Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in October 2023

To what end

I’m a senior. A very senior senior.

One of the constants in life has always been the stability of my country. My own life might include some twists, turns and upsets.

But, over the long haul, my homeland was secure. Safe. Stable. Many thousands of our brothers and sisters fought and died to assure that security. That stability.

Then – POW!!!

Stability is threatened, to be replaced with loud noises and divisiveness. Fractures of governing bodies. Attacks on those who have differing views. Institutional instability. An uncertain future.

For the first time in my life, I fear for that future. The uninterrupted continuity of our nation. The consistent presence. The assurance of peace. The guarantee of liberties for all. These and more are under attack by some in our society. Inside our own government.

Adding to that fear is the fact the current dangers to our mutual future are compounded daily. In courtrooms. In halls of governance. In the foundations of our national existence.

Some in our political system want to tear down the very government they were elected to serve. They want to destroy our institutions – our way of life. From local school boards to the halls of Congress.

They offer no hope for the future. They bring forward no plans for a better society. They offer nothing but a desire to disrupt and destroy.

The most recent example of this cancer is the ousting of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House. A small group – hardly more than a dozen – hollered and screamed until they got what they wanted. To get rid of McCarthy. Put to a “no confidence” vote, minority Democrats decided to go along.

But – what now?

The office of Speaker is vacant. The miscreants have nothing to offer in the way of an acceptable replacement who can get the 218 votes necessary to win the Speakership.. They destroyed their target but with no plan for the next step – replacing McCarthy.

Now, the House can’t conduct business. No legislation can be voted upon. Members are leaderless. No one who currently covets the job appears to have the ability to garner the minimum votes to win an election for Speaker. Death and destruction with no plan to rebuild or replace.

Those behind McCarthy’s ouster had only that task in mind. They offered nothing more than getting rid of their political target. It will be up to others to repair the damage.

Remember, McCarthy only got the job after 15 votes of the House and only after selling his soul to the devil to gain the favor of the 40 or so members of the far right cabal.

There is an irony here. That cabal that helped him get the speakership was prominent in McCarthy losing the job. That’s because the House voted last year to allow just a single, formal request from the floor to declare the Office of Speaker vacant, to be followed by an election to fill the vacancy. To become Speaker, McCarthy agreed to that change.

Historically, the Republican Party, as we’ve known it, no longer exists. Oh, you’ll face a ballot, a year from now, that’ll have Republican candidates. There’ll be Republican names alright.

But, once the successful Republicans get to the banks of the Potomac, will they join the political violence we’re now witnessing? Is there anything Republican about the Boeberts, Taylor-Greens, the Biggs or the rest of the mob? If you’re a Republican, do they represent your Republican values?

What we’re witnessing now is only the beginning. The battle in the House is only the initial act. The misplaced, ignorant anger that’s been percolating in the GOP for a couple of decades is building to a full head of steam.

We will see it’s effects in other outbreaks. And, there will be other outbreaks. You can bet the farm.

The ‘Pied Piper’ that is Donald Trump will continue to lead the way to more disruptions and violence. Standing on a street corner or from a jail cell, he’ll continue to have 20 or 30 million followers, eager to tear down our society – our government – or whatever other target he chooses.

All of this makes me fearful for the survival of our society and governance as we know it. As we’ve lived it.

We will survive the continued onslaught. Our institutions will remain. We will continue to have a position in world leadership. We will survive.

But, at what cost? And, what will our future look like? Certainly not the future millions and millions of us thought it would be. The predictability has been redirected.

To what?

 

A rare win

Idaho’s Attorney General has experienced a great deal of disappointment in court proceedings since taking office in January, but he rejoiced at a rare victory on September 29. Three Trump-appointed federal appeals court judges ruled in favor of Labrador’s plea to allow Idaho’s total abortion ban to apply in the hospital emergency room setting.

The appeals court overruled a decision by an Idaho federal judge which allowed women with health-threatening pregnancy complications to receive emergency maternal care in spite of the ban. Now, emergency room doctors will only be able to terminate a troubled pregnancy when required to “avert” the death of the mother, or when “a delay will create serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.” The doctors may need to have a lawyer on hand in the ER to make those difficult decisions.

