday Oregon Senate President Rob Wagner, a Democrat from Lake Oswego, agreed to a request from the minority leader to have the Senate not meet on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday after a nine-day GOP walkout.

An Oregon Capital Chronicle story says:

The three-day break gives Wagner and Senate Minority Leader Tim Knopp, R-Bend, a chance to work out differences before any senators rack up 10 unexcused absences. Legislators cannot qualify to run for reelection if they have 10 or more unexcused absences because of a voter-approved constitutional amendment that passed in 2022.

...“It is my hope that this will give us time to work out a legitimate agreement that will benefit all Oregonians,” Knopp said. “I have communicated that I will be available over the weekend to have these critical discussions.”

Knopp told the Capital Chronicle that Republicans want 20  bills set aside, including on abortion, guns and transgender health care.

So far, three senators have nine absences: Republican Sens. Daniel Bonham, The Dalles, Dennis Linthicum of Klamath Falls and Independent Brian Boquist of Dallas.

I think it's a mistake for Democrats to reward Senate Republicans with negotiations. Legislators are supposed to show up for work, not walkout. "Do your job" is the only thing the GOP senators should be hearing from Democrats in the Senate.

What's especially irritating about what Wagner did in cancelling the Friday-Sunday legislative sessions, after holding sessions the previous Friday and weekend, is that Oregonians overwhelmingly voted by a 68-32 margin for Measure 113 last November.

That measure says that if a state legislator has ten unexcused absences from floor sessions, they're disqualified from running for re-election at the end of their term.

Since over two-thirds of voters supported this, it's mystifying why Wagner felt he should negotiate with Republicans the day before three senators were going to hit the ten-day limit. It seems to me that Wagner should have let them be disqualified from running for office again.

That would have demonstrated how seriously Democrats take the walkout and also shown respect for the will of the voters who passed Measure 113. 

If Senate Republicans are able to get some bills killed that are Democrat priorities, this will embolden them to keep on staging walkouts. Since most GOP senators probably are in safe Republican districts, even if some senators are disqualified from running again, their GOP replacement can repeat the walkout in the next legislative session.

One small bit of leverage Senate Republicans had was a threat to take Measure 113 to court in hopes that it would be declared unconstitutional. If that happened, they could walkout in this session without suffering any consequences.

But Willamette Week has reported that a top Portland law firm has issued an opinion saying that Measure 113 appears to be constitutional. Here's an excerpt from the story, "As AWOL GOP Senators Consider Challenging New Attendance Law, Legal Memo Says They Have No Case."

As a walkout by Oregon Senate Republicans nears the end of its second week and butts up against the allowed maximum of 10 unexcused absences for some members, progressive groups have sought a legal opinion on whether a potential court challenge to that absence cap might succeed.

The short answer in the memo WW obtained: It’s unlikely.

“It is our conclusion that Measure 113 on its face does not violate the First Amendment rights of free speech and protest, nor the right to run for elective office,” wrote Misha Isaak and Whitney Brown, lawyers at the Stoel Rives firm, in a May 11 memo. “Accordingly, it is likely to survive constitutional challenge.” (Isaak was counsel to former Gov. Kate Brown before returning to private practice.)

So Senate Democrats better not cave to Republican demands to kill gun control, abortion, and transgender health care bills. If they want to walkout over these bills, let a bunch of GOP senators be disqualified from running again.

Sure, their replacements probably will be Republicans also, but at least the senators with ten unexcused absences will be punished for walking out. Of course, the real solution to walkouts is to change the legislative quorum rule from requiring 2/3 of legislators to be present to a simple majority. Oregon is only one of a handful of states that has a 2/3 quorum requirement. 

But this is in the state constitution, I'm pretty sure, so would require a vote of the people to change.

Oregon Senate Republicans walkout. Again. Pathetic.

Well, it didn't take long for Republicans in the Oregon Senate to give an extended middle finger to the 68% of Oregonians who approved Measure 113 last November, which says that any legislator with ten unexcused absences from a legislative session can't run for reelection. 

After walking out in 2019 and 2021, once again Senate Republicans are refusing to do their job, as reported by the Oregonian.

Oregon Republicans boycotted the state Capitol on Wednesday, testing for the first time a 2022 measure that punishes state lawmakers for walkouts. The boycott comes as Democrats advance an abortion and gender-affirming health care proposal and gun regulations scorned by conservatives.

Five senators — one Independent and four Republicans — were unexpectedly absent when the state Senate convened Wednesday morning. In addition, another seven senators were granted excused absences in advance. The absences denied the 20-member quorum necessary to conduct business, forcing Senate President Rob Wagner, D-Lake Oswego, to bang a gavel ending the session.

I wish those Republicans (the independent is Brian Boquist, a former Republican who caucuses with the Senate GOP members) would be honest and simply say that they're against gun safety, abortion rights, and gender-affirming care.

