"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Thomas Jefferson (appears in the Jefferson Memorial)

Ben Jacklet’s column in Oregon Business is often good for some unusual takes on the economic picture in Oregon. As with this headline: “Jobs Watch: Marijuana measure makes ballot.”

It harks back a bit to two, count ’em two, editorials in the Oregonian in just the last week that seem to be pushing gently but directly in the direction of calling for legalizing marijuana. One arguing that posing that question on the ballot directly, rather than dancing around it with the current measure on pot dispensaries, might be preferable. The second on Friday seemingly expressing support (without daring to be explicit about it) for an international statement saying that the war on drugs is making a number of things, HIV infection rates among them, worse rather than better.

Then there’s Jacklet’s piece from July 16 on the present ballot issue. From the business standpoint: “Such a system would almost certainly result in a gold rush to tap into the growing market for legal weed, which has been lucratively exploited in California and Colorado. Marijuana is the nation’s largest cash crop, and any move to update regulations controlling how it is grown and sold will create opportunities . . .”

He has provided some useful numbers to demonstrate: An Oregon pot crop estimated to have $474 million of value; 36,402 Oregon medical marijuana patients; and a good deal more.

The discussion is changing.

Share on Facebook


The Independent Party of Oregon, having conducted its online voting among members (just eyeballing it, maybe around 5% of the membership took part), and the results are in.

It’s an eclectic group they voted for. Whatever else you say about it, this is clearly not a group in the pocket of any one political party.

A few thoughts on the results released this evening online.

If the biggest vote-getter was “none of the above,” does that mean no endorsement in that race? There were a bunch of those. In state House 22, incumbent Democrat Betty Komp and “none of the above” each got 12 votes.

The endorsement for governor clearly went to Democrat John Kitzhaber, but a little context is necessary too. Republican Chris Dudley didn’t seek the nomination, so his name wasn’t listed. So: Kitzhaber got 850 votes, but two little-knowns, Jerry Wilson and Richard Esterman, got a total of 738. Were some of those de facto Dudley votes?

In the 4th congressional district, Republican Art Robinson, who’s probably a longshot against incumbent Democrat Peter DeFazio, got most of the votes – 418 to 288. And in the 5th, Republican challenger Scott Bruun took 237 votes to incumbent Democrat Kurt Schrader‘s 211, in a race that could be close indeed.

The legislative races were a deeply split mix. Hard to imagine what single mindset would come up with results like this. (Not an argument that any particular results are irrational, just that some of them seem to run up against some others.) If the original concern was that the process might be rigged, the actual results seem to fly in the face of that idea.

Share on Facebook


In fairness to candidates for office, quite a few actually are (putting aside philosophical points of view) reasonable contenders and worthy of consideration. And then there are those who just make you shake your head.

Leading 2010 contender for the bottom rung in the Northwest may be David R. Fox, an attorney. The factors that may give him that distinction are recounted in a new blog post on the Spokesman-Review‘s Spin Control.

Start with the filing choice: Fox lives and works in Port Angeles, on the far west side of the state up in the Olympic Peninsula. He is running as one of four Democratic contenders for the U.S. House in 5th district, on the far eastern side of Washington, based around Spokane. (The incumbent, very strongly favored for re-election, is Republican Cathy McMorris-Rodgers.) Maybe 300 miles away. That’s not legally disqualifying, but why would you do it? Maybe the legal issues he’s had with law enforcement out in Clallam County – which Spin Control describes – is a factor. Call his Port Angeles phone, which is listed in the voter guide, and (Spin Control says) the person who answers says “I really, honestly don’t know” how to reach him.

He has spent time in Spokane this summer, but that has not improved matters. There, he has been accused of walking out on a bar tab and writing a bad check. And, one night on a downtown Spokane street, asking a man he encountered for sex. The man slugged him. Then Fox ensured that the incident would go public by filing a complaint with Spokane police against the man.

So . . . how many votes does this guy get next month?

Share on Facebook


Election nights are always a little fun (at least, for those of us watching): An unveiling of what actually happens. And it happens, you might say (metaphorically), as elections officials unlock the ballot boxes.

Tomorrow night will be something like that for Oregon’s Independent Party. Member of the party have been voting, electronically – will this become commonplace in government-run elections in years to come? – and that phase will wrap up tomorrow at 5 p.m. Members get to choose which candidates should receive the party’s endorsement, and there are a lot of candidates to choose from. And a good many Independent members, probably over 50,000. It may be enough to matter in close races.

