Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in August 2026

A nuclear waste

August 17, 2026

Back in the early 1990s, Idaho’s former Attorney General and Lt. Governor, Dave Leroy, was a very lonely nuclear waste salesman. During his three years (1990-93) as United States Nuclear Waste Negotiator, he wandered the country and beyond, trying to find some state, tribal or territorial government willing to become the nation’s nuclear waste repository. He was treated as a pariah. The New York Times reported Leroy as saying that all the people with whom he needs to negotiate will not be caught dead talking to him. My, how times have changed. Now, five states, including Idaho, are begging to be one of three repositories of high-level nuclear waste in exchange for undefined and unfunded future benefits.

According to the US Department of Energy (DOE), the country has more than 90,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants and about 90 million gallons of radioactive waste from the nation’s nuclear weapons program. That makes it easy to calculate Idaho’s one-third share of the nuclear waste pie. There is no indication of the benefits to be bestowed on the three states and absolutely no money available in the federal till to pay for them. It’s all a matter of faith. Perhaps it is better stated that Idaho and the other states are being asked to buy a nuclear waste pig in a poke–just commit up front to take the waste and the feds will tell you the payoff sometime down the road.

The proposal to make Idaho a “Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus” was apparently initiated with Governor Brad Little’s issuance of Executive Order 2025-06, which established the Idaho Advanced Nuclear Energy Task Force last September. The Task Force includes about 20 Idaho luminaries–the Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Director of the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and a variety of others. They worked together to formulate a proposal to the DOE. Idaho was picked as one of the five finalist states. They all signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with DOE to negotiate a Host Agreement “for the acceptance of out-of-state used nuclear fuel, spent nuclear fuel, and high-level radioactive waste.” The word “temporary” appears nowhere in the MOU.

If Idaho is selected as one of three repositories, we will start receiving nuclear waste from around the country and will undoubtedly start searching for another location dumb enough to act as a permanent dumping ground. Let’s be honest, it will even be a tougher job than that which confronted Dave Leroy those many years ago. Governor Little fantasizes that Utah might be willing to take the nuclear waste from Idaho, but that is a pipe dream. Why would Utah take the waste if it does not get the commensurate benefits that are being dangled to attract the three repository states?

The fact is that no other state or tribal government will take any finalist’s third of the waste. All three will become the de facto final repositories for existing waste, as well as the 2,000 metric tons per year that DOE expects to be generated in the future.

That being the case, Idahoans should ask some searching questions and get some firm commitments from the federal government before blundering into a Host Agreement that will be legally binding upon the State. Where and how will the waste be stored? What will be its effect on the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer? What safeguards will be imposed by the federal government? Exactly what projects will Idaho receive at the INL in exchange for being a permanent repository, and how will funding be guaranteed?

All branches of the federal government must provide binding funding and safeguard guarantees because it would be too easy for disputes to arise between agencies, as well as current and future Congresses and Presidents. Our current Senators, Risch and Crapo, as well as Congressman Mike Simpson, are cheerleaders for the Task Force nuclear waste plan. The plan originated with Donald Trump. If Idaho is to become a final dumping ground for the nation’s nuclear waste, there must be some sort of hefty trust fund established and funded to back up the promises and guarantees.

These are just a few of the questions that must be answered before Idaho buys into this nuclear waste pig in a poke. Don’t get me wrong. I have been a steadfast supporter of the INL since my Valley High School class took a field trip to the INL in the late 1950s. Both the State and Nation should support its pioneering work into the future. However, all Idahoans have an unqualified right to express their opinion and communicate their concerns to the proponents of this loosey-goosey proposal.

 

OR gov: Facts on the ground

OR gov: Facts on the ground

August 16, 2026

The Oregon governor’s race this year may hinge on two factors. One is the record of incumbent Democrat Tina Kotek and Republican Christine Drazan’s critique of it and issues on the ground. The other is the Trump administration.

