Press "Enter" to skip to content
Dereliction

Dereliction

March 25, 2024

Believe me, I did not want to write again about Raul Labrador’s failings, but this time his dereliction of duty is too glaring to ignore. The Attorney General is deliberately violating his clear statutory duty to provide written legal advice to legislators on proposed legislation. Idaho law requires the Attorney General to give a written opinion to “any senator or representative…when requested, upon any question of law relating to their respective offices.” Labrador flat refuses to follow that law, even though he swore under oath that he would “faithfully discharge the duties” of the AG’s office.

Labrador’s  spokesman recently stated that the AG’s office has a “policy of not issuing written opinions to legislators” on proposed legislation that is likely to result in constitutional litigation. That is exactly the kind of legislation where a written opinion is indispensable. Why refuse to give an opinion that could discourage an unconstitutional bill and avert costly litigation? The answer is rather obvious–political self-preservation.

Lawrence Wasden was famous for giving honest, straight-forward legal opinions on legislation, even when he personally disagreed with the conclusion. He said it was his duty under the law to correctly call the balls and strikes, regardless of his personal beliefs. That is what you do if you believe in the rule of law. We hope that our private attorneys will not lead us astray by refusing to answer our questions on the legality of our actions. That would violate the legal profession’s ethical rules and could result in legal disaster for the client, particularly in the governmental arena.

Labrador used Wasden’s honesty against him in the 2022 election. He pointed to opinions on hot-button bills where Wasden had reluctantly concluded that legislation was likely unconstitutional, wrongfully claiming Wadsen was expressing his personal views against the legislation. That included LGBTQ discrimination bills, legislation to stifle free speech, some abortion bills and legislation to allow below-market rental for state lands. Since most of the present unconstitutional legislation comes from Labrador’s extremist friends, he certainly does not want to tell them their bills violate the U.S. or Idaho Constitutions, even when they clearly do. Nor does he want to put anything down in writing that could come back to bite him politically.

During a recent hearing on his funding request for two additional lawyers, legislators of both parties were not buying Labrador’s excuses for refusing to carry out his sworn duty to issue written opinions. One legislator suggested that there would be no need for additional lawyers if he complied with his opinion-writing duties. That is, he could avert costly, time-consuming litigation by providing written opinions on bills of questionable constitutionality. Labrador huffed, “the argument that my office would need fewer attorneys if we issued more opinions is absurd.” His contention is patently absurd. A short legal opinion can often prevent passage of a bill that the state would have to squander significant time and resources in defending.

Labrador has claimed that he can simply talk legislators out of pursuing unconstitutional bills. He told IPTV host Melissa Davlin last December that “sometimes you have to say no, that the law does not allow you to do that.” That strategy has not kept legislators from tossing numerous unconstitutional bills into the hopper this year. Those bills would likely have been put on the books and successfully challenged in court, had attorneys outside of government not stepped forward to point out clear constitutional flaws.

Former Secretary of State Ben Ysursa and I pointed out that House Bill 652, which would allow unchecked removal of signatures from initiative petitions, was clearly violative of the Idaho Constitution. Labrador failed to tell legislators that two bills which infringed on the Governor’s right to fill judicial vacancies–House Bill 713 and Senate Bill 1347–had obvious constitutional flaws. Nor did Labrador warn legislators of the glaring constitutional problem in House Bill 521, which ties income tax cuts, school facility financing and several other subjects together in a single constitutionally-infirm bill.

There are many other bills with constitutional problems that could come back to haunt the state, including the numerous book-ban proposals and transgender bills. They could have been stopped or toned down by written, well-researched AG opinions. All Labrador has to do is to follow the law and do his duty. Otherwise, as in the military service, he ought to be brought to account for his dereliction of duty.

 

Balancing power in Oregon’s House

Balancing power in Oregon’s House

March 24, 2024

Two years ago, the Democratic majority in the 60-member Oregon House slipped from 37 seats to 35. But could Republicans win a majority this year?

Probably not, though it’s not out of the question: Democrats have more vulnerable state House seats this time than Republicans do.

But Republicans have some statistical vulnerabilities of their own.

All 60 House seats are up for election this year, compared to about half of the Senate. That gives both parties an opportunity to make a significant shift all at once.