In an e-mail release, the party reports:

“We expect to have representatives of the Secretary of State and of several county elections offices present at the unlocking,” said party chair Linda Williams. “The press is also welcome to observe this conclusion of the first online election in Oregon history.”

The outcomes for most of the 60 races for public office (Governor, U.S. Representative, State Senator, and State Representative) will be immediately apparent. The outcomes for some races, however, may depend upon reading and tallying the write-in votes.

The Independent Party is conducting the first-ever Oregon minor party primary election open to every member of the party and the first-ever party election conducted through internet voting. This election includes 86 candidates seeking the Independent Party nomination for 60 different offices.

We’ll keep watch.

Share on Facebook



When it is jus talking trash, when is it a real threat? The difference isn’t small: One may be an annoyance, and the other a crime and possibly an alert to imminent harm. It’s a legal question with absolutely practical applications.

The issue came up in Washington v. Glen Arthur Schaler, decided today by the Washington Supreme Court.

The law itself isn’t of terrific help here. Washington law says a threat – this being a form of “unprotected speech” – is “a statement made in a context or under such circumstances wherein a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted as a serious expression of intention to inflict bodily harm upon or to take the life of another person.” Sorry, that doesn’t allow for a really objective standard – you and I, reasonable persons both, may disagree about whether a statement was a threat, an offand or angry statement, or even a joke.

To an extent, the Supreme Court punted on this one. It found error in the way a jury was instructed, keeping the case alive. What it said by way of clarifying what a threat was is this: “The speaker of a “true threat” need not actually intend to carry it out. It is enough that a reasonable speaker would foresee that the threat would be considered serious. Importantly, only threats that are “true” may be proscribed. The First Amendment prohibits the State from criminalizing communications that bear the wording of threats but which are in fact merely jokes, idle talk, or hyperbole.”

The whole story of the Schaler case makes for a fine case study of divining the fuzzy lines in this area. Its retelling in the court’s decision follows on the jump.

On the morning of August 10, 2005, Director Tonya Heller-Wilson of Crisis

Services for Okanogan Behavioral Healthcare received a call from Glen Schaler, who claimed to have killed his neighbors.1 Schaler was crying and hysterical. He told Heller-Wilson that he awoke from a dream and thought he had killed his neighbor, and that killing his neighbors had been occupying his daytime thoughts, too. Heller-Wilson testified that Schaler seemed extremely upset at the prospect that he might have hurt someone. He threatened to kill himself. Heller-Wilson had a co-worker contact the police.

Deputy Connie Humphrey arrived at Schaler’s residence several minutes later, while Schaler was still on the phone with Heller-Wilson. When Humphrey knocked on Schaler’s door, Schaler told her to “go away” and said, “‘I dreamed I slit her throat.'” Verbatim Report of Proceedings (VRP) (Feb. 6, 2007) at 207.

Schaler handed Humphrey the phone through the doorway, and Heller-Wilson asked Humphrey to bring Schaler in for an evaluation if the situation did not turn into a criminal investigation. When Humphrey entered, she observed that Schaler was “sweating and panting,” as though he “was having difficulty getting a complete breath.” Id. at 212. Schaler indicated he had not taken his medication that morning.

Humphrey found no evidence that any neighbors had been injured and convinced Schaler to accompany her to Mid Valley Hospital for an evaluation. At Humphrey’s urging, Schaler took his medication before leaving for the hospital.

Deputy Humphrey brought Schaler to the hospital and left him in Heller-Wilson’s care. Humphrey was called back to the hospital twice during the next several hours to assist Heller-Wilson. Humphrey tried to get Schaler to comply with the mental health staff, who at one point attempted to give Schaler an injection. In response, Schaler stated, “‘[B]ring it on, cause there was going to be a fight, and that someone was going to get hurt[,]’ [h]e could guarantee it,” but then told the staff how he had previously suffered back and neck injuries. Id. at 220. Schaler also said that “next time he was going to get a bunch of guns, and it would be [a] blood bath.” Id. Based on his behavior, Schaler’s commitment status was changed from voluntary to involuntary because Heller-Wilson believed Schaler was a danger to himself and to others.

