Press "Enter" to skip to content
Protecting Idaho’s judiciary

Protecting Idaho’s judiciary

November 6, 2023

Idaho has a truly outstanding judiciary, thanks to procedures designed to ensure competent, non-partisan appointments. Magistrate judges are appointed to four-year terms by regional commissions and thereafter run in non-partisan retention elections within their judicial district. The Idaho Judicial Council was established in 1967 to ensure a non-partisan, competence-driven selection process for district and appellate judges. The Council screens candidates and recommends 3-4 of the best to the Governor, who makes the appointment. After that, they run for re-election on a non-partisan ballot. It has been remarkably successful in producing highly-qualified, impartial jurists.

During his 12 years as Idaho Governor, Butch Otter appointed over 55 judges for Idaho’s judicial system–5 Justices of the Supreme Court, 5 judges for the Court of Appeals and over 45 district court judges. He regularly received praise from governors of other states for the high quality of Idaho’s judiciary, which Otter attributed to the Judicial Council selection process. Otter regards our excellent judiciary as an important part of his legacy and he has good grounds for doing so.

Unfortunately, in this era of strife in Idaho politics, even the court system finds itself in the crosshairs of extremists in the Legislature who get their instructions from Dorothy Moon and the Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF). The GOP platform calls for judges to be elected in a “partisan election process.” That would discourage many of the best lawyers from seeking judicial office and result in politicization of the court system.

Our judges rarely deal with hot-button issues. Those generally go to the federal court in Idaho. It is essential to have experienced, competent judges on the state courts to handle everyday legal disputes–criminal cases, business disputes, family matters, personal injury, worker compensation and a wide range of other issues that need to be decided by impartial, well-qualified judges, not politicians in black robes.

Legislators in the GOP’s extremist branch have begun targeting the courts for failing to rubber stamp their pet legislative projects. They were particularly enraged by the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision striking down their statute that made it practically impossible for the people to pursue an initiative or referendum. The Court issued a well-reasoned opinion affirming the constitutional right of Idahoans to make laws they want when the Legislature refuses to act. Legislators retaliated in 2022 by denying pay raises for our judges. While they voted 7% cost-of-living pay increases for other state employees, they provided no increase for Idaho judges.  The initiative decision was frequently mentioned by legislators during proceedings.

During the last two years those same extremist legislators have tried to infuse partisanship into the selection process for judges. They approved legislation giving a partisan tilt to Judicial Council membership. A bill made it out of committee this year in the Senate that would have gone a long way toward making most district and appellate judges seek election in our low-turnout May primaries. That would have largely disabled the Judicial Council appointment process which has been so successful in developing Idaho’s outstanding judiciary.

There are ominous signs of what lies ahead. The IFF has recently taken potshots at the Judicial Council process, claiming it is controlled by lobbyists acting for their clients. As Chief Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court, I served on the Council and was impressed with its emphasis on competence and lack of partisanship. The IFF clearly does not understand how the Council operates.

On the other hand, the extremists who now control the GOP are calling out elected officials at all levels of government, including the Governor, for failing to strictly abide by the party platform. Legislators who dare to use their brains and depart from strict compliance with the platform are being called into loyalty sessions by party functionaries, much like the old Soviet Politburo. Their demand for legislation requiring partisan election of judges will undoubtedly become part of the Politburo loyalty tests.

If Idahoans want to keep a remarkably competent judiciary that will impartially decide disputes between businesses, family members and other private litigants, they must let their legislators know they won’t stand for politics in selecting judges. We certainly don’t want to entrust politicians with handling cases like the Daybell and Kohberger murder trials. It’s time for Gem State voters to stand up and speak out for our court system.

 

OR 3 will stay blue, but what shade?

OR 3 will stay blue, but what shade?

November 5, 2023

In the broad picture, the departure after next year of longtime U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer will mean a change of personnel rather than a change of politics for Oregon.

