Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in July 2026

Lessons from the west

Lessons from the west

July 31, 2026

Anyone wondering what to make of the shakeup in Idaho’s race for the U.S. Senate might be well advised to look across the state line at the election returns arriving there on Tuesday night (and beyond).

That is the night of the Washington state primary election, and the results from congressional district 5 - which borders all of northern Idaho on the west - will be well worth absorbing for people in the Gem State as well.

The Idaho Senate election shakeup, of course, was the shut down of Democrat David Roth’s candidacy, a couple of months after winning that party’s nomination. The result is an almost head to head contest (there are still a couple of little-known candidates likely to get no more than a sliver of the vote) between incumbent Republican Jim Risch and independent Todd Achilles.

The question of whether Roth should drop out to effectively clear the field has roiled non-Republican Idaho politics ever since the primary. Certainly it seems likely that whatever chance Achilles has for November - and assessments on that do vary, though he does seem to be a stronger contender than most non-Republicans - he surely will do better without a Democrat splitting the anti-Risch totals.

Polling on this has been inconclusive. Is there any way to get a sense of how this revised Senate race may play out in November?

Yes: Pay attention to the Washington 5th.

While western Washington is, as a whole, strongly Democratic, and its votes usually dominate statewide contests, the two eastern congressional districts are Republican. (The state’s other eight districts all are held by Democrats.) The 5th district, which stretches west from Idaho nearly to the Tri-Cities and from Oregon to Canada, was for three decades the base for Democrat Tom Foley (who served as speaker of the House). But since his defeat in 1994 it has been solidly Republican. Despite occasional strong Democratic candidates, such as Lisa Brown - then a veteran and leading state legislator and now mayor of Spokane - Republican congressional candidates there have maintained a steady state of winning votes of around 60%, give or take a couple of points, cycle after cycle.

That would seem to give the Republican incumbent, Michael Baumgartner, a certain don’t-worry-about-it level of comfort. But this year he’s doing something really concerned candidates do: Trying to influence who his opponent will be by spending (substantial) advertising money to prop up one of them.

A big field of 11 have filed against him, but two look to be the serious contenders: Democrat Carmela Conroy and independent Nate Powell. Conroy ran against Baumgartner two years ago and got 39.3%; she maintains she would be stronger in a second run and that the incumbent, who is a very loyal Donald Trump supporter, will be weighed down by the White House. Powell, a Spokane firefighter, Marine veteran and first-time candidate, has a different take: Go after not only Trump but the political system.

The parallels are not exact but should be somewhat familiar to watchers of the Idaho Senate race. With this big difference:

Washington’s primary election system is a top two (the method Idaho voters rejected a couple of years ago), which means all the candidates run together in the election set for August 4, and the two leading vote-getters - whoever they are, of whatever party - go on to the November ballot. Baumgartner will almost certainly be one of them, but who will be the other? The real immediate contest appears to be between Conroy and Powell.

One more point is worth mentioning. A long-standing rule of thumb in Washington politics is that primary election results offer good indicators of how the general election vote will shape up.

Remember that money Baumgartner is spending to influence the opposition race? It’s being used to “attack” Conroy - in terms that make her look good to local Democrats. He is, in other words, trying to boost her over independent Powell. He appears to see Powell as the larger threat.

Which brings us to the Tuesday election. Take a look over the border and observe how strong a primary vote Baumgartner gets (if it's much over 50% he may be in good shape), and the relative votes for Powell and Conroy. Taken together, these numbers may be useful markers in evaluating Idaho’s Senate race.

 

Too many candidates

July 27, 2026

The mood of Idaho voters is changing. Regular folks are starting to realize that culture war politicians have no concern about the lives of ordinary people. It is easy to scare up votes with fake fear and outrage. It is a completely different matter for dedicated public servants to dig in and figure out how to help average folks deal with unaffordable housing and healthcare or just put enough food on the table to keep their families healthy.

Voters in the Gem State have seen the danger of placing their fate in the hands of extremists who are more interested in perpetuating their grip on power than solving problems. Culture war legislation does not address any of the real problems facing Idahoans. The outcome of the May primary election demonstrated that Idaho voters have had their fill of those who won’t get serious about making life better for the people. The overall results favored reasonable candidates. The November election promises to be even more challenging for extremists.