Heller-Wilson came “in and out of the room” while Schaler was receiving medical attention at the hospital, including the drawing of his blood. Id. at 250. She testified that Schaler was having some sort of mental breakdown. During Heller-Wilson’s contact with Schaler, he repeatedly referred to two neighbors, Kathy Nockels and Denise Busbin. Schaler “was pretty specific that he, he wanted to kill his neighbors.” Id. at 247. Schaler specifically said that “he wanted to kill them with his bare hands, by strangulation,” although he also said, “‘I hope I didn’t really kill her.'” Id. at 248, 267. Schaler said that he had been planning his neighbor’s death for months and had dreamt about it, but in the dream she hit him and scratched his face. Heller-Wilson tried to ascertain whether Schaler was making a serious threat:

I can’t recall specifically how I asked him. I, I know that you don’t, it’s
part of my job to try to keep people out of the hospital. And when people
tell me that they feel like they want somebody to die, or they want to die, I
always go into the explanation that you know, there are times that I wish I
were dead, but I don’t have a plan to kill myself. I mean, you know, there
are just times, and there’s times that I wish my, my boss didn’t exist, but I
don’t have a plan to kill him. And I kind of went that way, and I said “You
know, sure, you might wish that they weren’t there. Maybe you’re [sic] life
would be a little bit easier.” But he said specifically, he wanted to harm them.

Schaler repeated his desire to kill his neighbors to Heller-Wilson over
the approximately four hours she spent with him. He appeared angry when he made these comments and never said he was not serious or did not mean what he said.

Heller-Wilson believed Schaler had made a “viable threat” and so, pursuant to her duty to warn, she contacted Nockels and Busbin to inform them of Schaler’s comments. On cross-examination, Heller-Wilson acknowledged that the situation was complicated by the fact that Schaler initiated contact with her office, was clearly agitated, and was requesting help from her as a crisis counselor.

Schaler told Heller-Wilson of an incident on June 1, 2005, involving a dispute
over fruit trees, which he said was one reason that he wanted to kill his neighbors. Schaler believed that a row of Busbin’s fruit trees was interfering with his rightful access to an alley. Nockels called the police after she noticed Schaler cutting the trees with a chain saw. When Nockels asked Schaler to stop, Schaler raised his chain saw toward Nockels and told her to “stay out of this.” VRP (Feb. 7, 2007) at 10-11. Deputy Michael Blake arrived in response to the 911 call. After Blake arrived, Schaler said that “‘it was obvious that somebody [was] going to die.'”

Schaler repeated this statement, and Blake asked what Schaler meant and why it was obvious. Schaler did not answer. Blake informed Schaler that Blake took Schaler’s statement very seriously, and after a long pause,Schaler stated that he thought he (Schaler) would be the one to die, citing an incident where he claimed Busbin’s husband had threatened him with a shotgun.

Blake asked Schaler if he thought he was going to kill someone, and Schaler replied that “when he [Schaler] became angry, he did feel like that he wanted to kill someone, and that that was a natural human response.” Id. at 291. He did not say anything more specific.

Nockels testified that she believed Schaler was going to kill her as a result of the fruit tree incident. She felt similarly after Heller-Wilson warned her of Schaler’s comments at the hospital. Busbin felt Schaler was capable of carrying out the threats. Both women obtained protective orders against Schaler after the tree incident and thereafter made sure that each woman always knew the location of the other.

Schaler was charged with two counts under the threats-to-kill provision of the harassment statute, RCW 9A.46.020(1)(a)(i), (b), (2)(b)(ii), for his statements to Heller-Wilson regarding Nockels and Busbin. Schaler successfully requested a jury instruction requiring the jury to find that he subjectively intended to communicate a threat. No party requested an instruction as to the definition of “true threat,” nor did Schaler object to the State’s proposed definition of “threat,” which was not limited to true threats. The term “true threat” did not appear in any of the jury instructions. Schaler was sentenced to two 10-month terms of confinement to be served concurrently.

On appeal, Schaler argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. He also challenged the jury instructions for the first time, arguing that the First Amendment requires an explicit “true threat” instruction. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on “true threats” but that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. It further held that the evidence at trial was sufficient to support Schaler’s conviction. Id. at 644. We granted review.

