Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in September 2026

AI in the Oregon 4th

AI in the Oregon 4th

September 29, 2026

If you’re a candidate complaining about an opponent’s stance on an issue, it helps to have a firm and visible position on it yourself.

The subject of artificial intelligence is bedeviling congressional candidates on that basis across the country, and the best example might be in Oregon’s 4th Congressional District.

Monqiue DeSpain, the Republican challenger in the Democratic-held district that includes Eugene, Corvallis and the Central and South Coast, has launched her first television ad of the campaign season on the subject of artificial intelligence, about which she fires directly at her Democratic opponent, two-term Representative Val Hoyle.

It’s an important subject, more than worthy of attention.

The risks of fast-developing generative artificial intelligence, exploding into national consciousness over just the last four years and especially in recent months, grew not just from anti-tech enthusiasts but from the industry itself. This is an extremely rare case where even industry leaders have all but begged for federal government regulation — guardrails of some sort. Congress has been essentially comatose to the subject, in the face of widespread constituent requests but in close accord with the staunchly pro-AI preferences of President Donald Trump.

The next term could be different, especially depending on who winds up in control of Congress, but candidates nationally mostly have not been very forthcoming about what they would support or oppose. Voters should have that information before they cast their ballots.

Bringing us back to the Oregon 4th, and that DeSpain ad.

The ad says (in reference to Oregon) that “big tech sees land to develop, water to consume, power to burn” (an unusual argument for a presumably pro-business Republican). It continues, “Val Hoyle’s taken thousands from the AI companies driving the data center boom.”

Sort of, but we enter here into the foggy grays. The ad’s basis is in a May Axios article saying Hoyle is one of a group of Democrats getting support from a Super PAC called Leading the Future. Founded last year, the PAC is indeed packed with tech industry money and supports AI development and innovation, and appears to oppose limitations on it. As of Sept. 23, Think Big PAC, a subsidiary of Leading the Future, reported spending $292,419 on behalf of Hoyle.

That’s not the same, though, as actually contributing to her: This is an independent expenditure, and Hoyle doesn’t control it, and legally can’t coordinate with it.

The money may be considerable, but this doesn’t look like a full-throated alliance.

A spokesman was quoted as saying Hoyle did not seek the Leading endorsement or funding and wasn’t aware of it before it was released, and said “has one of the strongest records in Congress to regulate AI to protect people.”She has opposed federal measures to block state AI legislation (counter to Leading’s position).

On May 13, Hoyle delivered a post on X seeking to be “crystal clear:” “Leading the Future endorsed me because they are working to build a broader coalition around AI regulation and I don’t believe we can put our heads in the sand and ignore the industry. Workers need a seat at the table, because when we don’t have a seat at the table we’re on the menu. I’m glad to be a voice at the table. I believe we need to have clear federal regulation that protects consumers, ensures that workers are part of the conversation on how to move forward and that we are proactively determining the direction of AI development so that the United States doesn’t get left behind.”

From here, that still sounds like keeping one foot in both sides of the argument.

As for DeSpain, her ad does say she has taken no money from “big tech” (which, properly speaking, Hoyle may not have done either). But it also says precisely nothing about how she would address AI or data centers, limiting herself to implicit criticism of tax breaks for such work.

And though her leading ad concerns AI, her website and formal statement seem to be devoid of mentions of it or data centers. In her statement on the economy, she says, “I will support policies that rebuild American manufacturing, lower the cost of goods, and improve affordability so Americans can live and work with pride and dignity. Prosperity requires government to get out of the way.”

That does not sound consistent with regulation strongly limiting AI, which she seems not to have addressed directly at all.

And, of course, the president of DeSpain’s party is as fierce a backer of unrestricted AI development as anyone, maybe even inside the industry.

So neither candidate been super clear about AI. But then, neither have most other congressional candidates, including most of those in Oregon.

A voter’s part in this is to demand more concrete answers. Congress will be faced with a series of complex and important tech decisions in the coming term, and voters should know from all their contenders what they’ll be getting.