Realistically, the chances of that happening are limited. A big reason is that about two-thirds of the members of the House were elected last time by landslides, with a lead of at least 20% of the vote over their nearest competitor, if any. In our polarized world, most Oregon legislative districts are simply out of reach for candidates from the other party.

That includes 21 districts now represented by Democrats, and 18 held by Republicans. The party strength in those areas mostly aligns with party registration. Only four House legislators – all Republicans – represent districts where the other party holds a registration edge.

About two-thirds of Oregon’s House members were elected in races with more than a 20-point margin, normally a marker of not just a personally strong incumbent – which is not always the case – but also of a district where one of the major parties is dominant and nearly invulnerable. And some additional districts, like that of House Majority Leader Julie Fahey in Eugene and retiring Republican Rep. Brian Stout of Columbia City, fall just short of that 20-point mark and would be just about as tough to flip.

But 13 House races were decided last election by fewer than 10 points, and in that range, seats can be relatively competitive. Attention is likely to be focused this year on many of those districts. Incumbents have filed for reelection for nearly all of those seats.

Many are in compact geographic areas east and south of Portland – into Clackamas and Hood River counties – and in and around Salem. Others are in regions that have become politically marginal, such as around Springfield, the Hillsboro-Forest Grove area and the north coast from Astoria through Tillamook. It’s not coincidental that in an area of what looks like the hottest U.S. House race in the state this year, District 5, overlaps a number of these districts.

The good news for Republicans is that nine of those districts are represented by Democrats who won tight races. If Republicans flipped as many as six of those, without losing any of their own, they could control the House.

On March 12, the Evergreen PAC, which supports Republican candidates, released a statement highlighting Republican House candidates “in some of Oregon’s most competitive districts,” with a list that included Districts 7, 19, 26, 39, 40, 48, 49, 50 and 53 that saw many of the closest House races in 2022.

The two closest House races of 2022 both were won by Democrats: Annessa Hartman (District 40, Oregon City), who won by half a percentage point, and Emerson Levy (District 53, Bend), who won by 1.3%. Their districts could be highly competitive again this year. But they do have some advantages, starting with a Democratic edge in voter registration in their districts, and the fact that since this year is a presidential election year, turnout is likely to be higher. That usually provides a small advantage to whatever party has the registration advantage.

The other Democrats with winning margins in the last election within 10%, starting with the closest election, were: Hoa Nguyen (District 48, Portland), Ricki Ruiz (District 50, Gresham), John Lively (District 7, Springfield), Zach Hudson (District 49, Troutdale), Courtney Neron (District 26, Wilsonville), Susan McLain (District 29, Hillsboro) and Tom Andersen (District 19, Salem).

That’s a significant collection of realistic targets for Republican candidates who would like to collect the five seats needed for a tie or six to take control of the House. It’s a tall order, though, because all of those districts have Democratic advantages in voter registration.

Republicans, in contrast, have just four seats that were won by 10% or less: Cyrus Javadi (District 32, Astoria), Tracy Cramer (District 22, Woodburn), Jeffrey Helfrich (District 52, Hood River) and Kevin Mannix (District 21, Keizer).

All four of these incumbents are in fragile positions, partly because Democrats hold registration advantages over Republicans in each. Javadi won by 2.5% over a Democrat, but he faces the headwind of a 9.3% Democratic registration edge. Cramer has a more extreme case: a 3.2% win last election, and a 15.1% Democratic advantage. Those four Republicans likely will be top Democratic targets this year.

Of course, the strength of the campaigns of these candidates, and their opponents, has yet to develop. In close contests, that could be decisive and it could decide what the Oregon House will look like next term.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

Review: How Migration Really Works

Review: How Migration Really Works

March 23, 2024

The many pits and pieces floating through the mediascape - and the political world - about immigration carry a feeling of uncertainty: What do the pieces really add up to? We're regularly harangued about this crisis or that, but what's the larger perspective?

So often, after all, we need to know how something works, or at least is intended to work, to understand whether we'd got a real problem here, or something solvable, or instead just an uncomfortable part of the real world we have to live with.