Share on Facebook


Bob Kustra

We were wondering some weeks back when the celebration broke loose about Boise State University athletics joining the Mountain West conference whether all the social elements – and not just the financial elements – had been fully worked through. The nagging point was this: The conference shift probably would mean that Boise State’s Bronco football team would quit playing, at least most years, the University of Idaho Vandals. That point was noted in reports and discussions at the time, but downplayed or buried.

It shouldn’t have been. The BSU-UI match has for decades been the big athletic event in Idaho. It’s a big deal for a lot of people. Maybe not quite on the scale of the University of Oregon/Oregon State Civil War to the west, but a Big Deal nonetheless.

Now that’s coming home to roost. BSU President Bob Kustra, ordinarily a careful and diplomatic speaker, trash-talked (at an Idaho Statesman editorial board meeting) the UI, calling its culture “inebriated” and “nasty,” and suggested in essence that BSU had no reason to lower itself to that level. And that if BSU never plays the UI again, great.

Coming from Kustra, who’s sometimes been mentioned as a prospect for political office (but probably not again in Idaho), those remarks are a little stunning. Most university presidents are a lot more even-tempered about their fellow institutions; they do, after all, often have to work together.

Now Kustra’s comments, which he seems not to be walking back, in combination with the already-sore matter of a tossed tradition, have blown up. Today, Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter was asked what he was going to do about it. Otter did about as much as he could, which was to express support for the traditional game while pointing out (correctly) that football scheduling really isn’t in his bailiwick. You might guess, though, that some of the state Board of Education members will be getting a call from him sometime soon.

This isn’t anywhere near over yet, and it’s hard to see where exactly it does end . . .

Share on Facebook


Another transition: We’re seeing the phasing-out of fire lookouts.

The Medford Mail Tribune had a piece out today about Ken and Colleen Struck, now in their 70s and nearing a quarter-century of summer work as upper-elevation forest fire lookouts. The Oregon Department of Forestry has only one other fire outlook left in its southwest region. Others seem to be scaling back too, in favor of cameras or satellite observation.

Unclear whether this is a case of new technology simply superseding old. After all, as one person quoted remarked, you can’t get a feel for the situation from a camera.

Share on Facebook


/Payette National Forest

Remember some months back when a big blowup occurred over University of Idaho studies of whether diseases and other problems associated with domestic sheep might harm wild bighorn sheep?

Today, the upshot demonstrating why that was a blowup: A Payette National Forest record of decision restricting agricultural sheep to less than a third of the land they historically have used. It was written – and decided – by Payette Forest Supervisor Suzanne Rainville.

Here’s background from the decision:

Only portions of two bighorn sheep metapopulations remain on the Payette National Forest, one within Hells Canyon of the Snake River and the other among the Salmon River Mountains. Historically, these populations were likely connected by suitable habitats between the two major drainages and recently, bighorn sheep have been observed travelling from Hells Canyon to the Salmon River and back again. More than 10,000 bighorn sheep may have once lived in the Hells Canyon and surrounding mountains, but they were extirpated by the mid-1940s. Through reintroduction, 474 bighorn sheep were transplanted into Hells Canyon between 1971 and 2004. Seven die-offs have been reported since 1971. Today, the population is estimated at 850 animals. The Salmon River metapopulation was never extirpated. Winter population surveys conducted in 2001,2003, and 2004 document at least 508 bighorn sheep within the various drainages of the Salmon River and 210 bighorn sheep in the South Fork Salmon River and Main Salmon River. Historic accounts of major die-offs of bighorn sheep in the Salmon River Mountains began in approximately 1870. The population has experienced periodic die-offs and population decline since that time. The current estimated numbers of bighorn sheep in hunting units in and around the Payette National Forest has decreased 47 percent since 1981.

During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, large numbers of domestic sheep were grazed on the Payette National Forest. In 1915, 174,445 sheep were permitted to graze on the Payette National Forest. This number declined throughout the 20 century to around 18,300 in 2009. Today, four pennittees are authorized through term grazing permits to graze sheep on the Payette National Forest. Both statutory and case laws infer that a term grazing permit represents a privilege, not a prope11y right, to use National Forest System lands and resources. Procedures exist to modify or cancel term grazing permits. Although the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 directs that National Forests provide for multiple uses, such as range, it also states that some land will be used for less than all resources and periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions are allowed.