This column previously appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

Cause for nuclear alarm

September 28, 2026

Clive Strong was the Division Chief of the Natural Resources Division of the Office of the Idaho Attorney General from 1983 to 2017 and was involved in drafting and implementing the 1995 Settlement Agreement. Darrell Early was an Idaho Deputy Attorney General from 1999 to 2017 and served as Division Chief of the Natural Resources Division until 2022. He was the lead attorney for Idaho on interpretation and implementation of the 1995 Agreement. Here is their warning about rushing into a deal that might result in Idaho being a final resting place for a third of the nation’s nuclear waste.

DOE and the Governor’s Office are discussing whether to designate INL as a Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus. According to the Governor’s Office, that designation could include “additional long-term monitored storage solutions for the DOE, possibly including deep bore hole storage,” in exchange for financial consideration tied to recycling and reprocessing capability near INL. Put plainly: Idaho is being asked to consider taking more nuclear waste in return for promises. That bargain would strike at the heart of the 1995 Settlement Agreement, which was designed to keep Idaho from becoming a permanent nuclear waste repository.

This is not a debate over whether Idaho supports nuclear research. INL already does, and Idaho should be proud of that role. The real question is whether DOE should be allowed to dress up long-term commercial spent fuel storage as “innovation” while offering no enforceable removal obligations. Idaho has learned the hard way that when DOE says “interim,” Idaho must ask: interim until when, and enforceable by whom? The 1995 Settlement Agreement grew out of DOE’s decades-long practice of shipping nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel from DOE facilities and the Navy to Idaho while assuring the state it was only there temporarily. When it became clear that “interim” meant indefinite, Governor Phil Batt sued to stop additional shipments. The resulting agreement prohibited DOE from shipping commercial spent nuclear fuel to Idaho, capped DOE and Navy shipments, required removal of transuranic waste by 2018, required DOE and Navy spent fuel to leave Idaho by 2035, and required high-level waste to be solidified for shipment by 2035. It preserved INL’s research mission while giving Idaho enforceable assurance that waste stored over the Snake River Plain Aquifer would not remain forever. The Agreement also incentivized national action. By requiring DOE to remove spent fuel from INL within 50 years, it helped push the search for a permanent repository.

By requiring transuranic waste to leave Idaho, it hastened use of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico. The Agreement did more than protect Idaho; it kept DOE from using indefinite storage as a substitute for solving the national waste problem. Since 1995, DOE has repeatedly tried to litigate or renegotiate the Agreement. Idaho has negotiated waivers and addenda, but it has not compromised the Agreement’s core purpose: preventing Idaho from becoming a de facto repository and securing more cleanup and greater certainty before allowing exceptions.

Now DOE is back with a new label and an old proposition. Its latest initiative asks states to host a “Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus.” Although the final host agreement is being negotiated in secret, Idaho’s RFI response and the July 31, 2026 MOU indicate that the only assured result is interim storage at INL for at least one-third of the nation’s commercial spent nuclear fuel, with no enforceable assurance that the material will ever leave. That is not innovation. It is repository policy by another name, and it conflicts with the 1995 Settlement Agreement. And what would Idaho get in return? So far, not enough. The MOU offers unenforceable hopes of private investment in enrichment, recycling, reprocessing, fuel fabrication, reactor research, and fuels research. It does not require DOE to fund or build those capabilities. It merely says DOE will encourage private investment. Much of what is being dangled before Idaho already exists at INL, which is DOE’s lead laboratory for spent fuel research and already supports advanced fuels, reprocessing, fuel fabrication, and reactor demonstrations. Idaho should not trade enforceable protections for aspirations and press releases.

Idaho should be especially skeptical because DOE has not yet earned more trust. DOE promised for decades to remove waste from Idaho and failed until the state secured a court-enforceable agreement. Even now, DOE has not fully met its obligations: transuranic waste still awaits shipment to WIPP after the 2018 deadline, high-level waste remains in liquid form over the aquifer, and Navy spent fuel continues to accumulate while no repository is available. With 2035 approaching, DOE should be proving it can comply with existing commitments, not asking Idaho to accept more nuclear waste under a new slogan. The Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus proposal is contrary to the 1995 Agreement, and Governor’s RFI response risks turning back the clock by opening the Idaho to becoming a de facto repository. If Idaho accepts long-term commercial spent fuel storage without hard removal deadlines, the nation will once again kick the nuclear-waste can down the road, and Idaho would be left holding the bag.

