Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in March 2024

For a few Dollars less

March 31, 2024

Dollar stores have become a big deal in Oregon, a central retail business in dozens of smaller communities.

They also are a major national business model and industry which has grown with lightning speed over the last decade, potentially contributing to the hollowing out of many small-town economies and a dependence on owners from far away. That  may be one of the reasons for a shift in rural areas toward political extremes.

But now they may be facing an economic pivot.

One of the smaller inflection points, which may be indicative of others to come, could show up at a Wallowa County public hearing on March 26.

It comes in the context of what is likely an industry-wide change. Dollar Tree, which operates 16,774 locations, and has the largest share of the ubiquitous dollar stores nationally, said this month in its generally optimistic quarterly financial report that it will close about 1,000 of those stores nationwide within about a year. Those closures are expected to include 970 under the name Family Dollar and 30 Dollar Trees.

The corporation didn’t say where those shutdowns would be, but a significant number of Oregon stores are likely to be among them since Oregon has a lot of dollar stores. There are 70 Dollar Tree and six Family Dollar outlets in Oregon, the company said. A competing company, Dollar General, reports operating even more stores, with 78 in Oregon.

These stores may be barely noticed by residents in larger cities around the state, where their footprint is light, but they have become central to commerce in many smaller communities, especially those economically struggling. Most of the communities where they’re  planted have populations well under 10,000, and in contrast to most public-facing businesses, growth has not been an issue for these stores.

Pilot Rock, with a population of 1,328 and declining in the last census by 11%, now has two of them. The East Oregonian reported it “is the hottest market for dollar stores in Umatilla County.”

Soon after, the long-operating Pilot Rock Market announced it was closing. Its owner explained, “you can’t fight corporate America. They sell things a lot cheaper than I can sell things. So, people go there.”

The Umatilla and Morrow marketing area also has seen intense dollar store development in Boardman, Umatilla, Heppner, Milton-Freewater and Irrigon.

That’s not unusual. Others among the many small communities in Oregon with dollar stores include Creswell, Drain, Winston, Cave Junction, Lakeside, Sutherlin, Hines, Culver and Christmas Valley.

Many of those communities have welcomed them. But, just as national difficulties may be starting to hit the industry, some smaller cities have begun pushing back.

This brings us to Wallowa in Wallowa County, population around 800, where one day last November residents were surprised to see a banner declaring that a new Dollar General store was being slated for construction at 70970 Frontage Road.

In contrast to the welcome from some small towns, a group in Wallowa declared “No Dollar General,” launched a website and a petition drive and offered a string of reasons for their opposition to its launch there. They said local businesses were likely to be damaged by the national chain, that employee wages and opportunities would be limited, that it might label their community as struggling and the food options offered there could impair public health. They also had concerns about the specific location, including effects on traffic safety and a nearby stream.

The group’s website added, “Dollar General’s have become a symbol of a community in crisis. Their presence sends the message to other businesses that a community lacks the wealth to be worthy of investment. The generic design of Dollar General with its bright yellow illuminated signage negatively impacts the aesthetics and character of our community.  The tax revenue generated by Dollar General stores may not be sufficient to cover the costs of services they require, putting pressure on local budgets.”

The group has been fundraising, and its petition against the store – circulated in a small-population area – gathered 750 signatures.

Wallowa County has a tradition of resisting national chain businesses and encouraging its own, as it demonstrated in 2015 when a local group bought, and has since operated, the Wallowa Lake Lodge near Joseph, so a national business wouldn’t.

The Dollar General development effort at Wallowa has nonetheless proceeded apace, so far. The next local government action on the development, by the Wallowa County Planning Commission, is expected on March 26. Local critics of the store have indicated they may not stop with that hearing, possibly to the point of organizing a boycott.

The largest local impact of dollar stores in many communities has been the loss of local businesses and community organizations. It could be that the reaction to the stores may help some local communities find that resource, and voice, once again. Other Oregon communities might find it useful paying attention to developments in Wallowa.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

The goodness of a great man

March 30, 2024

In one way this is a tragic story of a brave and talented fellow who that devil cancer took way too soon. Being diagnosed with glioblastoma, the aggressive brain cancer that claimed, among others, Arizona Senator John McCain, is a death sentence. End of story. Always a tragic outcome.