The ground is fertile for the top Republican officials on the November ballot to be defeated. The Governor and members of Idaho’s Congressional delegation are in drastic need of replacement. The Governor has essentially given in to the culture war crowd, failing to advocate against their mind-numbing legislation or utilize his veto stamp to kill it. Our entire Congressional delegation is too frightened of the president to perform their constitutional duty to act as a check on harmful executive decisions.

There are good candidates for these offices. But there are too many candidates, both Independents and Democrats, to get the job done. It is time for the candidates running for those offices to wake up and smell the coffee. Those who have little chance of prevailing in a race should stand back so the strongest candidate can have the stage. Political party should not matter, because the platforms of most of the challengers are largely the same. It is a matter of who has the best chance of winning.

Take the Governor’s race. Either John Stegner or Terri Pickens would be a refreshing change from Governor Little. The fact is, though, that if both are on the November ballot, Little will win. I’m not suggesting who should bow out, but it should be the one with the least voter support by the end of August. This year, a candidate must withdraw by September 4. If not, they will appear on the ballot, handing victory to Brad Little.

Todd Achilles, an Independent, has an excellent chance of beating Senator Jim Risch. Greg Casey, a highly influential Republican, tells why in his must-read Lewiston Tribune opinion piece–”As an Idahoan, I cannot be a ‘go along’ Republican anymore.”

David Roth, the Democratic candidate, seems to be a fine fellow. But he lost a 2022 campaign against Senator Crapo by a wide margin (61%-29%). He lost a 2024 campaign against Congressman Simpson, by a margin of 61%-31%. Natalie Fleming is running as an Independent. She is a good person but has less of a chance of prevailing than Roth.

The question is whether Roth and Fleming will step aside and let Achilles, the candidate best positioned to replace Risch, have a clear field. By hanging in there, with no chance of winning, they risk being regarded as spoilers who enabled Risch to have another term to continue his dereliction of duty. Two things are certain–Risch will be forever thankful if they stay in the race, while most Idahoans will be grateful if they withdraw.

There are several candidates running against Congressman Simpson. Ellie Gilbreath, the Democratic candidate, seems the best positioned to succeed, although it will be extremely tough for any of them. There are two Independents, Emre Houser and Tripp Hutchinson, both of whom appear to be short on finances and political knowhow. It would be great if the three could decide who has the best chance of winning and clear the field.

Much the same situation exists in the First Congressional District. The Democratic candidate, Kaylee Peterson, is a remarkable young woman. She has run two unsuccessful challenges against Congressman Fulcher, who is in desperate need of replacement. The situation is further complicated by an Independent, Sarah Zabel, a retired Air Force Major General. She is also a remarkable candidate. I hope they can make a pragmatic decision on who has the best chance of retiring Fulcher.

These challengers have gut-wrenching decisions to make. In my estimation, personal pride and party affiliation should not play a part. With the future of Idaho at stake, the candidates with the least chance of bringing positive change should withdraw and allow the strongest to have the field to themselves.

 

What are the Blazers worth?

What are the Blazers worth?

July 26, 2026

If Portland offered the Trail Blazers a blank check to stay, how much would be enough?

Next month, when a major deal-cutting deadline hits, the Portland City Council will be faced with that and other hard questions about the future of the Moda Center and its major tenant and financial core, the Trail Blazers. The city is in a tough spot because their negotiating partner has more leverage than they do. Portland may not be prepared for what comes next.

The Blazers, founded in 1970 by Harry Glickman, passed to other owners including Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen. After Allen died, his estate in August 2025 sold the team to Dallas businessman Thomas Dundon. The National Basketball Association Board of Governors approved that sale in March.

When Dundon bought the team, he was not constrained by any requirement that it stay in Portland; major league team purchases occasionally prompt moves to other places. Eager to keep the Blazers, Oregon officials quickly said when the Blazers went up for sale they would work with the new owner.