The biggest immediate impact may be on how much more junior, in seniority terms, the Oregon delegation rapidly has become. After Blumenauer’s departure, the senior House member will be Democratic Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, who has held the office just over a decade, and after that Republican Rep. Cliff Bentz, now in his second term. The other three members of the delegation all were elected for the first time just last year. Oregon has built significant seniority in its senators, but will have less in the House for years to come.

Seniority aside, Oregonians shouldn’t expect dramatic change in the representation of the 3rd after next year.

That’s not a commentary on Blumenauer but rather on his district. The Oregon 3rd has been for generations centered on Portland, and for the last couple of generations it has solidified as solidly liberal, much the most partisan district in Oregon in recent years. Even after the recent census-driven reapportionment, the 3rd is more Democratic than the eastern-Oregon 2nd district is Republican. In the Northwest overall, it is second only to the central Seattle district in Democratic lean, and is more Democratic than any Northwest district is Republican, including those in Idaho.

Blumenauer, who won the seat in 1996, following Ron Wyden’s move to the U.S. Senate, has had no tough elections since the day he was sworn in. He has not fallen below 67% of the vote in any general election in that district, and primaries have been no problem for him either. Considering the party registration in the district, Blumenauer was, if anything, slightly underperforming, but on the evidence of numbers, the district seems satisfied.

So let no one suggest that he has decided to retire at age 75 because of political difficulties; he was there for life if he’d so chosen.

But, given a fresh choice, what kind of representative might the district want at this point?

The question doesn’t relate to the usual broader issues, the way it does, for example, in the competitive Oregon 5th, which next election might choose a nominee of either party. But within the context of left-of-center Democratic prospects, variations exist.

As Bluemenauer was quoted as saying, “There are literally a dozen people salivating at the prospect of getting in this race.” And why not? Once past the primary, without any major errors, the Democratic nominee is likely to hold the seat without difficulty for a long time, as Blumenauer and Wyden did.

But different candidates – and none formally has announced plans to run yet – could bring different approaches.

You could illustrate that through two of the first names to be circulated broadly as prospects for the race.

One possibility is Deborah Kafoury, formerly chair of the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners. Much like Blumenauer, she has been deeply involved in Portland-area government – and in the state Legislature – for many years. It’s easy to imagine that her service in the district might look a lot like Blumenauer’s: Unmistakably liberal, supportive of much that’s on the metro area’s agenda, but not particularly cantankerous or high profile. A candidate like her might be seen as an establishment choice in the same sense Blumenauer has been.

Another name being bounced around is that of current Multnomah County Commissioner Susheela Jayapal, whose sister, Pramila Jayapal, represents that super-Democratic central Seattle district. Pramila Jayapal is more a national political figure, more an ideological leader in Congress, than Blumenauer has been; she chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

That’s not to say that Susheela Jayapal would follow exactly the same path; many of the headlines around Susheela Jayapal have concerned homelessness, budget issues and other local concerns.

But Portland voters may take note that the Seattle representative has been a strong supporter for the Multnomah candidate. She remarked, for example after her sister’s election to the Multnomah commission, “I am really proud of her. She did a lot of work listening to organizations dealing with housing and homelessness and she has very clear values. We have very similar values around treating people with respect and giving people a hand up.”

So, expect the next representative from Oregon’s 3rd to be a liberal Democrat. As to what kind of liberal Democrat the district will prefer, we have yet to see.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

The sadness of a squish

The sadness of a squish

November 4, 2023

House Republicans this week elected a speaker. Turns out political exhaustion is a big advantage in today’s GOP. A guy who before this week virtually none of us had ever heard of turned out to be the (far, far) right guy at the right time.

After going three weeks with no speaker, while a government shutdown looms (again), the Middle East boils and Ukraine strains to beat back Putin’s totalitarian onslaught on western democracy all the GOP’s many factions united behind Mike Johnson. The new gavel pounder is a Louisiana backbencher whose only real qualification is that he is not Steve Scalise, Jim Jordan or Tom Emmer. For those keeping score at home – those guys all were destined to be speaker until they weren’t.

