"No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues to truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804.

The Oregon Legislature last year passed tax increases proposed by majority Democrats, two measures of which were placed on the ballot and upheld by voters in January. The political upshot of all that seems likely to lend some political support to the legislature’s Democrats; they seem unlikely, as matters stand, to lose many seats in November.

Will that hold true in Washington state this cycle (as it did there too in 2006)? Jim Camden of the Spokane Spokesman-Review has a useful observation on that:

“They’re going to raise taxes, which ranks high on the list of things that get a politician removed from office. They may be right that they have almost no choice in the matter, but the way that they’ve gone about it – holding a quixotic hearing on an income tax, requiring repeated votes on bills tailor-made to wind up in GOP commercials, suspending rules – does little to mitigate the expected damage. Then there’s the $18,300 per day special session – at least that was the cost before a rush to refuse legislative per diems – that was supposed to be done in seven days.”

A few differences. Washington Democrats may be doing themselves some damage for later in the year.

Share on Facebook


The extent to which thinking about health policy has gotten twisted, on this day when a sweeping bill might be passed in the House, can be inferred from this quote from Representative Dave Reichert of Washington’s 8th, like all other congressional Republicans a no vote:

“As an old Sheriff I know that if you arrest someone, they get free health care. So once we arrest these people, they’ll have free health care. And then we’d have to release them because they’d be in compliance with the law. And then we’d have to rearrest them again. So this law makes no sense whatsoever.”

There are all kinds of problems with this. But in his column today, the Seattle Times‘ Danny Westneat offered this one: “Good grief. What you get in jail is a doctor, not what is required by this bill, which is insurance. So his critique is what makes no sense whatsoever.”

Share on Facebook


No great shockers in the final closeout of candidate filings in Idaho – which ended at 5 p.m. today.

The closest thing to actual news on the last filing day probably was the announcement from former 1st District U.S. Representative Bill Sali, who had not enturely ruled out running for another term, that he will not, and will instead endorse state Representative Raul Labrador for the position. As indicated, no big surprise there, but that endorsement does clarify a bit further which portions of the Republican Party that Labrador and front-runner Vaughn Ward are appealing to.

The other U.S. House seat, which had lacked for a Democratic candidate, has gotten one in the form of Mountain Home resident Mike Crawford. All three congressional seats do have at least one Democrat filed for the office.

And Republican incumbent Mike Simpson will face not just two but three challengers (which statistically should advantage Simpson). In the 1st District, Democrat Walt Minnick has no primary opposition, for all that he has irritated many of the party faithful.

There are 11 candidates for governor. That’s a lot.

There are no Democrats running for lieutenant governor, state treasurer or attorney general.

In Idaho’s 105 legislative seats . . .

Republican incumbents (there are now 80) are seeking re-election in 77 seats. (Senate 28 – all of the incumbents are seeking re-election, House 49 of 52). Incumbent legislators, Republicans especially, have had a strong track in Idaho in the last couple of decades.

Democratic incumbents (there are now 25) are seeking re-election in 18 seats. (Senate 5 – incumbents Kate Kelley and Clint Stennett are opting out, House 13 – incumbents George Saylor, Anne Pasley-Stuart, James Ruchti and Donna Boe are retiring, and Brandon Durst is running for the Senate). Put it this way: Republicans have more than four times as many legislative seats as Democrats do, but more than twice as many Democrats (in raw numbers) are not running for re-election. What does that suggest about Democratic gains in the legislature this year?

Republicans have filed for 102 of the 105 seats – they are conceding three seats (those held by John Rusche of Lewiston, Wendy Jaquet of Ketchum and Elaine Smith of Pocatello). Even by recent-cycle standards, that’s a strong showing.

Democrats have filed for 59 of the 105 seats – conceding 46 of them.

There are, we should note, procedures (such as primary election write-in) which could allow the parties to fill some of those vacancies. And likely some will be filled that way; it happens. But these numbers should give you a pretty good picture of how this election year is shaping up in Idaho.