But in another way this is not really a sad story. Quite the contrary. It’s a story of uplifting decency, a story of living your life to make the world better for others.

Fred Cornforth, the Idaho businessman, philanthropist, education evangelist and absolutely one of the most decent and caring people I’ve ever known, died last week, fighting brain cancer all the way to the end, at the too young age of 64.

His is a story of how to live and make the world a better place for others, a story of how you can choose to live when it’s certain you have little time left to live.

I met Fred Cornforth on a Zoom call at about the time he became chair of the Idaho Democratic Party in March of 2021. He had just taken a job, I reminded him, that was about as glamorous – and perhaps futile – as being a lifeboat superintendent on the Titanic. Salmon aren’t the only endangered species in ultra-right Idaho, Democrats always swim upstream there.

Given more than 40 years in and around the state’s politics, I’ve seen a lot of enthusiastic party leaders come and go – often quickly – and I figured Fred, with a very limited background in party politics, was sure to find the role thankless, tiring and frustrating. But I underestimated Fred Cornforth.

He won the chair role, as former Idaho Congressman Larry LaRocco told me, the old fashioned way, by “getting on the phone and getting in the car.” Fred, a guy who reveled in the data and research of life and politics, “figured out who would be voting, and he called them because no one ever does that.” And he listened and listened, and LaRocco became a fast friend and huge admirer.

His cancer diagnosis forced Fred to step down prematurely from his political role in 2022, but he made a difference in a short time, professionalizing the state party, ramping up fundraising and pushing back against the utter nonsense that comes to the surface in a one-party state.

If that was all there was to Fred’s story, it would be enough. At a fraught time for American democracy, a very successful businessman thought enough of the importance of politics and preserving democracy to get involved in order to try and make a difference.

But that was only part, and a relatively small part, of Fred Cornforth’s goodness.

Fred made a tidy fortune doing good – he developed affordable housing and community renewal projects in at least a dozen states – and then proceeded to give that fortune away to do even more good.

As a kid Fred lived at the ragged edge of poverty. He didn’t always have enough to eat when he attended college at Idaho State University, so he funded a food bank there, and also at Boise State and the University of Idaho. When he sat in a dentist chair years ago to get 16 cavities taken care of the dentist took pity and did the work for free. So, with that generous memory firmly planted, Fred funded dental clinics.

While in high school in Belgrade, Montana, Fred had a chance to attend a Model United Nation’s program. He said it changed his life, so he gave the Frank Church Institute at Boise State University $750,000 to underwrite the Institute’s Model UN program. The 300 kids who attended this year’s program in Boise had their own life changing experiences thanks to Fred.

“He was just the brightest light, the biggest star in the sky,” Jodi Peterson Stigers, the executive director of Boise’s Interfaith Sanctuary Homeless Shelter told me. Jodi met Fred at a political fundraiser, and shortly thereafter he became a $500,000 donor to her efforts to build a new shelter for folks caught in awful circumstances due to a lack of housing.

“He was so fascinated in what we were doing. Wanted to know everything about Interfaith Sanctuary, how it worked, who we served, everything,” Peterson Stigers told me. Like most everyone Fred touched, Jodi and her husband the jazz musician Curtis Stigers, became fast friends with Fred and his wife Jill.

But there is more, and with Fred there was always more. Fred funded 45 orphanages in countries around the world. Read that sentence again – 45 orphanages.

Fred played football at Belgrade High School, in fact was the quarterback on the state championship teams of 1977-78. The school needed a new scoreboard for its football field last year, so Fred funded the classiest video scoreboard in Montana in honor of his high school coach, Bill Green.

“The things I learned in football,” Cornforth told the Belgrade News. “It’s a great reminder in life, when you call a huddle, what you talk about and listen to. You can’t always be the quarterback; you have to listen. I learned how to listen in huddles. It helped me to do what I do now,” which was to build a billion dollar company that does good.