Yet, the issue of the week is not that House Republicans elected a genuine political radical from the far, far right as Speaker of the House, but how, as there can no longer be doubt, the entire party has been transformed once and finally into an ideological cesspool of resentments, hatreds, conspiracy, white Christian nationalism and hyper partisan nonsense, or worse.

Exhibit A in the no longer in doubt department is one of the nation’s prime examples of the certain death of real, constructive, character-driven conservatives. Idaho remains as good a case study as any of the vast rot that has polluted conservative politics and turned people who once displayed real character and occasional bipartisanship into craven, quivering opportunists clutching for a grip on power regardless of the cost in their own shame and their country’s democracy.

A week ago, Idaho Republican Mike Simpson, a guy who once stood over Barack Obama’s shoulder in the Oval Office to celebrate a bipartisan Idaho wilderness bill, was pilloried by his party’s state chairwoman for having the audacity – even independence – to vote NO to deny the loathsome Jim Jordan the speaker’s gavel.

Simpson’s “inclination to engage in inside-the-Beltway political games rather than focusing on the pressing business that truly matters to our constituents is disappointing,” fumed Idaho’s top GOP mouthpiece and John Bircher, Dorothy Moon. “Representative Simpson has served in congress for decades. Perhaps all this time away from Idaho has caused him to lose sight of the real work that Americans need on the important issues that impact them and their families.”

In a widely circulated op-ed defending his vote against Jordan, the bomb throwing Ohio election denier, Simpson fell back on the argument that he was merely defending the priorities his Idaho constituents, including workers at the Idaho National Laboratory and the state’s agricultural interests.

“It is abundantly clear the next Speaker of the House could seriously impact Idahoans’ way of life. Fortunately, I know my constituents want me to continue fighting for issues that are important to them. I cannot vote for a Speaker who does not support our state. And I will not take Chairwoman Moon’s ill-advised input when I have been fighting for Idaho longer than she has lived in the state.”

Simpson specifically cited Jordan’s votes against the Department of Energy budget and Simpson’s own Farm Workforce Modernization Act, legislation to give these critical workers a path to citizenship. Trouble is Johnson voted NO on those issues as well.

Simpson withheld support from the former wrestling coach because Jordan has never voted for a farm bill, and while Johnson reluctantly voted for the last major farm bill, he severely criticized the nutrition provisions of the bill, which must be reauthorized before the end of the year.

As Politico reported, Johnson favors deep cuts to the “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the country’s largest program that helps to provide food aid for low-income Americans” and which is a hot button issue that will surely emerge as the dysfunctional Republican majority attempts to pass a new farm bill.

“I cannot – and will not – support a Speaker who has repeatedly taken positions against Idaho’s best interests,” Simpson declared as he tried to hold off criticism of his vote against Jordan. His principled stand had the shelf life of an overripe avocado.

On Wednesday Simpson enthusiastically voted for Johnson, described by one partisan wag as “Jim Jordan in a sports coat,” a guy with a scant experience but with a voting record almost identical to Jordan’s. In the space of five days Simpson went from standing up for his own voting record and policy priorities to voting for a speaker who has never supported the Idaho priorities Simpson found so important before he didn’t.

Moreover, Johnson is every bit as much an election denier and conspiracy theorist as Jordan. He lead the effort to round up congressional support – including that of Idaho’s other House seat warmer, Russ Fulcher – for the whack-a-doodle Texas lawsuit that would have thrown out millions of votes in several states.

Sidney Powell, the Donald Trump lawyer who recently pled guilty to election interference charges in Georgia, was a full throated proponent of the nonsense that a Hugo Chavez inspired Venezuelan plot to rig voting machines cost Trump the election. Fox News spent $787 million to settle a lawsuit over that lie. The man now second in line for the presidency was an “intellectual” architect of this lie.