Before the Governor agrees to any new storage mission at INL, state leaders should demand what Governor Batt demanded in 1995: enforceable limits, enforceable removal deadlines, and enforceable consequences if DOE fails. Nothing less should be acceptable. Idahoans also deserve the right to see and give their input on any proposed agreement before such a profound policy change is made. INL can remain a national leader in nuclear research without turning Idaho into the nation’s long-term nuclear waste parking lot.

 

Wildfires to come

Wildfires to come

September 27, 2026

Oregon’s wildfires haven’t gotten their due this year.

They’ve made some headlines and generated some discussion, but they deserve more. The condition of Oregon may depend on their getting it.

By some measures, Oregon has been the number one state this year for wildfires. While fire season won’t be over for another month or so, Oregon is likely to rank high for 2026.

As of Sept. 8, the National Interagency Fire Center reported nine active wildfires in Oregon, more than any state but Washington, covering 1.1 million acres so far, with at least two of enormous size, the Big Grass fire near Jordan Valley (578,637 acres) and the Rowe Creek Complex near Fossil (337,927 acres).

The overall state numbers are down in September. In late August KOIN-TV in Portland counted 18 fires underway burning 1.3 million acres. Those acreage counts are enormous in absolute terms: Oregon in total has 61 million acres.

A Legislative Fiscal Office report out this month noted “The start of Oregon’s 2026 wildfire season was both early and aggressive, driven by record-low snowpack, record-high temperatures, and early-season drought conditions. The unseasonably dry landscape in March and April led to dozens of early-season fires. … On July 22, 2026, Oregon’s landscape was reportedly inundated by 8,357 dry lightning strikes statewide, sparking at least eight new fires, including the Grasshopper Fire near Mount Hood. By late July, more than 150 wildfires were burning across the state.”

All this was projected at a relatively early point. Governor Tina Kotek in June issued a statewide fire emergency, which set directives for how agencies and responders would cooperate.

These wildfires have been expensive, and are blowing well past previous records. They have been costly to fight (an analysis by KOIN-TV estimated a grand total figure at $842 million). The Fiscal Office report figured on a state level “gross large fire costs totaling $236.2 million and net fire costs totaling $157.4 million. For comparative purposes, this exceeds the fire season costs incurred as of August 20, 2024, by $30.2 million gross and $95.1 million net.

Beyond that, of course, they have damaged significant amounts of land and property.

And they have been responsible for a range of secondary costs. One of the biggest: The cost of electric power, rising in part due to actual and preventative costs of wildfires.

And yet in much of Oregon, the fires seem a little off to the side, peripheral. Most people in Oregon live west or south of the Cascade Mountains, and nearly all of the large fires are well to the east of those mountains.

Many of the more populous parts of Oregon have had mellow summer weather this year — moderate temperatures in much of Oregon, few very-hot days — compared to much of the country. This hasn’t felt so much like fire season in the Willamette Valley.

Too, most of those parts of Oregon also caught only occasional smoke this year. Orange suns showed up from time to time, but outside the actual and more remote burn areas, they didn’t persist for more than a few days at a time.

One good-news aspect of the lower attention may be that — to judge from a range of on-scene reports — wildfire fighters seem to have been uncommonly effective this year.

But still another reason is where the fires were located. For most Oregonians, they were somewhere over there, far away and over mountain ranges from heavily populated areas.

For all that, in some ways Oregon dodged a fire bullet this year in terms of impact on large numbers of people and stocks of property.

But that’s this year. With just a little more than half a year till the start of the next fire season, which quite possibly could be worse, time has come for more intensive planning.