The recent book How Migration Really Works, written by the academic Hein De Haas - who has devoted his career to studying the realities of migration, both historically and currently - addresses exactly this. It is not an ideological polemic: His views are not designed to give partricular comfort to any place on the political spectrum.

They also make a surprising amount of real world sense.

Here's a list of propositions drawn from some the chapter titles, some of which will appeal to the left and others to the right:

  • "Migration is at an all-time high"
  • "The world is facing a refugee crisis"
  • "Development in poor countries will reduce migration"
  • "Immigrants steal jobs and drive down wages"
  • "Immigration lifts all boats"
  • "Immigrant integration has failed"
  • "Immigration sends crime rates soaring"

Here's what I left out: Every one of those chapter titles also describes each of these ideas as a myth, and De Haas does an effective job of demolishing all of them. Or nearly all; I had minor quibbles in some places. But his case appears overall to be solid.

What causes immigration, specifically immigration from a distance to places like the United States? (Did you know that not only our country and western Europe but also much of the Middle East and southeast Asia are immigrant magnets as well?) The are driven to travel not primarily, he argues, because of conditions on the ground in the countries of origin, and usually not extreme poverty or emergency. Traveling at a distance usually takes planning and financial resources; emigration from origin countries actually is low where economic and other conditions are especially weak, rise mainly in the case of moderate prosperity, and then slacken when higher-level prosperity is achieved. Rather than being effectively expelled from their home lands, most are attracted by economic prospects  in the destination countries. One reason the level of immigration is high now in the United States is that our economy is so strong; immigration was far lower after the big crash of 2008.

De Haas posits too that strong border security actually leads to more immigration and causes many more people who do enter the country, legally or not, to stay rather than have to go through the tougher border situation; a more fluid border leads to more of a revolving-door effect.

There's much more, all backed by extensive studies - in many places, world wide - and well worth reviewing. If you'd open to thinking about migration in a serious way, as opposed simply enjoying the emotional trigger, How Migration Really Works would be more than worth your time.

 

A boast fulfilled

A boast fulfilled

March 22, 2024

Some months ago people at the Idaho Democratic Party said something striking: This year, we will run at least one candidate in every legislative district in Idaho.

In other words, they wouldn’t do what they’ve been doing cycle after after, which is to leave so many Republican nominees unchallenged that the legislature would be conceded to the GOP before the election even was held.

My thought was: Okay, show me.

Turns out they have.

The regular two-week candidate filing window closed on March 15, and the legislative field is mostly set. (A note: Candidates still can drop out, or can file as write-ins for the primary election, so the numbers cited below still could rise or fall a little.)

In contrast to the typical 50 or so candidates Democrats have been fielding (some of those competing against each other in the primary), this year 99 have filed for legislative seats.

Some of those are in fact running against each other in the Democratic primaries. But: When the filing deadline closed, at least one D had filed in all 35 legislative districts. How many years has it been since that last happened? I’m not sure, but I’d guess you have to go back a few decades.

Democrats have filed for 27 of the 35 Senate seats, which means 20 of those candidates will be running in current Republican-held seats.

In the House, where Democrats now hold 11 of 70 seats, D candidates have filed for 55 seats.

For the first time in, what? - a generation? - Idaho Democrats have not conceded the legislature, either chamber of it in fact, immediately after the filing deadline.

I don’t mean to press the point too hard.

Obviously, these currently Republican districts are not going to be easy to win, and it’s entirely possible that Democrats will wind up in November with no more seats than they have now. (If that: In Idaho, presidential election years tend to tilt just a bit more Republican than in off-years.)

We have yet to see how much or how well they campaign, and what kind of campaign money and organization they can put together. Those will not be especially easy tasks either.

But the significance of this candidate recruitment shouldn’t be overlooked.

First, the party’s leaders made what sounded like an awfully daring boast in promising a presence in every district - and they carried through. This is something we haven’t seen for a while among Idaho Democrats.

Second is the fact that Idaho Democrats will be seen this year, locally, in places where they’ve been simply invisible for a long time. Here are some of the home communities of this year’s Idaho Democratic candidates: Spirit Lake, Dalton Gardens, Cottonwood, New Plymouth, Weiser, Emmett, Kuna, Homedale, Kimberly, Paul, Arco, Salmon, Preston, Soda Springs, Driggs, Irwin. I can remember when Democratic candidates (and sometimes winners) were not a rarity in such places, but it’s been a long time.