Here, let’s look at the first of those, the ideas and topics more specific to the candidates and Oregon. (The Trump factor will come later.)

A good shorthand comparison of what the candidates generally seem to want to emphasize, and how they address those subjects, can be found on the issues pages on the respective websites of Drazan and Kotek.

These pages aren’t all that the candidates have, can or will say about various issues. But they do offer useful core messages. The first Drazan television spot this season, for example, plays like a short summary of her website’s issues page.

The two candidates talk about many of the same things, especially toward the top of their lists.

Both lead with the rising cost of living, described as a major problem.

From there, they diverge. Kotek says she has addressed high costs through attacking “corporate price gouging,” seeking to pause new taxes in the Portland area, blocking freeway tolls and utility rate increases and signing “bills that protect credit from medical debt, ban hidden online fees.” Drazan calls for lowering taxes, “repeal(ing) regulations that drive up gas, utilities and food prices,” and ending “Oregon’s unique death tax” (though how that would cut costs broadly is unclear).

Both also talk about affordable housing as a top priority, though again differently. Kotek mentioned her efforts to increase housing stock through legislation and otherwise. Drazan proposed regulatory reduction, property tax cuts and programs to help first-time home buyers.

After affordability matters, education was the hottest topic for both candidates — again, in different ways.

Kotek noted funds for early literacy, child care programs, expanding access to books and requiring reports from local districts on student learning. Drazan talked about increases in special education funding but also efforts to “restore teachers’ ability to remove disruptive kids from the classroom …  Defend and protect women’s sports (evidently a reference to transgender students) … Stop indoctrination from the Department of Education … End social promotion and ensure kids can read by 3rd grade … Ensure curriculum transparency and the right for parents to opt out.”

Both had plenty to say too about the economy, where Kotek referred to “strengthening” it and Drazan to “unleashing” it.

Kotek spoke of business partnerships and projects and focused on efforts to develop clean and renewable energy; elsewhere, she spoke favorably of a moratorium on new data centers.

Drazan’s bullet points were painted with a broader brush: “Fire anti-business bureaucrats. Freeze new rules and regulations. Clear barriers to trade. Tear up anti-business executive orders. Get government out of the way. Invest in Oregon’s infrastructure. Prioritize access to affordable, reliable energy. Unleash our natural resource economy. … Roll back Oregon’s hidden sales tax.”

Kotek spoke more about public safety, environmental concerns (except for wildfires, which Drazan simply said should be prevented so people could “get our woods working again”).

In her review of Kotak’s term, Drazan appeared to bear down on the governor’s case four years ago that she would be a tough and effective administrator, suggesting she has not been. The headlines on the Republican’s issues page says, “Oregon deserves better. Christine Drazan will deliver.”

Drazan devoted a major issue section to this theme: “Root out fraud and corruption. Fire ineffective agency heads. Issue a moratorium on new rules and regulations. Eliminate three rules and regulations for any new one. Undo Tina Kotek’s legacy by tearing up her  executive orders. … Veto special interest giveaways, special interest and pork projects.”

Drazan’s website, however, offers few specifics to go with the rhetoric. Maybe she could document fraud, waste, inefficiency and so on, but she hasn’t brought the receipts yet.

Oddly missing from both candidate’s major specific talking points: Transportation funding, on which the two clashed repeatedly in the last couple of years, and in which voters strongly rejected a Kotek-signed plan. Maybe that’s coming later.

Let’s pull back. From a campaign perspective, what do these messages tell Oregon voters?

Both contenders are doing what you might reasonably expect of them. Kotek is making the case that her administration has been active and productive on key issues, and cites programs, funding and legislation to support that. Drazan characterizes the term as ineffective and incompetent, and proposes mainly time-tested Republican answers (lower taxes, less regulation) in response.

She would, of course, have to deal with an (almost certainly) Democratic legislature. Of course, the popularity (ahem) of the Legislature isn’t something Kotek has emphasized, either.