The decision says flatly what a number of others have danced around: “A long history of large-scale, rapid, all-age die-offs in bighorn sheep has been documented across Canada and the United States, many presumed associated with domestic animal contact (Shackleton 1999). Although limited knowledge of transmission dynamics exists (Garde et al. 2005), extensive scientific literature supports a relationship between disease in bighorn sheep populations and contact with domestic sheep.”

The decision limits to a large degree the areas where domestic sheep can roam.

And as to the research suggesting little danger from domestic sheep, there’s this:

“Despite the large body of evidence, the economic consequences of restricting domestic sheep grazing have polarized the issue. Some scientists and others, primarily from agricultural disciplines, contend that disease transmission between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep is not a relevant factor in bighorn sheep distribution and population declines in the wildland environment. I have taken these arguments into consideration while making my decision. I considered the degree of scientific uncertainty concerning the risk of foray contact and potential disease transmission. Arguably, much of the evidence is circumstantial; however, the compilation of cases throughout several decades does contribute to an increasing body of evidence that overwhelmingly demonstrates bighorn sheep near domestics are at risk for disease transmission, even though “contact” may not have actually been observed.”

She also says, “I am sure that my decision will not satisfy everyone.” That may be the one statement here everyone will agree with.

Call this one another big resource issue on the hoof.

Share on Facebook


Thing is, massive construction projects tend to – customarily do run over estimated costs. That’s the way it usually goes. Small projects often, too, but this one – the Alaskan Way Viaduct reconstruction in Seattle – is enormous, and the size of possible overruns is a very big deal.

Most specifically, for whoever has to pay.

There’s some uncertainty about that right now, and some people in Seattle, including Mayor Mike McGinn, are concerned about it. But that’s not the only worrisome point. Something has to be done about the Alaskan Way, and soon, and negotiations over it among the involved parties, which include a variety of governments, took years and nearly came undone last year. The people who went through all that, including many of the city council members, are loathe to want to start all over again.

So on one side, the city council which today had this in a release: “Seattle City Councilmembers today announced the completion of negotiated Alaskan Way Viaduct agreements and their intent to authorize these agreements among Seattle City Light, Seattle Department of Transportation and Seattle Public Utilities and the Washington State Department of Transportation. After months of negotiations, the City Council has reached agreement with the State and introduced Resolution 31235. This resolution implements Ordinance 123133 and details the Council’s intent to authorize the agreements once the State awards a contract consistent with the program’s scope and budget and subject to environmental review.”

On the other, McGinn, who has been pushing for a public signoff before the commitment is made: “It appears that Council is doing everything possible to prevent a public vote. Yet they still have not dealt with the underlying issue – who will pay for overruns given the $2.4 billion cap in state law. Until the state law is changed, Seattle remains at risk of paying cost overruns.”

Things have been a little tense in Seattle since McGinn’s investiture. They’re about to go to a whole new level, on the biggest issue the city now has to deal with. The real politics is about to crank up.

Share on Facebook


Most useful column of the weekend: Danny Westneat’s in the Seattle Times today, deconstructing the myth of the West as a place of “rugged individualism.” Not that a lot of people don’t buy into it; many do, and even more are the politicians who traffic in it. But none of that makes it any more true.

Westneat: “Of all stories we tell ourselves, the one about how we’re a merit-based nation of lone wolves has got to be the most enduring. The most intoxicating. And the most baloney.”

Westneat aims his barbs most directly at eastern Washington, prompted by campaign rhetoric from senatorial candidate Clint Didier. (Didier: “We’ve got to get rid of this ‘protecting the weak’. If we keep the weak alive all the time, it eats up the strong.”) But eastern Oregon and, even more, Idaho are just as much swept up in the tale of the hard-bitten but often brilliant loner who can do it all by himself if the damned government would just stay off his back.

Except for providing for his public education, of course. Or roads. Safety. Waterways. Electricity. And on and on.

Read, by all means. We’ll be returning to this, no doubt.

Share on Facebook


Keith Allred at the Boise town hall/Randy Stapilus

The setup was sweet for a candidate for governor. While there’s something of an embunkered feeling to the re-election campaign for Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter, his Democratic opponent Keith Allred holds – about three blocks from the Idaho Statehouse, at the grand old Egyptian Theatre – an open, come-all town hall meeting. (Can anyone active in Idaho politics imagine Otter this year doing something similar?) The pitch: Come and talk to the candidate.