The fact that other voters in the area will have a human face - rather than a dark myth built out of demonic and perverted constructions - to associate with Democrats, could make some long-range difference.

A quick mention here is also warranted for the Democratic efforts to organize their local county parties. A short time ago, only a few were even thinly organized. Now, according to the state Democratic web site, all 44 counties have a Democratic chair at least, and all but a few have considerably more than that. That’s a major change.

These can be considered good initial steps.

If you’re going to change politics in Idaho, at least somewhat, you’re not going to do it all at once. But, one step at a time, this is a place to start.

 

Deal

Deal

March 21, 2024

It seems Republicans everywhere want to have work requirements for people who receive Medicaid health insurance. Our governor has said he’s on board, as has the interim director of the Department of Health and Welfare. The legislature has long argued for this, and they are again. Idaho has a request pending. It has not been approved by the Trump administration or this Biden one.

I understand their concern. Why should us taxpayers give our tax money to folks loafing on the couch all day? If that’s the case.

I first ran into this sentiment when I was campaigning for office. The local laborer’s union gave me a chance to make my pitch to them. Democrat, Union, you’d think we were simpatico. Maybe not.

I introduced myself and then asked them what they wanted from the state government. The young guys were reluctant, but finally a guy spoke up. “Why don’t we drug test people who want welfare?”

I told him I would look into it. After I got elected, I did.

Some states had imposed this testing. It had become a meme. That is, there was widespread belief that druggies were taking our tax dollars.

The actual numbers showed that the cost of drug testing and the administration of this requirement had added significantly to the taxpayers cost of the program. Further, the number of folks using drugs on Welfare was well below the number of the general population. So just what is your point?

I believe most folks do not want to give something out through government-imposed taxes to another of their fellow citizens who might be undeserving of their generosity. I understand this sentiment. And I’m an Idaho Democrat.

But the laws we write are supposed to promote domestic tranquility and the common good. Anyone remember that?

So, let’s look at the work requirement proposed for Medicaid health insurance. Idaho’s proposal has many exceptions for “work”. Caretakers, moms, folks recently unemployed are exempted. So, who might be abusing this government benefit? I would argue, it’s a very small fraction of the Medicaid population.

I guess you want to build a department of government to look for these scofflaws and make sure they don’t have health insurance that we are all paying for.

Given our current system assumption that health insurance is a work-related benefit, it makes sense that we should be pushing people to gain employment, and then their health insurance would be the employers problem, not us taxpayers.

So, here’s the deal I offer you “work requirement” afficionados. And I believe it is a plan that would be accepted by our federal partners. Neither Trump nor Biden have approved our current proposal.

Idaho should propose to the federal government, our Medicaid partner since they pay 70% of the bill, a study.

We get to impose Medicaid work requirements on half of the folks who apply for Medicaid. We study this half, and the half that don’t have the requirements. We watch them for their long term, let’s say five years, outcomes. How many become employed and off the dole? How many just stay uninsured and a burden on us all.

Do we really help anybody with this program?

I have my bias.

You probably do too.

Let’s study the question.

It comes down to the question of whether you believe people, our society, your neighbors, all of us, are better suited to serve the common good if we have health insurance.

Since the health insurance industry is a significant portion of many people’s retirement portfolios, I doubt any major disruption is in the cards.

But if you want to drain the swamp, this is a good place to start.

Let’s make a deal.

 

A break in the rancor

A break in the rancor

March 20, 2024

Here’s something that you don’t normally see in Washington – the Democratic and Republican leaders of the Senate Finance Committee standing side-by-side at a news conference, talking about a bill aimed to help pharmacists and patients.

There was no casting of political blame, no bashing of President Biden’s policies, and no disparaging comments about former President Trump. It was two senators – Republican Mike Crapo of Idaho and Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon – talking about a problem that has been around far too long.

They did not hide their frustrations about how pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) were making it challenging for patients (especially seniors) to obtain their needed medications. And there was no “diplomacy” when they talked about how these benefit managers, and their regulations, were driving community pharmacies out of business. Wyden and Crapo told the crowd of supporters at the virtual news conference that it’s high time for Congress to take action.