The Rose Garden — uh, Moda Center — opened in October 1995 with an audience capacity of around 20,000, depending on the type of event. It has been home to an endless list of sporting, musical and other entertainment activities, and even memorable political events, such as one of the biggest rallies held by then-presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and a speech by then-President Bill Clinton.

But from the beginning and as planned, the major tenant and financial cornerstone has been the Blazers. Even so the center has had financial stress over the years. The Oregon Arena Corporation, its one-time operator, filed for bankruptcy in 2004. There  have been ownership transitions (and conflicts with the Blazers) since. The last sale was in August 2024 when the Portland City Council agreed to buy it for $7.1 million. (Wonder if anyone at City Hall has second thoughts about that now …)

If that sounds like a fire sale price (construction cost was more than a half-billion of today’s dollars), there were reasons, one being the need for upgrades and renovation. The Moda is said to be the NBA facility which has gone longest without a major renovation.

But how much should be spent, and by who?

The stakes are state-level as well as local. In April, Gov. Tina Kotek signed Senate Bill 1501 setting up a “pathway” toward joint Portland city-Oregon state ownership of the center, along with other provisions.

A group of Portland-area businesses and organizers called We Are Rip City unveiled its website on July 16, saying, “The State of Oregon is offering $365 million to help modernize the Moda Center. Portland and Multnomah County can pay for the rest with existing funds – no new taxes, no tax increases.” It said that $670 million in economic impact — much of that directly tied to the Blazers — is at risk.

The day before, mayors from 24 Portland-area cities sent a letter to Portland City Hall pleading with the city to make a deal.

Portland officials do not seem resistant to that. About the same time as all that pro-deal flurry, the Portland City Council released a term sheet describing elements of what a deal with Blazer owner Dundon might look like (as an opening bid). The city called it “reasonable, fair, and focused on keeping the Trail Blazers in Portland, ensuring the long?term viability of the city?owned arena, and delivering meaningful community benefits.”

The Blazers camp has used other language. A string of news reports on their perspective includes phrases like “non-starter” and “very far apart.” So far, there’s nothing resembling a note of optimism.

Of course, negotiations often look difficult on the front end.

But Blazers owner Dundon has little incentive to compromise, or maybe even to work with Portland at all.

He lives in Dallas, and his interests mostly focus on the southeast quadrant of the country. (His other major sports team is the Carolina Hurricanes in the National Hockey League.) He has a record of negotiating tough, and has famously gotten the nickname “el cheapo” for cost cutting that has yielded some grumbling within the Blazer environment.

He may not feel inclined to do favors for Oregon. The news site ProPublica reported in October 2025 that “Dundon created a company Oregon accused in 2020 of preying on residents through high-interest car loans they couldn’t afford. The state’s then-attorney general said that the business practices of Santander Consumer USA were ‘predatory and harmful and will not be tolerated in Oregon’ as she announced Oregon’s piece of a $550 million multistate lawsuit settlement with the company. In addition, Oregon is part of an ongoing multistate investigation into another national subprime lender for which Dundon has served in a leadership role, Exeter Finance.”

The city of Portland, simply, holds precious few high cards. There’s no significant barrier to Dundon doing what he chooses.

For Portland, it may have to come to a serious decision, in the next couple of weeks, of just how much it is willing to pay to keep the Blazers. And there’s no guarantee any rational amount will be enough.

This column first appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

The future of Idaho birth care?

The future of Idaho birth care?

July 24, 2026

You may recall the decision in March 2023 by Bonner General Hospital in Sandpoint to close its obstetric services, for reasons evidently related to the arrival of Idaho’s new abortion laws. This was not an aberration, as Idaho overall has lost about a third of its practicing obstetricians since 2022.

Here’s a followup to the situation in Sandpoint, suggesting what other communities may see.

Sandpoint today has the 7B Care Clinic (operated by Life Choices Pregnancy Center Inc.), a non-profit “free women's health clinic in Sandpoint, ID, providing pregnancy and sexual health services, resources, referrals, and education to women and families. We believe each individual has the right to get information from a resource that will not profit from their reproductive health choices.”

That’s the most prominent message you get on the clinic website, but there are other relevant facts too.

