Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in October 2024

This time, he missed

October 15, 2024

So, someone took a shot at the President.

He survived, thank God.  But, the most obvious question for debate is "Why did it take so long?"

Donald Trump and the National Republican Party have, for years, consistently avoided talk of background checks for purchasers and have pooh-poohed other recommended gun safety laws.  They won't ban automatic rifles like the AR-15.  They've never gotten behind legitimate efforts to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible people.  They've accused those that do of "infringing" on the rights of others.

So, it's worth asking again, why did it take so long for someone to try to kill another President?  Any President?  And with an AR-15?

The groundwork for this latest assassination attempt was laid many years ago.  Long before this shooter was born.  It's really been a question of where and when.  Which President would be the target?  Where would it happen?  Would it be successful?

I was angered by the President's words and actions following the attempt.  Clenched fist in the air and shouts of "Fight, fight."  That's an excellent example of the kind of rhetoric that inspires people like the shooter.  They soak up that sort of mindless speech, seen by a sick mind as an "order" to take up arms.  Remember January 6th?

In this case, the 20-year-old did exactly that.  Except the rifle had already been purchased by his father and was available at home.

"Fight, fight" Trump repeated with clenched fist in the air.  "Fight, fight."

This nation has been embroiled in the senseless murder of public officials and engaged in endless talk about controlling firearms for generations.  Now, we're doing it again.  But, the killings and the near-killings continue unabated.

The shooter, in this instance, didn't fit any of the previous profiles of an assassin.  He's White.  Middle-income American.  Registered Republican voter.  Description of probably 100-million of us.  Just ordinary folk.

The "losers," in this instance, would be the Secret Service.  They're getting the blame for not assuring the locale - probably picked by the President's campaign team - could be secured.  More blame will come as nitpickers charge some one from the Service should have been on that roof.  Some will say the President should not have been on an outdoor stage where protection is more problematic.

All B.S.

We'll likely never know if security agents advised against that locale  Or, if there were any concerns about the ability - or inability - of the Secret Service to adequately perform their duties in that venue.

When President's speak - about anything - they most often get their way.  Nobody in the room has "veto power" over the expressed desires of the "Big Guy."  He say's it.  You make it happen.

It's a blessing the President was only grazed.  Another inch or so inward the bullet would have removed part of his skull.  You can bet the Service has replayed videos of the incident over and over.

You can also bet the Secret Service will be more aggressively advising campaign staff on future campaign sites and will be more involved in the selection of speaking locations.  That's what they do.

So, the campaign continues.  As watchers, we'll probably not note much of a change in things.  But, changes there will be.

 

Putrid push polling

October 14, 2024

The “push poll" is an underhanded political tactic designed to evade campaign finance reporting laws. The Oxford Dictionary accurately describes a push poll as “an ostensible opinion poll in which the true objective is to sway voters using loaded or manipulative questions.” An example would be asking voters whether they would be inclined to support a certain candidate if they knew he was a child molester. There is no direct accusation, just a strong insinuation. Push polling expenditures are rarely reported under sunshine laws because they are falsely claimed to be mere polls. Loaded polls are clearly designed to influence elections. Failure to report them constitutes a violation of our campaign laws.

Unfortunately, boosters of school voucher schemes in Idaho have been using push polling to target legislative candidates who oppose using taxpayer money to subsidize private and religious education. Push polling was reportedly used in the May primary elections to target Republican incumbents who believed the use of public money for religious schools violated the Idaho Constitution (it does) and would harm funding for public schools (it would). Push polls generally cover a broader range of hot-button issues than the specific one of interest to the person or group paying for the poll. The objective is to defeat the target by any means.

Push polling has raised its ugly head in Idaho’s general election. Kathy Dawes, a respected educator and community member in District 6, has been targeted by JMC Analytics and Polling (JMC), a Louisiana company that has done work for the American Federation for Children (AFC). Incidentally, AFC is an out-of-state dark money outfit that dumped $400,000 into the May primary for the purpose of defeating reasonable Republicans who supported Idaho’s public school system.