Oregon — and most of the West — has had ongoing small snowpacks. This year, the National Weather Service is projecting something like more of the same, a warm and relatively dry winter, which sounds like not a lot of mountain snow. Next year’s fire season may be a more unavoidable reality than this one.

We have the larger share of a year to prepare for what may be a rough fire season in 2027. We should use it wisely.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

4 isn’t about drugs

4 isn’t about drugs

September 25, 2026

Some elections are about deciding who decides. This year, Idaho voters are being asked to give away a piece of their own power, likely forever, to the Idaho Legislature. This vote will say a lot about the real nature of Idaho.

Welcome to Idaho Proposition 4 (aka House Joint Resolution 4), an under-reported but stunning grab of power that if passed likely would result in the legislature grabbing much more.

It is not deceptive. The formal title of the proposed amendment to the state constitution says, “Grant Legislature Exclusive Authority and Prohibit Citizen-Initiated Measures on Marijuana, Narcotics, and Psychoactive Substances Amendment.” In other words, law related to certain drugs would have to be made by legislators, and could not be changed directly by the voters. Once the legislature decides (even if, one day, to legalize everything), the voters would have no way to weigh in. After all, revisions to the constitution have to go through the legislature.

Proposition 4 would not in itself change Idaho drug law, either toughening or loosening it. It would end the ability of voters in future to make such a decision for themselves.

Today, Idaho voters can pass an initiative - a law - on just about any subject they choose that comes under the heading of a state government responsibility. That could change.

A website called the Idaho Liberty Project, noting the implications of the measure, said “HJR 4 is not just about substances.  It sets a precedent. Once voters accept that one subject is off-limits, the larger question becomes:  Who decides which topics voters are allowed to decide at all?”

That would seem to be the legislature.

The Idaho Freedom Foundation, so influential at the Statehouse, is in support of this amendment, which more than anything else tells you how twisted and perverse its concept of liberty has become. (Taking away power from the voters and giving it to a government agency in their view has become a +1 for liberty. The IFF’s founders likely would be nauseated.)

When I recently talked about Prop 4 with a veteran observer of national politics, his immediate reaction was that the voters likely would reject the proposal: Voters in many states, he noted, have refused to give up their own power. And he may be right; most Idahoans I’ve asked about this recently said they feel the same.

Still, this measure was passed and put on the ballot by a large majority of the Idaho Legislature, supported by every Republican in the chambers. (It also has Republican Party support.) To what extent do the constituents who elected them agree?

Seven other states do have subject restrictions on initiatives, but those concern the structure of state government, relating to state finances and the operation of courts, not policy decisions. This Idaho decision would be the first by voters to deliberately chop away at a part of their own freedom - and the first I can think of in Idaho history.

The implications are national too. A drug policy website noted, “If HJR 4 passes, it provides a template for legislatures in states like Wyoming, Kansas, and South Carolina to constitutionally insulate their prohibition laws against citizen action.”

But the big issue here isn’t the details of drug policy but citizen control of the laws that govern them. Just pick a hot button topic some well-funded interest would like to see decided only by legislators - who often are vulnerable to campaign spending and lobbyist pressure - rather than by the voters, and you can easily see interest group-imposed law in many areas.

Even this year it’s part of a broader theme. Idaho Proposition 1, which concerns state abortion law, is an attempt to reset legislative action over the last half-decade or so on that subject - to weigh in on whether the legislature did the right thing. Already legislators have been pledging to repeal the initiative if it passes, telling the voters in essence that their choices don’t matter, only those of the legislature. A vote against Prop 1 therefore has become a statement by voters that this would be just fine with them. (If Prop 4 passes, you can bet on legislative efforts to ban public votes on abortion policy.)

This is an attempt to grab permanent power from the people.

Prop 4 already has revealed the character of the legislature. The vote in November will be a test of the character of the voters of Idaho.

(image/Wikimedia commons)

Heroes amongst us

September 24, 2026

Not me. I am talking about the next generation.

They struggle to pay off the debt, to buy a house, to pay for day care. They worry about their families, the planet, their community, their state, their country.

