Press "Enter" to skip to content
Volunteer month

Volunteer month

April 15, 2026

April is the month that has Easter, the Master’s golf tournament and showers that bring May flowers.

It’s also National Volunteer Month, something that doesn’t get the attention of the more heralded events. But during these troubled times, it’s nice to remind ourselves there are wonderful people doing incredible deeds to make this country a better place. And there are civic organizations, such as the Rotary, Lions and Kiwanis that promote volunteer efforts and nonprofits.

Meet Honey Goodman, program director of the Boise-based Aging Strong, which gives hundreds of seniors in the Treasure Valley (and beyond) a greater purpose in their lives and a reason to get out of bed in the morning. She describes the program, with limited marketing, as “the valley’s best-kept secret.”

Those interested in volunteering for a variety of services, including foster grandparenting and respite companionship, may apply through the website (Agingstrong.org), or by contacting Goodman (hgoodman@jannus.org).

One of the features of Goodman’s nonprofit is “foster grandparents,” where seniors are assigned to tutor and mentor kids that may be struggling academically or emotionally. The program has the backing from the Nampa Rotary Club.

“I love the volunteer component of this,” said Amy Stahl, a Rotarian who sits on the board of directors for Aging Strong. Stahl’s Rotary Club has put together tutoring kits, which include flash cards for math and reading and various school supplies.

“Indirectly, they also are working with the entire classroom. Kids love it when these foster grandparents come into the classroom … they become the class grandparents. And we see academic progress with the children. Foster grandparents give the students the time and attention that classroom teachers don’t have the time and capacity to do.”

For the seniors, mentoring children can be a life-changer. Goodman, a former chief operating officer and co-owner of a hospice, sees a different side to elderly care.

“The average age of our volunteers is 75, and they are finding purpose with their lives,” she said. “It warms my heart that we are helping older adults in this fashion. Our program shows that people can go out and make a difference, regardless of age.”

From Stahl’s perch, support for Aging Strong is part of what Rotarians do – putting “service above self.” The Nampa Rotary backs a variety of other causes – including women and children, environmental matters, the Boys Girls Club of Canyon County and Terry Reilly Health Services to name a few. Rotary clubs worldwide are participating in an "Epic Day of Service" on May 16.

Stahl’s passion for volunteerism goes beyond Rotary. She serves on the Southwestern Regional Council of the Idaho Community Foundation, which reviews various grant applications for nonprofits. She has been a Rotarian for 21 years.

Other club members have similar thoughts about their service with Rotary.

“I appreciate the opportunity to connect with people from different backgrounds who bring new perspectives and resources to service. It creates a space where meaningful work can happen collectively,” says Sarah Buck, community center manager for the Salvation Army of Nampa.

“There’s a famous quote by Winston Churchill that I love using as to why I joined Rotary: ‘We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give,’” says Sal Vitale.

“Rotary provides a meaningful way to turn good intentions into tangible outcomes by bringing together people who care about making a difference,” says Rob O'Donahue

“Being a part of Rotary gives me practical ways to serve others and encourages me to be mindful of my neighbors and environment,” says Savannah D’Orazio Blair.

“I love Rotary because it reflects what I believe in – people helping people,” says Jeremy Sankwich, who in July will be installed as the club’s president. “It’s about giving back, supporting others and being part of something bigger than yourself.”

The world is not such a gloomy place after all.

Chuck Malloy, an Idaho native and long-time journalist and columnist, is a volunteer writer with the Idaho Community Foundation’s Nonprofit Center. He may be reached at ctmalloy@outlook.com

 

Flunking birthright citizenship test

April 13, 2026

Idaho’s Attorney General circulated a political opinion piece on March 31, suggesting that babies born on US soil are not entitled to US citizenship if their parents are not lawfully residing in America at the time of birth. This is completely counter to the language of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, as well as a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court issued in 1898.

Labrador admitted as much in his opinion piece: “Automatic citizenship for anyone born on American soil, regardless of their parents’ legal status, has become so accepted that courts have treated it as settled law. Even I agreed with this interpretation for a while.” So, what could have changed Labrador’s mind? It was likely a royal edict, issued by that universally-recognized legal scholar, Donald J. Trump.