The Dawes push poll asked a variety of hot-button issues, including whether the recipient would vote for her if they “knew that Kathy Dawes sides with radical special interests who support open border policies and raising taxes on Idahoans?” This is no objective poll. It is a clearcut effort to smear Dawes and, as such, is required to be reported under Idaho’s Sunshine Law. The push poll contains no disclosure. Dawes says the insinuations are dead wrong. She has reported the poll to the Secretary of State.

Mary Shea, a House candidate in District 29, was similarly smeared by a JMC push poll. Shea is an attorney who has a long-standing commitment to providing free legal assistance to needy Idahoans. Shea is a valuable member of Idaho Legal Aid Services, which I worked with closely as Chairman of the Idaho Pro Bono Commission during my service on the Supreme Court. Neither she, nor Idaho Legal Aid, support policies that “make our communities less safe and clean,” as the sleazy JMC push poll implies. Nor does she “want higher taxes and open borders.” The push poll targeting Shea does not have the disclaimer required by law.

Senator Rick Just, who is running for re-election in District 15, is also being smeared by a push poll. I’ve known Rick for decades. I can attest that the poll contains numerous contemptible lies, including that Rick supports “child gender mutilation surgeries” and “open borders” and “sexually explicit materials” in schools. It is not clear who circulated this poll, but this type of trash has no place in Idaho political campaigns.

It is likely that many other races are infected by similar push polls. When this kind of incendiary campaign fodder hits your media feed or mailbox, the best thing to do is check a reliable voter guide. Take Back Idaho has a non-partisan, even-handed voter guide at idahovoters.com that can separate the wheat from the chaff. Knowing the facts about these candidates, and that the objective of AFC is to defeat them in hopes of getting state money into the hands of religious schools, I’d give whole-hearted support to all three, as well as their like-minded compatriots.

 

A curious appointment

October 12, 2024

Why did Idaho Gov. Brad Little appoint the longtime spokesman of the scandal-plagued National Rifle Association to run two of the state’s most image- and management-sensitive cash cows — the Idaho Lottery and the state liquor dispensary?

It’s a good question that the governor’s office isn’t answering.

On Aug. 22, with no fanfare, Little announced the appointment of Andrew Arulanandam, who served for a few months this year as the interim president of the NRA and before that for years as the organization’s top public affairs official, to run two Idaho agencies that over the last 10 years have produced more than $2.1 billion for Idaho’s public schools, building, local governments and the general fund.

The announcement of Arulanandam’s hiring was so low key that as far as I can tell no Idaho news organization published a story about the hiring, and only the Lewiston Tribune commented on the appointment, noting correctly that Arulanandam had no apparent qualifications for running a lottery or a state liquor system, and that the appointment smacked of the rankest kind of political cronyism. Arulanandam nearly 25 years ago, before going off to flak for the gun lobby, served as executive director of the Idaho Republican Party and worked for Gov. Phil Batt.

One has to have been living under a rock for the last half-dozen years not to know the NRA that Arulanandam recently left is a corrupt, obscene mess led until January of this year by a corrupt grifter, Wayne LaPierre.

As the Associated Press reported in January, Arulanandam became the NRA’s interim president when LaPierre resigned on the eve of a civil trial in New York “over allegations (LaPierre) treated himself to millions of dollars in private jet flights, yacht trips, African safaris and other extravagant perks at the powerful gun rights organization’s expense.”

A New York judge banned the 74-year-old LaPierre from holding any position with the NRA for 10 years, saying that NRA leaders displayed “a stunning lack of accountability” regarding their own responsibility for years of financial mismanagement.

Arulanandam, as he confirmed during a deposition in another case that resulted in a $12 million settlement paid by the NRA to its longtime PR/marketing firm, reported directly to LaPierre. As Arulanandam said when asked about a typical day on the gun lobby payroll, “I interacted a lot with my boss, Wayne LaPierre.” He also confirmed he often traveled with LaPierre on private jets, part of the grift that finally caught up with LaPierre.