Some years ago Fred had a family vacation home on the north coast of Oregon where I now live. He understood the community, a haven for vacationing families but also a place where hourly wage jobs barely sustain a family and where decent affordable housing is nearly impossible to find. When I told Fred that the health district I chair was trying to pull off a huge local project – a new health center, a renovated skilled nursing facility and workforce housing for health care workers – he was instantly interested. I didn’t ask him for it, but he came out of the blue and pledged $250,000 to the cause, with no restrictions as to how the money might be used. “Use it where it will do the most good,” he told me.

That incredible gesture was so like Fred, a humble, big hearted man, always looking for a way to help.

At one point in his remarkably accomplished life, Fred was an Adventist minister, a man of God doing genuine Christian work on earth. At a time when many self-proclaimed devout Christians seem more interested in partisan culture wars than in feeding the hungry and comforting the afflicted, Fred lived the true meaning of his faith.

Larry LaRocco believes Fred was drawn to political involvement not for power or fame or the ego rush, but because in our messy, disordered, often dysfunctional country politics can still be a path to meaningful change that helps people have a better life. Fred was, LaRocco said, “All about public service. I think he was trying to take his religious, ethical, moral background and apply it to politics.”

As the Psalmist says, “Good will come to those who are generous and lend freely, who conduct their affairs with justice.”

What a life Fred Cornforth lived. So many, many lives touched and changed. Perhaps the true lesson of such a life is to just live like there is no tomorrow, and when your time is up make sure you leave the world a better place. That is certainly what Fred did.

It was humbling to know this incredible man. And his memory will be a blessing.

 

The intramurals

March 29, 2024

In my last column I wrote about the larger than usual number of Democrats running this year for the legislature, which jumped out at me as the most notable aspect of the just-finished candidate filings, but I don’t want to leave Republicans out of the picture. They have lots of candidates too, heading into this year’s primary election.

Their situation is a little different from the Democrats, though. Idaho Republicans normally have filed candidates for not necessarily all but close to all of the partisan seats up for election, passing up few legislative seats even in strongly Democratic areas (meaning, mostly, Boise) and they’re doing that again this year. That sheer comprehensiveness has been one of the elements of their overall success.

What feels a little different this time, at least on the legislative level, is the depth of primary contests involving incumbent legislators.

As a comparison to recent elections, that’s a judgment call rather than a slam dunk because 2022 also saw plenty of primary action among Republican legislative candidates, and notably with incumbents targeted by challengers who frequently ran serious campaigns. By my count, putting aside contests developed where redistricting pitted incumbents against each other, I saw at least four incumbent Republican senators and seven Republican House members lose to challengers four years ago. And those were a small minority of the contests overall involving incumbents. Plenty of other challengers fell short but still scored respectable votes.

In 2022, both Senator Chuck Winder and Representative Mike Moyle, today the leaders of their respective chambers, won their primaries by margins that were slender, in the range of surprising, for such well-established and veteran incumbents. And the many serious contests emerged from all different directions.

While some of these primary contests involved extreme candidates ousting mainstream incumbents (losses for Senators Jim Woodward and Fred Martin, for example) the reverse happened too (Representatives Ron Nate and Chad Christensen, for example). The stories behind these races were widely varied.

And this year?

We appear to be seeing something like more of the same, only maybe a little more of it.

A whole lot of the survivors in 2022 are facing challenges again, sometimes from the same candidates. The District 1 race between Woodward and Scott Herndon, so heated last time, is getting a repeat, as now-challenger Woodward tries to oust now-incumbent Herndon. That could be among the most watchable races in Idaho this year.

Local Republican central committees have started making a practice of censuring legislators whose floor votes they have disagreed with, and most of those legislators have drawn challengers. Representative Lori McCann at Lewiston has two challengers (which from an incumbent’s standpoint usually is better than one). In Idaho Falls, Representative Stephanie Mickelson has two challengers as well; state Senator Kevin Cook has just one.