On January 20, 2025, Trump issued an executive order calling for an end to what is known as birthright citizenship. Almost immediately, Labrador snapped into line, claiming that he and the rest of us have all been wrong about our reading of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution all these many years. Labrador and 23 other Republican Attorneys General have asked the Supreme Court to overturn what has long been the well-established law of the United States.

The actual words of the Fourteenth Amendment are so clear that anyone with a basic understanding of English should be able to understand what they mean: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It does not take a law degree to gather that almost every baby birthed on American soil is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. In its 1898 decision, the Supreme Court indicated that “children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State” were not subject to US jurisdiction and not citizens.

These extremely narrow exceptions to birthright citizenship came to us from the English common law, which still applies in the US, except where changed by laws enacted since our country was born. As an example, an Idaho statute incorporates the common law, except where changed by federal or Idaho law.

Trump has falsely claimed that no other country has birthright citizenship, but all counties in North America and almost all in South America derived it from Western European countries and still observe it today.

The meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment comports with the vision of Abraham Lincoln’s administration, well before the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted on July 9, 1868. In November of 1862, Lincoln’s Attorney General, Edward Bates, issued a legal opinion stating: “Every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen…without any reference to race or color, or any other accidental circumstance.”

Labrador’s opinion piece was published the day before the US Supreme Court heard arguments on the birthright citizenship issue. The Court appeared to throw cold water on Labrador’s flawed viewpoint. It was an uphill fight for the 24 GOP Attorneys General because there is no language in the Fourteenth Amendment that supports their contentions. It says nothing about the residence, domicile or allegiance of any parent. Citizenship is bestowed on the newborn merely because the birth took place on US soil.

Some would see Labrador as a bit of a curmudgeon for trying to deprive others of what he does not have–birthright citizenship. Those born in Puerto Rico have citizenship under a mere Congressional statute, rather than under the Constitution. The Jones-Shafroth Act, passed by Congress in 1917, granted statutory citizenship to residents of Puerto Rico. The underhanded purpose of the law was to make Puerto Rican men subject to being drafted for World War One.

That brings me to something that has puzzled me for quite some time. In an October 2024 Trump rally in Madison Square Garden, a so-called comedian famously called Puerto Rico a ”floating island of garbage.” That was a despicable, mean-spirited slur that had no place in public discourse. What was truly head scratching is that Labrador chose to dress himself in a garbage bag for Halloween a few days later. It demonstrated extremely poor taste. A person proud of his birthplace would normally call the culprit to account for his atrocious conduct, instead of appearing to go along with it.

While we are on the subject of Puerto Rico, it’s time the MAGA crowd stopped making that US territory the butt of jokes and start recognizing its value to the nation. Its citizens pay federal taxes, except for income derived on the island, and they send their sons and daughters to serve in the US military. About 227,000 have served since 1917 and more than 1,225 of those have died in that service. About 48,000 served in my war, Vietnam, and 357 of those died. Let’s quit trying to force Canada and Greenland to become part of the United States and offer that opportunity to a territory that has been with us through thick and thin since 1898. Puerto Ricans are entitled to voting representation in Congress and the right to vote in our presidential elections, if they so choose.

But, I digress. Getting back to the birthright citizen issue, it is close to a certainty that the Supreme Court will turn aside the effort of Trump and Labrador to destroy our birthright citizenship tradition. It has been the law of the country since 1868 and the only lawful way to change it is to amend the Constitution. An unlawful executive order won’t suffice.

 

Oregon’s drought ahead

Oregon’s drought ahead

April 12, 2026

On March 26, Gov. Tina Kotek declared a drought emergency in Deschutes, Umatilla and Baker counties at the request of county governments. Call that the first drop of what may soon be a flood of drought-related actions.

This may be the most challenging large-scale drought year Oregon has seen in decades.

