Press "Enter" to skip to content

A journey

February 17, 2026

A couple of years ago, following extensive testing, I was diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment - MCI.  A low form of dementia.

At the time, the neurosurgeon said he couldn't make a prediction for how much time I have left until the curtain closes.  Based on his long medical experience, he opined it could be a few months to a year to several years or maybe nothing would ever change.  No "roadmap" as it were.

In a subsequent conversation, he said the scores on my tests indicated possibly as many as seven years of decline.  But, even that "best-I-can-guess" opinion was followed by several disclaimers.  So, the upshot is, we don't really know how this is going to go.  Or when.

I'm not writing this as a search for pity or sympathy.  Rather, as a lifelong reporter, I want to describe how this journey goes as a "first person" account.  As long as I can.  Family "first lady" Barb has asked me to start a written log and make entries as I notice changes.  And I have.

Just this morning, I was trying to figure out what three bottles of unused prescription medication were for.  She told me.  Then she told me again.  And one more time.  At the moment, a couple of hours later, I don't remember what she said.  But, I can tell you the four-digit home phone number we had in 1948.  I can tell you our home address in 1945.  Long term things are very clear.  Remembering what we had for dinner last night, not so much.

Yes, I've done a lot of research about dementia.  Some is encouraging.  Some is frightening.  Causes are mostly unknown.  Cures are non-existent.  Outcomes nearly all a dead end.

But, there's room for optimism.  At age 89, life has been very good.  I've had my share of both ups and downs.  On balance, things have worked out pretty well. Some dementia patients live their lives with little difficulty.  Maybe I will, too.

No, it's not me that should concern anyone.  It's Barb.  And our daughters.  The ones who likely will experience an ever-increasing burden of care as my awareness changes.  If it does.  They're the ones who will feel the load - both personally and financially.  Caregivers, so often, have the tougher battle.  Being close but knowing nothing they do can reverse the symptoms or bring back someone they love who no longer knows who they are.  If it gets that far.

We've taken care of legal and financial matters as best we can at this point.  Necessary documents created.  Wills updated.  Outside financial and medical support researched.  Home health options examined.  Figuring out what remodeling changes may be necessary for security purposes.  Lots of little details that have never been important before.

One of the difficulties we face is trying to figure out if the changes in my life are because of the dementia or just old age.  Weakness, balance, weight loss.  Even memory.  None of us comes with instructions.  I don't have an "owner's manual" to refer to.  Is the new pain this morning age-related, caused by some dementia decline or just because I slept wrong?

Aging, we're often told, is not for sissies.  That is one hell of an understatement!  When we recently lived in a 55+ community, we saw so many people suffering from just about everything physical.  And mental.  Simply because of advancing years.  Even those who lived the "good life" and took care of themselves were weakened and disabled by a body in which the various parts no longer worked as they should.

No, I don't talk about this dementia business for personal reasons.  Rather, I do it as someone who has been a life-long professional reporter, a researcher of fact; someone interested in the human story.

I'll start - and maintain - the log of changes as they occur as Barb wants.  We've already got some back entries to insert. Will be interesting to look back as we go.  Sort of like comparing how we look today with old photographs of what used to be

I won't bring the subject up again in this space unless something significant occurs.  Which we don't expect.  But, as a lifelong student of fact, I'll try to keep a sort of "third person" attitude for as long as I can to monitor what has become, for me, an unexpected journey.

But, really, isn't that what's life's about for all of us?  Unexpected journeys?

 

Turning away from human rights

February 16, 2026

It was not that long ago that Idaho’s top elected officials stood up for human rights. That era came to an abrupt halt with Governor Little’s recent firing of Estella Zamora as vice chair of the Idaho Human Rights Commission (IHRC). Little’s action followed Senate leader Kelly Anthon’s announcement that the Senate would not act upon Zamora’s pending reappointment to the IHRC.