One is that the Clinic (and Center), as its executive director recently wrote, “has always operated as a Christian, faith-based ministry. Our mission, public communications, governing documents, website, and organizational practices clearly reflect that identity. At no time did we attempt to conceal our religious nature or the values that guide our ministry.”

Another is that while the clinic does have some nursing staff, it does not have a physician, an M.D. That’s a significant limitation, one the clinic evidently and reasonably would like to redress.

So it seemed a big deal when in May the 7B Care Clinic reached an agreement with Newport Hospital and Health Services, just across the Washington state line in Newport, for up to six of its physicians to provide OB/GYN services at the Sandpoint clinic.

When time came to begin that work, however, Newport terminated the agreement.

Stories from the two sides conflict about when 7B Care Clinic’s requirements of the doctors were made known to Newport, but based on local news reports there seems none about what they were, and they were a deal breaker.

Included in a document the physicians were expected to sign (and declare they agreed with) was a provision that they were “expected to know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and to conduct their lives in accordance with Biblical principles. Thus, each person who is single must be committed to sexual purity and those married must be in a heterosexual marriage consisting of one biological man and one biological woman.”

There were limitations concerning what medical care might be provided. Some are what you’d expect for a pro-life pregnancy facility: “We do not recommend, provide or refer for abortion or abortifacients.” Others may be less obvious: “We do not recommend, provide, or refer single women for contraceptives. Married women and their husbands seeking this information are urged to counsel with their pastor and physician.”

The physicians were also expected to sign off on a rather specific “statement of faith,” not only affirming their Christianity but specific items of doctrine (which not all Christians would necessarily agree with), such as, “We believe that for salvation of the lost and sinful man, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential, and that this salvation is received through faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, and not as the result of good works.”

The decision by Newport to say “no thanks” should be no shock.

The bigger shock would come if 7B, operating with its current rules and structure, manages easily to find licensed physicians who would accept all those terms.

By itself, this is a small-bore development in a small community. But the economic and legal dynamics that got Sandpoint here can apply all over Idaho. It may have been first to experience a story like this, but it’s not likely the last.

(image)

 

Where We Stand

July 23, 2026

As a retired Idaho Family Physician, I always knew this was a frontier state. Some folks must travel a hundred miles for basic health care.

But the folks in the big cities can forget this.

When I trained, in medical school and residency, we appreciated the frontiers. I was trained in places that dealt with the difficult cases from the Alaskan outback to the North Idaho wilds. They got sorted out by the locals, and the problems came on to us.

I wanted to be out there, sorting it out. I got excellent training.

This sort of care needs vision, coordination and cooperation. It doesn’t just happen.

I could tell you all the failures and successes I have dealt with.

It’s part of why I ran for office, to serve in the Idaho legislature. I remember telling a prominent lobbyist, the support for the WWAMI program was a budget placeholder. Sure, we are sending money to Washington, but it’s teaching us legislators just what investment we need to make to build the physician base for us here. We will someday go off on our own.

Idaho should build its own medical training system. And the money we have been spending on supporting WWAMI and U of Utah students will be the budgetary base we can build on.

So now we have a five-year grant opportunity from the One Big Whatever.

But our Idaho legislators are hesitant to support any of this money to be a build out for an Idaho Medical future.

Their hesitancy is because such an investment now would require ongoing funding.

Duh.

The federal money is only five years, if you have the balls to take it. The Feds (Trump et al) were wise to see if a state had the balls to commit.

Maybe we don’t. Maybe the policy makers we elect don’t see training docs and nurses and EMTs worth the taxes we take from you. Maybe they think…I don’t honestly know what they think.

But I know that training good practitioners to care for the health of our communities is a good investment.

Just as I was leaving the Idaho legislature, I came to realize many of our elected officials did not share my view.

I was fighting for Medicaid Expansion. They hated my guts.

But some understood. John Rusche MD, from Lewiston and Fred Wood MD from Burley and I had frequent discussions. Notice, it’s just the degree behind their names, not their political affiliation.

But todays Idaho legislature with its culture warriors and California transplants has no physicians, few medical personnel in their mix.

But they will decide where we should stand on this opportunity for investment.