That brings us to an unknown: how Oregonians perceive these arguments. The answer seems likely to be a jumble, since Kotek’s polling popularity has not been high (raising the question of how well her message will sell), but Republican policies haven’t been scoring well at least in Oregon either.

The decisive outlying factor could be summed up in one word: Trump.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

A Flock of watchers

A Flock of watchers

August 14, 2026

“You are being watched.”

That was the opening line for a TV series a few years back called Person of Interest, billed then as a sci-fi show, though it barely was at the time, and really isn’t at all now. The key component was a computer system capable of tracking movements and activities of just about everyone, able to predict if they might do something nefarious.

It was brought to mind by the recent rash of headlines, in Idaho but also nationally, about mass surveillance and a company called Flock Safety.

Flock, based in Atlanta, provides to local governments cameras and a comprehensive image data network which captures traffic activity, operating Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs). The website DeFlock Idaho (which as its name indicates opposes the effort) says that “When a vehicle passes one of these cameras, it automatically captures the license plate number, vehicle make, color, and any distinguishing features such as roof racks, tool boxes, damage, dents, political sticker, and many others along with the date, time, and precise location. That data is uploaded immediately to Flock’s private cloud servers. Flock cameras run continuously. Every vehicle that passes is logged, stored, and made searchable whether or not the driver has done anything wrong, is under any investigation, or has ever had any contact with law enforcement.”

There are a lot of these cameras: More than 100,000 nationally, almost 90% from Flock Safety. (Many of the rest, including those in Meridian, use Axon Outpost Automated License Plate Reader system.) There is no official list of where all the cameras are located, though some unofficial maps have been constructed..

The intention is public safety. Flock says it “brings together the tools that organizations rely on every day, helping law enforcement, schools, businesses, and neighborhoods respond faster, investigate more effectively, and work together from the same platform.” It said (or suggested) that 10,000 missing people were found, massive numbers of stolen vehicles were located, and law enforcement using Flock evidence in clearing numerous crimes. The law enforcement usefulness seems evident.

In Idaho, a 2025 state law says “data shall not be used for any purpose other than the investigation of felony or misdemeanor crimes or traffic accidents or to search for missing or endangered persons.”

For some people that’s good enough, but it makes many others uneasy. Any tool once created can be abused. Exactly who or what organizations might gain access to the information now, or in future, isn’t crystal clear, though the basic usage is stated to be for law enforcement and safety. One news story said the “Twin Falls Police Department ALPR systems have been searched for immigration-related purposes at least 631 times across March, May and June of 2026.” Cambridge Analytica reported in June that “Over a dozen documented cases across multiple states show officers using Flock Safety’s network to stalk ex-partners and conduct unauthorized surveillance, resulting in criminal charges and terminations.” The Washington Post counted 50.

Not to mention that even carefully-designed computer systems can be hacked by outsiders.

A lot of this explains why ALPRs have become one of the most explosive local topics in Idaho this year. And it’s not theoretical, because most of Idaho’s larger cities have ALP contracts in place already.

Now quite a few residents are getting upset about them. Big crowds `appeared at city meetings in Idaho Falls and Caldwell. Pocatello’s city council is taking a close look at the cameras, with concerns in mind.

At least two Idaho local governments have rejected the cameras: Jerome city and Clearwater County, which is letting an agreement lapse. Idaho Falls is adjusting its contract. Hayden’s city council told concerned residents the cameras aren’t coming there.

Post Falls Mayor Randy Westlund said he is “firmly opposed to unconstitutional mass surveillance and the construction of large national databases which track the movement of citizens.”

The point of all this isn’t to weigh in on one side of this: ALPRs clearly have both pluses and minuses, with some clear benefits and some clear risks and problems. The point is that these issues should be hashed out in public, with the public, before the program is simply launched.