Kotek’s executive order hinted at that. It also said “forecasts suggest that below normal precipitation and streamflow conditions are likely to continue through summer in all counties following an extended period with precipitation and temperature conditions that contributed to well below normal snowpack.”

The deliberate language may understate the situation given what’s developed in recent months. And that’s without considering Wallowa and Jefferson counties, which didn’t make the emergency cut for Kotek’s recent order but may before long.

For all that Oregon has a reputation as water-soaked, most of it is arid. Even most of the western region is less moist than many people believe, and water supply has trended to the low side for some years. This year something close to a perfect non-storm hit: Light precipitation plus unseasonably warm weather (such as now, as this is written). Much of Oregon got little or no snow last winter, in places where at least some snowfall is or has been more the norm.

Unseasonal warmth probably has been the bigger factor. Across nearly all of Oregon, since the current “water year” (as marked by federal agencies) started Oct. 1, precipitation mainly as rainfall across nearly all the state has been between between 70% and 90% of normal, meaning compared to the measurements from 1991 to 2020. (Two areas, the Hood-Sandy-Lower Deschutes and the Umatilla-Walla Walla, are slightly higher.) You can see all of this mapped on a federal Oregon snow survey web page.

The federal website drought.gov reported a month ago “Stations in the Cascade Range in Oregon and Washington are reporting the greatest snowpack deficits in the West. Some states, such as California, are already experiencing an early melt out of snow.”

And it said, “Every major river basin in the West experienced its first or second warmest winter (December, January and February) on record. The Great Basin, Rio Grande, Arkansas-White-Red, and Upper and Lower Colorado River Basins experienced their warmest winter on record, while the Missouri and Columbia River Basins recorded their second warmest.”

If that were being stored in snowpack in the mountain ranges, which is what normally happens, that wouldn’t be a great problem.

But the “snow water equivalent” map from the National Resources Conservation Service shows Oregon’s basins (excepting the coast, which isn’t counted the same way) are in hot red coloring — extremely low snow water percentages. Those numbers run as low as 0% in the John Day and the Malheur areas, but are down to 9% even in the Willamette.

As Larry O’Neill, Oregon’s state climatologist, told the Oregon Capital Chronicle, “It’s a very worrying trend. Because it was so warm, our snowpack just really failed to build. Snowpack functionally acts as a reservoir for water. Basically, our largest reservoir of water is nearly empty at this point in time.”

Here’s a comparison: Go back to April 2025, and you’ll see Oregon basins almost all bathed in blue, with nearly all percentages well above 100%.

Oregon hasn’t looked nearly this dry, headed into spring and summer, since 2015, and even that wasn’t quite as bad as our current readings. (The maps suggest Oregon’s drought may be on a level — adjusted for normal precipitation — with Nevada and Arizona.) That year, more than two-thirds of Oregon’s counties had drought declarations.

In the years since then, only 2022 has come close for dryness.

Put another way, if you’re hearing that this looks like a drought year, think of conditions likely to affect you personally. If you’re a farmer depending on irrigation, of course, the situation is much more extreme. Wildfires become higher risk in drought times too.

So what can be done?

Drought declarations by the governor — and you can expect to see many more before the year is out — can help with access to some government programs and speeding reviews and funding, but they can do only so much. Conservation measures probably should get underway now.

Maybe the best thing we can do is use this year as an object lesson in what to prepare for, because the trend lines suggest we’re going to be seeing more of this, not less.

This column first appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

It’s dryin’ time again

It’s dryin’ time again

April 10, 2026

Winter is over.

You can tell it by the calendar, of course, and by the warm weather. But make that warmer weather.

The warm will turn to hot in coming months. Which it always does, only this time more so than usual. And as it does, water will grow scarce. Yes, this is almost certain to be a serious drought year.

It probably won’t hit Idaho worst among the western states. Oregon, Nevada and Arizona might be drying harder, and Washington similarly. But Idaho is going to be slammed.