Share on Facebook


Among other considerations: What can possibly be the political benefit from bashing an 11-year-old boy who has just lost his mother because of the high cost of, and her inability to buy into, the health care system.

The case of Marcellas Owens of Seattle is sad no matter the details – his mother’s death of an unusual but treatable illness isn’t disputed. He has become a case instance for the backers of health reform legislation.

Probably smarter for the health reform critics to just move on to other aspects of the debate. But no (and maybe this is an indication of intelligence level): They (the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin) have to bash on the kid.

Which may be just as well. Not only does the Owens story get that much more attention, but the Limbaugh/Beck/Owens crowd get that much more attention for the kind of people they are.

Share on Facebook


dark cell

Back in August 2007, Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter held forth on the idea of coping with rising demand in the state for prison space, by using the wizardry of the marketplace, so business “can go out in the marketplace and kind of work their magic.” And Corrections Director Bent Reinke was quoted in the Spokane Spokesman-Review as saying, “There’s a desire by both the board of correction and the governor’s office to have Idaho’s next prison be privatized.”

Ridenbaugh Press long has been skeptical of the usefulness of private prisons. It’s been a recurring theme here since before the Idaho Correctional Center opened near Kuna in July 2000; our prediction then was that a private prison in Idaho would be (we remarked on this before a contractor was named) a scandal waiting to happen.

Ten years later, at the ICC managed by the Corrections Corporation of America, here’s the opening shot in the American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit:

ICC is an extraordinarily violent prison. It is known in Idaho as “Gladiator School” for a reason. More violence occurs at ICC than at Idaho’s eight other prisons combined, and the unnecessary carnage and suffering that has resulted is shameful and inexcusable. ICC not only condones prisoner violence, the entrenched culture of ICC promotes, facilitates, and encourages it. Indeed, ICC staff cruelly use prisoner violence as a management tool.

Violence is epidemic at ICC for a host of reasons, including the fact that the Defendants turn a blind-eye to it; they fail to adequately investigate assaults and therefore are unable to fashion effective remedial measures to prevent assaults from recurring; they refuse to discipline the guards whose malfeasance precipitated prisoner violence; they frequently place vulnerable prisoners with predators; they fail to protect prisoners who request and need protection from assault; and ICC is understaffed, inadequately supervised, and guards are inadequately trained.

The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the imposition of “cruel and unusual punishments.” This means, the Supreme Court has recognized, that prison officials have a duty “to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). In other words, people are sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment. “Being violently assaulted in prison is simply not part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society.” Government officials “are not free to let the state of nature take its course” in America’s prisons. The administrators of ICC are ignoring this constitutional duty, resulting in wholesale fear, intimidation, and violence within the prisoner population.

ICC is owned by the State of Idaho, was built with tax funds, and is located on public land. However, ICC is operated (for a profit) by Corrections Corporation of America pursuant to a contract with the Idaho Department of Corrections (IDOC). Plaintiffs request, among other things, that IDOC be ordered by this Court to set strict deadlines by which ICC must develop adequate policies, and hire and train a sufficient number of guards, to reasonably safeguard prisoners from assault, and that if ICC continues to ignore its duties under the Eighth Amendment, the Court should order IDOC to remove all Idaho prisoners from this excessively violent and inhumane facility.

Such a magical marketplace. The suit points out the difference between privately-run and state-run prison facilities: “Until recently, ICC housed approximately the same number of prisoners as does the Idaho State Correctional Institution (ISCI), nearly 1,500 men. Yet, during 2008 and 2009, three times as many prisoner-on-prisoner assaults occurred at ICC as at ISCI. Recently, new housing units were opened at ICC, and ICC now houses approximately 2000 prisoners.” And: “The number of assaults actually occurring at ICC is considerably higher than reported, perhaps three times as high. For one thing, ICC deliberately fails to document many assaults. For another, many victims of prisoner assault choose to conceal the incident out of fear of reprisal by prisoners for being a “snitch.”

And this is happening because . . .