We trust them, don’t we?

They don’t want the taxpayer to be on the hook for any medical education investment. Heck, they probably think taxpayer dollars should only go to moms that stay at home and home school their kids.

You got me going. Let me return to the point.

Do you think an investment in medical education would serve the prosperity of this state?

If you don’t, then why the hell are you sending money to the states of Utah and Washington to train our future doctors? And why would you support the money our taxpayers send to ISU for pharmacists and LCSC for nurses, and there’s a lot more you could cut if you want a list.

Just answer the question!

They aren’t. The legislators you will elect aren’t answering this question. Maybe you aren’t either.

It’s a reasonable question.

In the old days, 150 years ago, doctors took money from the folks who wanted to learn and then they showed them the ropes.

But the medical care then was dismal. The study of that care, and the recommendations have given us our current system.

We should have good providers caring for us. It’s worth the investment.

 

A sign of hostility

July 21, 2026

Not an unusual sighting hereabouts at election time - those Trump signs.  Except one was very different from the other two.  The unusual sign said "MAKE CHRISTIANITY GREAT AGAIN - VOTE FOR DONALD TRUMP." A garland of flowers was woven - photographically - across the top.

"Make Christianity Great Again?"  I damned near lost my breakfast!  For the first time in my long life, I was overcome with a heated desire to grab that sign and rip it to pieces.  Even our dog - Skeezix - could feel my sudden anger as he lifted his leg.

Donald Trump is going to "make Christianity great again?'  Trump?  The guy who had dozens of peaceful protesters tear gassed and shoved off public streets so he could stand in front of a church he doesn't attend, to hold up a Bible (backwards) so he could have a photo op?  That serial-lying, mean-spirited, grossly incompetent and incredibly dangerous human being?  The guy who pays porn stars thousands of dollars to keep quiet about his sexual activities.  Him?

No, my foolhardy and incredibly ignorant neighbor!  No, not him.  Not him ever!  Trying to link that political disaster of a presidential aberration to anything Christ-like is absolutely impossible.  That sign says more about your out-of-touch political knowledge and your lack of understanding of the Christian way of life than trying to show your neighbors your political presidential preference.

Trump has put this nation through dozens and dozens of political indignities, lowering standards in nearly everything he's touched.  Christian?

New evidence of how low Trump will go - and how unlike Christ the man is - came in a conversation between ace reporter Bob Woodward and Trump's "in-over-his-head" son-in-law - the young Jared Kushner.

You don't have to listen to the entire thing.  You need only 30 seconds or so to hear Kushner's - and Trump's - depravity.  Their plan - when our COVID-19 deaths at the time stood around 40,000 souls - was to make a large government push to open everything back up.  Right now!  Schools, businesses, manufacturing, airlines, etc.  Trump would be the self-proclaimed economic booster.  "Open everything up immediately!"  "Things will be O.K.."   But, if - if - coronavirus cases continued to mount, blame governors!  Blame the governors!

That's about the most devious, heinous political thinking I've ever heard.  And I've been around a lot of politicians and a lot of political conversations for a long time.

Imagine.  To please his backers - his political "friends" - he planned to reopen a then-shuttered economy so those folks could profit - no matter how many Americans died - then blame the nation's governors for "acting too soon!"

I've not hidden my feelings about Trump.  From the git-go, he's been a political train wreck, receiving fewer popular votes but winning several key electoral college states.  So, the "winner" became the "loser" while the "loser" became the "winner."

From day one, he's exhibited how lacking he is in leadership qualities; empathy, compassion, knowledge of government, ignorance of the working side of the presidency, how to conduct himself as leader of the world's most powerful nation.

His walk-away from political disasters has mirrored his personal conduct as a private businessman.  If you lose, disassociate yourself from the loss, declare you "won" and go on to some other doomed venture.  Except, in government - especially at the top of government - it doesn't work that way.

The longer he's been in office, the more his dangerous qualities are displayed.  Un-friending some of our historic world partners, ignoring our treaties and other agreements with them, while cozying up to some of the world's worst dictators.  Openly admiring Vladimir Putin and all things Russian while ignoring his own State Department professionals warnings of the extreme dangers represented by Putin.