The other legislator in the Cook-Mickelson district, Wendy Horman, is co-chair of the budget-setting Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee, which presumably made her an almost automatic target for someone. In fact two someones are opposing her in the primary, and one of them, Bryan Smith, is a former congressional candidate and well-known and well-connected figure in the region. That will be another of the hottest races in Idaho this season.

The other JFAC co-chair, Senator C. Scott Grow, has a primary challenger too.

And so, once again, do both Winder and Moyle.

This is happening all over the state, not in just one region. There’s not any single trend line in all this, other than that distinct pieces of the Idaho Republican Party have continued to grow and do battle with each other, and neither has obtained a conclusive dominance over the other. If you look at legislative races (and you can extend the point to major offices as well), both sides have scored significant wins.

Which tends to suggest another split decision in May.

 

Mature

March 28, 2024

When I’m feeling old, I try to consider that I am mature. That means I have aged, not become decrepit. Maybe wisdom comes with maturity. Perspective is everything.

Idaho needs some maturity. We have aged as a state, and recently we have grown. We have not matured.

I first began considering this as I watched the legislative oversight committee on Child Protection. You can see their hearing online. It’s worth watching.

The committee, and their citizen partners were very frustrated with how care is being provided for our foster children. One Senator even asked for heads to roll.

They may. But is that a mature response? Sometimes it is the right one. But I like to consider systems.

I have asked for the funding and enrollment history for foster care from the Department of Health and Welfare. Even though I am a Board member, I have not received it. I will continue to study this. But I need some more information to really understand the problem. I hope I get it. If not, I can see why heads should roll. That’s the reaction I feel when frustrated.

Then I got informed of another very interesting study with lots of good information. The Idaho legislature directed their stellar Office of Performance Evaluations to look into Idaho death investigations and coroners.

This is close to my heart.

I was a county coroner for 15 years. I saw the poor performance we were doing investigating deaths in Idaho, me included.

But we are the wild west out here, aren’t we? I didn’t wear a Stetson or ride up on my bay mare at a death scene, but I often felt like it.

Frontier justice might satisfy frontier times, but it doesn’t serve a mature state. It’s time we decide if we have passed puberty.

The report, and many other good reports from OPE are available online. You have broadband, don’t you?

The short story about death investigations here in Idaho is that we are dismal. We do the least autopsies of child deaths of any state. This state that claims to revere the life of the child (maybe only the unborn?) doesn’t seem to want to know why the child has died.

We were the last state in the union to establish a Child Fatality Review panel. It was only put in force by Governor Otter’s executive order. And since it was an executive order, the panel cannot subpoena records. They can politely ask county coroners for their reports, but refusal is allowed.

Did the county coroner do their job? Do you, the electorate even care? If a child dies, shouldn’t the cause of death be a concern for the state?

It sure is if it’s in an Idaho woman’s womb.

Idaho has not grown into the maturity of seeing the whole system.

Children dying is worth protection.

Our state has the most restrictive abortion laws in the nation. Our legislators are very proud of this.

They should be ashamed that they do not care to protect the lives of children out of the womb.

As I said, I was a county coroner. Children in my county were killed. Children in my county died. It was a tragedy. I did my best to investigate. But I was on my own.

Investigating is the first step to understanding.

The Idaho legislature seems to be very preoccupied with protecting children from books in libraries. But they seem to have no concern for children who die.

Unless they are inside a woman’s uterus.

A mature response to this would not be a flurry of laws or resolutions. We see enough of this from our immature legislators.

Instead, we need to understand the systems and change them. That would be a mature response.

 

Government stays open, for now

Government stays open, for now

March 27, 2024

At long last, Congress has quit kicking the can down the road in regard to keeping the government open. And that’s good news for the federal employees drawing government paychecks.

But don’t get too excited about this reprieve. Congress will be back to kicking cans down the road sometime in late September, and as usual, the members won’t do anything before then.

The bad news is political in nature. House Speaker Mike Johnson is back in the hotseat for relying on Democrats to keep government running. And Republicans, including the three voting members of Idaho’s congressional delegation, see the spending package as a bad deal. So bad that a government shutdown would be preferable. The exception is Congressman Mike Simpson, a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, who did not vote on the spending bill for medical reasons.