“This is not a complicated issue, folks,” said Wyden, who chairs the finance committee. “This is about the fact that two of us, two United States senators, believe that we should be helping patients, pharmacists, and taxpayers rather than the PBMs that are hijacking their money.”

The list of political supporters for the cause goes beyond two senators. The full committee has approved a reform bill by what Wyden jokingly described as “a very narrow vote – 26-0.”

That’s a noteworthy accomplishment in today’s political environment; it’s tough to get 26 Republicans and Democrats to agree on the color of the sky on a given day. But even the most partisan of senators can agree on who the “good guys” are on this matter.

“Unfortunately, certain pharmacy benefit management practices continue to jeopardize the viability and stability of pharmacies,” said Crapo, the committee’s ranking member. “This (reform) must happen now. Oversight protections for Medicare Part D have fallen short of the promise to protect seniors and their ability to access the pharmacy of their choice and cause far too many pharmacies to close shop.”

A strong reform bill, he said, will mean lower out-of-pocket Medicare and Medicaid costs for seniors, while enhancing accountability in federal health-care programs.

Crapo is not a newcomer to this cause. Last summer, he was in Twin Falls talking about the committee’s reform bill, targeted at a $500 billion PBM industry. The Times News of Twin Falls reported on Crapo’s Magic Valley visit.

“Our legislation takes aim at a wide range of problematic PBM practices, from inappropriate patient steering to opaque and unreasonable network contracts,” Crapo said in Twin Falls.

The bill hardly qualifies as “fun reading,” but the senators are clear about the bottom line. PBMs, as they are operating, are a nightmare for consumers and pharmacy operations. It’s not surprising that Wyden and Crapo have the support of the National Association of Chain Drug Stores and the National Community Pharmacists Association, for starters.

A number of Idaho groups are backing PBM reform, including the American Nurses Association, the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce, the Idaho Retailers Association and the Idaho State Pharmacy Association.

According to a letter to Crapo from the group, the benefit managers “have used their control over the prescription drug supply chain and the high costs of some medicines to line their own pockets with record-setting profits. In the process they have increased costs for patients, narrowed where Americans can choose to access their prescription medications and in turn pushed long trusted independent pharmacies across the country out of business.”

Wyden and Crapo hear the message, loud and clear.

“The time for PBM reform was yesterday,” Wyden says. “It’s past time to crack down on the shady practices of these pharma middlemen that result in higher drug prices for consumers across Oregon and nationwide. The Senate Finance Committee, on a bipartisan basis, is not backing down today, tomorrow, or ever until we get PBM reform in America to help pharmacists and patients. We want to put patients over profits and we’re going to stay at it until it gets done.”

A reform bill may not be the end-all political solution to the nation’s health-care problems, but it does get to the front lines of the battle. And while bipartisan unity is not a new venture for Crapo and Wyden, who are longtime colleagues from neighboring states, it’s refreshing to see it on display.

We’re not going to see much bipartisanship during this election-year campaign.

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

 

Old

Old

March 19, 2024

I've been feeling old lately.  Really OLD!  Had a couple of health issues to deal with - successfully - but the feeling really doesn't stem from those.

One of the things that creates the "older-than-dirt" feeling is knowing - and being a contemporary of  - people for whom buildings and other institutions are named.

In Idaho: Cecil D. Andrus Elementary; Morley Nelson Elementary; Frank Church Wilderness; James McClure Federal Building; Simplot Field; Kathryn Albertson Park; Earl Pond Student Union in Pocatello.

In Oregon: Wayne Morris Center; Mark Hatfield Science Center, Tom McCall Park and a few more.

The namesakes are all gone.  Now, the contemporary connections are replaced with bricks and mortar.  Or a few trees.  And good memories.  Of good people.

I once interviewed Alice Roosevelt Longworth.  She was the oldest child of President Teddy Roosevelt and, for many years, was the social Grande Dame of Washington D.C..  She married a member of Congress for whom the Longworth House Office Building is named.

We talked in her Georgetown home which was filled to the eaves with all the memorabilia you'd expect of a family steeped in politics and history.  When I asked her how she was doing, "Miss Alice"- as her friends called her - replied,  "I'm Washington's oldest perambulating monument and, at the moment, I'm still perambulating."