Now that we've had nearly six years of his version of the presidency, we've come to know him.  Really know him.  His complete ignorance of business and ethics - long-known to people who've had dealings with him over many years - are now known by other world leaders.

And, by us.  The governed.  His ignorance of the office he holds, his "bull-in-the-china-shop" attitude about relationships and world dealings, his lack of understanding the Constitutional roles of the presidency versus the other two branches of government, the inability to relate to regular citizens of this country - all this and more has marked his tenure.

I guess, given the knowledge of Trump's publically-known failings, the danger he poses for all Americans, his abuses of power and seeming lack of common values, combined to set me off when it came to someone publically believing he could have a positive affect in matters of Christianity.  And, I suspect that sign would bring a lot of laughs in the Vatican.  Trump to "make Christianity great again?"

Now that I've had a few hours to calm down, the anger is less.  But, what's left of it is directed at me for forgetting my own Christian values and the tolerance we're expected to have for others.  "Forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Put THAT on a sign in your yard.  In my yard.

 

Limiting court terms

July 20, 2026

The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has certainly been remaking the American legal landscape in recent years, but not in a good way. The GOP majority has just finished gutting the Voting Rights Act of 1965, has allowed billions more to be spent on political campaigns, and has given a green light to political gerrymandering. The majority seems to regard itself as an unaccountable super legislature. It may well be.

Longevity in these exalted positions of unchecked power often breeds arrogance, a sense of entitlement and the temptation for political activism. We have witnessed too many instances in recent years where SCOTUS members have misused their positions to advance the interests of themselves or their political friends.

Justice Thomas has had almost 35 years to build up a record of bad behavior, including the acceptance of more than $2.4 million in “gifts” since 2004 and the refusal to comply with simple disclosure requirements. During his 20 years on the Court, Justice Alito has become increasingly arrogant, politically motivated and intolerant of sound jurisprudence. Chief Justice Roberts has done his level best during his almost 21-year tenure to remove all limits on campaign contributions. He has consistently resisted efforts to place reasonable ethical restraints on the Justices.

All of this has resulted in an historic drop in public confidence in SCOTUS, which constitutes a serious danger to the rule of law in the United States. These longest-serving Justices make a compelling case for dramatic reforms to this vitally important American institution.

There are any number of things that Americans could demand to restore honesty, competence and impartiality to SCOTUS but many of them–a rational appointment process and an enforceable ethics code–are unlikely to happen with the current make-up of Congress. However, a SCOTUS term limit, which has strong public support and might help keep the Justices from misbehaving, would be a great place to start. Recent polling indicates more than 70% public support for term limits for these unaccountable officials.

There has been an increasing tendency of Presidents to appoint people in the infancy of their legal careers in hopes they will serve until they draw their final breath--sort of a cradle-to-grave system. By removing the incentive to appoint youngsters who would serve until they die, a term limit would likely result in the appointment of older, tested, more-experienced lawyers or jurists. Some of the most qualified lawyers and judges are effectively excluded from consideration simply because politicians want appointees to serve as long as possible. The last four SCOTUS appointments were ages 49-51.

Some term-limit naysayers tell us the US Constitution calls for the lifetime appointments of SCOTUS members. In other words, Justices may serve throughout their entire lifetime unless they commit some sort of serious infraction. However, there is an easy answer. Don’t limit their tenure, but merely change their status from full-time active Court members to “senior” members once they have reached the term limitation. Many states, like Idaho, provide that a cadre of senior justices can fill in when an active justice recuses on a case. Senior justices also participate on court committees and help with proceedings in the state’s lower courts.

Congress can and should enact legislation to limit SCOTUS members to a maximum term of active service of 15 years and then switch them to senior status where they could remain as long as they wish. That would give SCOTUS a group of senior Justices who could step in and serve by random selection when an active Justice recuses on a case or is unable to act because of illness or whatever else. The senior Justices could also be deployed to reduce backlogs in crowded US Circuit Courts of Appeal around the country, as well as serving on various Court committees. The senior Justices would still receive full pay while continuing to provide service beneficial to the court system. That would be a small price to pay for the substantial benefits to be received.