As his office explains: “Congressman Simpson missed votes this week due to a previously scheduled medical procedure. Mr. Simpson is in good health and will return to the nation’s capital shortly. He is pleased to see the second round of Fiscal Year 2024 appropriations bills pass the House – legislation he would have supported on the House floor.”

Idaho’s lone House vote – First District Congressman Russ Fulcher – outlined his objections, starting with the timing. His first view of the 1,012-page spending package came just 32 hours before he voted. And what he read wasn’t pretty in his eyes.

“The total is $1.2 trillion, but the American border remains open,” Fulcher said. “In this bill, taxpayers dollars are appropriated to expand FBI facilities, support transgender treatments with the (Department of Defense), and fund facilities that provide late-term abortions. There’s even some money for the World Health Organization … but there’s nothing in the bill to curb inflation. We are $34 trillion in debt. We need to cut spending and encourage economic growth. This bill does the opposite.”

Fulcher was not alone with his opposition. Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch also voted against the spending bill, joining most of their Senate Republican colleagues and most House Republicans.

Says Risch: “From excessive spending to political handouts, procedural failures to irresponsible oversight, this spending bill fell grossly short of what Idahoans need. It ignores America’s fiscal mess; prolongs the Biden administration’s border catastrophe, overreaching Environmental Social Governance (ESG) and Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives; and fails to provide any relief to Idahoans who pay more every day for President Biden’s inflationary agenda.”

Crapo has made no secrets about his objections to the spending package. “Over five months into this fiscal year, Congress has once again chosen to move 12 annual spending measures in two lump sum all-or-nothing packages.  Lumping multiple appropriations bills together without consideration of the merits of each individually and rushing through the process without the opportunity for a robust amendment process is irresponsible.”

As for the future of Johnson, who has held the job for only five months, stay tuned. Working with Democrats in any fashion is a sin to some Republicans, especially in an election year. There’s speculation that Democrats could save Johnson’s job if he brings up a floor vote on aid to Ukraine – something else that puts GOP hair on fire.

Fulcher told me that he will not be part of the effort to oust Johnson. As Fulcher sees it, few on the GOP side seem to have the stomach to go through another painful selection process for another speaker. Secondly, Johnson generally is better liked than the speaker who was booted out, Kevin McCarthy.

“We disagreed (on the spending bill), and we talked about it. We just saw it differently,” Fulcher said. “Just because we come to different conclusions doesn’t mean he should be booted out. Mike is a good man – a genially nice human being.”

And for Democrats, they are not going to get a better deal with someone else as speaker. “The spending bill had more support from Democrats than Republicans, so they should be relatively happy with Mike Johnson. They certainly don’t want to see Jim Jordan as speaker.”

Fulcher probably has the correct perspective, but the rumblings and political drama will continue.

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

(image/Congressional Budget Office)

Speaker woes

Speaker woes

March 26, 2024

Something seems to be brewing in the U.S. House.  Republican side.

Within the last week, two prominent members - both regarded as responsible Conservatives - have walked off the job.  Ken Buck of Colorado and Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin.  Told Speaker Johnson on X (formerly Twitter) they were closing up shop and going home.  Right now.  This week.  Boom!  Just like that.

Publically, Gallagher didn't say much.  As for Buck, his most revealing comment was "The atmosphere around here has changed."

All of which gives new headaches to the Speaker.  With those two heading home, Johnson's majority in the House is 217-213.

That means if ALL Democrats vote in unison, Republicans could prevail with just two votes.  TWO votes.

Johnson has nowhere near the experience, the political "heft" or the deal-making, arm-twisting proclivities of many of his predecessors.  Think about Tip O'Neill or Sam Rayburn or Nancy Pelosi.  Not even close.

Now, it's only about eight months 'till our next national election.  Just eight months.  But, that can be nearly "forever" for the GOP with a majority of just TWO votes.

If any GOP member of the House - just one - was ever in a position to "wheel-and-deal" the Speaker for some largess for his/her district, "Katy, bar the door."  Johnson's inbox will have to be enlarged.