Johnson has taken fringe positions on LGBTQ rights, opposed same sex marriage and been a champion of a national ban on abortion. Yet, Mike Simpson, the momentarily pragmatic Republican who took flak for his anti-Jordan vote, mentioned none of this in a statement saying he was “proud” to vote for the new speaker.

There is a word for such behavior – gutless.

As the Never Trump conservative Charlie Sykes wrote this week – he might have had Simpson in mind – “For a few halcyon moments, it looked like the center would hold as a modest rump of ‘moderates’ blocked the ludicrous Jim Jordan. But in the end, the squishes did what squishes do; and their defeat was as comprehensive as it was condign.”

It’s Mike Simpson’s screwball critic Dorothy Moon, the election denying crackpot atop the state’s Republican Party, who won this skirmish. The nuts are in full control. No evidence can disabuse them of their fantasies. No farm bill or health concern of a pregnant Idahoan is near important enough for them to back off their fear and loathing for real policy, or heaven forbid actual governing. The gentleman from Idaho had a brief moment, then he again embraced the real power in his party.

Simpson did get one part right – it is abundantly clear that the new speaker will seriously impact the way of life of his constituents.

 

The dam fight at thirty-something

The dam fight at thirty-something

November 3, 2023

When the Snake River Basin Adjudication was begun in 1987, no one expected it would be completed quickly. Water adjudications in western states often have taken decades, and the SRBA may have been the largest ever, covering six figures worth of water rights across almost nine-tenths of Idaho.

Nonetheless, it has been completed - at least in general terms - and it only took a remarkably brief 26 years.

That bit of history prowled around the back of my mind this week when I saw the latest court developments in the legal action aimed at breaching the four lower Snake River dams, located in southeastern Washington state. The dams are the Lower Granite (closest to the Idaho border), the Little Goose, the Lower Monumental and the Ice Harbor (near the confluence with the Columbia River).

The news involves a delay in further developments, which is to say, another in a long list of delays of anything resembling final action. Specifically, the parties involved asked the court for another 45 days to negotiate, following up on an earlier delay of 60 days.

Those are a pittance. The legal action over the four dams started in 1993, which means attorneys have been kept busy on the subject for 30 years - three years longer than it took to adjudicate the highly complex and contentious water rights across most of Idaho.

It’s hard to conceive that there’s much new left to talk about.

The issues associated with the dams (and I’m not going to try to relitigate them all here) mainly concern preservation of declining salmon runs on one hand, and the electric power the dams generate, and concerns about impacts on commercial river traffic (you’ll hear this a lot at Lewiston) on the other. Environmental, tribal and some governments have been on one side, and a number of federal agencies, economic interests and others have filled the other. The region, and many of its top elected officials, have been split - and within the parties as well as between them.

One report from the University of Washington said “Despite research and knowledge of the effects of the LSRDs on salmon and steelhead populations, river ecology, and tribal sovereignty there remains resistance at the state and federal level. The barrier to remove the LSRDs for Governor [Jay] Inslee (D) of Washington is the fact that the dams produce renewable energy, recreational, and economic benefits. However, both Gov. Inslee and Senator [Patty Murray] have been open to exploring the possibility of removing the dams if the benefits and services the dams create can be replaced by alternatives.”

Yale School of the Environment noted that over the last three decades, “On at least five occasions, federal judges ordered the agencies to consider removing the lower Snake River dams, and each time the agencies responded with delay and diversions, once going so far as to call the dams immutable parts of the landscape⁠ and therefore not subject to the Endangered Species Act.”

Neither side seems inclined to quit.

Still, after 30 years, the context of the legal battle has changed, and the changes may suggest where this is heading.

First, in the last decade, the debate has taken place in the context of demolition of a number of other dams in the region.

Second, the dams need repairs if they're going to continue in service, and that will be costly.

Third, renewable energy, notably solar and wind,has taken off in a big way in the inland Northwest, and the argument that the dams are needed for their electric power generation has become less central in the debate.