It is time to end the system that fosters a cradle-to-grave SCOTUS membership. A term limit would open up the possibility for older, more experienced lawyers and jurists to serve on the high Court. Presidents would no longer have an incentive to pick less experienced youngsters to serve for numerous decades. There are too many well qualified individuals who would be a real credit to SCOTUS and the rule of law, were it not for the sad fact that they are deemed ineligible because of their age. Periodic turnover would be a good thing. The longer a Justice sits in the ivory tower of the Court, the greater the likelihood of losing touch with the real world.

 

Oregon elections are plenty secure

Oregon elections are plenty secure

July 19, 2026

When Dennis Richardson was elected Oregon secretary of state, on the same day and party ticket as Donald Trump first was elected president, he moved quickly to look into a subject Trump talked about then and ever since: Voter fraud and election corruption.

The following February, Richardson reported what he found in the Oregon voting system: Some areas for improvement, but generally a system that works well and cleanly. Once a skeptic of the Motor Voter registration system, he had revised his view, saying it “actually has strengthened us in some ways.”

He warned against unfounded claims of voting problems because “it causes greater distrust of the government. … I want to make sure that the citizens of the state can trust their (voting) system.”

Richardson did not stop looking for bugs in the system, however, and he found some. In September 2017, he reported his office had found 54 possible instances of voter fraud, across Oregon, in the previous year’s general election — in an election where 2,051,448 ballots were cast, or about 0.002%. And those were simply questionable votes. Upon investigation, nearly all cases were found not to merit criminal charges.

In 2020, the Legislative Fiscal Office reviewed vote by mail in Oregon and found the state attorney general’s office (which handles cases of voter fraud) “obtained 38 criminal convictions for voter fraud out of the 60.9 million ballots in Oregon elections cast over a 19-year period. That amounts to a rate of .00006%. These figures demonstrate that voter fraud is exceedingly rare in Oregon, and is no more widespread in vote by mail elections than it is in polling place elections.”

For some Oregonians — and other people around the country — all this still doesn’t feel quite right. Getting ballots through the mail, and sending them out that way (though many people, myself included, prefer to use one of the state’s ballot boxes) somehow intuitively doesn’t seem very secure, not in the same visible way filled-out ballots are when quickly dropped in a locked box at a polling place in front of poll workers.

The Trump administration has piled on, implicitly accusing many states, Oregon among them, of failing to keep people who shouldn’t be voting from casting ballots.

Across the border in Idaho, state officials like those in Oregon have declined to provide to federal officials some sensitive voter information. That has led to federal legal action, and as in Oregon threatening letters were sent from the Trump Department of Justice. In Trump-supportive Idaho the attorney general’s office replied with the rebuke, “Stop threatening your friends in Idaho.”

Evidently, threatening states which voted against Trump would be less objectionable, although Oregon (like many other states) has also objected strongly.

Intuitive or not, the Oregon voting process is secure.

Bear in mind that most election administration happens at the county level. Clerks in Oregon’s 36 counties are most directly responsible for distributing ballots and counting those returned, and the process is handled by local people. The secretary of state, who does have responsibility for overseeing election processes, is mainly concerned with ensuring the counties are acting properly. That’s worth remembering: Any claim that elections have been corrupted is really an accusation that all our county clerks have been — and there’s no evidence of that.

The statewide system seems robust. Each ballot has a unique bar code, and they are tracked through the system. (During election periods, voters can obtain notices from the state about when their ballot was received by county officials, and where it is in the system.)

The 2020 legislative audit said “There are numerous processes built into Oregon’s vote by mail system to ensure integrity, including unique barcodes to track ballots, signature verification to prove voters’ identities, and election security plans filed by county elections offices. Vote by mail also leaves a paper trail that can be audited. In fact, two academic studies have concluded that the election results in vote by mail elections are generally more accurate than the election results in polling place elections.”

Cyberattacks are always a threat, but so far the system seems well protected (and regularly reviewed), and the core counting and related processes aren’t linked to the internet.