You can see local details on the federal Snotel maps, which show among other things how much snowpack is available. That’s the crucial thing to know. The last half-year hasn’t been completely parched; there’s been periodic rainfall around Idaho, and around the west generally. The problem is that not a lot of precipitation has fallen, or been retained in upper elevations, as snow. This means most of the water has simply run through a lot of the system, and not enough - or at least as much as we would like - will be retained for use through the coming warmer months.

Which, critically, are the months irrigators most need them for producing crops.

The current Snotel maps show not the amount of snow-water available in raw terms, but in comparison to historical averages (specifically, 1991-2020). The maps are published daily and change over time, and those early in the “water year” (which begins October 1) sometimes fluctuate wildly. But by this time of year, they’ve mostly begun to settle down to provide reliable and useful numbers.

Compared, then, to the historical average, the highest and best percentage recorded in any of the basins, as of the April 7 map, is the Big Lost River at 71%. Two big systems in northern Idaho, the Clearwater and the Coeur d’Alene-St. Joe, are each at 70%. The Little Lost is at 64%. Those numbers are lower than you’d like, but not exactly awful.

But then we have the Owyhee and Goose Creek basins at 0% - a relative rarity to report essentially no snowpack at all. Willow-Blackfoot-Portneuf report 9%, Salmon Falls 16%, Bruneau 17%.

The Weiser, Payette, Boise, Big and Little Wood, the Salmon and the Bear basins are notching figures higher than that, but still only in the range of around half, or a little over, the norm. (Maybe a little ironically, the Lost basins are the site of a major state groundwater curtailment, though the reasons are unusual and have to do with jointly managing water in the region.)

If you check these basin numbers a few days in the future, you may find they have changed, a little. But the odds are they won’t much change in a positive direction.

These observations aren’t going unnoticed. They’re of course being watched closely by the Idaho Department of Water Resources, which holds periodic meetings (most recently this week) of a Water Supply Committee.

A site called plantmaps tracks drought and dryness on local levels, and concluded that as of the end of March, “approximately 69% (57313 square miles) of Idaho is under drought conditions and 31% (26136 square miles) is Abnormally dry.” The worst of it, the map showed, is in Owyhee County, but drought seems to extend across much of the rest of the state, including most of the more heavily populated areas. Coeur d’Alene, Pocatello and Twin Falls all were listed under “severe drought.”

By the end of March, Cassia County had asked for a drought declaration there. More like it are probable before long.

The federal drought.gov monitor estimated “882,100 Idaho residents in areas of drought.”

Buckle down. Political campaign season in Idaho is about to coincide with another season just as challenging.

(image)

 

Stupid

April 9, 2026

It’s hard to know where to lay the blame on this one. Our Federal elected officials all voted for this boondoggle. Now our state elected officials are doing their part. So maybe we should all just be looking in the mirror.

Let’s make our situation clear. When we elected our Federal clowns back in 2024, they took it upon themselves to solve our problems with the One Big Beautiful Bill. It cut Medicaid funding and instituted work requirements. I will skip over the tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. The deficit grows.

We here in Idaho, a small, mostly rural state will feel big impacts for healthcare in our small towns. They knew that. So they wedged in a deal. Not unlike the ObamaCare deals to insurance companies. But here we are again.

The “deal” to us rural states was a five-year block grant program. We had to develop plans to improve rural health care within their limits and then sustain this after their money went away in five years. We had three months to come up with proposals. We did. They promised the money. Grants are unsustainable, not unlike our federal debt.

But who will be in charge of this nearly $1B from our deeply indebted federal government?

This caused the Idaho legislature a lot of angst. But they got it done.

I appreciate their angst. Someone drops this boondoggle on you; how do you make it work?

It can’t. So why do they care?

We had a Medicaid program grinding along. The OBBB cut it. This will hurt. Maybe this grant will ease the pain.

Let’s be honest. The goal of Republicans is to get more people off the taxpayer teat. I appreciate that. Social Security, Medicare, now Medicaid, these huge federal programs that cost almost as much as our federal debt service and the defense budget drive our deficit. We should have a better plan.

But a billion dollar grant to ease the pain for Idaho? When our elected representatives don’t even think everybody should have health care? And they will decide how this boondoggle should be spent? It’s worse than a clown show.