There are at least eleven reasons why violence at ICC far exceeds the violence in other Idaho facilities. They are: (a) deliberate indifference of many ICC employees, including the named defendants; (b) inadequate training of staff; (c) inadequate number of staff; (d) inadequate supervision of staff; (e) the promotion of a culture throughout the facility that relies on the degradation, humiliation, and subjugation of prisoners, thereby creating excessive and unnecessary tension, stress, and frustration within the prisoner population; (f) failure to adequately investigate acts of violence, including a failure to track the number and location of assaults so as to take appropriate remedial action; (g) failure to discipline those guards whose misconduct or malfeasance contributed to an act of violence, including those guards who deliberately arranged assaults or who refused to remove a prisoner from a clearly dangerous environment; (h) placement of vulnerable prisoners with predatory prisoners; (i) failure to isolate or properly discipline prisoners who attack other prisoners; (j) maintaining a “code of silence” such that staff are discouraged from reporting errors, including their own errors, that caused or contributed to an act of prisoner violence; and (k) the deliberate reliance on – and encouragement of – prisoner violence as a management tool.

These points are supported by a boatload of specifics.

On medical care, for example: “ICC maintains its own in-house medical unit, and it is obvious that ICC – under the direction and instruction of CCA and Warden Valdez – operates this unit in such a depraved manner that its intention is to conceal injuries, not treat them. For instance, CCA and Valdez have established a policy and practice of not taking x-rays of the severe injuries suffered by assault victims. This way, (a) ICC saves money (at the expense of prisoners who need urgent medical care) by not taking x-rays and not hiring medical staff to read the x-rays, and (b) ICC is able to conceal the extent of injuries suffered by the victims of assault.” A logical response to the marketplace, in other words.

The text of the lawsuit is lengthy, about 81 pages, but the first 14 or so at least are well worth the read, and all of it is compelling.

What we’re seeing here is the opening side of the cost chain; more will emerge as the prisoners return to open society.

We’ll be watching the progress of the lawsuit. So should a lot of other people.

Share on Facebook


Denny Heck

Denny Heck

Craig Pridemore

Craig Pridemore

Democratic activists around the country have been about as worked up, in both directions, about their own representatives in Congress as they were about Republicans (in one unilateral direction) before 2009. Are they on board with health care reform (and, notably, a public option) or not? Are they in favor of major financial regulation reform, or not? And so on. More than a few question how helpful many of the congressional Blue Dogs, for example, really are in pushing a governing agenda.

This dynamic (the Republicans have a different variation, partly because they’re out of power) may have an effect on the November election. But its force, major or minor, is first most likely to be felt in Democratic primaries around the country. And of those, there may be not many better examples than in the Washington 3rd – southwest Washington.

The House seat has been held by Democrat Brian Baird, who likely could have been easily re-elected this year but opted out instead. On the scale of activist faves, Baird scores weak, with his break from many Democrats over Iraq a few years ago, and his recent reluctance to back his caucus’ health care legislation. (Presumption here is that he will vote in favor, ultimately, but that’s not nailed down in his public statements.)

The two main Democratic candidates – the nominee will very likely be one or the other – are former legislator and businessman Denny Heck from Olympia, and current state Senator Craig Pridemore of Vancouver. The in-party contrast between them will make for an interesting study, one that national observers ought to pay some attention to.

Heck has gotten Baird’s endorsement, and his background offers rationale for that. He is a former state legislator (a decade’s worth), a former gubernatorial chief of staff (for Democratic Governor Booth Gardner), a co-founder of the fine C-SPAN-like TVW network (and a visible presence for some years on it), and a participant in a number of businesses, enough to make him fairly wealthy and allow him to partly underwrite his campaign. He underlines all of this in his campaign announcements and statements, which tend to lead off with a discussion about the need to improve the area’s jobs picture. He seems clearly intelligent and informed.

That last – a statement that economic development is very important – is about as far as he seems to go toward issues, though. Scan his web site, watch his video, read the news stories about him, and there’s very little to say about what he actually would do as a member of Congress. In the current context: Would he be a backer of health reform legislation, and if so, what kind? Where is he on finance reform? The answers to such questions seem awfully elusive.