As it is, the politics and management of the program seem likely to become messy.

(image)

 

Dorothy

Dorothy

August 13, 2026

It’s like our elected representatives are in Oz. They can’t understand, as Dorothy didn’t, that someone is behind the curtain.

Idaho legislators had a weird meeting this last week to wring their hands and assuage their constituents that they were actually doing something about a health care problem in Idaho.

They had accomplished driving doctors out of the state and kicking kids off health insurance, so they turned to the problem of state employee health insurance.

The state of Idaho is the biggest employer in our state. Most state employees get health insurance. It’s a big contract. A couple years back Idaho moved the administration of this contract from Blue Cross to Regence.

Regence has played harder ball than Blue Cross did. And they’ve gotten into the news.

There is a big defugalty in Southeast Idaho. It doesn’t mean much for us up here on the Palouse, but the scheme is worth examination. It will come.

Port Neuf Medical Center in Pocatello (owned by Ardent Health) wanted more money. Regence said no.

The negotiations failed and Regence told Idaho State employees if they went to Port Neuf, they would be “out of network”.

The two things in healthcare you never want to hear: “Oops” and “Out of network”.

Maybe also, “this might sting a bit…”

So brave, intelligent Idaho lawmakers got together for a meeting to try to look like they cared.

I watched it. They actually had some good questions.

Where is the data?

Insurance companies make huge contracts based on their data. They own it. They might choose to share some of it with you, who is paying them. But hen, they negotiate with you for this contract.

I was amazed that Idaho lawmakers thought, since Idaho is paying the bills, and these are Idaho State employees, the data belonged to Idaho.

They are in Oz.

They don’t fundamentally understand the business they are in.

Paying wisely for health care does require in-depth analysis of the data. Most people don’t do this when they go to the doctor.

It turns out, Idaho legislators aren’t doing this when they spend our taxpayer dollars for state employee’s health insurance.

For insurance companies to compete and succeed, they need to hold some cards to their chest. Regence and Blue Cross don’t show their hole cards to each other.

They have their “proprietary” curtain.

Some states have tried to peek behind the curtain. Utah, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, all have an All-Payer Claims Database (APCD). Some thirty states do. It has led to some interesting actions.

APCD’s aggregate the claims of all insurers and compare who got paid by whom for what. Further, they can tract why all the back surgeries are done in Coeur D’ Alene or the c-section rate in Pocatello. It’s valuable, data.

If you care.

An old colleague asked Idaho to consider this back when I was in the State Senate. But he was a Democrat, and so was I. Guess what happened.

Collecting, analyzing, understanding data is hard work. But valuable.

So I was very up lifted, like maybe a scarecrow had pulled back a curtain, when a member of this work group argued he wanted data.

Next, he said, is there any way we can lower health care costs for all of us?

It was like I had ruby slippers.

I have written about this, harped on this, whined about this for so long now you all are so tired of hearing it.

Yes, we can solve this.

Looking behind the curtain shocked Dorothy. She and Toto were frightened, though it was the little dog who pulled it back.

If the Idaho legislature wants to address health care costs for all of us, I’m on board. Our premiums, our co-pays, our denials, our service.

Here’s the kicker. Medicaid, which they hate, is a big part of this complicated system.

Go ahead legislators. Look behind the curtain.

 

Data centers: Issue No. 1?

Data centers: Issue No. 1?

August 9, 2026

In May, state Sen. Janeen Sollman, D-Hillsboro, area lost her bid for reelection to the legislature, the first such incumbent loss since 2018. Multiple reasons contributed to Sollman’s loss to union-backed challenger Myrna Muñoz, but a pivotal and new factor was data centers.

Those massive buildings, consuming vast amounts of electricity and water and producing compute, serving as the physical location of much of the internet cloud and especially the locus of fast-growing artificial intelligence.

The Sollman result also turned on factors including labor union support. But the broad emotional push seemed to come in reaction to the growth of data centers in the Hillsboro area.