The NRA culture of corruption runs deep. As ProPublica reported in 2019, the NRA used member dues to settle a sexual harassment suit against another top NRA official. While the settlement amount was not disclosed, Arulanandam was quoted in news accounts defending the NRA’s actions and downplaying the incident.

Arulanandam is making $200,000 a year in his new position, a big comedown from the more than $330,000 he made at the NRA, but still one of the highest paid jobs in state government. Jeff Anderson, Arulanandam’s predecessor, was making $186,000 when he retired effective July 26. And Anderson held the job for 17 years.

So the real question for Idaho’s governor is why he thought it’s appropriate.

Who recommended Arulanandam? The governor’s office isn’t saying.

Was there some type of process to select the person to operate the technology and security-heavy lottery or the retail and warehousing operations of the liquor dispensary? No response from the governor’s office.

Given the sensitivity of the positions, was there a background check or even a reference check? There is no indication such prudence was applied. None of my requests for more detail or explanation was answered.

What little that is known about Little’s decision to put the NRA’s longtime mouthpiece in charge of two big money-making state operations comes from reading between the lines of what appears to be less than full compliance with Idaho’s public records law.

I requested email, correspondence and text messages related to Arulanandam’s appointment. What can be pieced together from the documents is that Arulanandam sent a text to Little’s chief of staff, Zack Hauge, on Aug. 3 thanking him “for the consideration” and saying he would send his resume, another document the governor’s office refused to provide.

The two appear to have spoken about the liquor and lottery positions on Aug. 5. On Aug. 13 Arulanandam and Little spoke by phone and the governor offered the job. Arulanandam accepted. The next day Hauge emailed a formal offer of employment. It is important to note that all these exchanges, email and text, are dated and time-stamped.

Yet, the final text message the governor’s office released is different. There is no date or time stamp on a message from Arulanandam who was responding to someone in Little’s office, almost certainly Hauge.

“Ha,” Arulanandam wrote in his text. “That’s a name bestowed on Dyke Nally back in the day! Thanks so much for the opportunity. I will work hard. I know I have big shoes to fill and am determined to try and do better.” The reference to Nally, another former liquor director who is a close friend of former Gov. Butch Otter, is truly curious.

Repeated requests that the governor’s office follow the disclosure law and release the other half of this text exchange were stiffed. Arulanandam did not respond to a request that he clarify what he was talking about.

Yet, Arulanandam was clearly responding to someone. And in doing so, he felt compelled, shortly after accepting his new high profile job, to say he was “determined to try and do better.”

Who says that even before officially assuming a new position? And was his reference to Nally a diss of the former director or something else?

In any event, the governor’s office is engaged in an evasion about a significant appointment. Why?

 

Watching the debates

Watching the debates

October 11, 2024

Even in Idaho, debates can matter. You might check in on that with Dan Foreman.

Foreman, a Republican from Viola, is the state senator for the district including much of Latah and Nez Perce counties. He has been highly controversial through his public life, and in his four general election percentages in runs for the Senate generated less than spectacular results for a Republican: 50.1% in 2022, 49.6% in 2020, 43.9% in 2018, and 50.8% in 2016.

Meaning that he’s probably not been coasting to an easy run for re-election, against Moscow City Council member Juliia Parker, this year. The numbers may be close enough that what he said at a near-debate - actually a candidate forum, but close enough - might matter.

According to several people present, Foreman addressed another candidate (not his opponent), disagreeing with a point she was making (on racism in Idaho, from her perspective as a Nez Perce Tribe member) and then proceeding to confirm her point by telling her to “go back where you came from.” Foreman has denied making the statement. Apparently, the event was not recorded.

Which may be a good reason to get all these things on video - and to watch, and attend, them.

For decades, televised debates have been a standard for Idaho politics, and television and sometimes radio across the state routinely has offered a score or more debates every campaign season, for major offices and often including state legislative and other posts as well.