The results delivered just that, on one frequency, and did not deliver on another. It was as promised a straight-up Q & A, and it had plenty of substance. Presumably it did exactly what Allred, trained by profession as a mediator, wanted and intended it to do – and all that it should do if campaigns were a matter of evaluating policy. Some other frequencies were missing.

Somewhere between 150 and 200 people were there, and generally not the political usual suspects. Not many of the people you’d expect in Boise to appear at a Democratic governor campaign event, did; of the dozen Democratic legislators from Boise, just three or four turned up. The best-known Idaho political figure in attendance was former state Senator Laird Noh from Twin Falls, a Republican co-chairing the campaign. (Like Allred, Noh is naturally low-key, a smart policy wonk and a skilled legislator willing to work with anyone to achieve a carefully considered objective. The match in personal approach and style is easy to see.) Allred was drawing in some new people; some of the stalwarts seemed less in evidence.

His opening statement, and responses, seemed of a piece with where he had been before, with a mix of policy suggestions and a proposal to try to leverage the views of Idahoans to try to budge the intractable – on tax policy, notably, though other subjects as well. He appealed to the mind, but less so to the gut. If there, as people have remarked about his approach, an absence of red meat, there was also a general absence of emotional content. He made a case for the inadequacy of various Otter-related policies, but he didn’t make the full-throated case of a crusader, exhorting the crowd to join him on a glorious mission to fire the bastards. The setting, alone (but for the moderator, Boise City Council member T.J. Thomson, well off to the side) under the spotlight was ideal for that kind of tub thumper. But this was an appeal to the intellect. This was a prolonged campaign talk with no real red meat, hardly any sound bits, only few applause lines, and those few seemed inadvertent. (There were a few sharply turned lines, though, even if they weren’t punched hard, such as one having to do with education: “Folks, that is the American practice.”) Those weren’t his thing.

Easy elements of theater were missing. As a practical matter, Allred was fully engaged with the attendees, talking with many of them at length before the show, directly answering questions they put. The format, one often used at crowded congressional town halls, called for questioners to fill out a card, which would be read by a moderator. The questions were demonstrably real; the names of the questioners were usually mentioned, and Allred would ask them to raise their hands. But the personal electricity, showmanship and theater that would come from candidate and supporter directly talking to each other, in the setting of the event itself, wasn’t there. Some of the juice was missing.

At the same time, while Allred’s approach via the Common Interest, the lobbing organization he led which used membership efforts to press for legislation, offered plenty of opportunity to dodge answers to the more divisive questions, he didn’t seem to use it as an excuse to dodge. He talked fluidly about health care, education, taxes, immigration and more with clear knowledge of the subject matter and the politics involved. His line of discussion was not standard-issue rhetoric of any clear origin other than his own opinions. It did put on display Allred’s smarts and articulateness. It didn’t seem to offer a common thread. You could walk out with a clear sense that this was a brainy guy, but not much feel, in an easy summarized way, about what he would actually push for as governor.

There is this: Allred will represent, in approach even more than in specific policy ideas, a drastic distinction from Otter in his campaign approach. Otter personally is certainly not ignorant of policy details, but his preferred mode of campaign speech is a solid run of simplistic libertarian philosophy with large slabs of bloody red meat tossed in at regular intervals. The appeal is to the gut, a wilful turning on of some people and a turning off of others, and intended to reflect the idea of Otter as a crusading leader. That approach, it has to be said, has been working for Republican major office candidates in Idaho for a long time now.

As much as Otter himself, that may be Allred’s real opposition.

Share on Facebook


The question is, how long will this last – and from what direction will the killer blow come?

Assuming the situation is reported accurately by the Coast Lake News, the city council of Lakeview, Oregon, has passed a “New ordinance [that] allows entry to private property at will and without prior complaint to search for code violations.” (Hat tip here to Blue Oregon.)

Jessica Lloyd-Rogers, the editor of the paper, wrote that “there was no public notice and the item was not listed on the agenda. Brought up under “Items Not on the Agenda” the Ordinance was referred to only by number and once by title before being immediately adopted without discussion. Not content with violating the Fourth Amendment and Oregon’s Public Meeting Law, the Council’s procedure violates the City Charter and continues a pattern of secrecy and targeting citizens.”

Hard to imagine how this lasts for long. Hard to imagine how many of those city council members expect to stay in office for terribly long, either.

Share on Facebook