It could be that if the parties come to accept some of the trend lines, and not just the starting and hoped-for ending points, the case could be resolved before another 30 years has passed.

 

Retire

Retire

November 2, 2023

Just as people start things in all sorts of ways, so do they quit them.

Some people describe “falling into” a job or a profession. Others tell the story of seeking it, “knowing” from a young age that it was their calling.

I’ve seen some folks bounce around, swapping professional hats from one career to the next. I admire that fluidity.

Me, I’ve been a doctor, or in training to be one for over half my life. Not much of a bouncer am I.

I have dabbled widely, from fixing old cars to remodeling houses, but all the while, I have had a singular profession. I was a family doctor.

But I have decided to retire.

I have let go of many things in this career.

I used to practice intubations. That is when you stick a tube down someone’s airway, past the vocal cords, inflate the cuff, then pump air into their lungs when they aren’t breathing. Such a violent act can save a life. I thought I should keep that skill sharp when I was covering emergency rooms. That skill faded long ago.

Same with all the interventions to gain access to a dying patient’s blood stream. I thought I was pretty good at it, but like welding, you need to keep in practice.

I used to love providing obstetric care, delivering babies. I got training to do C-sections, since such an intervention was sometimes called for when you deliver babies.

But after many years of delivering babies, I began to notice a change in myself. During training, as a resident on the delivery ward, two or three women could be in labor at a time. I would check on then regularly, and catch a nap whenever I could, since back then, we did 24–36-hour shifts.

Out in practice, a woman might go into labor midday. I’d check on her, have dinner with the family, check on her again, then sleep a few hours, knowing I had a full clinic schedule the next day. Then I would go in at 2 or 4AM and do the delivery, sew up what needed to be sewed, write the orders, check on the baby, then go back home for a couple more hours of sleep.

As I aged, and I slowed down the number of deliveries I was doing, I found I could not sleep as she labored. I could not put my mind to ease that I had done and checked all that was needed. So, I would sit at the nurses’ station or go check on her more frequently. My inability to nod off was telling me something. My mind was not at peace with the process. Too many worries. I realized it was time to let go of this aspect of the profession I loved.

It has been a bittersweet process, this deciding to retire thing. I thought I had kept sharp, but I found I was looking up more of the medicines my patients had been prescribed. I was looking into the newly recommended medications and studying their chemistry. My natural skeptical nature made me wonder about the wisdom of this pharmaceutical investment. But I needed to know the wisdom of the treatment and make a wise recommendation. I worried I wasn’t as wise as I should be.

So, at the age of 69 I have decided to quit being a family doctor.

It truly was a passion for me. The fact that I earned a bit less than the local superintendent of schools seemed fitting. I saw too many of my colleagues make way too much money. And that should never be what inspires.

I valued the patients, their stories, their suffering, and their willingness to share their plight with me. They were very generous.

I tried to be too. Letting go can be a gift.

Retirement image by Nick Youngson CC BY-SA 3.0 Pix4free

Could ranked choice work?

Could ranked choice work?

November 1, 2023

If Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane were to explain ranked-choice voting in an elevator conversation, “I would need a tall building,” he said.

Or, maybe a trip to the moon would be more suitable.

McGrane, in his role as secretary, has not taken a stand on the open-primaries initiative (which includes ranked-choice voting) that is being pushed by Reclaim Idaho. But he’s making himself more familiar with the process, and it will be up to him to figure out the mechanics if an initiative is approved by voters.

There’s no question that the new voting system would make elections, and tabulating the results, more challenging.

Here’s how Reclaim Idaho explains it: “To make sure the winner enjoys support from a broad coalition of voters and not just a narrow faction, there will be Instant Runoff Voting in the general election (also called ranked-choice voting). Here’s how it works: The last-place candidate will be eliminated and each vote for that candidate will be transferred to the voter’s second choice. This process repeats until only two candidates remain and the candidate with the most votes is declared the winner.”

