Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in July 2025

Change in the wind

July 8, 2025

There seem to be some small changes wafting on the Republican breezes.  Small.  But, change nonetheless.

Take what happened in Ohio some months ago.  A proposal was floated.  A proposal to require a 60-40 approval threshold for changes to Ohio's state constitution.

Nearly everyone, with even a smattering of political upbringing, knew this was a precursor to anyone floating a future measure to enhance abortion rights.  Change the threshold for approval of any advisory proposals from 51-49 to 60-40 and you make it harder for any abortion-rights sponsored legislation to get on the ballot.

But, Ohioans weren't having it.  The pro-life forces were silenced by a sizeable margin.  Even some GOP voters joined the winning side.

And, that's the small change.  In state after state, local election after local election, there seems to be a growing moderate  - yes, Virginia - moderate Republican contingent.  Ohio was one example.  But, there are other GOP voices being heard.  Softly.  But, they're out there.

The breeze of change that wafted my way was talking with some Republican friends.  Yes, I do have some Republican friends.

In local conversations, more moderate folks have been lamenting far-right GOP'ers get all the media attention while more middle-of-the-road Republicans have been largely ignored.  Ignored by media and even other Republicans.  As if they didn't exist.

But, they do.  In a number of recent local and statewide votes, their presence has been felt.  Like Ohio.

I'd like to think these more middle-of-the road Republicans are starting to speak up.  Maybe the local conversations in other places are expressing similar displeasure with the antics of their edge-of-the-earth brethren.

Like "Enough is ENOUGH!"

The moderate portion of the GOP has not had much to say for the last 40-years or so.  Emboldened by right-wing radio, Fox, Newsmax and others, the far-right has gathered unto itself a loud, vocal constituency.  More moderate Republicans have not had such a media presence to rally around.  But, they're out there.  And, recent voting on referendums and other measuring platforms indicate that maybe - maybe - the middle-of-the-road crew is using the ballot box to show some strength.

Politics run from the far right side of the road - or left - are not in our nation's best interests.  Neither voice represents the much larger middle constituency.

In some of the larger media markets, there are new talk shows.  Not right.  Not left.  But, the middle.  With participation swinging both ways.  Lively?  Yes.  Good conversations?  Yes.  But, it takes a strong hand by the host wielding the microphone not to let things swing too far one way or the other.  It's a tough task.  I know.  I used to have a microphone on a 50-thousand watt station doing talk.  It ain't easy.

Wouldn't it be great to have two major political parties advancing their differing outlooks from the middle?  Rather than trying to talk over each other?  As they used to say in our first Constitutional Congress, "I vote yea!"

We need to be careful about reading too much into the perceived voices of some moderate Republicans.  Their presence - based on recent elections - is out there.  But, it's still too early to determine if they'll become stronger with other victories with voters.  Like Ohio.  Or, if the far-right talkers of the GOP eventually drown them out.

But, just knowing of their presence is refreshing.  May their tribe increase!

 

Renew the spirit of ’76

July 7, 2025

Delegates to the Second Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia on the Fourth of July in 1776, issued a remarkable document, proclaiming the thirteen colonies in America to be free from British control. Fifty-six delegates signed a Declaration of Independence, famously stating: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Friction with Great Britain had been festering and growing for several years leading up to the split. A decade before the Declaration was signed, Benjamin Franklin had warned the Brits against using their troops to quell unrest on colonial streets. The warning apparently went in one ear of King George III and out the other, because his troops fired into a protesting crowd in Boston on March 5, 1770, killing 5 colonials. That, plus “a long train of abuses and usurpations” resulted in the repudiation of royal control.

In addition to decrying the “establishment of an absolute Tyranny” over the colonies, the Declaration specified 27 grievances against the King’s arbitrary and dictatorial rule. They included his: obstruction of laws for naturalizing foreigners, obstructing the “Administration of Justice,” making “Judges dependent on his Will alone,” cutting off colonial trade with the world, exciting domestic insurrections, “imposing Taxes on us without our Consent,” and making the military superior to the “Civil Power.”