The current law provides little comfort to women who experience dangerous pregnancy complications and the doctors who wish to treat them. Several women and doctors recently filed suit against the State, seeking clarity as to when medical care can be provided without violating the total ban. One of the plaintiffs noted, “It isn’t safe to be pregnant in Idaho.” Labrador will be defending the lawsuit.

After basking in the glow of the abortion victory, the Attorney General’s streak of disappointments continued with news that the State will have to pay attorney fees for the improper titles he wrote for the Open Primaries Initiative. On October 2, the Supreme Court awarded just under $80,000 in attorney fees to the plaintiffs who challenged his titles. Earlier, when the case was decided, the Court announced the fee award because Labrador had “acted without a reasonable basis in the law” in writing the titles. Among other things, his “short and general ballot titles contained a blatant misstatement concerning what the Initiative would require.”  If he had just followed the law and written accurate titles, the State could have saved $79,968.

Just days before the abortion win, Labrador was sued by a former Deputy Attorney General (DAG) who claimed she was fired for refusing to go along with unethical conduct by her superiors. After the DAG wrote that Labrador’s office was engaging in “an untenable conflict of interest’’ with the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW), she was fired in what appears to be a classic case of retaliation. Of interest in this regard is a subsequent court ruling that disqualified Labrador from pursuing action against IDHW because of that very conflict. The AG was required to engage independent counsel if he wanted to pursue that matter. It is likely that the fired DAG will be able to recover substantial damages in her lawsuit and that the action against IDHW will turn out to be a waste of everyone’s time.

Labrador has also had his hand slapped by another judge for engaging in another conflict of interest with another client agency, the State Board of Education. This time Labrador filed suit against the Board, his own client agency, claiming an Open Meeting Law violation with respect to the University of Idaho’s proposed acquisition of the University of Phoenix. While one might have concerns about that deal, it does not excuse an attorney’s lawsuit against his own client. The district court certainly understood the ethical rules that lawyers are required to follow and ordered that Labrador and his top gun, Theo Wold, were disqualified from personal involvement in the suit.

Labrador, who positioned himself as the champion of the Open Meeting Law, ended up with a considerable amount of egg on his face when he violated the same law several weeks after filing the suit against the Board. That might have been a sign to drop the Board suit, but it only caused Labrador to double down with a new attorney who is not subject to the disqualification order. Now the Board is accusing Labrador of filing “abusive” subpoenas. It is likely that this pointless drama will also end up being a huge waste of state resources. Looking at the bright side, there is an election in 2026.

 

Setting the path for some new issues

Oregon legislators have been burrowing into newsy topics like housing, road tolling, crime, Measure 110 and PAC-12 changes, but that’s not all.

Legislative days in Salem last week, when lawmakers spent much of their time at informational meetings, laid the groundwork for hot topics likely to return in upcoming regular sessions.

Here are five topics addressed last week in Salem that got enough legislative attention to win committee facetime.

Ransomware and internet security (Joint Information Management and Technology Committee). One attention-getter on the subject of cybersecurity was the leadoff witness: Curry County Commissioner Brad Alcorn, from a region not obviously on the tech cutting edge. But the choice was fitting. In May, his county was the target of a devastating online attack, and Alcorn remarked at the time, “Everything that relates to county operations that was online is now gone.”

Materials for the hearing prepared by a number of state agencies covered the wreckage of recent cyber attacks and vulnerability to them, and a description of the chain of command and communications system for responding, but little about proactive efforts to counter the problem. That sounds like a topic begging for legislative review in the next session or two.

Involuntary commitment (Senate Human Services Committee). As legislators circle around the amorphous problems of drug addiction and homelessness (which are not the same but do overlap), involuntary commitment may be a tempting leverage option.

The Senate’s Human Services Committee hearing on the subject focused on commitments “of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities,” but the legal device could be used as well in other areas. It is difficult to undertake – a complex set of legal requirements is involved – and not commonly used, as just 13 commitments have been undertaken statewide so far this year.

Not only that, according to the report from Anna Lansky, interim director of the Office of Developmental Disabilities Services,”Civil commitments conflict with the current (state disabilities) system’s requirements.”

Even so, the use of commitments as a tool for solving otherwise intractable problems is likely to be unavoidable for legislators in the next few sessions.

Professional employer organizations (House Business and Labor Committee). Obscure to many people, these organizations that provide permanent employees are becoming an increasingly significant sector of Oregon’s economy. A business database indicates Oregon licenses 58 of them.