Got it? Under ranked-choice voting, a candidate that gets the most first-place votes may not necessarily win the election. A candidate would need to get more than 50 percent of the vote to secure a victory.

The first part of the proposed voter initiative – open primaries – is easier to digest. Voters can choose from a list of candidates, regardless of political affiliation, and the top four vote-getters advance to the general election ballot. So, the general election for a given office could have (for instance) three Republicans and a Democrat.

One prevailing question is whether ranked choice would be workable for Idaho.

“My observation is that people are focused on what they think it (ranked-choice voting) solves, so it’s more of a policy debate. There’s also a functional piece involved,” he said.

The best role model is Alaska. McGrane will be talking with Alaska officials to see how the system works.Most of McGrane’s questions are on the administrative end.

“Our current voting system cannot tabulate ranked-choice voting, so would require significant changes to our voting system,” McGrane said. “Another thing is, right now we have a county-based system where they feed results to the state. To do the ranking system, the ballots would need to come centrally from the same place, and that’s something our state has never done.”

So, there could be some added cost. At this point, McGrane is not sure how much.

With ranked-choice, there seems to be an assumption that voters will study all races closely and will use some intelligence in ranking the selections. In reality, not all races are created equally in terms of public exposure.

“In a presidential race, or a governor’s race, that’s not such a problem,” McGrane said. For something such as Ada County clerk, which McGrane was before becoming secretary of state, ranking the choices could become more of a dart-throw.

Opinions are mixed about the proposed initiative. Proponents include former Gov. Butch Otter and First Lady Lori Otter, who especially favor the open-primary aspect. In a story by Clark Corbin of the Capital Sun, Lori Otter said closed primaries have made the Republican Party extreme. “If you don’t pay attention to what’s happening,” she warns, “this party is going to lose its power of everything that the Republican Party stands for.”

Former Attorney General and Supreme Court Justice Jim Jones has written that ranked-choice voting may be the only salvation from “extreme” politics ruling the state.

Idaho’s Republican Party Chairwoman Dorothy Moon soundly rejects the proposed initiative, while blasting some of the voices from the past. “Make no mistake, this initiative is a pernicious plot to take away your ability to vote for conservative lawmakers,” she wrote. Brent Regan, the Kootenai County Republican Central Committee chairman, also opposes the initiative.

So, here’s a quick voter’s guide:

If you dislike Moon, Regan and those from the far right, then you might think that the voter initiative is the greatest idea since blue turf on a football field. If you are not a fan of the likes of Otter and Jones, then you can equate this initiative with poison ivy – something you don’t want to touch.

Chuck Malloy is a long-time Idaho journalist and columnist. He may be reached at ctmalloy@outlook.com

 

Can he do it?

Can he do it?

October 31, 2023

O.K.

So we have a Speaker of the House. I'll give you that.

Question is, for how long? Six months? Three months? Two? One?

No one knows at this juncture. But, given the history of the far right in all things political, the honeymoon may be short-lived. Words like "constancy" and "lengthy service" are not often attached to their doings.

Mike Johnson is the poster boy for all things extremist. He's had a fair to middling career on the bank benches. Not often raising his voice, sort of going with the flow. Especially if that flow has been to the right.

But, here's the thing. If he's to be Speaker, he has to be Speaker for the whole House. Not just the 40 or so cretins of the right. He may tilt that way in speech or thought. But, in the end, those of the opposite political persuasion have to be included in the workings of the House, too. That means, he'll have to moderate a bit.

Now, if there's one thing the right flank can't stand it's moderation.
Even the smallest movement to the middle. "Our way or the highway." "You're with us or you're 'agin us."

Even Newt Gingrich, with his "take no prisoners" politics, found he had to compromise here and there. While his career was nothing to write home about, he at least survived his turn "in the barrel" with his scalp intact.

If Johnson "moderates," will he be accused of "selling out?" Will a move toward the middle be viewed as "traitorous?" Will he find himself on the outside of the cabal looking in?