That tradition has been weakened in recent years. First District U.S. Representative Russ Fulcher, for example, has declined to debate his Democratic opponent, saying, “To sign up for a debate would be the single largest contribution they would have, and I’m not in the business of campaigning for my opponents.”

But the object of a campaign debate is not supposed to serve as an advantage to one side or the other. It is supposed to advantage the voters, who may get no other opportunity to see the contenders side by side, and counterbalance the often nauseating tsunami of paid-for materials. The strategic strength of one candidate against another should not be a consideration.

You can test that proposition for yourself, in a more disinterested way, as I do every election season, on one of the few cable news channels I bother to watch.

If you have cable TV (or even if not, if you have streaming) you can find many of these debates on C-SPAN, the cable news service which simply and plainly presents the events as they occur, with external and extraneous commentary kept to a minimum or foregone completely. You get to evaluate what happens for yourself.

Many presidential-level debate events (not all: it depends on the host) are available there. I find more interesting the lower-level debates C-SPAN also provides, including congressional and statewide offices, and a smattering of others as well.

This week, for instance, on Monday night alone I watched debates between the major parties' nominees in the Pennsylvania 7th, Minnesota 2nd and Nebraska 2nd congressional districts. The Nebraska contest may be one of the closest in the nation (that district covers urban Omaha), and the debate between the candidates was a good example of civil but hard-fought. The Minnesota debate featured one of the most skilled debate performances, from an incumbent, I’ve ever seen. On Wednesday night there was a hot debate for the U.S. Senate seat in Arizona. You can learn a lot about what constitutes a good or poor debate performance, and about how to evaluate issues, by watching these candidates who you don’t know.

But you can learn a lot more. These candidates sometimes get into purely local subjects, but often they’re talking about much the same things candidates elsewhere - such as in Idaho - would be discussing. If you hear candidates from some other place discussing, say, social security or immigration, you may come away with some fresh insights.

You can also learn this: If these people in other states can bestir themselves to debate, maybe those in Idaho can do it too. And as Dan Foreman could probably tell you, something might come of it.

 

Fulcher’s strategy

October 9, 2024

Congressman Russ Fulcher is not shy about telling people why he deserves a fourth term as Idaho’s First District representative. But he has no desire to make his case on a debate stage, or even give his opponents the time of day.

Fulcher’s primary challenger is Democrat Kaylee Peterson of Eagle, who is making her second run for the seat. Brendan Gomez (Constitutional Party) and Matt Loesby (Libertarian) also are on the ballot.

But to Fulcher, he doesn’t see enough there to warrant his attention.

“We monitor these things closely and there is no objective metric of a viable campaign,” Fulcher says. “To sign up for a debate would be the single largest contribution they would have, and I’m not in the business of campaigning for my opponents. I’m not afraid to debate, but I’m not stupid either. They’re going to have to do their own campaigning.”

Peterson has not lacked for effort. The 34-year-old mother of two, who has turned congressional campaigning into a long-term project, is a community activist and student at the College of Western Idaho. Her candidacy has at least some viability, with endorsements from labor unions. The Idaho Statesman endorsed her two years ago, and she very well could get it again given the paper’s overall disagreements with Fulcher. Peterson has spent much of this campaign meeting with various people in communities and holding town hall meetings for Republicans in rural pockets.

But getting attention as a Democrat running in one of the nation’s most conservative districts has been a challenge. Editors and reporters have not shown interest in her campaign, figuring that the race is basically decided, and lining up speaking engagements with civic organizations have been difficult with that pesky “D” attached to her name. Her biggest problem might be running in the wrong state. She fully backs Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential bid and embraces her plans for the economy, which can be problematic in an area that former President Trump is expected to win big.

But her campaign is not all about presidential politics. She says that Fulcher, and the Idaho congressional delegation as a whole, are not working for Idaho families.