Also called worker leasing companies, Oregon state code ORS 656.850 describes them as providing workers, “by contract and for a fee, to work for a client but does not include a person who provides workers to a client on a temporary basis.” (Temp worker companies are not included.) This can mean people considered permanent employees of one business legally are employed by another.

This can involve complex tax, insurance, regulatory and other considerations, and Oregon law may not have kept up. The Department of Consumer and Business Services and state unemployment insurance offices held an information session on this, and follow-up may be coming.

Taxes and electric vehicles (House Climate Energy and Environment Committee). This is not a new topic, but this presentation suggested the state is just now coming to an inflection point in the area of how electric and hybrid vehicles carry their load in paying for the upkeep of the state’s road system.

One slide in the Oregon Department of Transportation’s Powerpoint presentation said the state now estimates that battery electric and hybrid vehicles this year still account for less than 10% of the motor vehicle stock in the state, but that may rise to a third over the next decade, and jump to half a decade after that. Income from gas taxes will fall drastically.

In 2017, the Legislature ordered a study on “whether vehicles powered by different means are paying their fair share … (and) found high-efficiency vehicles are significantly underpaying

compared to lower efficiency gas-powered vehicles.” The Legislature is being told that time is fast running out to decide how to resolve the conflicting goals of energy efficiency and paying for roads.

Local journalism (House Rules Committee). This was possibly the most unusual topic to emerge during legislative days, with testimony from the Agora Journalism Center at the University of Oregon and from Heidi Wright, publisher of The Bend Bulletin.

Jody Lawrence-Turner, executive director of the Fund for Oregon Rural Journalism, highlighted a survey of rural news organizations about the challenges they face. Some could implicate public action: 68% need help with grants and donors, 55% more need help training journalists and about a third are interested in converting a nonprofit status. The ideas raised easily could return in a future legislative session.

Whether any of these subjects gain traction in months ahead is another matter. But they have a head start.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.(image)

 

The delegation’s scandal

This is likely going to deeply anger the Idaho congressional members, but they have a big (poorly kept) secret that has got to be exposed and likely will infuriate many people in their party.

They haven’t done a great job of keeping the lid on, though, since everything that follows is based on press releases from their offices, and I’m only reciting releases from the last three months.

All four of them - Senators Mike Crapo and Jim Risch and Representatives Russ Fulcher and Mike Simpson - for years have been engaging in behavior many of their constituents, of their own party at least, have been persuaded is deeply wrong.

These veteran Republican legislators have worked, on legislation, with Democrats. A lot. Repeatedly. Hundreds of times, at least in the cases of Crapo, Risch and Simpson, who have been there longest.

The last three months of press releases issued by the four - the picture going further back would be similar but the data volume unmanageable in the space of a column - tells the tale.

Crapo and Risch both worked on a measure (concerning rural veterinarians) with, among others, Democratic Senators Patty Murray of Washington, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith of Minnesota,  Kristen Gillibrand of New York. They joined in a resolution on nuclear power with Democratic Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Sherrod Brown of Ohio, among others. They joined with Oregon’s two Democrats, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, on a measure supporting the Forest Service’s Secure Rural Schools and Self-Determination Program. Democratic Montana Senator Jon Tester was with them on a measure concerning operations procedures on Customs offices at the Canada border. Colorado Democrats Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper were alongside them on a measure concerning veterans services. A measure the Idahoans backed to prevent closure of Air National Guard fighter squadrons was joined by Hickenlooper and Maryland’s Chris Van Hollen.

Both senators independently joined alongside Democrats on other measures. Crapo and Wyden (plus two Northwest Democratic representatives) lent their names to legislation on innovative forest products. Wyden and Crapo, in fact, have co-sponsored lots of measures over the years, including (in announcements from the last three months) measures on pharmacy accounting and identity theft. Crapo and Virginia’s Mark Warner joined on a Prevent All Soring Tactics Act (has to do with horses). Crapo has co-sponsored nuclear downwinder legislation with New Mexico’s Ben Ray Lujan.

When Risch recently co-introduced a measure on tax credits and adoption, one of his partners was Pennsylvania Democrat Robert Casey, and Merkley joined with Risch in a measure on stillbirths. New Mexico’s Martin Heinrich signed on with him on a hardrock mine measure.