Then, there's new relationships with the President and the Senate to contend with. While Mr. Johnson might hold far right positions on such issues as abortion, he's got to work with the other two branches of government who are not as hidebound as himself. Can he do that?

If he doesn't move leftward, he won't have much cooperation from the folks at the other end of political life. Like Democrats. Remember, the GOP margin in the house is about four votes.

Mr. Johnson is going to have to do some soul searching. Does he really want the job and all the accouterments there-with? Or, would he rather enjoy the peace and quiet that've been the hallmark of his career thus far?

A former Idaho Governor used to say: "It's easier standing outside the circle, throwing the spears in, than it is to be on the inside catching 'em."

Johnson might enjoy a bit of a honeymoon with Democrats lying low for a short period. And, with the right-wing of his own Party holding it's fire for awhile.

But, sooner or later, he's going to be put to the test. Remember, it was Republicans who introduced this idea of Speaker recall by just a handful of voices in the House. So, when that test comes - and it will - will Johnson survive?

Words like "stable," and "permanent," and "moderate" are highly to be desired in the new Speaker. Those adjectives certainly don't describe the political roots from whence Johnson came. Far from it.

So, Mike Johnson could have some tough times ahead as he tries to be Speaker for all 434 House members. A job he can't successfully do if he tries to simply hang onto his previous political leanings.

I don't know who would want the job. But, I wish him well.

 

Stepping up

Stepping up

October 30, 2023

Dorothy Moon, the chair of the Idaho Republican Party, has been attacking Congressman Mike Simpson for his refusal to support Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH) for Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. Simpson responded in typical fashion, saying, “I will not take Chairwoman Moon’s ill-advised input when I have been fighting for Idaho longer than she has lived in the state.” As usual, he speaks the truth.

In his response, Simpson pointed out that Jordan has “repeatedly taken positions against Idaho’s best interests” in Congress. He criticized Jordan’s continuous opposition to funding for the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in Eastern Idaho, his repeated votes against the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program that is so vital to many of Idaho’s rural counties, his opposition to full funding of wildfire suppression, his opposition to every Farm Bill and his repeated votes against funding of Gowen Field, Mountain Home Air Force Base and “overall pay raises for our troops.”

As leader of the House Freedom Caucus, which he founded with Raul Labrador and several other far-right Congressmen in 2015, Jordan has also rallied support for these positions that are contrary to Idaho’s interests. They joined together to oppose the Affordable Care Act, INL funding and the PILT program. Simpson challenged their opposition to the PILT program in 2015, saying: “This kind of bill represents exactly what the American people want to see out of their elected representatives. They want us to fix problems, not to shout across the aisle and point fingers.”

There were many other valid reasons to keep Jordan as far away from the Speaker’s chair as possible. The claim that Jordan “turned a blind eye” to sexual abuse of athletes at Ohio State when he served there as a wrestling coach from 1986 to 1994 speaks volumes. A report commissioned by the university disclosed that 177 athletes had been abused over a number of years, but Jordan did not see fit to report it.

In addition to his apparent moral failings, Jordan has refused to abide by important principles of our constitutional government. He has steadfastly refused to acknowledge that Joe Biden was elected as President of the United States in 2020. There is absolutely no credible evidence to support Jordan’s fanatical position. Every court that has considered the issue has turned away challenges to the election. Even the three Trump-appointed Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court joined with the others in turning away appeals by Trump, Jordan and their allies. It is hard to imagine a Speaker who would put his own distorted beliefs over the considered findings of America’s judiciary.

On the other hand, Simpson has shown himself to be courageous when it comes to putting the interests of the nation over the self-serving interests of far-right extremists like Jordan. In 2010, I watched Mike forcefully defend his 2008 vote to fund the government bailout of the economy at a GOP meeting in Soda Springs where the audience was clearly against the bailout. He’s not a wishy-washy kind of guy.