It’s stupid. But stupid is as stupid does.

Our country needs to be having the fundamental conversation about healthcare. Do we all deserve it? If we do, how do we pay for it? How do we manage the cost?

My profession has lobbied long and hard that health care should be a private sector decision between the doctor and the patient. This has enriched many doctors. Now it is enriching many private equity firms and insurance corporations.

This Idaho Billion-dollar five-year boondoggle is just a diversion. Our legislators know it. That’s why they fought so bitterly over who held the strings. They couldn’t just come right out and say, Screw You, to the poor, uninsured, part time workers with poor access to health care. They wanted to ease your pain.

For five years. Then what?

I am no fan of the Medicaid program. It was a mess from the start. But Idaho was among the first states to jump on the wagon. Back then, Idaho Republicans believed all people should have access to health care. And the Medicaid program was an answer. That was the old days when we thought we could afford it.

Now, I don’t think most of our elected legislators think all people should have health insurance. They sure take our money for their health insurance. What do you think? Should we all have health insurance like our elected officials?

Does a lousy five-year grant from printed money make you want to vote for them? Maybe that’s what our Washington delegation believed. Maybe they thought throwing this stupid bone our direction would get them another 2 or 6 years. It probably will. Idaho votes Republican.

But they could have taken a stand. Can you imagine Senator Risch taking a stand? I can’t.

Now, it will just be a committee of legislators reviewing the grants, for five years. Making us feel better as the system dissolves, melts.

We need a system. Nurses need to be paid. Doctors need to be paid (less). Healthcare for all should be accessible, affordable, and good. We all deserve it. Aren’t we the richest country in the world?

We could be having a real conversation about how we see our future. Instead we bomb and deport. Shame on us.

 

Throwing feathers, hoping for a duck

April 6, 2026

As the 2026 session of the Legislature thankfully comes to a close, we can only hope that there will be enough turnover so that the ugly process is never repeated. One of the bills, which cut $131 million in necessary funding from a wide variety of programs, was aptly described by the House Majority Leader as a “crappy bill.” It passed, nevertheless, along with a number of other crappy appropriation bills.

There were several factors that contributed to the dysfunctional budget process–no real leadership from the Governor, a budget committee (JFAC) led by two city slickers from Eagle, a failure to seek meaningful input from affected parties and too many culture war JFAC members who were just fine with cutting state programs to the bone.

Governor Little initially called for a 3% across-the-board cut for all state budgets, except statewide elected officials, the courts and K-12 education, for the current fiscal year ending June 30. In its “crappy bill,”JFAC provided for 4% across-the-board cuts that included the state officials and courts. The court system was able to get some of its cuts restored, but the statewide officials were out of luck.

The Attorney General sought to have his cuts restored, correctly pointing out that 89% of the AG’s budget goes to staff compensation. The cuts would require salary cuts or layoffs. Even though I disagree with Mr. Labrador on a wide variety of issues, he is correct about the effect of the budget cuts on his office. Unfortunately, the Idaho House displayed no sympathy. A bill to restore funding for both 2026 and 2027 failed by a 33-37 vote. All 9 Democrats and 28 Republicans, including the Majority Leader, rejected his funding request. It indicates broad unhappiness with his legal performance.

What we are left with is a budget that will, among many other hurtful things, make significant cuts to Medicaid, hamper higher education, adversely impact a variety of essential programs and largely ignore the $100 million shortfall for special education.

After the Governor made his budget recommendation, he just sat on his hands and allowed JFAC and the Legislature to throw a budget together. He took the position that it was not his job to exercise leadership over the budgeting process. There are three things that Little could have done, were he not frightened of stepping on the toes of the MAGA crowd. He could have come out against adopting the tax cuts contained in the BIG Beautiful Billionaire Bill that Congress passed last year. Or, he could have asked that the tax rate of the higher earners in Idaho be slightly increased to partially make up for the $5 billion in tax cuts imprudently made over the last five years. Or, he could have dipped into the $1.3 billion in the state’s rainy day funds. He chose to do nothing.