Pridemore is a different case. A state senator and a Clark County commissioner before that, he too has an impressive resume (if maybe a little less striking than Heck’s). The key difference is pointed up by the first thing Pridemore says in his new video: “When you listen to me talk, when you listen to me explain my feelings about the issue, I think you know I’m telling you what I truly believe.” (Pridemore’s web site has a page on “issues,” but intriguingly, Heck’s does not.)

Pridemore’s stances on those key current issues (pro-reform bills, in health and finance, among other things) has been made totally clear. And, while running in the primary, he has used lines (in his campaign web site’s video no less) like this: “I was disappointed in Democrats. I was disappointed that we didn’t have people there willing to stand up and tell the insurance companies and tell the health care industry that this program is not about them.”

The importance of job creation is major and real, of course, but nobody thinks otherwise – it’s a commonplace.

So figure Pridemore along the lines of the center, possibly center-left, of the House Democratic caucus, and Heck more likely to the center-right (on balance), around where Baird is. As best we can tell. In the context of the Democratic primary 2010, that’s where their relative handling of the issues would suggest they would be.

This will be a tough and maybe close race. Heck will have more money and may get more support from a number of party leaders. Pridemore will get the activists. And we’ll see what happens this summer.

Share on Facebook


Idaho public officials have been jumping at the opportunity to pull in F-35 military aircraft, which would be based at Gowen Field at Boise. One indicator has been the Idaho Legislature, which passed (House unanimously, the Senate on voice vote) House Joint Memorial 10, urging the planes be based there.

That would lead you suggest that the proposal – which does have its downsides, notably some very loud noise across a good deal of Boise – is overwhelmingly popular. But that may not be right.

Take a look at the forum on the subject at the Idaho Statesman web site – the comments are running decidedly in opposition. A number of commenters suggested that Mountain Home Air Force Base, about 35 miles away, might be a more suitable location.

One commenter: “I retired from the Air Force 6 years ago. One of the reasons I came here is because there are no jets! If they fly F-35’s out of Gowen Field it will be heard everywhere in the valley, not just around the airport flight paths. If they do a ground engine test at 50% you will hear it in Idaho City. In England, the Air Force was sued because F-111s were rattling the old churches apart in towns miles away. In New Mexico the F-15’s were causing Cows not to milk as much – that’s what the farmers said anyway. My parents live near Eglin AFB, FL where the city of Valpariso just sued the Air Force not to put F-35’s there. The F-35’s are the loudest Air Planes I’ve ever heard. Think straight exhaust without any muffler or baffler and multiply it by a thousand.”

Share on Facebook



At the debate: John Kitzhaber (left), Bill Bradbury/Stapilus

The two main Demcratic candidates for Oregon governor, former Governor John Kitzhaber and former Secretary of State Bill Bradbury, have debated before and fairly recently. But this evening at the Multnomah County Courthouse was the first since filing for the office closed – since, you might say, the campaign period more or less formally begins.

Both, at a crowd somewhere upward of 100 people, were readty to roll this evening.

Both put some emphasis, opening their discussion, on Democratc bona fides. Kitzhaber painted himself, for one thing, as the bulwark against the Republican tide of the mid-90s, saying of his many vetoes, for example, that “without those vetoes Oregon wold be a far different state today”. (Although he would speak later, passionately, about working with Republicans.) Bradbury spoke about a range of fronts, from his Bank of Oregon proposal to his call for much higher education funding levels. Both made a point of addressing the state’s economic problems.

Bradbury was quick to be up front about his muscular schelosis, point out his entry into the room on his segway. But he said the disease was diagnosed back in 1980 and didn’t stop him from serving as Senate president or secretary of state.

The most striking single policy idea (not new to this debate, but highlighted at it) was Bradbury’s for a Bank of Oregon, as a means of keeping Oregon money in state to a greater degree. Kitzhaber said he thought it was an idea worth investigating further, among others, but noted that North Dakota (the only state now with a state bank) and Oregon may have a number of structural differences.