Both Little and Anthon acted after Idaho’s MAGA propaganda machine attacked Zamora for standing up for decency and the rule of law. She, like a solid majority of Americans and many federal judges, rightfully criticized the unlawful and heavy-handed immigration enforcement tactics of ICE. Anthon, who is a lawyer, claimed Zamora’s comments could reflect bias in IHRC proceedings. That is totally bogus because IHRC has no jurisdiction over ICE or its officers. It only deals with Idaho civil rights disputes.

But the IHRC has always performed an important role in speaking out on human rights issues that go beyond the Gem State’s borders. I know that from deep experience as Idaho Attorney General for 8 years. When I came into office in 1983, I became acquainted with Marilyn Shuler, the highly-regarded Director of the agency. I quickly learned the important role she and IHRC played in advocating for the basic rights of human beings. She and the IHRC played an instrumental role in ridding the state of the Aryan Nations scourge.

Former Governor Cecil Andrus called Shuler a “champion for human rights and basic decency.” Former Governor Butch Otter said she was “a guiding light and an Idaho icon of compassion and decency.” Former Governor Phil Batt, who was behind the establishment of the IHRC, praised Shuler for “pointing out our human rights deficiencies and finding ways to correct our failures.” Shuler was succeeded as Director by Leslie Goddard, who had previously served as a deputy Attorney General for the IHRC. She was also a vocal and effective advocate for human rights and the rule of law.

Zamora was continuing that important Idaho legacy.

Governor Little was not particularly regarded as a friend or foe of immigrants until Donald Trump was elected to a second term in 2024. Little has become increasingly supportive of Trump’s MAGA policies, especially since receiving Trump’s endorsement last year for another term as Governor. Little appears to be all-in for Trump’s campaign against immigrants and refugees of color.

Trump’s storm troopers have concentrated their hard-edged, highly-dramatized tactics against the country’s nonwhite population. Trump has suspended visa processing for immigrants from 75 countries, most of which have predominantly nonwhite populations. U.S. refugee admissions will be at an historic low of 7,500, open only to whites.

Some extremist members of the Idaho Legislature have jumped aboard the anti-immigrant train. A group of anti-immigrant legislators gathered at the Capitol on February 3 to badmouth immigrants, apparently oblivious to the fact that only our Native American population has been here for thousands of years, while the rest of us came as immigrants. These latter-day jingoists want to slam the door shut, just as the U.S. needs new blood to make up for a declining birth rate and an aging population.

One of the anti-immigrants, Senator Brian Lenney, espoused the great replacement conspiracy theory– that nonwhite refugees and immigrants are surreptitiously replacing white folks. Rep. Dale Hawkins bemoaned: “We’re losing our culture as Americans” and “It’s damaging our way of life.” Perhaps it would be helpful for them to study history and learn that the United States was founded and nurtured to greatness by immigrants– people who had the courage to leave home for a better life and the drive to prosper in a society free from government and religious persecution.

Congressman Russ Fulcher has added to the silliness by helping to found the Sharia Free America Caucus, claiming that Muslims are trying to establish Sharia law in the U.S. They obviously don’t know what Sharia is, that it poses no threat to America and that it smacks of the Idaho Constitutional founders’ efforts to target our Mormon population.

If any religious agenda poses a threat, it is the growing number of Christian nationalists who are actually endeavoring to take over the law writing functions of the Idaho Legislature.

Speaking of refugees, I’ve had the privilege to work with refugees in Boise and Twin Falls these last few years. They include people from Somalia, Myanmar, the Congo, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Russia, Armenia, Romania and a host of other countries. Many have faced dangerous living conditions, even death, in their homelands. These people appreciate freedom. They are dedicated to starting businesses and educating their kids. Most of all, they are pursuing the American dream. They do not deserve to be vilified by people who have never taken the time or had the inclination to get to know them.

If there is a refugee problem in Idaho, it comes from the white know-it-all political refugees who have moved to Idaho from blue states to teach Idahoans how to think and live.

Perhaps it would open their eyes to read a January 19 report by Miriam Jordan, a New York Times Reporter, whose title tells it all–”Twin Falls needs immigrants, but the Trump administration has limited the program to white South Africans.” The article touches on Hamdi Ulukaya, the immigrant from Turkey who built the burgeoning Chobani business that has vitalized the economies of the Magic Valley and the Gem State.