Close Idaho political watchers may be unsurprised that Simpson has worked across the aisle for help on legislation, and he has. The VA Benefits Act and the VET CARE Act on which he’s worked both have lots of sponsors, deeply split between the parties.

But Fulcher has done a fair amount of work with Democrats, too. When he got House passage for the Treating Tribes & Counties as Good Neighbor Authority Act on September 14, his co-leader was Washington Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez. And Fulcher and Simpson both joined with New Hampshire Democrat Chris Pappas on the Bring Our Heroes Home Act (on prisoners of war).

All of this isn’t a complete list, either, and, once again, it only covers the last three months. This season hasn’t been unusual. For that matter, lists like this wouldn’t be abnormal for most members of Congress of either party.

All of this is worth bearing in mind as the subject of working across the aisle - and the role that concept has played in ousting of a speaker of the House and general congressional disruption - has come to the fore.

Such work is a necessary part of the job for any member of Congress (or, for that matter, legislature) who wants to accomplish something, which many of them actually do.

However scandalous that might seem in some quarters.

(image/Senator Crapo)

Stake

I’ll admit that I am not fully aware of the Idaho Code sections when I talk with patients. I believe I have a good sense of right and wrong, but legalese confuses me. And I was a State Senator for a few years, voting on this stuff. I should know better.

I did know that I had a legal obligation to convey my concern for child or elder abuse. That was drummed into me in my training. It did put me in some awkward spots at times, but I believe I toed the line. I did make some folks mad when I called CPS about the bruises on their three-year-old that didn’t fit with the story they told. I lost their business. Don’t forget, the profession of medicine is based on principles, ethics, but fundamentally, it’s a business.

When I was first taught about this obligation I bridled. What right does the law have to oblige me to contact them? This is between me and the patient. But then you start thinking about the duty our society has to protect the vulnerable, “preserve the common good, domestic tranquility, blah blah…” While some may see this duty as just, some may see such as an infringement on their freedom.

Me, I was just a doctor, seeing patients, trying to make a living.

My hubris might have been less had I worked in the trades. Building codes are there for reasons. Understanding these reasons is worth our time.

I’m reflecting on this because tomorrow I plan to attend a seminar presented by an eminent Idaho law firm about the current state of law in Idaho around abortion.

Even the legislators who have voted for these laws admit they are a mess. Maybe they will try to sort out the problems. Maybe not. Maybe they just want to “make a statement” like our House Freedom Caucus, that ousted Speaker McCarthy.

To me, the act of governing should be considered a serious business. Maybe it’s just theater. If so, keep scrolling your feed.

Me, I was just trying to take care of the patient in the room.

So, let’s get down to the nuts and bolts. Do you want abortion to be considered a capital offense, as my State Senator has stated? Murder has no statute of limitations. Our Attorney General and county prosecutors would be very busy with this obligation.

But the lawyer arguing for Idaho’s muddled laws said “no prosecutor is stupid enough” to enforce such laws. So, these laws are just theater?

But no, the courts have weighed in again. Idaho doctors who treat women whose life is threatened by their pregnancy will not be shielded from prosecution.

Can’t you see the mess? Maybe more legislators, and I, should have done some trade work.

So, I will attend this seminar. Not because I care for pregnant patients or have ever done abortions, though, according to current Idaho law, I might have.

The Idaho legislature has bombasted itself to a current legal position of outlawing abortion, and paying an attorney with your taxpayer dollars to say, “Don’t worry, nobody would be stupid enough to enforce these…” But they haven’t done the work to actually define the issue.

Do you want to decrease abortions? We have the tools to accomplish this. We count abortions. Even out-of-state abortions performed on Idaho residents are counted. This counting has been done for years. And it showed a steady decline, for years.

If you really want to decrease abortions, we could do what Colorado did. Providing free, long-term reversible contraception to young women cut their abortion rates dramatically.

Maybe that’s not really the goal. Maybe this is just theater.

Why don’t we just burn somebody at the stake?

I’ll bet she’s female.

 

Don’t count on Congress

Round and round we go, and we all know where this stops. It’s Nov. 17, when Congress will face another chapter of tired talks about a government-shutdown.