It used to be the case that rural legislators presided over the Legislature’s budget writing committee (JFAC), making sure to equitably fund both urban and rural needs in Idaho. When I was Attorney General, it was Rep. Mack Neibaur of Paul and Sen. Atwell Parry of Melba. In more recent years, it was Rep.Maxine Bell of Jerome and Sen. Shawn Keough of Sandpoint. They had a thorough understanding of taxing and spending issues and exercised leadership in getting the best bang for the bucks.

The JFAC co-chairs, Sen. Scott Grow and Rep. Josh Tanner are both residents of Eagle and don’t seem to have an appreciation of the needs of rural Idaho. For instance, both voted for the education tax credit bill last year that has little value to country folks across the state. JFAC pushed out legislation early in the session that would have cut funds for water management and wildfire suppression during what promises to be a drought year in Idaho. Wiser heads have prevailed on these critical needs because funding for both have been restored.

Many country folks wonder why JFAC cut every government department except the Legislature. Sen. Jim Guthrie called for legislative cuts: “We’re not taking a pay cut, we’re not compromising our benefits. We are tightening the belts of Idaho citizens, and the feedback from my constituents is that they are not happy about it.”

Speaking of legislative pay, Rep. Tanner got a nice contribution of $200,000 to his Idaho Summit PAC earlier this month. Some might see this as a conflict of interest. One wonders what he had to do to get that bonanza. Big money has certainly found its way into Idaho politics of late.

In sum, throwing together feathers, hoping for a duck, aptly describes how this dysfunctional budget was fashioned. Idaho deserves better.

 

Time to talk UGBs

Time to talk UGBs

April 5, 2026

Sooner or later, the Oregon Legislature will have to face up to redesigning a state creation that now looks like two icebergs on a collision course.

One iceberg is the wildly high cost of housing along with other living costs including electric power and water; the other, the need to grow the state’s economy and shore up its softening base in the technology sector.

The locus for this conflict: Urban growth boundaries.

UGBs are one of those Oregon peculiarities, dating from the Tom McCall era and the 1973 enactment of Senate Bill 100, which framed the state’s land use system. Under its terms, urban areas in the state have to periodically estimate their needed growth for the coming 20 years and draw growth boundaries outside of city limits. The process is overseen by the Land Conservation and Development Commission.

The Oregon Encyclopedia says that generally, “Housing tracts, shopping malls, and other kinds of urban development are not allowed to sprawl past that boundary, while agricultural lands and open space outside a UGB are preserved.” The idea was partly to preserve open and farm spaces and partly to curb suburban sprawl, encouraging compact development to reduce infrastructure and other costs.

They have succeeded to a great degree, but bugs have begun to multiply in the system. Some of those were hinted at in one national study noting that critics say UGBs “can stifle economic growth and development within the designated areas. Restricting the amount of land available for businesses and industries to expand can limit job growth and economic opportunities.”

Hillsboro, in central Washington County, offers the best current case study.

That city has been growing as tech businesses like (most notably) Intel have sometimes expanded and more recently struggled. Hillsboro also has become a major center, even from a national perspective, for large data centers; as many as 20 are located in the area. These are heavy consumers of resources like electricity and water. Available space for ongoing expansion within the UGB has been limited.

The process for expanding a UGB is complex and difficult, and requires demonstration of a need for growth and evidence it can’t be met within existing limits. Cities are supposed to review them every five years. But the DLCD reports that “Since 2016, when the Land Conservation and Development Commission adopted revised rules regarding urban growth boundary expansions, cities and counties in Oregon have successfully approved 46?expansions or adjustments to their urban growth boundaries.” That’s not a lot.

One academic study suggested UGBs began to have a “binding impact” on growth starting in the 1990s.

Hillsboro Mayor Beach Pace and area legislators in recent years have pressed what was called the Oregon Jobs Act, sponsored by Senator Janeen Sollman of Hillsboro, which sought to expand local growth areas by about 1,700 acres, to allow for industrial growth. But opposition became so fierce the measure died in the legislature this session. Much of that pushback focused on data centers and other developments; one report even highlighted a “spider’s web” of links between corporate and local government officials.