Instead of acting in ignorance, Idahoans should continue the long-standing tradition of speaking out for human rights, just as Zamona was doing when Little and his MAGA supporters tried to silence her. That includes welcoming refugees and other immigrant families who enrich our state and support our economy.

 

A partial decoupling?

A partial decoupling?

February 15, 2026

The federal government and the state of Oregon have a disconnect these days on everything from health care to energy policy to, obviously, immigration.

But it boils down to specifics in the case of Oregon Senate Bill 1507, which concerns income taxes, and that requires some explanation — not to mention swift consideration, this being the income tax-paying part of the year.

Where you land on this bill probably relates almost exactly to what you thought of the “big beautiful bill” (House Resolution 1) passed last year by the Republican-majority Congress, and backed by President Donald Trump.

But details matter. Even in Oregon, there’ll be no absolute linking or disconnect; more likely, Oregon will choose among the federal provisions to accept or reject. That calls for some study, rather than a binary selection of which team to support.

Most years, states that impose an income tax match the rules concerning the federal income tax closely with their own. This usually makes tax preparation and business planning easier. Some states, including Oregon, have a default rule that the state follows the federal model unless the Legislature decides otherwise. The Legislature has done that in the past, as in 2018.

Idaho is one of the states running the other way: There, conformance with the federal rules needs specific legislative approval, which ordinarily is given. This year, that approval is roaring along in that state’s legislature, partly because the conformance aligns the Idaho Legislature with national Republican policy.

The states split widely (mainly along red and blue divider lines) on how they’re responding to the income tax issue and Oregon, naturally, has a story of its own.

The recent federal tax law is viewed overall negatively in Oregon, but that’s not universal. A Senate Finance and Revenue Committee hearing on Feb. 4 exploring “decoupling” the state from many (not all) of the federal provisions, drew an array of opinions within 495 submitted opinions. A slight majority of them opposed the bill — that is, favored keeping last year’s congressional tax bill as a model for Oregon’s state income tax rules.

Those critics included some who seemed not to understand the bill; some said they opposed imposition of a sales tax, which isn’t what the bill is about. Others simply proclaimed themselves in opposition to taxes.

But some critics were more specific. An example came from Rep. E. Werner Reschke, R-Malin: “Since the passage of H.R. 1 by Congress in July of 2025, Oregonians have been experiencing the benefits from this economic stimulus program. No longer being taxed on tips, overtime or interest on car loans is a great relief for many Oregonians — especially those finding it difficult to make ends meet. Moreover, H.R. 1’s bonus and R&D same-year expensing/depreciation is an incredibly helpful incentive for businesses to invest both their people and their capital in Oregon. Disconnecting from such important parts of the federal tax code would put Oregon at a serious disadvantage compared to other states.”

The counterargument starts with the loss of state revenue under the new federal provisions. The exact number remains uncertain, but it seems likely to be significant.

Still, not all of the federal bill is being targeted for decoupling. The battle ahead lies within the details: Where tax levels or deductions or other rules should be set, for different types of income.

The federal bill, for example, generally offers a new tax exemption for tip income, and whether you can qualify for it appears to depend on whether you fit into one of 68 (that number may be in flux) “treasury tipped occupation codes.” The categories set in 2024 include unexpected categories such as self-enrichment teachers, pet caretakers and club dancers, though there’s been talk of creative redefinition of “tipping” that could add some higher-income occupations too. Regardless, the tip rule change hasn’t drawn a lot of opposition.

The core of the pro-1507 argument is laid out by the Oregon Center for Public Policy, which contended the federal law “has left Oregon’s financial future on the brink, all to give tax breaks disproportionately to the richest households.” It specified three targets for decoupling.

One is the qualified small business stock exclusion, which the OCPP described as “giving early investors, notably venture capitalists, special tax breaks on their shares of certain corporations.” It’s aimed at higher-income investors, not a broad spectrum of Oregon taxpayers.