At the time - I was about 34-years-old - the remark was more humorous than personal.  Now, 50 years later, some days it feels more personal than humorous.

Some say feeling old is "just a state of mind."  My experience with aging - more than four-score years - is whoever said those words had not passed 30.

An elderly person can "think young."  That's easy enough most of the time.  Then, that person tries to get up out of a comfortable chair and is quickly reminded by hips and knees, there is great distance between those words and reality.

Once a week, I join a small group of people over coffee.  The youngest is probably about 60-something.  We talk of our various pasts in nearly every session.  We're now the table of "older folks" we used to see in the coffee shops each weekday morning.

How did it happen?  When did it happen?  This transition from middle-age to senior citizen?

I don't know.  But, here we are.

 

Farewell to the referendum

Farewell to the referendum

March 18, 2024

From a statement by Jim Jones and Ben Ysursa.

House Bill 652, which is designed to critically wound citizen initiatives in Idaho, will also administer an absolute kill shot to the citizen referendum. For those not familiar with the referendum, it is an infrequently-used mechanism that allows voters to veto a bill enacted into law by the Legislature. Voters can make a law with the initiative or use the referendum to veto a law passed by the Legislature. The reason that the people rarely use the referendum is that the Legislature has set timelines that are nearly impossible to meet. Referendum petitions with the required number of signatures must be submitted to the Secretary of State no later than 60 days after adjournment of the legislative session in which the bill they want to veto is passed. Most of those 60 days would be spent trying to fulfill bureaucratic requirements before signature gathering could actually commence.

The last time voters used the referendum was in 2012, when it was used to veto three unpopular education laws, commonly called the “Luna Laws.” It took a herculean effort to meet all of the bureaucratic requirements and gather the signatures. Approval of HB 652 would render the referendum useless. That, in turn, would result in a successful court challenge of the new law.

There is a serious drafting error in HB 652. One section sets a 60-day public review period in the Secretary of State’s office just for initiatives. During those 60 days, petition signers can remove their signatures from an initiative, which is a constitutional problem in its own right. The next section just assumes that the 60-day public review period applies to both initiatives and referendums–sloppy work.

Regardless of how the signature removal provision applies, it is an unconstitutional burden on the right of voters to use both the initiative and the referendum. The Florida Supreme Court issued a remarkable decision in 2010 that clearly spelled out the danger. The Court’s reasoning applies to both the initiative and the referendum.

The Florida Court said: “These signature-revocation provisions substantially burden the constitutional rights of initiative proponents and initiative signatories by affording initiative opponents an unopposed, definitive opportunity to ‘persuade’ electors to revoke their signatures for any reason and by any means, even illegitimate.”

The Court continued, “the provisions vest rival political action committees with the primary responsibility for drafting, distributing, marketing, and submitting petition revocation forms, and render it practically impossible for initiative proponents to determine whether they have obtained the requisite number and distribution of verified signatures until it is too late to gather, submit, and verify additional signatures.”

The Court concluded: “Placing a signature upon an initiative petition does not signify one's definitive agreement with a proposed amendment or revision; rather, one is merely agreeing that the proposal is worthy of statewide consideration and discourse for a vote at a later date. If an elector simply changes his or her mind in this regard, he or she remains free to participate in public discussion and to vote against the proposal.”

Some proponents of HB 652 argued in the House that the bill would not apply to the Open Primaries Initiative, which is currently being circulated. However, that is a debatable issue because of the bill's troublesome wording. Under current law, a signer may have his or her signature removed at any time prior to the county clerk's verification of the signature. That would occur well before June 30 because that is the deadline for clerks to send their petitions to the Secretary of State. The effective date of HB 652 is July 1 of this year. HB 652 provides that the Secretary of State will have a public review period starting after receipt of the initiative petitions and extending for 60 days, during which signers can request that their signature be removed, even though the signature would have already been certified by the county clerk well before that time. You can bet that opponents of the initiative would then argue that the public review period becomes immediately effective on July 1 and that signers can have their signatures removed from the Open Primaries Initiative for the duration of that period.

HB 652 is an unconstitutional mess and should be put out of its misery in the Senate.