Sure, I did that. But I wasn’t very good. I skipped some time with my family to make an extra buck. I put off any community involvement until the kids were out of high school.

I did do the coroner thing.

But we do have young heroes amongst us.

For some reason tonight I Googled Garrett Strizich. It was so satisfying to see he has started the practice of Medicine in Sandpoint, Idaho, his hometown. He and his wife Emily are Idaho heroes.

I first met this guy with his partner in crime, Luke Mayville here in Moscow. I had just been ousted from my Idaho Senate seat. I had fought for Medicaid Expansion for Idaho. I had been ignored. And voted out.

I knew the numbers. They did too. Medicaid Expansion made good financial sense for Idaho. But they knew it made more sense in their way. The human way. These young guys were wiser than this old guy.

These two guys who met me in front of the Moscow Co-op wanted me to run for Governor. They had a plan to get Medicaid Expansion onto the Idaho ballot, and they had a plan to convince Idaho voters to support it. And they wanted my run for Governor to carry that message.

I chickened out. But that’s about me. A chicken.

I did try. But I found I didn’t have enough money. I couldn’t raise a team. I couldn’t do the old style politics.

But Garrett and Luke and Emily weren’t old style.

Garrett was a WWAMI medical student, like I had been, 30 years before.

But he was devoted to this issue. As was his wife, Emily. Honestly, she carried the ball as much or more than he did. Maybe that’s the way. Shared effort.

Luke and Garrett and Emily and hundreds of other volunteers they inspired got it done. They even got retiring Governor Otter to support Medicaid Expansion.

It was a big win. Garrett, Emily, Luke must be proud.

I am. They are my heroes.

So I Google, not having talked to Garrett since he and Emily came back here to Moscow to accept their award a few years back. Shame on me for not keeping in touch. I hope Garrett and Emily find Sandpoint and Idaho a healthy place to practice medicine and raise a family. It can be hard.

I am so inspired that Garrett and Emily came back to Idaho, and to his hometown, even though he was under no obligation. Idaho now requires the students we support to return here. He and Emily came back of their own. Maybe the felt some sense of place, some purpose.

Idaho is lucky to get such heroes to come back amongst us.

We must be growing heroes amongst us.

I am greatly heartened that such a hero, and his wife Emily, a true hero too are among us. It gives me hope.

This is how we build heroes amongst us.

We pay attention. We talk with them. Some are fools. Some are wise. We get to make the call.

If they are stupid, we move on.

If they resonate, we jump in. Our wisdom guides us.

We need heroes amongst us.

Sometimes a simple nod or smile tells them to keep fighting.

You have supported these heroes. Keep it up,

 

Where’s the beef?

September 21, 2026

It must be election season again because I’m seeing many down-home TV ads of Jim Risch wearing his cowboy uniform and tossing hay to his cattle, as well as a bit of BS to the voters. As a guy who grew up on the largest cattle operation in southern Idaho, it does not ring true. My father, Henry Jones, had two cattle feedyards just west of Eden in Jerome County and we rarely wore clean city-slicker cowboy clothes while working the critters. And it is not clear how often Risch gets out to Idaho to toss wads of hay around since he never seems to hold an open town hall in the state.

If Risch was really a cattle rancher, he would be raising hell about Donald Trump’s plan to bring in 660 million pounds of mystery meat from Brazil and Argentina to knock down the price of ground beef. Our producers were finally making a little money on their cattle and we are now going to have substandard “meat” products on supermarket shelves?

The one raising hell about this travesty is Risch’s opponent, Todd Achilles. Todd grew up on his family’s farm in Oregon and knows the ups and downs that face those in the farming business and how essential it is to provide safe, inspected food to the public.

Todd has also talked of the necessity of our Senators speaking out and using their constitutional powers to set trade, tariff and war policies. Risch has failed and refused to perform those essential duties and Idahoans have suffered. The importation of mystery meat just scratches the surface of acting as a presidential “yes” man. Todd has warned that the unconstitutional war against Iran has skyrocketed diesel to over $6.00 a gallon and put the cost of fertilizer almost out of reach, if farmers can find it. Risch is clearly asleep at the switch instead of protecting Idahoans.