Then there’s the bonus depreciation, “a windfall for corporations, subsidizing investments they would likely do anyway. Businesses typically depreciate their purchases over time, reflecting the loss of value due to wear and tear, but bonus depreciation allows them to do it right away, creating greater opportunities for corporate tax avoidance.” The Oregon Legislature might have some incentive to go along with this if the investments were Oregon-specific, but they aren’t.

A third is the Auto Loan Interest Deduction, which does help with the price of buying a car — but only a new car, since less-expensive used cars aren’t covered.

There’s a good chance the OCPP will get a good deal of what it is seeking. But keep watch on the details, not an imagined bottom line of whether Oregon disconnects or not. It’s not all or nothing; it’s pick and choose.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

A sprouting of independents

A sprouting of independents

February 13, 2026

Start with this: The state of Idaho never has elected an independent - a candidate running apart from any political party - to congressional office, or to any of the partisan statewide offices. It has not even elected any independent to the state legislature since nearly a century ago, in 1928.

And hardly any independent candidates have approached even shouting distance of actual election, though lots of independents have appeared on the ballot over the years. Most pick up something like one to three percent of the vote. A side note: Quite a few independents have been elected to county offices.

While some states (Vermont and Maine, notably) have been responsive to independents in recent years, Idaho has not. If most political watchers in the state tend to be dismissive about the chances of independents at least for major office, there’s good reason.

Idaho is now seeing a real sprouting of independents, for U.S. senate, governor, and first district U.S. house. Might any of them fare better than their many predecessors?

Looking first at the candidates, the answer wouldn’t be a resounding yes. While all have genuinely attractive qualities, none is (today) exactly a titanic political figure.

Todd Achilles, the independent running for the U.S. Senate (opposing incumbent Republican Jim Risch) is a former (Democratic) state legislator from Boise, articulate and active as a campaigner, with evident skill in generating some headlines.

Sarah Zabel, running for the U.S. House seat in District 1 (now held by Republican Russ Fulcher), has been campaigning steadily for weeks from Meridian to Sandpoint.

The newest and most prominent of the three is John Stegner, a former state supreme court justice and a district judge (in north-central Idaho), running against Republican Governor Brad Little. I’ve seen descriptions, apparently borne out in interviews, of him as a well-respected jurist, a centrist not far from, say, former Justice Jim Jones, who was for many years a mainstream Republican.

Democratic challengers already are in the field (including but not exclusively David Roth, Kaylee Peterson and Terri Pickens, for those three offices respectively). Since the Republican vote in recent elections (going back to the mid-90s) has been so strong, it’s hard to see how dividing the opposition will do much other than provide an additional, unneeded gift to the incumbents.

That is at least a reasonable view based on all the electoral data from Idaho now available. But let’s use our imaginations and suppose something about this election year is different.

Don’t dismiss the idea of disgust at both political parties.

Idaho’s voter registration system, with its differing rules for who can register in which party, makes it hard to determine the relative popularity of parties as opposed to non-affiliation. Look at registration-by-party stats for other states where the rules impose registration categories and standard rules - Oregon is a good example - and what you find is plunging support for both major parties. (Yes, Oregon has more registered Democrats than Republicans, but non-affiliateds there swamp both parties, both of them in steep decline.)

In Idaho, the Democratic Party has been so thoroughly slimed for so many years that support for anyone who runs under its banner has been rendered literally unthinkable for large swaths of the electorate - a flicker of an idea to be dismissed out of hand without a hearing. That doesn’t automatically mean any great love for the Republican Party, which for many people is just the only other option. More than that: The only option.

That wasn’t true 30 or 50 years ago, but among many of Idaho's voters it is today.

Historically, voters have looked to the two parties to sort between the candidates, an often-used (though too-relied on) shortcut for deciding who to support.

But what if the Republican option, for a key segment of the voting population, has begun to look unappealing too? You likely know as well as I why that might be; just consult the national headlines from recent days, weeks, months.

Would an independent start to look more attractive under those conditions?

Just a thought, for those who want to non-party like it’s 1928.