After winning our war for independence, the former colonies adopted a Constitution and Bill of Rights to prevent the dictatorial rule they had suffered under the King. First and foremost, all government power was to be based on the consent of the people. That power would be divided among three branches, with checks and balances to prevent an accumulation of power. Congress would write the laws, the President would carry them out and the Supreme Court would act as an even-handed umpire. We were to have “a government of laws, not of men,” as Founding Father John Adams put it.

Some of the substantial powers granted to Congress were specifically intended to limit the arbitrary actions identified in the 27 grievances of the Declaration. Congress, not the President, would have the power to control the nation’s purse strings, to set taxes and tariffs, to regulate foreign and domestic commerce, to organize a militia and set rules for utilizing it, to provide for our national defense, to declare war, and to enact a wide variety of laws “necessary and proper” for the “general Welfare of the United States.”

The Constitution was drafted in Philadelphia at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. As the ink on the document was drying, a woman asked Ben Franklin, “What have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” He replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Franklin was obviously not putting the onus on the lady, Mrs. Powel, to keep the republic. The “you” he referred to was all of us.

Franklin knew that future generations would lose this exceptional form of government if they did not work hard to keep it. It would take the same kind of unity, sacrifice and commitment that drove the Declaration signers to make the break with Great Britain. We can’t just sit on our hands and simply take advantage of our nation’s many blessings. Every citizen is obligated to contribute to the preservation of our democratic republic.

As it is, many of us do not understand our history or what motivated our ancestors to sacrifice so much to provide us with this remarkable form of citizen-directed government. Even our current President misunderstands the purpose of the Declaration, believing it to be a “declaration of unity and love and respect,” rather than an indictment of kingly despotism. Too many members of Congress do not comprehend the tremendous power and responsibility they possess to provide for the common good of all Americans. Either that, or they simply refuse to fulfill their constitutional obligation to faithfully serve the public. Too many Americans fail to keep informed on public affairs. Too few citizens vote. Few serve this great nation.

All of us should take a cue from those who signed the Declaration of Independence and pledge to do more to serve and improve our country. We can start this Fourth of July by reflecting on what each of us might do to make this a more caring and communal society and how we might enlist others, including those with whom we have political disagreements, in achieving that goal. That would renew the spirit of that first Independence Day in 1776.

 

A road to transportation funding

A road to transportation funding

July 6, 2025

The debate over paying for transportation needs in Oregon may have paused with the end of the legislative session, but it is far from over.

Don’t be surprised if a special session emerges in the next few months, because the need for an upgraded transportation funding structure is real and obvious. But it would be an exercise in futility if agreements on how to make it work aren’t reached first. And months of research and drafting and statewide outreach were poured into proposals during the regular session.

House Majority Leader Ben Bowman, D-Tigard, for example, said: “I believe that people will die because we are not going to fund the broader transportation safety measures that our system needs. My ‘yes’ vote tonight (for a much scaled-down proposal) is because a ‘no’ vote is a vote not to pay for paving, not to pay for fault line striping, not to pay for filling potholes, not to pay for snow plowing. We have to protect these services.” A no vote prevailed anyway.

He wasn’t wrong, but what can be done?

A few thoughts, not really new, but needing re-emphasis.

First, look at how other states do it. Yes, Oregon more than most states likes to plow its own furrows, but useful lessons can be learned from elsewhere. And every state has its own way of raising road money.

The most common funding principle is a “users pay/users benefit” system, where drivers pay in relation to how much of the transportation system they use. Gas taxes and tolls would be examples, as would a fee-per-mile system.

The Tax Foundation said in one report, “When we think of road funding, we tend to think of the taxes we pay at the pump. Gas taxes are largely used to fund infrastructure maintenance and new projects, but the amount of state and local road spending covered by gas taxes, tolls, user fees, and user taxes varies widely among states.”

One 2022 study puts Oregon toward the middle, 29th of the 50s states, adhering to that idea.