“Russ Fulcher travels up and down the state telling his followers that politics is good vs. evil and that his Democratic colleagues want to turn us into some socialist Venezuelan state,” she says. “Its easy to see why people believe I am the enemy. My job is to go into the most conservative rural areas and show them that I am an Idahoan who just wants good common-sense policies, which we have not seen from our congressional delegation.”

She chides Fulcher for under-funded infrastructure projects in the district and fostering an environment that has produced low wages. “Our families are struggling. We have all these issues that can be solved at the federal level that are not being addressed right now, and we have a congressman who loves to make political points.”

Fulcher argues that his “points” are for better government. And, of course, he backs Trump.

“We have a wall coming and it’s in the form of a $35 trillion debt,” he says. “I am not for begging the federal government for funds that it doesn’t have. The answer is state and local control and the resources we have here.”

In the big picture, Fulcher says, he stands with a party that embraces a free-market economy, individual liberty and personal freedoms. “The other side” is more in tune with western European style of socialism “with things like electric-vehicle mandates, more government programs, energy dependence, an open-border strategy and DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion).”

The 62-year-old Fulcher says his range of experience – 20 years on a farm, 20 years in international business, 10 years in the Idaho Senate and three terms in Congress gives him an attractive resume. He’s also gaining seniority on committees that are related to energy, commerce and natural resources – which cover a wide range of interests in Idaho.

Peterson says she’s not going away regardless of the outcome in this election and, with her age, time is on her side for winning over the district. The question is whether conservative voters there will ever look beyond party labels.

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

 

Hates who they hate

October 8, 2024

A "friend-of-a-friend" posted something on Facebook the other day that caught my eye.

The posting read "I used to think they believed his lies.  That's not it.  They know he's lying and they don't care.  He hates who they hate and that's enough"

A somewhat humorous and, I believe, accurate statement of fact about the Presidential candidacy of one Donald Trump.

"He hates who they hate and that's enough."

Not exactly the same enlightened philosophy of, say, a Roosevelt, a Truman or an Eisenhower voter.  But, sadly accurate.

There's no question most candidacies for higher office in our fair land have been cheapened.  Often, few of the recently nominated have the necessary qualifications for those offices.  "Style over substance" has too often been the victor.

As if to rebut that characterization, Democrats have picked a guy named Tim Walz for the office of Vice President.  Relatively unknown until Vice President Kamala Harris plucked him out of Minnesota to place him on the national stage.

Walz is an interesting character.  Err - candidate.  Short.  Sixty-ish.  Looks like someone's favorite, story-telling uncle.  Or, a guy you'd like to have a beer with.  Speaks softly.  Laughs often.  Displays a good knowledge of current political issues.  Unknown, perhaps, but, appears to have the necessary stuff to be vice president.

Republican J.D. Vance, on the other hand, wears at least a month's worth of beard, may (or may not) have a grasp of current issues but has a hard time with facts.  And, truth.  Like his party's presidential standard bearer, he's "loose with the truth" at times.

In their recent "debate," Vance bent facts, was careless with statistics and, at times, was "truth challenged."  Not a trait you'd like to see in a good vice president.

Both Walz and Vance were plucked from the political bushes by high profile presidential candidates.  Neither is well-known to the general electorate.  With less than 30 days to our national elections, both have a short time to make an impression.

At this time, no more "debates" are scheduled.  Voters are going to have to pay attention to what candidates say - and do - on the campaign trail if they want more information.  And, of course, there's always "Google" if you really want to get serious.

"Hates who they hate" may be accurate but that's a helluva way to pick someone for the office of president - or any political office - of these United States.

 

Where ranked choice comes from

October 7, 2024

The opponents of Proposition 1, the Open Primaries Initiative, have been making uninformed claims about this game-changing voting reform. Dorothy Moon, the head of the extremist branch of Idaho’s Republican Party, contends Prop.1 is an evil California measure that does not fit Idaho. Attorney General Labrador argues that it violates the Idaho Constitution. They both would have you believe the voting system is completely foreign to the United States. They are dead wrong on all counts.