 

(image)

#+&**/%+#($@+

February 10, 2026

If you can read that, you probably swear as much as I do and you know just what I meant instead of using the actual words. Those are not good, respectable words, actually.

I find myself using more "foul" words lately - more than in previous times. Our mass and (un) social communications are full of the foul and getting - er, well - fouler.

As a journalist/broadcaster for several decades, I usually know the right words - the respectable words - to use. I was raised in a home where "not a discouraging word" was used or heard. In short, I know better.

But, as a casual Facebook user, I'm amazed - and often disgusted - by the continual use of such printed words in postings. Both in memes and individually written texts.

Sometimes, the gutter words - f**k, s**t, pi***d and more - seem to be in nearly every post. They're used - and re-posted - by people I know don't use such words in their everyday activities. For some, they're probably repulsed by others who use them. But, we all know what they are.

They've become verbal crutches for a lot of folks who think their use makes you sound more angry or more "adult" or authoritarian. In the stands at sporting events, heard at an adjoining table in a restaurant or just used in otherwise normal, day-to-day talk or postings between acquaintances.
As a society, we've either become more accepting of their use or we've learned to ignore them. They add nothing to any communication so if you block them out, you won't have missed anything.

For most of us, the shock value - if there ever was such thing - has worn off. Maybe that's why they creep into our speech without a second thought. I read more of them in a week online than I remember hearing in a year, living on a mountaintop above the Arctic Circle with 50 other guys 60 years ago.

It wasn't so long ago the American public was shocked - shocked, I tell you - when Clark Gable said to Vivian Leigh in Gone With The Wind, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!" Now, you hear a lot worse than that on your TV any night of the week. You can even watch "constipated" actors sitting on toilets or bears in the woods wiping their butts with the latest tissue. The goal posts for shock value have been moved way, way down the field.

The overall coarseness in our nation is an ever-present and growing societal reality. You don't like it. I don't like it. But, it's hard to escape. Politicians are using the "bad words" in speeches. (See old Trump rallies.) Older folks, raised in more restrictive times, now post or re-post online words I would have gotten a soapy mouthwash for at home. A lot of young people - who certainly know better - pepper conversations and texts with 'em. They're everywhere.

We've gotten way past "damn" or hell" or other such old expletives. And we're not going back. The new, casual, more common use of profanity has worked its way into our usual, everyday language. Most of us try to ignore it. Most of us won't use it. But it's ever-present. And we're getting inured to it.

Damn!

Idaho’s case for term limits

February 9, 2026

While the MAGA folks in the Idaho Legislature are running amok, there are some glimmers of light and reason peeking through. Kudos to State School Superintendent Debbie Critchfield for telling the clueless budget cutters that she won’t go along with a $55.1 million cut in the education budget. She is on solid ground because Idaho spends less per student than any other state in the nation. Idaho is the second-fastest growing state, giving us the tax base and resources to keep our children from being the least educated and least competitive in the country.

Critchfield raised some hackles last year for giving in to the school voucher law, House Bill 93, which gave an income tax holiday for those sending their kids to private and religious schools. That reduced state revenues by $50 million, with virtually no accountability except the skimpy guidelines contained in the bill. That tax subsidy will not face the chopping block in the budget-cutting frenzy this year. Most of the recipients of the subsidy, except for the highest earners, will not contribute a dime to the vast array of state programs being cut by the MAGA crowd. She has partially redeemed herself.

There is no redemption for legislators savagely cutting budgets for so many necessary state programs–road construction, Medicaid, higher education, State Police, on and on. We were just told that our prison population is growing while prison financing is declining. Prison staff may have to be furloughed, leading to increased prison violence. Since 36.5% of Idaho’s prisoners were sentenced on drug charges, it would make economic sense to make drug treatment programs more readily available, both in and out of prison, but that does not seem to register with the legislative budget choppers.

Any reasonable and responsible legislative body would see the desperate need to increase state revenues to adequately fund essential programs. An income tax increase on the wealthier Idahoans would barely be noticeable to them, especially since they have seen $4 billion in tax cuts over the last 5 years. We should leave the modest earners alone while increasing the tax rate for those who can afford it.