Nellie McAdams, executive director of Oregon Agricultural Trust, opined Sollman “heard loud and clear not only from her constituents but from people all over the state that we’re not interested in poorly planned economic development that doesn’t result in jobs and destroys farmland.”

UGBs, then, have become a brake point for many Oregonians concerned about data centers. But limitations on them have other impacts as well.

One study of UGBs said a key criticism was that they “can lead to increased housing costs within the boundary area. By restricting the amount of land available for development, the law of supply and demand can come into play, driving up property prices and making housing less affordable for residents.”

Many Oregon communities have hit, or are approaching, that wall. Some smaller cities are surrounded, or nearly so, by farm and other open lands, and expanding UGBs into those areas involves clearing hurdles.

The Legislature has acted on some of this. It passed in 2024 a measure planned to help communities where rents were especially high to make a one-time expansion of its boundaries. But at least one poster child city for the effort, Woodburn, still was unable to accomplish its hoped-for expansion. In this year’s session a follow up bill was passed which may help with Woodburn’s issues.

The problem for the legislature, however, is larger than these local small-bore efforts suggest. So far the question of how to treat UGBs and who uses them and for what, has been dealt with piecemeal. A larger frame for the subject needs to be developed.

This could turn into a battle of more than housing versus economic growth, if only because those two things are related. Oregonians are going to face some hard choices if they’re going to untangle the web.

This article originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

Targeted constituents

Targeted constituents

April 3, 2026

Here are some of the key headlines from nearly the end of this year’s Idaho legislative session (these from the Idaho Capital Sun) about some of the highest-profile, and apparently priority, legislation of the time.

Idaho governor signs bill to criminalize trans people using bathrooms that align with their identity.

Boise removes LGBTQ+ pride flag as Idaho governor signs bill to fine city for its display.

Idaho Legislature passes bill to force teachers, doctors to out transgender minors to their parents. This one hasn’t been signed by the governor yet, but bearing in mind recent history you’d be unwise to bet against it.

The subject of gender runs through all, and it echoes through many more pieces of legislation - in a few cases, even the budgets - in this year’s Idaho session. In the legislature’s online subject index for bills and resolutions, 11 measures this session were listed under the heading “gender.”

The nature of some of the failed legislation this session was important too. Some of it up front was expected to fail because the ideas have been rejected by the Idaho Legislature year after year, such as Senate Bill 1228 which sought “to provide that freedom from discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity is a civil right”; it got no further than a Senate committee.

Then there was House Joint Memorial 17, which did die in the Senate but only after clearing the House on a solid 44-26 vote. This one called on the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which declared a right to same-sex marriage.

One by one, you could make the argument (and reading the statements of purpose, you might think) these measures have disparate subjects. But the context, the overall environment in which the legislating is happening, tells us otherwise. These measures have little to do with flags or marriage or bathrooms or medical procedures.

Collectively they are intended as a cultural statement, that the Idaho Legislature as a whole dislikes and disapproves of a significant segment of the state’s citizenry, and wants to make that stance clear.

One of the presumptive personal targets of all this would be Melissa Sue Robinson of Nampa, a transgender person who has been an Idaho candidate for office several times in recent years, this year seeking the Libertarian Party nomination for governor.  Speaking as founder of the National Association for the Advancement of Transgender People, she said of the bathroom bill that it is “not about safety - it is about control, fear, and the systematic erasure of transgender people from public life. Idaho has crossed a dangerous line by turning everyday existence into a criminal act. … We will not stand by while our community is criminalized.” She might have said as much about several of the other bills.

The results of the legislation, she said, could “encourage harassment and profiling, put transgender individuals at risk of violence, create confusion and fear for businesses and law enforcement, and trigger costly legal battles that Idaho taxpayers will ultimately fund.”