It helps to view the progression of Idaho’s governing structure from statehood in 1890 to the present. We have periodically had governments that believed Idaho’s Constitution when it emphatically stated: ”All political power is inherent in the people.“ Those reformist governments expanded the voting rights of Idahoans. But they were usually followed by governments that tried to restrict the rights of the people and concentrate power in the hands of a few party bosses.

A reformist legislature in 1909 to 1911 did some remarkable things to enhance the political power of the people. That legislature enacted a ranked-choice voting system for party primaries and submitted a constitutional amendment to voters establishing the initiative and referendum to act as a check on unreasonable future legislatures. Subsequent legislatures have done their level best to limit or eliminate those people-power measures. The fight continues to the present day.

A 1909 voting reform law required voters in a primary election “to vote for a first and second choice, where there are more than two candidates for the same office.” If no candidate received a majority of first-choice votes, each candidate’s second choice votes were added to their first choice votes and the candidate with the most first and second choice votes won the party nomination for that office.

The law was challenged in court and upheld by the Idaho Supreme Court in Adams v. Lansdon, 15 Idaho 483 (1910). In its ruling the Court said: “The clear intention of the Legislature in enacting said primary election law was to take the matter out of the hands of party committees and conventions, and place it in the hands of the voter.” That is exactly what Prop.1 will do. Party bosses hated the system and got it repealed.

The ranked choice concept is clearly not a California invention designed to make Idaho a liberal bastion. It is designed to give every voter, regardless of party affiliation, an opportunity to select those who will hold public office. Republicans like Butch Otter and Bruce Newcomb are firmly behind Prop.1 because the extremist branch of the GOP has made it nearly impossible for reasonable, traditional Republicans to win elections.

Greg Casey is another life-long Republican who supports Prop.1. Greg served as Chief of Staff for former Congressman and Senator Larry Craig and as the 34th Sergeant at Arms of the US Senate. He recently spoke on Matt Todd’s Ranch Podcast, calling attention to George Washington’s warning about the dangers posed to the country by political partisanship. He noted that our Founding Fathers wrote a ranked choice provision into the US Constitution to ensure selection of the president and vice president without regard to party affiliation.

Under the original Constitution, each member of the Electoral College cast two electoral votes, with no distinction between electoral votes for president or vice president. The presidential candidate receiving the greatest number of votes—provided that number was at least a majority of the electors—was elected president, while the candidate receiving the second-most votes was elected vice president. Greg provided a tally sheet for the 1789 election, showing George Washington winning the presidency with the most votes and John Adams being elected as vice president. Partisans changed the system with the Twelfth Amendment to keep candidates for the two offices from being affiliated with different political parties. Partisanship prevailed.

The hard-liners opposing ranked choice voting should bone up on history and recognize its deep historical roots. It gives all voters the right to choose who will occupy important public offices, instead of allowing party bosses to control the process. It’s no wonder that extremist GOP officeholders are doing everything they can to keep voters from exercising the political power they are supposed to have under the Idaho Constitution.

 

Four legislative hotspots

October 6, 2024

More than three-quarters of Oregon’s legislative races are not likely to be competitive this year. But that still leaves some serious competition.

The odds are that nearly all of Oregon’s competitive legislative races in November will happen in four areas around the state: the coast, Salem area, eastern Portland suburbs and the Bend area. They accounted for nearly all of the tight races of 2022, and they happen to be the parts of Oregon in political transition.

In the last Senate race in 2020 and the last House race in 2022, the coast accounted for two close races in which the winner had less than 55% of the vote. Republican state Sen. Dick Anderson won in the 5th Senate District, with 49.3% of the vote, while Republican Rep. Cyrus Javadi won with 51.1% of the vote. Both of those incumbents are running again this year against new Democratic opponents. As incumbents, they’re probably favored, but not by much.

The southern coast has trended Republican for many years, but the northern coast was largely Democratic until recently. The Senate tenure of former Democrat Betsy Johnson, who ran as an unaffiliated candidate for governor in 2022, may have been a bridge for a transition.