Besides Critchfield, Rep. John Shirts has injected a positive note into the legislative mix. His House Concurrent Resolution 23 calls upon Congress to support a constitutional amendment setting term limits for Congress. Congress would likely cut their terms only after Hell froze over, but Shirts is to be commended for starting a conversation.

Idaho’s Congressional delegation is exhibit one in the case for limiting the time our exalted potentates can feed at the public trough.

Jim Risch has been in the Senate since 2009 and is now, at age 82, seeking another 6-year term. I worked for one of Idaho’s very best Republican Senators, Len Jordan. Unlike Risch, he was principled and courageous. When President Nixon was wrong on an issue, like withholding appropriated funds, Jordan publicly and effectively objected. Risch meekly goes along with anything Trump does or says–trashing our NATO partners, imposing unconstitutional tariffs, whatever. When Jordan was deciding whether to run for another term in 1972, he decided against it because he would be 79 years old when his term ended. Jordan was in good health, but he had a conscience.

Mike Crapo is 74 years old and there is every indication that he will run for another 6-year term in 2028. He was in the House for 6 years and has been in the Senate since January of1999. He is just a Trump puppet. It’s time for him to move on.

Mike Simpson has been in the House since January of 1999. Mike is the most disappointing because he has morphed into a full-throated MAGA convert. His recent opinion piece praising “our brave Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers for doing their job and protecting our communities,” is stomach-turning. He says, “left-wing agitators have taken to the streets to defend child sex offenders, drug traffickers, murderers, and other violent criminals.”

Mike overlooks the video evidence showing the intimidation and fear being inflicted by masked ICE thugs on Americans across the country– much like the British troops of King George III were inflicting upon peace-loving American colonials 249 years ago. It might not hurt for Mike to check out the ruling issued by a federal judge appointed by George W. Bush, finding 100 violations of court orders by ICE in Minneapolis.

I regret having supported both Simpson and Crapo when they first ran for the Idaho Legislature in 1984, when I was Idaho Attorney General. They, along with Jim Risch, will not be turned out by a constitutional amendment. That job can and should be done by Idaho voters.

 

Battles over everyone voting

Battles over everyone voting

February 8, 2026

The plain meaning of Article II, Section 2 in the Oregon state constitution seems to be eluding a lot of people in high office in the state.

And that’s a little puzzling because the words seem basic: “Every citizen of the United States is entitled to vote in all elections not otherwise provided for by this Constitution.” It does go on to restrict voting by residency and registration, and allow the Legislature to impose limitations on some financial ballot issues to taxpayers. But the rule is that in elections held by and paid for by the public, every qualified voter gets to vote.

Except that this isn’t true, in a meaningful way, in primary elections, the next of which arrives in May. There, if you’re not registered with the Democratic or Republican party (as a vast number of Oregon voters are not), you’re shut out from most of what’s on the ballot. That includes voting at a critical stage (often, in these hyper-partisan times, the only meaningful stage) for top elective offices.

Democrats and Republicans between them have an effective monopoly on most of Oregon’s top elective offices, but the theory is that those parties are private organizations that should be able to control participation in their activities (“freedom of association”). This leads to the perverse result of private benefit conferred by a government intended to operate for and by the people more broadly.

Two recent and separate legal challenges to this are underway.

One is a frontal constitutional legal argument. The group Our Primary Voice and plaintiff Mark Porter, a retired attorney, last summer sued the state in Marion County court to challenge the restrictive nature of Oregon’s primaries. They noted the state constitution language on voter access and said the primaries aren’t a special carve-out.

On Jan. 30, Judge Natasha Zimmerman rejected the challenge. There’s no written transcript or decision yet, and her reasoning wasn’t entirely clear. A message from Porter indicated she seemed to hold that primary elections aren’t covered under the constitutional provision. But Porter also said she acknowledged the state of Oregon didn’t make that argument.

An appeal is expected, so we’ll have to wait for the next round of legal filings for further analysis — probably long after this year’s primary election.