Jim Jones is a Vietnam combat veteran who served 8 years as Idaho Attorney General (1983-1991) and 12 years as a Justice on the Idaho Supreme Court (2005-2017).

Ben Ysursa served as Idaho Secretary of State from 2003 to 2015. He served as Deputy in the office from 1974 to 1976 and as Chief Deputy from 1976 to 2002. He received the Outstanding Administrator Award from the Idaho Republican Party in 1992.

 

A hot spot: Secretary of State?

A hot spot: Secretary of State?

March 17, 2024

In 2022, Oregon had an intense contest to decide who would be the next governor. The hot statewide contest this year could be for secretary of state, not ordinarily a top attraction.

Still, enthusiasts of horse-race contests should enjoy this year’s Democratic primary for that post, the second-ranking in state government: featuring State Treasurer Tobias Read against State Sen. James Manning Jr., with no incumbent seeking re-election.

The contest does not start evenly.

The current secretary is Democrat LaVonne Griffin-Valade, appointed after the last elected secretary of state, Shemia Fagan, resigned over ethical issues concerning moonlighting for a cannabis company. Griffin-Valade is not running for a full term, so it is an open race.

That office, which also oversees election filings, reports four current candidates. More could possibly file, though well-known names would be unlikely at this point.)

The other two are Republicans: Robert Neumann of Greenhorn reports that he is “not employed” and has not raised nor spent any campaign funds. The other, Brent Barker of Aloha, is a small business owner and real estate broker whose current reported cash balance is $3,841. He has the added advantage over Neumann of having run statewide before, in 2022 for labor commissioner; but he came in a distant fourth out of seven candidates in the May primary election. Assuming a better-organized and better-known Republican doesn’t enter before filing ends, Barker likely will progress to the November election, but with slim odds of success there.

That leaves the two Democrats, Read and Manning, each of whom brings serious advantages to the contest.

Both are well known in Oregon political circles, with substantial personal and campaign background and organizational and fundraising networks. Both are keynoting “integrity” in their campaigns, logical after the Fagan uproar. Both have been in the race since September, and appear to have been actively working at it since.

Manning’s political background runs to 2016, when he lost a race for the state House in the Democratic primary (with 39.1% of the vote) to Julie Fahey. Just as well: That December he was appointed to replace Sen. Chris Edwards, who resigned. Manning was elected unopposed in 2018 and prevailed easily over a Republican, in a strongly Democratic district, in 2022.

He has a distinctive background which could provide some extra appeal: Service in the U.S. Army – from which he retired – and experience before that in various areas of law enforcement and even as a private investigator. He’s been an active legislator and picked up quick support from plenty of fellow legislators.

Read’s background is simpler. A former Nike designer, he, too, spent years in the Legislature – in the House from 2007-16 – then was elected state treasurer in 2016 (narrowly) and 2020 (against the same Republican candidate but by a much larger margin). Those statewide races could be considered successful, a partial template for this new one. They also have given him more of a statewide profile than Manning has at the start.

Another campaign that may affect this one even more than those, however, was Read’s 2022 run in the Democratic primary for governor – against the current governor, Tina Kotek. He lost that contest decisively – Kotek’s 56% to Read’s 31.7% – in a race in which he was, in effect, the outsider running against the establishment contender.

Some of that dynamic may appear this time, but it’s less clear cut.

On finances, Read has a significant advantage, with $139,104 in cash on hand compared to Manning’s $25,077.

Both have demonstrated strong backing. Read reports among his endorsers former Govs. Ted Kulongoski and Barbara Roberts and former Secretary of State Jeanne Atkins, U.S. Rep. Andrea Salinas, several legislators including House Speaker Dan Rayfield and local officials and Operating Engineers Local 701. Manning has a strong roster too, including a long list of legislators including Senate President Rob Wagner, a collection of city and county officials, including a number from Multnomah County, and former U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio.

Overall, Read seems to have the opening advantages: a statewide profile, a statewide network and probably a better starting fundraising base. In the next couple of months, more of Manning’s time may be taken by his legislative duties, while Read may be freer to travel.

Still, both candidates are close enough to blank slates statewide that they have considerable room to define themselves and, if they choose, each other.

There’s an opening tilt, but this looks like a race whose story has yet to be written.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.