There’s no telling who will be speaker of the House by then since House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (who was booted from his job) dared to rely on Democrats to push through a 45-day stop-gap measure to keep the government operating. The drama with the speakership, along with Hunter Biden and the possible impeachment of President Biden will provide enough distractions from the job that Congress should be doing with appropriations.

In theory, the stop-gap bill gives Congress time to work out differences with the budget. In practice with a divided government, there’s a greater chance that nothing will be done. If we’re lucky, we’ll get another stop-gap measure on Nov. 17 that will keep the government running for another month or two.

It’s a shame that it comes down to this. What’s amazing is there are those in Congress who think that shutting down the government is sound policy, as if all problems will be solved by refusing to sign off on a dozen appropriations bills. A lot of people get hurt by government shutdowns, but not members of Congress. They get paid regardless.

Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson, a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, favors a more sensible approach. As he wrote in a recent commentary, “letting the government shut down is neither good policy or good politics.”

He’s entirely correct – although that attitude will never land him an invite to join the House Freedom Caucus (he’s not interested anyway). Fellow Idaho Congressman Russ Fulcher, who is part of the Freedom Caucus, predictably voted against the stop-gap bill. Given the nature of his district, there’s no question that his job would be on the line if he voted otherwise.

“Through this entire process, I have supported efforts to keep the government funded, control spending and end chaos at the Southern border,” Fulcher said. “Unfortunately, the most recent continuing resolution does not address these pressing matters my constituents want addressed.”

House conservatives do have a point. Spending is out of control and has been for a long time. The national debt is more than $33 trillion with no signs of slowing down, and it continues to grow no matter what party controls the White House.

But in these shutdown debates, detractors are nibbling at the edges. The focus is on discretionary spending, the 25-30 percent of the budget that Congress can control. If all discretionary spending were eliminated, including national defense, we’d still be drowning with the deficit. The problem is the 70-75 percent of the budget that Congress cannot touch – the so-called “entitlement” spending, which includes Social Security and Medicare. The fiscal crisis will never be resolved until Congress approves relevant reforms for the next generations. It’s as simple as that.

Ah, but there’s so much juicy political theater that goes with these shutdown talks. Members of Congress can draw lines in the sand, point fingers, puff out their chests and show all their constituents back home how they are trying to bring spending under control. Who cares about the millions of people who get hurt in the process, such as military men and women, border agents and air-traffic controllers.

“These political games have very real consequences for your friends and neighbors,” Simpson wrote. “To Idaho, a government shutdown means thousands of furloughs for government workers and contractors, no new vouchers to homeless veterans through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, a halt to U.S. Small Business Administration loans, and the closure of our national parks, just to name a few impacts.”

Simpson isn’t the only one in Idaho’s delegation who holds a dim view of government shutdowns. Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch voted for the temporary resolution and issued a joint statement.

“Government shutdowns hurt taxpayers. This legislation will keep the government’s lights on while ensuring our troops and border agents receive the pay they have earned. During this time, we will continue to advocate for a long-term funding solution that saves taxpayer dollars and serves the needs of Idahoans.”

Good luck with that. Government operations are safe until Nov. 17, and there are no guarantees after that. Keep your expectations low as far as the ability of Congress to find a long-lasting solution to this fiscal mess.

After all, these are the “honorable” men who helped give us this $33 trillion debt in the first place.

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

 

New blood

What the Hell is wrong with Republicans in the U.S. House?

Speaking as someone who’s lived a long life and, one who has a penchant for following this country’s political affairs, I hasten to ask, “What the Hell is going on?”

House Republicans have been a pain in the ass for several years. But, the current crop has simply gone bananas.

An impeachment committee, looking for evidence it can’t find, trying to embarrass a sitting President whose done nothing impeachable. A President who could conduct a graduate-level course in politics that most of them couldn’t pass. A “special” committee trying to find “evidence” that doesn’t exist? Really?

There are 221 GOP’ers in the House. Most are sane. Most are there to do the people’s work. Most have a sense of the importance of the positions they hold. The history. The responsibility.

BUT…

About 40 of those folks have no understanding of their roles in our democracy. They don’t understand the real work that must be done. They offer nothing in the way of responsible legislation. They produce nothing constructive. They make noises and clutter the atmosphere with baseless charges and personal antics that should be embarrassing. At least to them. ‘Cause they’re certainly embarrassing to the rest of us.