The second of the recent actions concern two proposed ballot initiatives (currently numbered 55 for a constitutional change and 56 for statutory changes to go along with it). They are intended to accomplish much the same thing as the Marion County lawsuit — to open primary elections — but in this case do it through a vote at the next general election. That effort has been driven by a bipartisan group including former Gov. Ted Kulongoski.

The proposed constitutional amendment says, “In primary elections, all candidates shall be listed on a single ballot, regardless of their party affiliations, allowing all eligible voters to vote for the candidates of their choice for: United States senator, representative in Congress, Governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, attorney general, state senator and state representative and any other public office so designated by law.”

The debate now is the title (or caption) for the initiatives, written by the attorney general’s office. The certified version for each of them says, “Changes primary election processes for most partisan offices: single primary ballot, top two candidates advance.”

That may be accurate, but it sounds little like a clear description of what the planned ballot issues would, if passed, actually do. Nor does it sound neutral: It refers to a major election change, but not the nature of the change. By law, titles are supposed to be succinct, but they’re also supposed to be reasonably clear.

The initiative advocates have sued the state, at the Supreme Court, to change the language. They have offered a number of options.

A letter attached to the complaints and signed by four previous secretaries of state (Barbara Roberts, Phil Keisling, Kate Brown and Jeanne Atkins) concluded with this: “Enabling non-affiliated voters to have a say in selecting those candidates, a right which is denied to them currently, is the subject of these initiatives and will be their intended effect if approved by the Oregon electorate. Voters deserve to be informed of the subject and effect of this ‘main thing’ first and foremost.”

Very likely this year’s primary election, set for May 19, will come and go before these cases get resolved in court.

Along the way, and as voters consider who and what to support in the elections the state will have, they may want to think hard about which decisions they’re being allowed to make, and which not. That could become a consideration, owing to outside impacts from Washington, in the general election. But it might be a cause for concern in the primary too.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

Extreme action there, not here

Extreme action there, not here

February 6, 2026

If you’re really concerned about immigration, especially the not-legal variety, there’s a tool available - and has been for years - that’s cheap, would entail no masked armed forces, and could be implemented quickly. In a state where the political tides seem to run strongly toward sharp control of immigration, this would seem to be just the ticket.

Idaho legislation to do this, at scale and apparently covering most employers in Idaho, was proposed in each of the last two sessions.

What’s happening this session, which is a little different, makes for a telling distinction about attitudes on the subject.

The subject is E-Verify, which was set up in 1996 and is run by the Department of Homeland Security cooperating with the Social Security Administration. Its job is to determine - on request from an employer - whether an employee is a legal resident of the country. Generally, the system is thought to be accurate, with some exceptions.

The states vary widely in how or if they deal with E-Verify. None bar its use, but it’s mainly a voluntary tool in most places. In some like Idaho, governments are required to use it in hiring, and some (like Idaho) include state contractors in the mandate. But some - Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, and North Carolina - require it much more broadly for private employers.

E-Verify has drawn some critics. Civil libertarians are concerned it could lead to a kind of national registration system. The American Farm Bureau, for example, has been a critic of E-Verify: “while E-Verify may not adversely affect some parts of the U.S. economy, it could have dire impacts on agriculture due to the lack of U.S. workers and the absence of a workable visa program.” Other economic sectors could feel some pain as well. You’ll notice between the lines that the concern is the system might work too well, and those business sectors might be deprived of many of the workers they (really do) need.

Averting those touchy areas, Idaho already has some E-Verify requirements for government employers and some state contractors. But it’s not mandatory much beyond that.

In the last two legislative sessions, much broader E-Verify bills were proposed in the last two sessions, in 2025 by Representative Jordan Redman of Coeur d’Alene and in 2024 by Senator Chris T. Trakel and Representative Judy Boyle. The 2025 bill, for example, aimed to “prohibit employment of illegal aliens and require employers to E-Verify each new hire's legal employment status as a condition of employment” - mandates covering “any employer,” in any sector. The 2024 bill was structured a little differently but had a similar end result.