But, bottom line, there is no reason for Dems to apply political pressure at this time.  Lord knows, there's so much division in our politics these days that virtually nothing is being done legislatively.  We don't need more upheaval!

But, that didn't stop Marjorie Taylor Greene from lobbing in a hand grenade of her own on Friday when she filed an official motion to call for a vote to vacate the Speaker's chair.  BOOM!   She called it "a warning."

Truth is, no one in the "cheap seats" should be cheering.  There's enough fracturing in our politics without adding more.  That's why "good heads" like Buck and Gallagher are throwing in their towels and heading home.  They'll be missed.

Aside from passing the President's infrastructure act, there's been precious little in the way of meaningful - and nationally productive - legislation sent to the White House this Session.  Not one bill sponsored by Republicans.

But, while I could never be classified - in any way - as an "optimist" when it comes to our country's political wars, there may be just a hint - just a whiff - of hope for the Congressional future.

If right-minded people like Buck and Gallagher go back where they came from - and if they'll spend those eight months carrying the message that it's up to voters to change things for the better - we might get something done.

There's a hard rock nest of 40 or so in the House far-right caucus.  That means some 125 or so aren't part of the unruly mob.  If those "125 or so" can put aside petty grievances and lock arms, it might send a message home to the voters that change is not only possible but necessary to get back in positive territory.

In this instance of far right stupidity in the Halls of Congress, there could be - could be, I say - some positive reactions from the folks at home.  If enough can put aside their usual political preferences in favor of good candidates from either Party, things might get better and Congress might return to functionality sooner rather than later.

The system in Washington isn't there to be to be run by either major Party.  Its functions are best served by two healthy Parties with the nation's best interests at heart.  Pulling, turning, twisting.  But, open to compromise - always looking for what's best for the country in - any situation.

We need that.  Oh, Lord, how we need that.

(image/public domain)

 

Dereliction

March 25, 2024

Believe me, I did not want to write again about Raul Labrador’s failings, but this time his dereliction of duty is too glaring to ignore. The Attorney General is deliberately violating his clear statutory duty to provide written legal advice to legislators on proposed legislation. Idaho law requires the Attorney General to give a written opinion to “any senator or representative…when requested, upon any question of law relating to their respective offices.” Labrador flat refuses to follow that law, even though he swore under oath that he would “faithfully discharge the duties” of the AG’s office.

Labrador’s  spokesman recently stated that the AG’s office has a “policy of not issuing written opinions to legislators” on proposed legislation that is likely to result in constitutional litigation. That is exactly the kind of legislation where a written opinion is indispensable. Why refuse to give an opinion that could discourage an unconstitutional bill and avert costly litigation? The answer is rather obvious–political self-preservation.

Lawrence Wasden was famous for giving honest, straight-forward legal opinions on legislation, even when he personally disagreed with the conclusion. He said it was his duty under the law to correctly call the balls and strikes, regardless of his personal beliefs. That is what you do if you believe in the rule of law. We hope that our private attorneys will not lead us astray by refusing to answer our questions on the legality of our actions. That would violate the legal profession’s ethical rules and could result in legal disaster for the client, particularly in the governmental arena.

Labrador used Wasden’s honesty against him in the 2022 election. He pointed to opinions on hot-button bills where Wasden had reluctantly concluded that legislation was likely unconstitutional, wrongfully claiming Wadsen was expressing his personal views against the legislation. That included LGBTQ discrimination bills, legislation to stifle free speech, some abortion bills and legislation to allow below-market rental for state lands. Since most of the present unconstitutional legislation comes from Labrador’s extremist friends, he certainly does not want to tell them their bills violate the U.S. or Idaho Constitutions, even when they clearly do. Nor does he want to put anything down in writing that could come back to bite him politically.

During a recent hearing on his funding request for two additional lawyers, legislators of both parties were not buying Labrador’s excuses for refusing to carry out his sworn duty to issue written opinions. One legislator suggested that there would be no need for additional lawyers if he complied with his opinion-writing duties. That is, he could avert costly, time-consuming litigation by providing written opinions on bills of questionable constitutionality. Labrador huffed, “the argument that my office would need fewer attorneys if we issued more opinions is absurd.” His contention is patently absurd. A short legal opinion can often prevent passage of a bill that the state would have to squander significant time and resources in defending.