But user-based approaches are not the only answer, and by themselves may not be best. When the first transportation framework proposal was published this spring, Senate Republican Leader Daniel Bonham, R-The Dalles, remarked it, “represents multi-billion-dollar tax increases that will burden hardworking families, many of whom are already struggling with the rising costs of living. If this package had been introduced during last year’s transportation road show, we would have heard loud and clear from Oregonians across the state that they cannot afford these types of hikes.”

We need a serious and broad discussion about what revenue system would be best and fairest for Oregonians overall.

Second, consider if the rise in costs can be contained. Road construction has never been cheap, and costs have risen. Still, spending on road and bridge construction has had an extraordinary explosion.

Last fall the Federal Highway Administration reported that highway costs were rising at an annual rate of 9.6% — and that since the end of 2020, costs had risen by an incredible 71.5%. Oregon cannot be exempt from the trend, and the reasons are more than worth exploring.

Third, we need a broader, open review of ODOT. Skepticism on the part of Republicans about how the massive influx of money would have been spent was a key element in their opposition to the funding proposals from Democrats.

ODOT does not, to put it gently, have a large happy cheerleading section around the state, which Republican legislators have noted sharply. Rep. Bobby Levy, R-Echo, for example, warned in legislative testimony that, “we can’t just keep asking Oregonians — especially those who are already economically vulnerable — to pay more into a system that hasn’t proven it can manage the resources it has.”

The complaints about ODOT do not come exclusively from outsiders. In an agency report published last September, mid-level managers were surveyed about conditions and practices at the department described poor morale, a lack of communication and other problems.

A massive influx of money to the agency will prove a hard sell in some quarters. A serious and very public look at how the agency runs, and efforts to get it to run better, might generate some support.

Finally, bringing Republicans more centrally into the process would help. For much of this session, Republicans were heavily involved and Republican leadership expressed optimism about the outcome. But as the session wore on, that sentiment seemed to fade. Given the historical record of transportation funding plans rarely if ever passing without bipartisan support, that ought to be a priority. Democrats could even start by asking Republicans to put their preferred options on the table as a first step.

There’s no easy or snap answer here. But broader thought processes and legislating could go a long way.

This column first appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

(image/Washington Department of Transportation)

 

The Kohberger non-trial

The Kohberger non-trial

July 4, 2025

Simply as a matter of statistics, the plea deal with accused killer Bryan Kohberger, as opposed to a murder trial, is what you would expect.

And contrary to what happens in many cases, something along the lines of justice probably is being served.

To the first point, you should realize that the many TV programs centering on a dramatic trial do not much reflect today’s criminal justice reality. I’ve spoken to a number of veteran attorneys and judges in recent years who agree there are (and they have been participating in) far fewer trials than used to be the case. And they seem, generally, a little uneasy about it.

But this is a national trend. In 2017 an article in the law journal Judicature concluded. “trials, particularly jury trials, once played a central role in the American legal system. No longer. While trial remains a theoretical possibility in every case, the reality is quite different. Trials occur rarely, typically only in the most intractable disputes. The pronounced disappearance of trials seems to have largely escaped the attention of Hollywood, the literary community, and the mainstream media, but this development is well known to judges, other court personnel, litigators, and academics. However, even those “in the know” often do not appreciate just how rare trials have become.”

The high cost of a trial, and the often time-consuming nature of it along with appeals which can stretch out for many years, make them ever-less likely to happen unless a case is both a very close call and highly intractable.

Generally speaking, this is not a positive development. Important elements of public justice are washing away with the disappearance of trials. Decisions about guilt and innocence, or outcomes in major civil disputes, are much less often in the hands of ordinary citizens and more directly in those of a few public officials. The adage that justice delayed is justice denied often seems forgotten in our justice system. The trend line should make you uncomfortable.

In the Kohberger case, where a plea agreement between the accused and the prosecution was announced on July1, Kohberger has pleaded guilty to four counts of first degree murder, in the deaths of four University of Idaho students at Moscow, in November 2022. Note the time line: About two years have passed already since Kohberger’s initial arrest, with trial repeatedly delayed and not expected (before the plea deal) until later this year at the soonest. Concluding the case with a trial and appeals would be a very, very long process.