Sollman herself said, “They were saying I was going to turn 1,700 acres of rich farmland, and turn them into data centers. It’s a totally unfair characterization of my record.”

On Aug. 2, responding to protests, the Hillsboro City Council set a moratorium lasting four months on additional data centers. The meeting was called abruptly with less than usual notice because, Mayor Beach Pace said, “The idea behind it was to prevent a rush of applications from data centers.”

This has become an explosive issue in Washington County, where somewhere between a dozen and three dozen (depending on how you count) data centers are operating or planned. And Washington County is not only Oregon’s second largest county, it is the political hinge that more than anywhere else took Oregon from a purple to a blue state in the last three decades.

But that’s not nearly all. The fight over data centers in Oregon has popped up in many places, some unexpected.

The website Cleanview counts 93 operating data centers operating in Oregon (hitting above average among the states), and 32 planned. Taken together, those operating use 5,098 megawatts.

The largest groupings in Oregon are in Washington County and in the Boardman-Hermiston area near the Columbia River. Secondary groups can be seen at Prineville and The Dalles, but there are smaller batches as well. Some maps indicate a half-dozen or so small data centers are located in downtown Portland.

The push to build more of them has brought the subject to the fore, sometimes in unexpected places.

After Amazon proposed building a distribution center — not a data center, but another large building that sparked protests — in the orchard country (the “fruit loop”) south of Hood River, the Hood River City Council slapped a moratorium on data center construction through at least the end of the year.

Places far afield are being considered as data center sites. The south-of-Bend exurb La Pine (which has an industrial area) is being planned by the Bitcoin mining firm Boxminer, and since its proposal in March city officials have moved toward approving a land sale to facilitate it — at least until a city council meeting in May, packed by hundreds of residents opposed to the project.

Then there’s the proposal in Salem, where Verrus, a startup from California, planned to build a $5 billion data center on 32 acres of land it planned to buy from the state. Negotiations with the city had been operating under a nondisclosure agreement for some time until a July 27 Salem City Council meeting when it went public, and dozens of area residents protested.

Within days, Gov. Tina Kotek said she would quash the state element of the transaction, saying “This decision is about my responsibility to make sure state actions reflect Oregon’s values and serve the public interest. Oregonians have made it clear they expect thoughtful, responsible decisions about projects of this scale, and I agree.”

The Salem City Council voted unanimously Monday to move toward a data center moratorium in the state capital, though that move is too late to block the Verrus proposal that had submitted plans for review before the council action.

Parts of the eastern Oregon data center belt seem uneasy about them too. On July 31, Oregon Rural Action said it would pursue a moratorium on expansion of data centers in the Umatilla and Morrow County area.

These are not just localized outbursts: A national tide has been building against the centers. A May 13 Gallup poll concluded that 71% of Americans somewhat or strongly oppose construction of a data center near where they live, and an Oregon-specific poll Portland-based DHM Research released this week found 71% of Oregonians feel negatively about data centers.

Opposition was strong throughout the state, though pollsters found stronger feelings against data centers among women, young people and Democrats than men, older Oregonians and Republicans.

Political analyst Josh Marshall speculated, “We basically know why they don’t want them. They’ll bogart all the electricity and water. Drive up rates. Wreck the environment. There’s another dimension of it though. The throughline of this age is that you’ve got these big tech platforms that can do anything they want. It is a society-driving spectacle that is there in plain sight and yet still under-appreciated. AI itself captures all of this.”

This isn’t an issue either major party has really made its own yet. Oregon Democrats have come closer, between Kotek’s Salem action and a proposal by four Democratic legislators (aimed at the 2027 legislature) to set a moratorium on new data center development, something 15 other states already have proposed.

But much more is possible. This is a fall campaign issue ready for enterprising candidates to pick it up and run with it.