Broadly, they agreed on quite a bit – both, in loose terms, are liberal Democrats. (Their disagreements had mainly to do with means, not ends – Kitzhber sometimes questioning the practicality of some of Bradbury’s ideas.) But Bradbury’s framing sounded more like traditional Democratic talk (he, more than the crisply wonkish former governor, had that earnest-Democrat sound), while Kitzhaber’s approach and conceptual framework was a lot different on a range of issues. One brainy Idahoan was asked, years ago, whether in the area of utility regulation he considered himself a consumer advocate; he said not really, because he wasn’t a fan of consumption – his way of looking at issues was simply different. Analogous with Kitzhaber, who seemed to scale down the current talk on health insurance (considering it one one slice of the issue), for example, in favor of a large-concept look at health in terms of promoting better health as the essential solution to the problem.

Kitzhaber was asked about the choice between bipartisanship and sticking with principles; he described it as a false choice, that “we have to recreate some kind of a political center.”

Bradbury’s supporters seemed more in evidence than Kitzhaber’s. They were sign-waving outside, and they were more evident in the commission meeting room too (they live streamed the debate). But the crowd seemed laid back; it was a group of Democrats, do supportive of both candidates, but didn’t seem strongly weighted toward either.

Share on Facebook


Monday candidate filings for office in Idaho yielded a few nuggets worth note here:

bullet There are now two Democrats filed to take on Republican Senator Mike Crapo, so he won’t be unopposed again in November as he was six years ago. But which will it be? Tom Sullivan of Tetonia, an unknown factor in state politics? Or maybe a guy who did get some headlines a few months back: William Bryk of Brooklyn, New York?

bullet There’s a Supreme Court contest: Justice Roger Burdick is being opposed by 2nd District Judge John Bradbury. Loads of hard feelings lie in back of this one. In 2008, Bradbury ran against and came very close to ousting Justice Joel Horton. Last year, Bradbury was the subject of a complaint that he didn’t live enough in his formal county of residence, Idaho County – a complaint the Supreme Court snarkishly upheld (in which we view as one of its weaker recent decisions). And there’s more back of all this. Could be lots of snark unloaded in this one between here and the May primary. [Note: Corrected to refer to Bradbury, rather than Burdick, as subject of a complaint.]

bullet Only a few more Democrats filing for the legislature. Maybe notable: In Idaho Falls, Jerry Shiveley, who in 2006 became the first Democrat elected to the legislature from that area in decades, won a central-city seat, which he lost in 2008, and now is filing for again.

Share on Facebook



Brian Baird

Outgoing Washington Democratic Representative Brian Baird was among the Democratic “no” votes on the House comprehensive health care bill some months back. Now he’s one of the critical four voters House Democrats leaders hope to flip on the upcoming House health care vote – needed because of prospective losses elsewhere.

Baird’s public statement on the subject is a little cagey, although he does say, “The legislation that is currently being discussed in the House of Representatives is far different from the bill I voted against in November 2009.” He seems to be leaving room for voting in favor.

Meanwhile, the Democratic representative from the district immediately north – Adam Smith – says that “It’s possible I vote for the Senate bill and against reconciliation.”

Even so, the pieces appear as though they’re coming together. Those two seem to be, at this point, the only two northwest members of Congress whose votes (whether up or down) look seriously in doubt.

Share on Facebook


sp sess

Special session announcement/TVW

Washington Governor Chris Gregoire got off a pretty good line – “There was nothing regular about this regular session” – although it may be twisted considerably for comic effect before long . . . in announcing the special legislative session coming up this week.

The revenue shortfall remains $2.8 million. They have a week now to fill it (starting Monday at noon).

Or presumably another round after that if need be. But the guess here is that the prospective embarrassment will limit them to one.

Share on Facebook


An Oregon Supreme Court decision in the case Klamath Water District et al v. United States, a case referred to it (partially) from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, is being roundly praised by water user advocates.