The death penalty will not be sought - that was the concession to the defendant - but otherwise Kohberger will receive an outcome not much different from what probably would have happened if he had been found guilty at trial - which seems likely but never is guaranteed. He gave up any shot at an appeal, and agreed to life in prison, period.

Families of the victims said they were outraged at the plea deal; some may have very much wanted the facts fully laid out at a trial, and some may have wanted the death penalty imposed.

Still. High stakes trials often are an emotionally shattering experience (imagine the reaction if, unlikely but possible, Kohberger had walked), and don’t often bring the closure survivors hope for. Other people in Idaho may not have been looking forward to all the grim details the state would be forever associated with.

And the death penalty, however you assess the ethics of imposing it, is increasingly a frustrating way of exacting justice. Look at the case of Thomas Creech, convicted of multiple murders and sentenced to death in 1976, who has spent decades on death row and remains among the living. How much did the death sentence matter there?

The Kohberger case is now essentially over, and the survivors and the state can start to move on. In this case, that’s probably a good thing.

 

An American story

July 1, 2025

What are we to make of the demonstrations in Los Angeles and several other major cities?

For those of us not facing blocked freeways and tear gas canisters, what are we to think of their presence in our sister state of California?

We've not seen our federal military getting between protesters and the rest of us since Arkansas in 1965 when the mission then was to protect school children when we were trying to shed our national practice of segregation.

Watching the events in Los Angeles - the armed military positioned among the various scenes of dissent - you have to wonder just what it would take for one Marine - just one - to fire a shot.  Just one.

At the moment, that would be unimaginable.  But, then, so is what we're seeing on our TV screens.  Thousands in the streets in what started as a protest of a government agency trying to capture and deport people who've entered the country illegally.

How do you identify those folks from the rest of us?  How do you not round up some innocent people who don't speak English but who are in our country legally?

One of the inherent problems with social protesting is that - like a herd of stampeding cattle - a few folks at the front can turn it this way and that.  What started as meaningful dissent can run amok if those front folk aren't careful.  So far, the LA story seems to be staying on track.

For those of us here on the sidelines, our association with the story is like watching a movie.  We know the players - the protestors and legal authorities.  We know the story - immigration both lawful and not.

The tipping point here seems to be trying to keep the peace without stepping on someone's rights and dignity.  That's a tough assignment  for young uniformed folks carrying rifles and facing fellow Americans at the protest site for the first time.

I watched - and covered - similar protests in the late '60's in Washington D.C. as a young reporter for a major news organization.  There, we had a demonstration-a-day for several years.  Our equipment was a helmet, a gas mask, a tape recorder and an orange "press pass" hung around our neck.  That "orange press pass" became a tear gas target for cops who objected to our presence.  And, many did.

The LA protests will end.  So, too, those in the rest of the country.  But, however it ends, it won't really be over.  The size and scope are too large to disappear.  There will be a quiet time when all sides withdraw to their respective corners.  But, the basic causes of the street marches will still be with us.  Simmering just below the surface like some Yellowstone geyser.

There are many social problems in this country.  Many.  We're living with a political administration unable - or unwilling - to "take the gloves off" and do anything meaningful to take them on.  So, the problems will continue.  At least until the 2026 and 2028 national elections.

If we don't "clean house" - if we don't change the leadership in Washington - these problems will continue.  There's never been a time, since the Civil War, when we've so badly needed a change in direction - a change in national political and social directions.

What's happening on the streets in Los Angeles doesn't have to end badly - though our President is doing his damndest to make it so with the introduction of armed Marines while local leadership says they have things "in hand."

The protests will run their course.  Left alone, the steam will run out.  Traffic will again flow on those same streets as it did before.  The businesses - now closed because of the demonstrations - will reopen.  Life will get back to normal.  It always does.

That's one of the great things about our nation.  We get "hot-under-the-collar" about something, blow off the steam in various ways, then get back to the business of being one country "with liberty and justice for all."

Ain't that great?