Instead, they made up a bunch of crap to justify being paid while failing to perform their legislative duties. Here's the absurd reason they conjured up, according to the Salem Reporter.

The walkout – which Republican leaders called a work stoppage – comes amid frustrations between minority GOP senators and Democratic leaders over contentious issues like firearms regulations, transgender rights and abortion. GOP leaders say the move is not tied to any one bill and aims to combat an unconstitutional process of passing bills that fail to meet legal requirements for readable language that the public can understand. 

So we're supposed to believe that the top priority of Senate Republicans now is readable language. I'd say Good luck making this a centerpiece of your reelection campaign, but if the Republicans in the Oregon Senate (12 including Boquist) keep on with their walkout, many or most of them won't be able to be reelected because of Measure 113.

Not surprisingly, the GOP is thinking of challenging the constitutionality of Measure 113. You know, the measure that over two-thirds of Oregon voters said "yes" to. Try explaining that to the public, Senate Republicans. Here's another excerpt from the Salem Reporter story. Tim Knopp is the Senate Republican leader.

Knopp said Republicans and an independent senator are taking their protest day-by-day, and that it’s possible at least one will rack up 10 unexcused absences to have legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the new voter-approved law. 

Republicans want to ban abortion in blue states like Oregon

Most Oregonians, like most Americans, want abortion to be available to pregnant people who want one. But it's easy to become complacent about abortion access in our state because we lean so Democratic. 

Today's abortion ruling by a far-right federal judge in Amarillo, Texas shows that this complacency is misplaced. For if it stands, the ruling would make mifepristone, a drug used to induce an abortion, unavailable in all 50 states.

A Texas federal judge ruled Friday evening to suspend the FDA’s approval of mifepristone — one of two drugs used together to cause an abortion — virtually banning the sale of the pills across the country. The decision, however, will not take effect for a week, giving higher courts time to consider the appeal the Biden administration filed Friday night and delaying for now the impact on hundreds of thousands of patients who use the medication both for abortions and treating miscarriages.

U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo, Texas, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, sided with anti-abortion medical groups that challenged the federal regulation of the drug, ruling that both the initial approval of the pills in 2000 as well as more recent FDA decisions allowing them to be prescribed via telemedicine, sent by mail and dispensed at retail pharmacies, are unlawful.

The Biden Justice Department is appealing the ruling. Almost certainly the Supreme Court will end up deciding this issue. Today a federal court in Washington state issued a contrary ruling in a case filed by 17 blue states and D.C. (including Oregon) that requires the FDA to continue making mifepristone available.

A Slate story provides a good overview of the controversy.

What's galling is that Judge Kacsmaryk was chosen to hear the mifepristone case by abortion opponents because his anti-abortion views are so well known. Because he's the only federal judge in Amarillo, Kacsmaryk gets "judge-shopped" by right-wingers who know that if they file a suit in his district, they'll get Kacsmaryk.

This effort to have the most common means of getting an abortion banned nationwide should put to rest any fantasy that Republicans just want to leave it up to the states to decide whether abortion should be legal following the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.

Actually, Republicans are determined to make abortion unavailable everywhere, including Oregon. Keep this in mind next time you vote and see a "R" by a candidate's name. That letter means that the candidate embraces a party that rejects the right of people in a state to decide whether abortion is available.

Even if the Supreme Court allows mifepristone to remain on the market, there's little doubt that the next goal of Republicans will be to push federal legislation that says life begins at conception, so abortion at any stage of a pregnancy is murder.

All the GOP needs to achieve this is to hold onto the House in the 2024 election, take back the Senate, and win the presidency -- each of which is disturbingly possible. 

The only good news I can draw from Judge Kacsmaryk's decision today is this: the politics surrounding abortion are much better for Democrats than for Republicans. This was evident in last Tuesday's election for a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat that hinged on the candidates' abortion positions. 

The pro-choice candidate won easily, about 55-45 in a state that typically goes 50-50 in statewide elections. So the more Republicans push to ban abortion in swing states and blue states, the more likely it is that their unpopular position on this issue will turn off voters to the GOP.

Unfortunately, in the near term a nationwide ban on mifepristone would do a lot of harm. Hopefully the Supreme Court will understand that allowing Judge Kacsmaryk's crazy ruling to stand would be unfair and unjust.

For mifepristone has been proven to be safe and effective for the 23 years it has been available in this country after getting FDA approval in 2000. Prior to that date, it was available in Europe, also with few problems. 

If a right-wing federal judge can get away with banning safe and effective drugs that have been in use for many years, nothing would prevent Republicans from doing away with birth control drugs. Yes, that would be hard to believe, but today's Republican Party is always finding fresh unbelievable horrors to inflict on the American people.

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.