Labrador has claimed that he can simply talk legislators out of pursuing unconstitutional bills. He told IPTV host Melissa Davlin last December that “sometimes you have to say no, that the law does not allow you to do that.” That strategy has not kept legislators from tossing numerous unconstitutional bills into the hopper this year. Those bills would likely have been put on the books and successfully challenged in court, had attorneys outside of government not stepped forward to point out clear constitutional flaws.

Former Secretary of State Ben Ysursa and I pointed out that House Bill 652, which would allow unchecked removal of signatures from initiative petitions, was clearly violative of the Idaho Constitution. Labrador failed to tell legislators that two bills which infringed on the Governor’s right to fill judicial vacancies–House Bill 713 and Senate Bill 1347–had obvious constitutional flaws. Nor did Labrador warn legislators of the glaring constitutional problem in House Bill 521, which ties income tax cuts, school facility financing and several other subjects together in a single constitutionally-infirm bill.

There are many other bills with constitutional problems that could come back to haunt the state, including the numerous book-ban proposals and transgender bills. They could have been stopped or toned down by written, well-researched AG opinions. All Labrador has to do is to follow the law and do his duty. Otherwise, as in the military service, he ought to be brought to account for his dereliction of duty.

 

Balancing power in Oregon’s House

Balancing power in Oregon’s House

March 24, 2024

Two years ago, the Democratic majority in the 60-member Oregon House slipped from 37 seats to 35. But could Republicans win a majority this year?

Probably not, though it’s not out of the question: Democrats have more vulnerable state House seats this time than Republicans do.

But Republicans have some statistical vulnerabilities of their own.

All 60 House seats are up for election this year, compared to about half of the Senate. That gives both parties an opportunity to make a significant shift all at once.

Realistically, the chances of that happening are limited. A big reason is that about two-thirds of the members of the House were elected last time by landslides, with a lead of at least 20% of the vote over their nearest competitor, if any. In our polarized world, most Oregon legislative districts are simply out of reach for candidates from the other party.

That includes 21 districts now represented by Democrats, and 18 held by Republicans. The party strength in those areas mostly aligns with party registration. Only four House legislators – all Republicans – represent districts where the other party holds a registration edge.

About two-thirds of Oregon’s House members were elected in races with more than a 20-point margin, normally a marker of not just a personally strong incumbent – which is not always the case – but also of a district where one of the major parties is dominant and nearly invulnerable. And some additional districts, like that of House Majority Leader Julie Fahey in Eugene and retiring Republican Rep. Brian Stout of Columbia City, fall just short of that 20-point mark and would be just about as tough to flip.

But 13 House races were decided last election by fewer than 10 points, and in that range, seats can be relatively competitive. Attention is likely to be focused this year on many of those districts. Incumbents have filed for reelection for nearly all of those seats.

Many are in compact geographic areas east and south of Portland – into Clackamas and Hood River counties – and in and around Salem. Others are in regions that have become politically marginal, such as around Springfield, the Hillsboro-Forest Grove area and the north coast from Astoria through Tillamook. It’s not coincidental that in an area of what looks like the hottest U.S. House race in the state this year, District 5, overlaps a number of these districts.

The good news for Republicans is that nine of those districts are represented by Democrats who won tight races. If Republicans flipped as many as six of those, without losing any of their own, they could control the House.

On March 12, the Evergreen PAC, which supports Republican candidates, released a statement highlighting Republican House candidates “in some of Oregon’s most competitive districts,” with a list that included Districts 7, 19, 26, 39, 40, 48, 49, 50 and 53 that saw many of the closest House races in 2022.