You get the sense that for many legislators all this seems more feature than bug - that they wouldn’t disagree with most of Robinson’s points, but see little problem with them. These seem not to be legislators interested in looking out for all of the people of their state, but only some, and disregarding others - second-class citizens who they would rather go somewhere else.

Such a statement might have been too strong for a fair conclusion even two or three years ago. Today it is not.

If you are not in one of the targeted groups and think you have no cause for concern, remember this: A precedent is being set. If legislators can come for one group of people, they can come for another. Watch out.

(image/Luis Alvaz)

 

Suffer the children

March 31, 2026

Trying to write about our national political activities these days is getting much harder to do.  Used to be you could take the usual issue and the politicians involved in it and opine this way or that in reasonable commentary.

No more.  The amount of misogyny, cruelty, idiocy and just plain B.S. being passed of as political "discussion" these days has made it tough even to consider some of the elected cretins fit to hold the offices they do, much less quote them.

The following two despicable examples appeared on TV "news"  pages within three hours recently.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is known for saying alarming, ignorant and quite stupid things on a regular basis.  His latest?  He told a convention of Realtors in D.C. home sellers "shouldn't have to sell to people who offend their personal beliefs."  Meaning buyers who are Black, gay, lesbian, atheist, Muslim, etc..  Next day, to their credit, the Realtors cut him off their endorsement list and, more important, from their PAC.

Then, the always - always - moronic Rep. Louis Gohmert.  His latest?  He told an interviewer Special Prosecutor Mueller had "spent his entire career defending Muslim terrorists."  Even followed up with a national news release.

Of course, there's the House "Freedom Caucus" writing the Nobel Committee to formally push for the next Peace Prize to be given to Donny Trump.  Can you even imagine the reaction within the Nobel Committee when that hit the mailbox?

But, here's one entirely sadistic political story that didn't just reach the bottom of the barrel.  It broke through to new mud and took the current GOP "administration" to a new, much lower cesspool.

This mighty nation - this "shining beacon on the hill" - this nation made up entirely of immigrants - this proud country -  has begun stripping babies and children from their families at our borders.  Tearing apart families whose only "crime" has been to cross our borders, seeking their own liberties in this "bastion of freedom."

Now, we're told, in addition to that cruelest of acts, our "government" has LOST nearly 1,500 hundred of those kids - 1,500!  Authorities - or what passes for "authorities"- have no idea where they went, who has them, whether some are being sold into sexual slavery or other human bondage and, if so, by whom.  Trump's hardline Chief of Staff said they'd be "placed in foster care - or whatever."  "WHATEVER?!"

Trump's people are also trying to "justify" this inhumane family destruction by saying maybe more people "will be deterred"  from trying to cross our borders if they know what awaits  And our Attorney General mumbled much the same thing!

What the Hell kind of people are these?

And now our "government"claims it's "not legally responsible."  "NOT RESPONSIBLE?"

I cannot even imagine the sadistic political "minds" that ordered these crimes-against-humanity.  Much less the actual government employees doing it - reaching out to grab crying children and stripping them from their parent's arms.  Whose "government?"

As I said, it's much harder these days to even comprehend some of the political goings, much less write something cogent about them.  The Rohrabacher's and Gohmert's and some of their Cretin kin are hard enough to deal with.  Maybe - just maybe - a couple elections will send them back to their loyal "bases" and they can enjoy their full taxpayer paid retirements in well-deserved anonymity.

But, I'm sitting here, trying to comprehend what's happening in our beloved country.  My mind wonders  how far we've strayed from being a welcoming nation with a compassionate populace.  I'm trying to find the words to describe the cruelty, anger and rank idiocy so prevalent  in our nation's politics.  Wondering if we'll ever rid ourselves of the mindless, sadistic, lying and corrupt "leadership" currently driving this country further into a huge ditch.

As I search for words, the ones that repeatedly flash in my head are "...suffer the little children...."  Biblically, the word "suffer" meant "let the little children..." or "do not impede the little children..."

Trump, Sessions, their minions and a Congress that stands idly by are using the word "suffer" in its worst application.

What the hell has happened to us?