Interest rates and inflation are both on the rise, which will hurt all but the wealthy–the constituency favored by Risch and the rest of our Congressional delegation. The Big Beautiful Billionaire Bill they passed last year proved that. It will raise our national debt to over $40 trillion and make it virtually impossible for average folks to get health coverage and affordable housing. Todd Achilles has repeatedly warned of these problems and called for urgent remedial action. To be fair, Jim Risch once warned that a growing national debt would “saddle our children and grandchildren with an incredible debt.” But that was in April 2009, when the debt was about $11.12 trillion.

During my eight years as Idaho Attorney General, I saw enough to conclude that Risch is legally and ethically challenged. The most glaring issue was his ambush of a bill designed to protect the water rights of most farmers, communities and other water users located upstream from Idaho Power Company’s Swan Falls Dam on the Snake River. The dam is about 40 miles south of Boise. The details of Risch’s actions on the bill are somewhat complicated, but I’ve fully described them at pages 117–121 in a book I wrote about the Swan Falls water rights dispute, A Little Dam Problem, which is still available at Caxton Press or on Amazon.

Risch was President Pro Tem of the Idaho Senate and misused his position to orchestrate the defeat of the bill on February 13, 1984 with a surprise and virtually unprecedented tabling motion. At the time he was on a lucrative retainer agreement with Idaho Power. It was an obvious conflict of interest between his legislative duties and his pocketbook. It left a bitter taste in the mouths of legislators, farmers, businesses and community members from Swan Falls to the Wyoming border. It placed their livelihoods at risk, but that did not seem to concern Risch. He savored his underhanded victory.

In observing Risch over the last four decades, I’ve concluded that he’s dedicated to serving himself and pleasing the powers that be, regardless how it plays out with those he is elected to represent. One day he is the staunchest supporter of NATO and Ukraine, but that can change at a moment’s notice if his position jeopardizes a presidential endorsement.

The man is in it for himself. He’s highly partisan. His principles shift with the political wind. I have forgiven all of the Vietnam draft dodgers, except for those who came up with sketchy medical excuses–Risch’s “ulcer” and Trump’s bone spurs. I convinced the Army to take me after spending 14 weeks in the hospital because of a horrific auto accident. I prefer those who volunteer to serve the country in our military forces, like Todd Achilles. He would not masquerade as a cattle rancher just to pander for votes.

 

From competitive to safe

From competitive to safe

September 20, 2026

Just four years ago, after Oregon’s new congressional district map was set, the state was home to a group of strongly contested races for the U.S. House.

By any reasonable measure, the Oregon general election ballot of 2022 showed safe seats for three of the state’s six districts — northwest District 1 Democratic, eastern District 2 Republican and Portland-centered District 3 Democratic. This was no surprise; none of those areas had been seriously competitive for a few decades, and they are not today.

But in 2022, the other three were battlegrounds.

Such was the perception during the campaign, locally and nationally, and it was reflected in the 2022 election results. In southwest Oregon’s 4th Congressional District, Democrat Val Hoyle won with 50.5% of the vote, leading Republican Alex Skarlatos by 7.4 points — a modest win. In the 5th that stretches from Bend to Portland, Republican Lori Chavez-DeRemer won with 50.9%, with a margin of about 1.9% — very small. And in the 6th District in the Willamette Valley, Andrea Salinas prevailed with just 50.1%, a barely larger 2.4% margin.

This reads like the setup for a decade full of tight, competitive races.

It hasn’t played out that way.

In 2024, Hoyle’s winning margin grew to 7.8%, and Salinas’ expanded to 6.8%. The 5th District was the partial exception, since it flipped to Democrat Janelle Bynum, but with a still-narrow margin of 2.7% over Chavez-DeRemer.

So far this year, indicators suggest all three seats — not to mention the other three Oregon House seats as well — are all but locked down for the incumbents. To find serious U.S. House contests, in a year when House control is swinging in the balance, means crossing the border north to Washington’s 3rd District, where Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez is in another serious contest, or maybe south to northern Nevada’s 2nd District, where local observers split sharply on how competitive that open seat is.