Although I have often been confounded by votes or stands taken by Mike on a variety of issues, he then comes through with another vote or stand that reinforces the fact that he is the most effective, level-headed member of Idaho’s Congressional delegation. He protected the magnificent White Clouds. He is the only member of the delegation who has advanced a plan that has the potential to save our remarkable runs of salmon and steelheads from extinction–removal of the four federal dams on the lower Snake River. He knew he would take massive heat for his proposal, but went forward anyway, believing it to be the right thing to do.

The criticism by Moon and her cohorts is uninformed and wrongheaded. It could be that Moon is unfamiliar with Simpson’s record on issues of importance to Idaho because she is too busy churning out nonsense on fake culture war issues. Whatever the problem, she and her followers should settle down, study the real issues confronting the state, and join those of us who appreciate Mike.

 

The numbers and party attitudes

The numbers and party attitudes

October 29, 2023

The midway point between the midterm election of 2022 and the presidential election of 2024 makes for a useful benchmark for examining the hardest political numbers, outside of actual elections, Oregon has to offer: Its voter registration statistics.

They tell a story of rise and fall, but not between Democrats and Republicans: Rather, between those willing to identify with a party and those who are not.

Overall, Oregon voter registration over the last five years has been growing steadily, in line with the population and maybe beyond that – from October 2018 to now it grew 8.4% – to just under three million people statewide  or 2,999,871 to be exact. Picking numbers from monthly reports in October or September of each year avoids upticks in the parties from people who only temporarily switch to vote in a contested primary, and comes before the point when general election ballots are sent out.

Even then, the growth has not been even, and some categories of voters showed sharp declines.

Part of the political story of 2024 will be told in how that roller coaster is shaped next.

All of Oregon’s counties except the smallest, Wheeler, grew their voter registrations over the last five years, but some much more than others. The three fastest were Crook, Jefferson and Morrow, not among the top suspects for developing big electorates. Because of their small sizes, they don’t change the picture drastically. Oregon’s largest county, Multnomah, was one of the slowest growers. Registration declined some years, but is now up 5.1%.

Much more striking has been the roller coaster of party registration in the last few years.

Democratic Party registration this month stands at 998,380, which is almost 15,000 lower than in 2022, which was 13,000 lower than in 2021, which was a stunning 30,000 lower than in 2020. That’s not a happy trend line for the party. But there are some mitigating factors.

One of those happened just before those years: During the year leading up to the 2020  election, Democratic registration grew by a whopping 82,277. Considering that increase and the more gradual erosion in the years since, the party’s registration level today is about where it was in 2019 if you account for population increase.

The second mitigator is Republican registration, where the picture, though also mixed, looks rougher. This month, 721,530 Republicans are registered in the state – fewer than three-fourths the number of Democrats. That, too, is a decline from the 2020 numbers, when 764,216 Republicans were registered. (Both parties seem to have gone all out to register party members in that presidential year, then lost many afterward.) Since 2020, Republicans lost registrants two of the last three years, with the largest share of losses coming in 2021.

So if lots of people have left the two big parties since 2020, but overall voter registration has remained generally stable, where did they go?

Some went to the Independent Party of Oregon, which has gained about 6,000 members since 2020. But by far the largest number went to the nonaffiliated voter category: It picked up about 14,000 registrants in that time. While the parties gained members in the year prior to 2020, those in the unaffiliated category diminished by 9,184 voters.

There’s some recent history backing the idea that Oregon voter registration is like an accordion, with the parties puffing up when presidential election year comes around, then losing a significant chunk of their members in between.

What’s happening?

The numbers reflect the trend of people becoming  disenchanted with major parties in a non-presidential election year while turning towards them when the office of president is on the ballot.

It also shows that as steadily Democratic as Oregon can seem on a surface level – and generally has been when voters weigh in with their ballots – that the blue majority rides rising and falling tides.

Watch the registration numbers month by month and see whether Democrats start picking up in the year ahead, leading up to the 2024 presidential election. If they do, traditional results are likely to appear. But the parties will have to work for support. It’s soft enough that it could falter if it’s not well tended.

This article originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.