The area has even drawn national attention for a political shift. Nationally, Tillamook County is  included among the 206 “pivot counties” which voted for Democrat Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 and switched to Republican Donald Trump in 2016. Columbia County was also included and stayed red along with Tillamook in 2020.

This election may tell us to what degree that change is hardening.

The Salem area in the last cycle accounted for five close races. One of those, the 10th Senate District, isn’t on the ballot because incumbent Democrat Deb Patterson won a four-year term in 2022. But the four House races could be close again, with all four of the 2022 winners –Republicans Kevin Mannix and Tracy Cramer, and Democrats Paul Evans and Tom Andersen –  back again and facing new opponents.

Salem, once Oregon’s largest clearly Republican city, has become its most hotly contested piece of real estate. In the last election, Anderson and Evans won by just over 54% each, which was more than Mannix and Cramer garnered. Spending and other indicators suggest those two face a  slightly higher risk this time around, compared with Anderson and Evans.

But all four races are clearly competitive, in Oregon’s capital city that neither Democrats nor Republicans can safely call their own.

The suburban area east of Portland, from Troutdale to Hood River in the north and down to Oregon City and Wilsonville in the south, is not a vast area but it includes a lot of people. In the last cycle –2020 for the Senate and 2022 for the House – it was home to at least eight close races.

Just one is a Senate seat: the 25th District, which was won by Democrat Chris Gorsek. Five of the House races were won by Democrats: Courtney Neron was elected in the 26th District, Janelle Bynum won the 39th,  Annessa Hartman took the 40th, Hoa Nguyen won the 48th, Zach Hudson was elected in the 49th and Ricki Ruiz won the 50th. The 52th District stood apart, with voters there electing Republican Jeff Helfrich, who is the House minority leader.

Except for Bynum, who is now running for the U.S. House, all are seeking reelection. And except Nguyen, who again is facing Republican John Masterman, the rest have new opponents.

This area trended Republican a generation ago, but shifted toward a purplish hue and seems to have stayed there.

Finally, the Bend area, which also has been in political transition, accounts for two other seats that were close calls last time and could be again. One, the Bend-centered 27th Senate District, is held by Republican Tim Knopp. But after participating in the 2023 Republican Senate walkout, he is blocked from serving another term by a constitutional provision on legislative absences. Knopp won four years ago by a thin 50.7% of the vote, less than what Republicans once received in that area. Given shifts in the population and a strong campaign, Democrat Anthony Broadman looks like a probable winner this time over Republican Michael Summers, but the margins are not likely to be large.

The 53rd House District, which Democrat Emerson Levy won last time by only about 500 votes, again looks like it might be one of the closest races in Oregon.

Outside these four regions, only one legislative seat, the 7th House District around Springfield, which is held by Democrat John Lively, could be a competitive race. His Republican opponent, Cory Burket, raised nearly $78,000 as of Tuesday, compared with about $112,000 for Lively, and is running an active campaign.

Still, Lively probably has the edge.

The only other close contest last time, the 29th House District that covers Hillsboro and Forest Grove, now has a winner. Democratic incumbent Susan McLain is running unopposed this time.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

Three amigos

October 5, 2024

In the early 1970’s voters across the Pacific Northwest – Idaho, Oregon and Washington – could boast, and often did, that the region was home to three of the most accomplished, most interesting and most engaging governors in the country.

Cecil Andrus in Idaho, Tom McCall in Oregon and Dan Evans in Washington – the self-described three amigos – formed a political and personal partnership that hasn’t come close to being replicated in the intervening 50 years.

Ironically, the most conservative Northwest state, Idaho, elected Andrus, a Democrat, in 1970 – the first of his four terms – while the more liberal coastal states elected two progressive Republicans. Washington voters put Evans in the Statehouse in 1964 for the first of three terms, while Oregonians gave McCall the first of his two terms in 1966.

Andrus and Evans defeated incumbents to win the governorship, while McCall defeated a popular Oregon secretary of state. Each man became a vote gathering machine, often defying their own national parties and in the process developed legacies unmatched in the region.