This column first appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

Nuclear reversal

Nuclear reversal

August 7, 2026

Read the fine print and pay attention to the stuff they tell you at the end of the pitch.

Idaho has been chosen as one of five states (the others are Utah, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Louisiana) under consideration to host one of three national Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses. Landing one of those, the pitch went, would mean jobs, business opportunities - money! “Campus” was nice verbiage: It sounds like a leafy college setting.

Or that’s the mental image. There’s little real clarity about what it would mean as a practical matter. The closest the Department of Energy gets to explaining what these campuses would be is that they “could support activities across the full nuclear fuel lifecycle, including fuel fabrication, enrichment, reprocessing used nuclear fuel, and disposition of waste. Depending on state priorities and regional capabilities, the sites could also host advanced reactor deployment, power generation, advanced manufacturing, and co-located data centers.” (Data centers! Yum.)

Mostly, the description sounds like what the Idaho National Laboratory already does, and has done for decades. It has been the nation’s locus for cutting-edge nuclear research, with new reactor projects announced regularly and private spinoffs in the Magic Valley and elsewhere. The national divide into three campuses carries the uneasy tone of a diminution of Idaho’s role in the field.

But wait: Beyond that, there’s a little phrase buried in the middle of that: “Deposition of waste.” You know, the nuclear waste that Idaho state government has spent half a century trying to block from the state.

It’s been quite a few years since the subject of importing nuclear waste was big headlines in Idaho, but it once was as hot a topic as any, and concern about it was bipartisan.

In his memoir, Cecil Andrus made the point that the wrong waste seeping into the wrong places could be disastrous for Idaho agriculture, industry and human safety:”I am not a nuclear scientist, but I understood one point from the beginning: Radioactive garbage from the nuclear reservation in Idaho could not - must not - be allowed to come anywhere near the Snake River aquifer.”

He recalled that “I tried to play constructive critic during my first stint as governor in the 1970s, receiving - and believing - promises of action (on removing nuclear waste) from the federal government. Since those pledges proved worthless, I confronted the Department of Energy in the late 1980s. The state of Idaho provoked a crisis by banning further waste shipments from beyond Idaho’s border.”

Andrus was a Democrat, but his successor Phil Batt, had views on nuclear waste not drastically different; he agreed, for example, with Andrus’ take on the aquifer (and in his memoir estimated 90% of Idahoans did as well). He doggedly negotiated an agreement with the feds sharply limiting the state’s exposure to nuclear waste, and getting much of it shipped out. He said he got from the feds “every ounce of flesh I could get,” and he may have been right. The action part of the deal ran through the last century.

The deal has not held up perfectly, but for the most part it has shielded Idaho from becoming the nuclear garbage waste dump of the nation.

The eventual costs of cleaning out unsecured nuclear waste can be beyond enormous. Consider the Hanford site in south-central Washington, where every year - for decades - billions of dollars have been spent in cleanup activities. In 2022, after a generations-worth of cleanup work had been done, the estimated cost for finishing the job was put at somewhere between $300 and $640 billion. That’s serious money.

Now, if Idaho becomes one of the three “campus” hosts, it will be on the hook for hosting the nation’s nuclear waste. (And we all know how careful the Trump Administration is with handling such sensitive and risky projects.)

They used to say that Idaho is what America was. Today, we might say Idaho isn’t what Idaho was.

(image)

An immigration misfire

August 3, 2026

Idaho’s Attorney General told us on March 31 that he and 23 other GOP state attorneys general were going to school the US Supreme Court on the issue of birthright citizenship. Even before the thirteen colonies gave birth to the United States, we have regarded all children born on American soil to be citizens, except for those of diplomats. That principle was written into the Constitution of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment, which was adopted in 1868. It has been the law of the land ever since.