Both bills in their respective sessions were introduced by and quietly died in the House State Affairs Committee. The idea has arisen in several previous sessions too, with similar results.

As hot as immigration is within Republican circles, you might expect this overwhelmingly Trumpian legislature to come back this session with something stronger, and maybe pass it this time.

You would be wrong.

There is a new E-Verify bill this session. The current proposal is Senate Bill 1247, introduced by Senator Mark Harris of Soda Springs. It would be the “Idaho E-Verify Act,” and would go into effect at the start of 2027, when “it shall be unlawful for any covered employer to knowingly hire, recruit, or refer, either for the employer itself or on behalf of another, for private or public employment within the state, an employee whose work authorization has not been verified through the e-verify program.”

Those covered employers, however, are “public agencies, at state and local levels of government, … [and] private employers that do business with state and local government, if they have 150 or more employees and contracts valued at $100,000 or more.”

More simply, Harris said “if taxpayer dollars are involved, the employer must use E-Verify to address the legal status of their employees.” More simply, he said his bill would be intended mostly to codify the existing procedures, which seems accurate.

More of the same, in other words, at a time when the Trump Administration is proclaiming a crisis of illegal immigration.

Must not be that extreme a crisis after all.

(image)

Back in the day

February 5, 2026

Old men like to tell stories. Some are good at it. Some aren’t. We tell them anyway.

I was in the Idaho legislature the last time and only time public K12 funding was cut. I was in the minority and voted against it. Medicaid got cut. It was a dismal time. I entered the Idaho legislature in 2010. The economic crash of 2008 was just washing over the state’s revenue stream. We were growing in population, but the general economic downturn was severe and money was tight. Reserve funds were depleted, zeroed out. That was the situation I joined.

Idaho trails the national economy. By 2010, when I entered the legislative swamp, I could see the national tide beginning to rise. But Idaho must balance revenue against expenditures, according to our Constitution. We cannot bet on a projection.

So we cut budgets.

I watched my colleagues. Mainly the Republicans, since they held the seats and were in charge. I appreciated that they knew the numbers, the fiscal situation, and our mandate. They voted to cut the budgets because there really wasn’t a lot else our state could do right then.

I was betting on more tax revenue coming in than we thought, as the national economy stabilized. I believed some Republicans low balled the projected revenue to justify the cuts. But I respected most of the Republicans who thought we needed to be conservative with our budgeting. We have to balance the book.

And I was right about the revenue. After cutting Medicaid and schools, we ended with a surplus.

I also watched who just wanted to cut the budget out of spite. There are those ideologues. Some conservatives think we should get the government shrunk down to the size we can drown it in a bathtub. But many of my Republican colleagues felt the pain of these cuts. They regretted our circumstance. They saw the need for the services the state provided and regretted we could not continue all those.

That was back in the day.

But Idaho is in this day. And this day, our Republican Idaho legislature has manufactured this “budget crisis”.

The national economy is not on the skids.

Idaho has a Billion dollars in reserves funds. That’s 20% of our annual budget.

But we have our elected representatives planning to cut funding for schools and health care as our population and economy grows. And after they have voted for a billion in tax cuts for corporations and rich people.

I have no idea who I’m talking to here. I’m an old man telling a story. It’s not going well. The room is silent.

This old man remembers those guys in suits in the Capitol with their name tags. I remember the things that were important to them.

I believed most of them listened to and represented their constituents. But also, I knew, some did not.

Once in the lunchroom, when I sat across from a Representative from North Idaho, I asked him who he talked to.

“Oh,” he said chewing his sandwich. “I meet with my central committee regularly.”

I knew this guy. He would vote for any budget cut. And he didn’t care who it might affect.

We do government to help this be a better place, mainly for our kids. So they can have a place to prosper and thrive.

That’s how this old man sees it. But while I’ve been going on, I’ve come to realize, some in the room don’t like the story I have been telling. So I go silent.

As I sit in my chair and ponder the silence, I come to realize, not everybody thinks like I do.

And as I age and decline, I wonder just what is the purpose of this fight?

Then my granddaughter runs in with her new outfit.

We need to be building this place for them.