On the back end, the initially-reported election results are rechecked in several ways. Since 2008 the state has overseen after-election audits which include human hand counts to verify the accuracy of the machine counts. Many other states take similar steps, and around the nation the results have been generally the same: Mistakes are rare.

To be human-made and human-operated is to be less than perfect. But the babble from the beltway notwithstanding, Oregon’s mechanisms for voting come remarkably close.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

A campaign to define

A campaign to define

July 17, 2026

What is the abortion initiative, really?

How Idaho voters answer that question will decide the fate of the new abortion-related initiative that may dominate Idaho politics in the next three and a half months.

After not just a few years but decades of Idaho Legislatures passing anti-abortion laws, Idaho voters this year will have a chance to speak to it directly. They have consistently re-elected legislators who passed those laws, but was that the reason for that support or just a by-product? We’ll soon find out.

The group Idahoans United for Women and Families collected 110,000 petition signatures to get their initiative on this November’s ballot. The petitioning rules are complex and daunting; another initiative effort this year, on cannabis, fell short. The high bar can help advocates win in November, since they’ve already had to put together a major campaign. But it’s no guarantee, as backers of a ranked choice initiative found in 2024 when it crashed at the polls with less than a third of the vote in favor.

An initiative needs a simple majority - 50% of the vote plus one - to pass.

Some polling has found majorities of Idahoans opposed to the current Idaho abortion regime, which is one of the most draconian - a nearly complete ban - in the nation. In January, a Boise State University poll found “Idahoans’ support is generally high– 61% of respondents supported the initiative if given the proposed name, while 59% of respondents supported it if the name was omitted. … While there is little difference between samples for Republicans (45% with name compared to 47%), 90% of Democrats and 66% of Independents supported the initiative if provided the name, while 94% of Democrats and 60% of Independents supported the initiative if the name was omitted.”

Idaho will be one of several states (Nevada, Virginia and Missouri are others) with abortion issues up for consideration in November. One study of abortion measures from 1970 to 2024 showed choice-backed measures winning 71.4% of 21 ballot issues, and life-backed measures 27.3% (out of 44).

None of which necessarily predicts an Idaho result. What will the voters here do?

My estimate: It depends on what voters think they are voting on. How is the measure commonly described? What do voters think it will do, most basically?

The Iduhoans United measure self-describes: “This statute upholds a person’s rights to make their own decisions based on their own values, health care needs, and circumstances - free from the fear of external pressures or punitive consequences to them or their health care provider. The act supports a person’s right to reproductive freedom and privacy, protects the confidential nature of the patient-provider relationship, and secures a person’s right to make their own health care decisions without government interference.”

A statement from the Idaho Republican Party (which has declared war on the initiative, even pressuring legislators already to repeal it next session) outlines what the opposition will look like:

“The same measure that covers contraception and miscarriage care also legalizes abortion—even up to nine months as long as a provider says a delay might harm a woman's health.” Actually, no: The initiative draws a specific line at viability other than for a medical emergency.

“The initiative doesn’t reinstate any specific past Idaho statute. It creates new statutory language whose practical limits go far beyond what was allowed under Roe v. Wade. This is not going back to Roe. This is going past it.” It does create new language intended to overwrite existing law, but the thrust of it is not identical but similar to the regime under Roe, whether you like that or not.

“This initiative creates a broad ‘right’ to sexual libertinism with no age limit. It could be interpreted to conflict with parental rights and prohibit the protection of children.” The first is nowhere in the initiative; and finding rights restrictions for parents and children in a measure so specifically aimed at expanding them amounts to,(to be over-generous), a really creative interpretation.

“Idaho law protected both mothers and preborn life from the very beginning—starting after we became a territory in 1864. It was Roe v. Wade that was extreme and unprecedented.” Roe was a change all right; whether it was extreme or unwarranted would be a matter of individual opinion.

“Proposition 1 claims to protect conscience rights for physicians, but leaves out churches, pregnancy centers, faith-based providers, and more.” The initiative would have no effect on those other groups as far as expression of conscience is concerned.

So, what’s the initiative about? The best answer, as both the advocates and critics have suggested, lies in reading this short four-page document. The vote may hinge on how many people do.