Posts published in January 2010

If you're looking for a one-sentence explanation of why "yes" won on the 66/67 votes yesterday, well, there isn't one. There are lots of individual factors, though. The structuring of the taxes involved (while far from perfect) were such as to appeal to a clear majority of voters. It helped that the yes side wasn't outspent by no (which might have been the case - in fact the two sides weren't that terribly far apart).

Blue Oregon's Kari Chisholm has drawn a common line through the votes for Oregon taxes, Massachusetts Senate and New Jersey governor - all responses against a wealthy or insider elite.

And there was something else: The massive ground game put on the yes people, especially in the last week. The margin in Multnomah County (Portland/Gresham) in favor of the issues was so large that it nearly equalled the statewide margin in favor, and Multnomah balloting was sluggish as recently as late last week. Then volunteers pulled in the votes by the tens of thousands.

Another Blue Oregon writer, T.A. Barnhart, pointed out (on a Facebook comment today) that the turnout level (upward of 50%) was not such as ordinarily might help this kind of ballot issue. But: "the tv ads may have been good (i only saw a few) but it was the ground game that won this. a lot of that money supported that: the Activate phone system, flyers, staff, offices, etc. if volunteers by the thousands had not busted ass for weeks, no tv ad would have saved us. and it's awesome because it shows us how we win progressive victories. Howard Dean gets it; Rahm Emmanuel does not. hence the problems Obama faces for his choice in advisors."

Lots of food for thought here.

Is the idea of raising taxes dead in this political climate? No . . . and that was one of the points you can draw from the decision in Oregon tonight.

Last year, the Oregon Legislature passed two tax measures which were challenged. After a ferocious campaign, the voter verdict was in favor. With the great bulk of the votes in (what remains are widely scattered and unlikely to drastically change the percentages), yes on 66 stood at 54.4% and yes on 67 at 54%.

We'll have more on this in the days ahead, but for now, a few points to bear in mind.

One aspect of this genuinely is historic: Oregon voters have not approved a new tax or a tax increase in 80 years (when they okayed the income tax). This is a truly remarkable reversal.

The vote is a huge blow to Oregon Republicans. It brings to mind a parallel from 2005 in Washington state, when Democratic legislators passed a controversial gas tax and Republicans challenged it on the ballot. The voters upheld the gas tax, and in the 2006 election swept out a bunch of Republicans. The partisan dynamic in Oregon has just changed: If Democrats were on the defensive in the state in recent months, that's no longer true. Republicans are going to have to scramble - and come up with some new rationales.

This will provide a powerful incentive for Washington Democrats to come up with some form of new tax or other revenue source to patch their budget holes. This current experience in comparable (and even more tax-averse) Oregon, coupled with their 2005 experience, likely will be encouraging. And assuming whatever they do is reasonably well crafted, Washington Republicans may be wary of trying another ballot challenge only to risk more voter blowback.

Counties passing 66 and (with present incomplete numbers) were the same list: Benton, Clatsop, Columbia, Hood River, Lane, Lincoln, Marion, Multnomah, Polk, Tillamook, Washington; third-largest Clackamas was on the bubble. There was a line of thought that 66 might pass while 67 failed; not only was the vote very much the same for both, but it was very much the same for both almost everywhere. The vote also matched pretty closely the partisan split in the state, with one area of special vote: Marion/Polk, an area with lots of state employees but also an area traditionally resistant to money issues on the ballot.

You almost feel, many miles away, that exhale of relief from many Oregon legislators. Next month's session abruptly became vastly easier.

Did this provide a bit of a message nationally? Might it have a little impact on the Washington on the east coast? Just might.

Might as well be said now, before the votes are counted: The voting ending in Oregon today is taking place in a substantial election. Special elections often aren't so big a deal, except maybe locally. This one is different.

The first election in the Northwest in this new decade, it will likely have a decisive effect on how Oregon pays for its state and local services - but also much more. Last legislative session lawmakers imposed two tax increases: Is that a permissible thing? What are attitudes toward government, and toward the parties?

Not only Oregonians but political people around the country are watching. Notably, policy makers in Washington, where legislators are trying to figure out what to do with the massive hole in their budget.

Jeff Mapes at the Oregonian noted,

Whatever happens, Tuesday night will be historic. If the Yes side wins, it would be the first voter-approved income-tax increase since Oregon voters approved the income tax back in 1930 (and that was after they voted it in and then quickly repealed it in the 1920s).

If the No side wins, it will be a huge repudiation of the Democratic supermajority in the Legislature and an expensive failure for the public-employee unions that largely bankrolled the pro-tax campaign.

All true, of course. The Oregonian's page should be a good place to follow this; we'll be back shortly.