Labrador got honked off when I wrote an opinion piece saying he was dead wrong. He responded with a column charging me with “credibility problems.” I’ll let readers make their own decision on that. However, even the rightward leaning Supreme Court did not buy the Labrador argument. Once again, those who gained US citizenship by having been born on American soil can rest easy. We have not heard a word from him about that spectacular loss or how much he spent on his wild goose chase.

Labrador is at it again with a July 23 Facebook post celebrating the 43,000 arrests made by ICE in June. He proclaimed that “every one of those arrests is a win for the person who’s been waiting their turn in line to immigrate legally.” That is not necessarily true because ICE has notoriously been arresting people who are citizens or otherwise legally present in the United States.

A Mexican national, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, who had lived in Houston for over 35 years, built a successful business, sent three sons to college and was waiting to get legal status, was killed by an ICE officer on July 7. He was not the person being targeted by ICE and was apparently not suspected of wrongdoing, but that did not seem to matter. His only offense was appearing to be Hispanic. A case of racial profiling.

Joan Sebastian Duran Guerrero, a food delivery driver from Columbia, was shot dead by an ICE officer in Biddeford, Maine, a week later. He was legally in the country, had a Social Security card and was not a target of ICE’s large dragnet. He, too, received the death penalty because of his looks. Guerrero’s executioner was a mentally troubled individual with a history of violence.

We have sort of gotten used to ICE’s brutal tactics. After all, Renee Good and Alex Pretti were killed by ICE agents in January. We have seen the bystander videos, which indicate the shootings were completely unjustified. ICE stonewalled the local prosecutors for months, only turning over evidence of the shootings on July 13.

It may be difficult for local authorities to prosecute ICE agents who perpetrate violent acts against immigrants and their supporters so long as Donald Trump controls the US Department of Justice. However, once a new president is elected in 2028, a new administration may be able to bring the perpetrators to justice. Thugs take heed!

Labrador may be misreading the mood of the public on the brutal tactics of ICE. We were told early on that ICE would target “the worst of the worst.” That was fine with many people, but it turns out that the ICE deportation machine is sweeping up substantially more law-abiding immigrants than dangerous criminals. In fact, an increasing number of detainees do not have any criminal history.

Focusing on Idaho, for years we’ve had a fairly stable population of about 35,000 undocumented immigrants. Most are here performing work that Idahoans will no longer do–working the fields and milking cows. Others are performing work where there are not enough workers to meet the demand–construction, child and elder care, landscaping and the like. Many have established community roots. They are our friends and neighbors. Their kids grow up as citizens and enrich our state.

We have witnessed the abusive tactics of ICE in Wilder, Idaho, where its agents and a host of supporting law enforcement swooped down on a festive crowd of over 500 people gathered to watch horse races. The purported objective was to arrest 4-5 people suspected of gambling, but the agents manhandled hundreds of attendees without grounds to suspect them of criminal activity. Children were zip-tied and frightened for no legitimate reason. Other than the 4-5 suspected gamblers, the only crime of the hundreds of others appeared to be their Hispanic heritage. There was no public statement from Labrador about the propriety of this obnoxious operation.

However, he has expressed full support for the 2026 Republican platform, which states: “We oppose supporting illegal aliens by way of free access to housing, healthcare, technology, voting rights, or an unearned path to amnesty…” Undocumented folks do not qualify for such benefits. On the other hand, the workers contribute substantially to the support of governmental programs.

A creditable calculation determined that they paid $96.7 billion in federal, state and local taxes in 2022, of which $70.9 million were paid in Idaho. $59.4 billion went to the federal government, with $25.7 billion going to Social Security taxes and $6.4 billion going to Medicare taxes. They are barred from receiving benefits from both programs.

My unsolicited advice to the Attorney General is to get your facts straight before badmouthing the people who put food on your table. And don’t stand silent while ICE targets people just because of their Hispanic heritage. Everyone in Idaho deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.

 

Independent choice in WA-5

Independent choice in WA-5

August 2, 2026

Oregonians have a front-row seat to watch, though not vote in, an obscure congressional race that could say much about the reshaping of partisan politics in this state and beyond.