If those cretins were workers at a business in the private sector, it’s doubtful they’d be long-employed, given their disgraceful antics.
Facing the 2024 national election, you have to wonder if the folks at home will send these miscreants back for another term.

I know. I know. Your good guy is my bad guy and my good guy is your bad guy. Heard it all before.

But, Boebert? Taylor-Green? Gaetz? Biggs? Really?

All of this is getting out of hand. What’s needed is a Speaker of the House who will “crack the whip” and get things quickly straightened out. Gonna happen? Ya think?

The current Speaker is not up to the job. He’s proven time and time again he really doesn’t understand all the details. Kevin McCarthy, busy trying to hang onto that job, sold his soul to “the devil” to get it and, given ample evidence of his ego, he now must dance to the “devil’s” tune to keep it. Right now, he’s on very shaky ground. The situation is so bad Kevin can’t even introduce Senate-passed bills.

And, the next one introduced may be one to vote Kevin out of his job.

The U.S. House appears to be very close to being ungovernable. There are so many caucuses of this and that. Little groups of 10 to 40 that vote as a block. In close votes, one or more can make a difference.

The Senate, while splintered in philosophy as well, seems to be able to get its work done. How long that will last is anyone’s guess.

Looking down the political road to the election of 2024, that one is going to be absolutely critical. If there is any chance to weed out the miscreants and replace the wrong-doers with new, younger folks to get things back on track, November 4th, 2024 is the ‘drop dead’ date.

This time around, we can’t keep voting for the same old names. What’s needed now is ‘new blood.’ Fresh faces. Ages between 40 and 60. Either party. Younger people, some with legislative experience at home.

‘New blood’

(image/US Air Force)

In the public service

Some folks have a hard time understanding why people would devote an entire career to serving the public when private employment generally pays more. You might have to put yourself in the shoes of a career public servant to gain an understanding of what motivates them. I had that privilege when I began 8 years as Idaho Attorney General in January 1983. What caused me to reflect was a recent obituary of such a person.

Stephen Goddard passed away on August 30, doing what he loved–bird hunting in the mountains. He spent 24 years working as a Deputy Attorney General (DAG) at the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. His job was to act as legal counsel for the Department–to represent and advise its employees in official legal matters.

Just a few weeks after I took office, the U.S. Supreme Court scheduled a March argument in a case filed against Oregon and Washington by former AG Wayne Kidwell for their overfishing of our salmon and steelhead runs. I spent two weeks ahead of time in Washington with Steve, a fish biologist and about 20 banker boxes of case records to prepare. Thanks to Steve’s expertise, I was well prepared for the argument.

Steve’s enthusiasm for these magnificent fish rubbed off on me and made clear the need to do everything possible to prevent their extinction. By the time of the argument, it was obvious to me that they would never be safe so long as the four dams on the lower Snake River remained intact.

As fate would have it, Steve’s wife, Leslie, was also deeply involved in another issue that would greatly influence my future years. Leslie was a DAG working with the Idaho Human Rights Commission. The Commission Chair, Marilyn Shuler, asked for my help in getting a malicious harassment bill passed to combat the Aryan Nations hate group in Kootenai County, and human rights became embedded in my heart. I worked with the Commission and Leslie on human rights issues from that time. Leslie was dedicated to the issue during her 17 years as DAG and then ten more years as Commission chair.

A third issue that came to define my tenure as AG was pending when I walked in the door–the Snake River water rights struggle with Idaho Power Company, known as the Swan Falls water fight. It essentially boiled down to whether the State or Idaho Power would control Snake River flows. I won’t go into the details, but it was one of Idaho’s major water rights controversies since statehood. Anyone interested can check out a book entitled, A Little Dam Problem-How Idaho almost lost control of the Snake River.

The State eventually reached a favorable settlement with the power company, but it could not have happened without close cooperation between my office and that of former Democratic Governor John Evans, as well as the extraordinary legal talents of Clive Strong, who I hired to lead my side of the effort. Clive served 34 years with the office and became known across the U. S. as a water and natural resources expert.

During most of my tenure as AG, the person responsible for ensuring high quality work throughout the office was my Chief Deputy, Jack McMahon. I never asked employees their political or policy preferences. It was not relevant to the work in any respect. These were lawyers, not politicians. There were certain political functions that I needed to attend as an elected official, but my staff had no business being involved. The AG’s office is the state’s largest law firm and must act strictly as a legal office, not a political operation. I must admit that I was aware that Jack was a Democrat–it was widely known–but that was beside the point in my view. He was a darn good lawyer and administrator. That’s what counted.