The two closest House races of 2022 both were won by Democrats: Annessa Hartman (District 40, Oregon City), who won by half a percentage point, and Emerson Levy (District 53, Bend), who won by 1.3%. Their districts could be highly competitive again this year. But they do have some advantages, starting with a Democratic edge in voter registration in their districts, and the fact that since this year is a presidential election year, turnout is likely to be higher. That usually provides a small advantage to whatever party has the registration advantage.

The other Democrats with winning margins in the last election within 10%, starting with the closest election, were: Hoa Nguyen (District 48, Portland), Ricki Ruiz (District 50, Gresham), John Lively (District 7, Springfield), Zach Hudson (District 49, Troutdale), Courtney Neron (District 26, Wilsonville), Susan McLain (District 29, Hillsboro) and Tom Andersen (District 19, Salem).

That’s a significant collection of realistic targets for Republican candidates who would like to collect the five seats needed for a tie or six to take control of the House. It’s a tall order, though, because all of those districts have Democratic advantages in voter registration.

Republicans, in contrast, have just four seats that were won by 10% or less: Cyrus Javadi (District 32, Astoria), Tracy Cramer (District 22, Woodburn), Jeffrey Helfrich (District 52, Hood River) and Kevin Mannix (District 21, Keizer).

All four of these incumbents are in fragile positions, partly because Democrats hold registration advantages over Republicans in each. Javadi won by 2.5% over a Democrat, but he faces the headwind of a 9.3% Democratic registration edge. Cramer has a more extreme case: a 3.2% win last election, and a 15.1% Democratic advantage. Those four Republicans likely will be top Democratic targets this year.

Of course, the strength of the campaigns of these candidates, and their opponents, has yet to develop. In close contests, that could be decisive and it could decide what the Oregon House will look like next term.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

(image/Oregon Legislature)

 

Review: How Migration Really Works

Review: How Migration Really Works

March 23, 2024

The many pits and pieces floating through the mediascape - and the political world - about immigration carry a feeling of uncertainty: What do the pieces really add up to? We're regularly harangued about this crisis or that, but what's the larger perspective?

So often, after all, we need to know how something works, or at least is intended to work, to understand whether we'd got a real problem here, or something solvable, or instead just an uncomfortable part of the real world we have to live with.

The recent book How Migration Really Works, written by the academic Hein De Haas - who has devoted his career to studying the realities of migration, both historically and currently - addresses exactly this. It is not an ideological polemic: His views are not designed to give partricular comfort to any place on the political spectrum.

They also make a surprising amount of real world sense.

Here's a list of propositions drawn from some the chapter titles, some of which will appeal to the left and others to the right:

  • "Migration is at an all-time high"
  • "The world is facing a refugee crisis"
  • "Development in poor countries will reduce migration"
  • "Immigrants steal jobs and drive down wages"
  • "Immigration lifts all boats"
  • "Immigrant integration has failed"
  • "Immigration sends crime rates soaring"

Here's what I left out: Every one of those chapter titles also describes each of these ideas as a myth, and De Haas does an effective job of demolishing all of them. Or nearly all; I had minor quibbles in some places. But his case appears overall to be solid.

What causes immigration, specifically immigration from a distance to places like the United States? (Did you know that not only our country and western Europe but also much of the Middle East and southeast Asia are immigrant magnets as well?) The are driven to travel not primarily, he argues, because of conditions on the ground in the countries of origin, and usually not extreme poverty or emergency. Traveling at a distance usually takes planning and financial resources; emigration from origin countries actually is low where economic and other conditions are especially weak, rise mainly in the case of moderate prosperity, and then slacken when higher-level prosperity is achieved. Rather than being effectively expelled from their home lands, most are attracted by economic prospects  in the destination countries. One reason the level of immigration is high now in the United States is that our economy is so strong; immigration was far lower after the big crash of 2008.

De Haas posits too that strong border security actually leads to more immigration and causes many more people who do enter the country, legally or not, to stay rather than have to go through the tougher border situation; a more fluid border leads to more of a revolving-door effect.

There's much more, all backed by extensive studies - in many places, world wide - and well worth reviewing. If you'd open to thinking about migration in a serious way, as opposed simply enjoying the emotional trigger, How Migration Really Works would be more than worth your time.

(image/public domain)