I’m not talking about Washington’s 3rd Congressional District, now held by Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, which saw the state’s closest congressional elections for the past two election cycles and may again this year, though, it’s certainly a race to watch.

No, the Evergreen State contest of greatest interest ahead of the Aug. 4 primary is on the east side of the state, just north of Hermiston and Milton-Freewater and Enterprise, in the 5th district stretching from Oregon to Canada.

The reason is the uncertainty thrown into the works by — wait for it — an independent candidate. And independents, whether of the same-named party or actually non-aligned, always are a big factor in Oregon.

The district, mostly rural but centered around Spokane, seems an unlikely magnet for close attention because there have been no close general elections there in many years. This was the district Democrat Tom Foley, who rose to speaker of the House, represented for three decades before his loss in the Republican sweep of 1994.

Republicans have held it in the 32 years since, first George Nethercutt, then Cathy McMorris Rodgers, and since 2025, Michael Baumgartner.

None of those Republicans have had a close call in all these years. A few of the Democratic candidates have been highly capable and well positioned, but even the strongest of them – Lisa Brown, a long-time state legislator and current mayor of Spokane — could do no better than fall nearly 10 points short.

Still, while Donald Trump won this district in the last two elections, he did so both times with a blah 54% of the vote. The Cook Partisan Index gives the district a mere 5% Republican lean, suggesting it could be competitive. In this year of mid-term discontent, might Baumgartner be at some risk?

There’s at least one reason to think so: Baumgartner himself has left an indicator to that effect.

His opposition heading into the primary includes 11 candidates, an unusually large field almost evenly divided between Democrats and independents (meaning, not associated with a party). Just two of these 11 seem to be well ahead of the others: Democrat Carmela Conroy and independent Nate Powell.

Conroy has been around this track once before: She ran against Baumgartner two years ago and lost to him 60.6% to 39.3%, a normal partisan result for this district in this century.

She has made the argument that she’d be a stronger and better established candidate the second time, and that Baumgartner would be weaker because of problems associated with the Trump administration. Baumgartner has been an across the board Trump loyalist in the House, including on issues like tariffs and the Iran war which are highly unpopular back home.

Powell, a Spokane firefighter, Marine veteran and first-time candidate, has a different take: Go after not only Trump but the political system. He said in one news report, “The problems we’re facing are not left-right issues. They are top-bottom issues, because we have let billionaires and large corporations pay lobbyists to buy politicians to own our government, and until we fix the problem of corporations being overrepresented in our government, we will never be able to support working people.”

He sounds, in other words, like many of the anti-Trump insurgents, such as fellow independent Dan Osborn in Nebraska.

At this point we need to remember, as Baumgartner clearly does, how Washington’s primary system works. It’s a top two, meaning that the two candidates who receive the highest number of votes in Tuesday’s primary election will go on to November, regardless of which if any party they have joined. Baumgartner clearly will be one of the finalists, but who will be the other?

Here’s a clue: Baumgartner is spending a good deal of money on an ad purporting to attack Conroy, in terms that make her sound appealing to Democratic primary voters.

Conroy does have, or did as of recent reports, a fundraising advantage over Powell. But Powell is getting significant funding from PACs, to the tune of at least $800,000, including one that provided critical help to Gluesenkamp Perez in 2022.

One of those high-frequency ads describes Powell as the “only candidate who will fight for Medicare for All, beat Baumgartner, and stop Trump.” The race between the two of them seems highly competitive.

If Powell wins, he would not have to worry about a Democrat competing with him for anti-Baumgartner votes.

That would make a useful test — courtesy of Washington’s top-two election system — for the theory that an independent running head to head against a Republican (or Democrat) in a district dominated by that opponent’s party might have a shot at winning.

Keep an eye on Washington’s 5th District.

Originally posted in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.