When we hear that someone is “just” a state lawyer or other employee, we should remember that most of these people are in those positions because they enjoy serving the public. They believe that their work is important to the functioning of society. Most put a higher priority on satisfaction with their work than the salary level for their job. Next time you encounter one, thank them for their service.

 

Oregon 5 and 6 lean differently

Oregon’s neighboring 5th and 6th Congressional districts are, politically, a lot more different than they may have seemed last November.

In the days following the November 2022 election, they were in a similar position: Both featured races so close that days would pass before the winner became clear.

The final result showed the 5th District going to Republican Lori Chavez-DeRemer, leading her Democratic opponent by 2.1% of the vote, and the 6th to Democrat Andrea Salinas, who prevailed by 2.4%. DeRemer faced a stronger opponent than Salinas did.

Both will be competitive districts in the 2024 races, and both are expected to feature the incumbents. Opposition from the losing party in 2022 already has surfaced in both cases, and both may be targeted by national parties. Both incumbents have been doing what incumbents in close-margin districts ought to do: Staying close to home, visiting lots of organizations and activities. Their status is similar enough that the two of them, from different parties, have coordinated on many activities and policy ideas – likely to their mutual benefit.

But there are underlying differences. The Cook Index, Inside Elections and Sabato’s Crystal Ball all rate Oregon’s 5th, centered in Clackamas and Deschutes counties, as a “toss up” district. District 6, centered in Marion, Yamhill and southeastern Washington counties, is rated as “lean Democratic” by the first two and “likely Democratic” by Sabato.

The national analysts, whatever the data behind their choices, got their calls right last year.

While both districts lean Democratic, at least somewhat in the case of the 5th, it’s nowhere close to the Democratic-lock in the 1st and 3rd districts or the Republican hold on the 2nd. The Cook Political Report has developed partisan indexes based on voting records and party registration, and calculates that the 5th District has a lean toward Democrats of 2%, while the 6th has a lean of 4% – enough to matter when races get close.

The bigger factor, however, is this: DeRemer is swimming upstream in her district, running as a Republican in a Democratic district. Salinas is swimming with the current as a Democrat in a Democratic district.

The districts are changing. The biggest growth area in the 5th is Bend, which now has a population over 100,000 and has been trending steadily more Democratic as it grows.

Both candidates have some advantage in their roles as the first Latina members of Congress from Oregon. Salinas may have the bigger advantage there; the Hispanic population in the 6th District is about 20% compared with about 10% in the 5th.

At the same time, competition to run against the incumbents is stronger so far in the 5th District. DeRemer DeRemer’s three leading opponents – Jamie McLeod-Skinner, Janelle Bynum and Lynn Peterson – have distinct strengths and weaknesses, but all look to be formidable opponents. All have a regional profile and strong organizational and fundraising networks. Two have strong experience as successful candidates – one of them, Bynum, actually defeated DeRemer in two legislative races a few years ago. The third contender, McLeod-Skinner, nearly defeated DeRemer last year.

Salinas has two Republican opponents so far, Denyc Boles and David Russ.

Russ, who has served for several terms as mayor at Dundee, was a candidate in the Republican primary in the 6th District in the 2022 election, but left little impression: He came in 6th in the primary, pulling just 3.8% of the vote.

The more likely Republican nominee at this point is Boles, who has a more extensive political track record in the area, but not one likely to give Salinas night terrors. She has served in the state House in two separate runs and in the Senate once, but arrived each time in those offices by appointment rather than election. (That would indicate strong connections within Salem-area Republican circles, but not necessarily in the voting public.) She won a general election once for a strongly Republican House district, running at the time as an incumbent, and as an incumbent lost once – in a Senate district that had long been Republican-held. Still, her experience and links to the area’s Republican leaders may be strong enough to hold off other prospective primary entrants.

To be clear, the 6th District is not a runaway Democratic district like Oregon’s 1st or 3rd, which are much more based in the Portland area. The margins here are still close enough that a strong Republican candidate and campaign, or a notably flawed Democratic one, could flip the district.

But the chances of that happening are stronger in the 5th.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.