The Oregon court said the referrals “ask whether, as a matter of state law, the farmers and irrigation districts that use water from a federal reclamation project have an equitable property interest in a water right to which the United States holds legal title and whether an equitable property interest in a water right is subject to adjudication in the ongoing Klamath Basin water rights adjudication.”

In background, the court said “The Federal Bureau of Reclamation manages the Klamath Project, which stores and supplies water to farmers, irrigation districts, and federal wildlife refuges in the Klamath River basin. The plaintiffs in the underlying federal litigation are farmers and irrigation districts that use water from the Klamath Project for irrigation and other agricultural purposes. As a result of drought conditions in 2001, the Bureau terminated the delivery of water to plaintiffs that year in order to make water available for three species of endangered fish. Claiming a property right in the water, plaintiffs brought an action in the United States Court of Federal Claims, alleging that the United States had taken their property in violation of the Fifth Amendment and, alternatively, that the United States had breached its contractual obligation to deliver water to them. The United States asked the federal claims court to abstain from deciding plaintiffs’ takings claim until an ongoing state water rights adjudication determined what, if any, property rights plaintiffs had in the water from the Klamath Project.”

In response, the court concluded:

In summary, in answering the Federal Circuit’s questions, we have assumed that the United States appropriated the right to use the waters described in its notice and that it presently holds legal title to that water right. We also have assumed that plaintiffs are asserting only an equitable or beneficial property interest in the water right to which the United States holds legal title. Who presently holds legal title to that water right and the scope of that right are questions for the Klamath Basin adjudication, and we express no opinion on those issues. Given those assumptions, we have answered the court’s questions as follows:

1. The 1905 Oregon act did not preclude plaintiffs from acquiring an equitable or beneficial property interest in a water right to which the United States holds legal title. Moreover, under the 1905 act, a formal written release from the United States is not necessary for plaintiffs to have acquired an equitable or beneficial property interest in the water right that the United States appropriated.

2. Under Oregon law, whether plaintiffs acquired an equitable or beneficial property interest in the water right turns on three factors: whether plaintiffs put the water to beneficial use with the result that it became appurtenant to their land, whether the United States acquired the water right for plaintiffs’ use and benefit, and, if it did, whether the contractual agreements between the United States and plaintiffs somehow have altered that relationship. In this case, the first two factors suggest that plaintiffs acquired a beneficial or equitable property interest in the water right to which the United States claims legal title, but we cannot provide a definitive answer to the court’s second question because all the agreements between the parties are not before us.

3. To the extent that plaintiffs assert only an equitable or beneficial property interest in the water right to which the United States claims legal title in the Klamath Basin adjudication, plaintiffs are not “claimants” who must appear in that adjudication or lose the right. As a general rule, equitable or beneficial property interests in a water right to which someone else claims legal title are not subject to determination in a state water rights adjudication.

Nancie G. Marzulla, lead counsel for the Klamath water users, remarked that “We are thrilled with this decision. The trial judge obviously was wrong on Oregon law and plainly misapprehended how federal reclamation law operates. We are glad that we now have some definitive guidance and direction for the trial court as we go forward to complete this litigation.”

The firm also said in a statement, “The Oregon Supreme Court held that the Oregon legislature in 1905 did not give away all of its water rights in the Klamath Reclamation Project to the federal government. Further, the Court stated that whatever rights the federal government did acquire in 1905 were for the benefit of the water users: ‘[I]n acquiring water rights under the aegis of the Reclamation Act, the United States was not acting for its own benefit, but for the benefit of the persons who Congress intended would put the water to beneficial use reclaiming the land’ — in other words, the farmers who are the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. Finally, the Oregon Supreme Court held that the Klamath Basin adjudication that is currently underway does not deprive the water users of the ability to pursue their taking claim in federal court, explaining that ‘[a] person asserting only a beneficial or equitable property interest in a water right is not a ‘claimant’ who must appear in the Klamath Basin adjudication and file a claim to determine that interest.’”

Share on Facebook