Of course, we won’t know for sure if the Oregon incumbent advantages really have solidified until we see the election returns. But we do have indications.

This year, Hoyle faces Republican Monique DeSpain, who has been running an active campaign. Her fundraising is about half of Hoyle’s, however, and the main national race raters (Cook Political Report, Decision Desk, Inside Elections and Sabato’s Crystal Ball) all rate it as “safe Democratic,” meaning they don’t consider it genuinely competitive.

The story is about the same in the 6th District, where the national raters in recent months have considered the district “safe Democratic.” One element of that may relate to funding, where as of June 30 Salinas has raised more than $1.6 million and Republican David Russ, whose campaign has been low-key so far, reported raising $12,791. The contest so far appears as quiet.

The current 5th District 5 has been home to two close elections in a row, in each case flipping partisan control, so you might expect a big battleground there this time. But, while it does seem more competitive than the 4th or 6th districts, it doesn’t look as strongly competitive this time.

This year, Bynum is facing Republican Patti Adair of Deschutes County. This district, drawn with just a slightly Democratic advantage, should hold the most potential for an exciting contest, but three of the national raters (Cook, Decision and Inside) consider it a solid or safe Democratic seat, while Sabato rates it as likely Democratic.

Campaign money may here, too, be a consideration. By June 30, Bynum reported raising almost nine times as much money as Adair, and such a heavy disparity often indicates a level of confidence in election prospects. While this is the Oregon district with the closest match of Democrats (who represent a plurality of voters) against Republicans, the sides seem to have hardened enough that a Republican crossover like the 2022 contest seems increasingly less likely this year.

Some of this political shift, in the cases of Hoyle and Salinas, may reflect incumbents in their second terms becoming more entrenched. Normally, incumbents — as a broad rule — become harder to beat after their first re-election.

All of this seems a reflection of the nation generally. Democrats appear to be building toward a wave, and Democrats in blue states seem more shored up than usual.

But it also may reflect a hardening partisanship in Oregon.

This column first appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

An incoming agenda

An incoming agenda

September 18, 2026

Way back a half-century ago when I arrived at the University of Idaho, the cost of a higher education was not a big concern.

Being an out of state student, I did pay tuition, as in-staters then did not. That still wasn’t any serious obstacle; tuition and fees amounted to a few hundred dollars. There were residence and meal fees too, of course, but they were not especially onerous either.

I had saved some money from work during the prior year and to that added some help from my parents, some part-time work at Moscow, and a small loan, which post-college I easily paid off in a couple of years. No problem, really, and most students (at least at public colleges and universities, and many private institutions too)  of the time probably could say something similar.

That was then. This year, the state Board of Education “approved an increase of $425 for resident undergraduate students at Boise State, University of Idaho, and Idaho State University and $350 for students attending Lewis-Clark State College. The decision reflects a deliberate effort to balance student affordability with the long-term sustainability and competitiveness of Idaho’s higher education system.”

That increase for just this year was close to the semester tuition I paid back in the day.

For the academic year just starting, the University of Idaho website reports, cost (tuition and the rest) for attendance is estimated overall at $50,267 for non-residents and $30,791 for in-state students. And,of course, the UI still is a lot less expensive than many institutions.

That’s a whole different world than I experienced back when: Far more oppressive and life-bending. What was not a difficult proposition for many students a few decades ago has become one.

None of this is really news, of course, but there’s cause for mentioning it now: An upcoming change of the guard at UI. Scott Green, who has served a respectable seven years as president, said he will retire next summer, and the heavy machinery for hiring a replacement is kicking into gear.

A suggestion: Throughout the process, ask applicants for the position what they will do to help make the UI a more affordable education option, filling the needs of the many who need the help rather than just a few who can afford it, the way it once was.

It’s not that a university president can simply make such things happen on campus with the issuance of a proclamation. But a university president can be an influencer, can advance an agenda, can put ideas on the table, can reach the public.