All three were pioneering state-level conservationists. McCall’s landmark efforts to preserve public access to Oregon’s magnificent beaches continues to mean to this day that the public interest in the state’s shoreline is paramount. McCall, like Andrus and Evans, believed not every tree had to be cut or mountainside despoiled in the name of economic progress.

The gruff McCall famously told a television interviewer that Oregon was a special place, too special to be ruined by too much development and too many people. “Come visit us again and again,” McCall said. “This is a state of excitement. But for heaven’s sake, don’t come here to live.”

Andrus’s four terms were the bookends for his history making tenure as Secretary of the Interior, a time that saw Jimmy Carter, with encouragement and strategy by Andrus, champion protections of millions of acres of wilderness, wildlife refuges and national parks in the nation’s last frontier, Alaska.

All three governors championed public and higher education and wise economic development. McCall and Andrus were early champions of land use planning. And each man understood the wisdom of joining forces on issues of regional importance, putting aside partisan considerations to give the region greater clout and more ability to attract national attention and money.

Their mutual regard extended so far that Republican McCall came to Boise in 1974 to headline a fundraiser for Idaho’s Democratic governor. When Evans was appointed and then elected to the U.S. Senate after the death of legendary Washington senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, Andrus endorsed Evans as the only man big enough to fill Jackson’s shoes. When Andrus made his gubernatorial comeback in 1986, Evans endorsed his Democratic friend with such conviction that the Andrus campaign turned the endorsement into an incredibly effective political ad.

McCall, a terrific writer whose early journalism career included a job at what is now the Moscow-Pullman Daily News, was the first of the amigos to go, dying of cancer in 1983. McCall was a one-of-a-kind character, brash, outspoken, clever with a quip and determined to make change.

As McCall’s biographer Brett Walth has written, “McCall dominated everything around him … because of all he represented in his state.”

Andrus was a similar personality. Quick with a quip and just as quick, as he often said, to “throw an instant fit” when he encountered unfairness or ineptitude. Andrus dominated the politics of his conservative state through three decades because he was the genuine article – tough, empathic, a strategic thinker determined to make a difference while keeping the trust of voters who just plain liked “Cece.”

Andrus’s death in 2017 left only the last amigo, Dan Evans. And now that towering figure has died at 98.

Evans, who demanded in the 1960’s that the hard right wing of his own party, including the John Birch Society, just leave the Republican Party is the last of a breed: the determined individualist, willing to buck party and ideology in the cause of genuine progress.

Long-time Washington journalist Joel Connelly wrote of Evans: “He was a lifelong Republican, part of a now critically endangered species of conservation-minded members of the Grand Old Party. Nowadays, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference has panels debunking Theodore Roosevelt.”

The legacy of the three amigos will not diminish. You’ll continue to see it in the Andrus White Clouds wilderness in central Idaho, the Alpine Lakes in Washington and a dozen other places championed for protection by Evans and the waterfront park in Portland that carries Tom McCall’s name.

It requires courage and vision and action to make our fractured politics work. The get-along, go-along types can win elections by catering to the worst instincts in their party and appealing to the lowest common denominator in the electorate, but in the end these types merely occupy a place on the ballot or hold down a desk. They do little or nothing for democracy and the next generation.

It’s tempting to say that we’ll not soon – or perhaps ever – see the like of Evans, McCall and Andrus again. And ask yourself why?

The answer won’t be found in partisan politics or fealty to a corrupt leader or even the obvious desire for popularity that too often requires trimming and hedging. Leadership of the type Andrus, Evans and McCall demonstrated was all about character – the moral and ethical qualities of any individual.

Scandal never touched any of these men. They kept their word to their voters. They stood for real and important things like clean air and water and the thrill of wide open spaces where humans are but temporary visitors. They built schools, spoke candidly about challenges, demanded excellence of themselves. They behaved honorably.

The Pacific Northwest once had three amigos and we are better, much better for having had them.