No institutional strategist would advise a new UI president to launch and lead a visible campaign for decently funding higher education in Idaho (which isn’t now), one of the big causes of high costs for students. But that’s exactly what a university president should do.

Nor would the successful applicant get much advice to find ways to save money without weakening value to students, meaning pressuring both external accrediting organizations and internal administrative and support functions that have grown so much in the last couple of generations. But they should.

Add to that taking a more critical look at spending that doesn’t enhance education at the institution. (Yes, UI also conducts valuable research work, but much of that is underwritten by grants and other income.) In his recent book Crisis of the Common Good, Senator Chris Murphy - an advocate for the benefits of higher education - warned about “not more accessible education but visible monuments to institutional prestige - cathedrals built to a credential that grows more expensive and more exclusive with every groundbreaking.”

He also wrote about finding more flexible ways of awarding degrees and certifications, in some cases scaling back the standard four-year schedule for an undergraduate degree in cases where a more efficient selection of courses and instruction could be done in less time.

This should be a solvable problem, one that some states have begun to address more seriously.

Idaho did it once. Idaho can do it again. Here's an opportunity to make the mission of the next president moving toward getting us there.

 

Strong

September 17, 2026

I am an Idaho Democrat. I have tried to serve my community and serve my state.

That first sentence might have doomed me. That is depressing.

Many I have served with were Idaho Republicans, some Idaho Democrats. Some were not worth much, but many were. I tried to learn from them.

These labels are a problem.

They were for me in the Idaho Statehouse. Bert Brackett, an honorable Republican State Senator was afraid to talk to me in the hallway. But he would in a hidden corner. He taught me something there. He didn’t teach me to hide.

Maybe these labels should now be a worry for you in your home.

Amazon knows what you buy. And more.

Google knows what you search. And more.

Apple, heck, maybe everybody knows what you say around the dinner table.

They listen. They share the info. I could tell you stories.

Please don’t consider me a wacko.

I post this shit and have an iPhone in my pocket.

They, and you aren’t coming after me because I am so insignificant. Remember, Idaho Democrat.

We are so weak.

A good cat video consumes us.

And their ability to manipulate….

I guess I’m asking you all to be strong. And that’s what this representative democracy was founded on.

The founders had no idea our data could be stored, mined, minced and manipulated. They thought maybe the white men in a certain state could elect somebody who might have some wisdom. And the body this elected Representative joined might listen to the shared wisdom and be persuaded.

They thought it was so simple. A few strong white men.

Though their design was complicated.

Most US citizens don’t know how our government works at either the Federal or State level. Most people just vote based on party or gender, or they don’t vote at all.

I am concluding here that our representative democracy experiment has failed. I am facing the reality that the big corps who own the data and the power to mine and manipulate that data with their federally supported AI engines control our elections with their money.

And we are weak.

I am weak.

I am an Idaho Democrat.

The strong prevail.

The bullies, the blowhards, the messianic preachers. They build their cults, their followers, and then we buy their sack of shit.

Until we don’t.

I watched the medical profession try to twist its way out of this. For I chose to be a doctor.

Doctors have long been charlatans, snake oil salesmen. Trust from the weak, the sick and ailing, gives us power. That power can be abused.

Maybe it still is. But I honor that my profession tried to right their sinking ship.

It comes down to your, and my weakness. And our values.

Can we be strong?

When we elect someone to represent us, can we pay enough attention?

I think of the Native American bands and how they watched their leaders and made choices. They were so much closer than the Google/Amazon/Apple CEOS who think they know us through the data we give them and they can mine and process with their AI that we pay for.

Yes, I am depressed.

I have my retreat planned.

But I want to go forward. I want the next generation to flourish.

I want this wretched experiment to work. I want the idea of representation and governance to bring us peace and safety.

But in my heart, I know it will basically just be up to us.

Are we, as a collective people strong enough to see the snake oil salesmen, the billionaire CEO’s, the cult charlatans, maybe even the people we have voted for as our elected representatives as false.

It’s very hard to admit a mistake.

I hope we are strong enough.