Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in July 2026

A campaign to define

A campaign to define

July 17, 2026

What is the abortion initiative, really?

How Idaho voters answer that question will decide the fate of the new abortion-related initiative that may dominate Idaho politics in the next three and a half months.

After not just a few years but decades of Idaho Legislatures passing anti-abortion laws, Idaho voters this year will have a chance to speak to it directly. They have consistently re-elected legislators who passed those laws, but was that the reason for that support or just a by-product? We’ll soon find out.

The group Idahoans United for Women and Families collected 110,000 petition signatures to get their initiative on this November’s ballot. The petitioning rules are complex and daunting; another initiative effort this year, on cannabis, fell short. The high bar can help advocates win in November, since they’ve already had to put together a major campaign. But it’s no guarantee, as backers of a ranked choice initiative found in 2024 when it crashed at the polls with less than a third of the vote in favor.

An initiative needs a simple majority - 50% of the vote plus one - to pass.

Some polling has found majorities of Idahoans opposed to the current Idaho abortion regime, which is one of the most draconian - a nearly complete ban - in the nation. In January, a Boise State University poll found “Idahoans’ support is generally high– 61% of respondents supported the initiative if given the proposed name, while 59% of respondents supported it if the name was omitted. … While there is little difference between samples for Republicans (45% with name compared to 47%), 90% of Democrats and 66% of Independents supported the initiative if provided the name, while 94% of Democrats and 60% of Independents supported the initiative if the name was omitted.”

Idaho will be one of several states (Nevada, Virginia and Missouri are others) with abortion issues up for consideration in November. One study of abortion measures from 1970 to 2024 showed choice-backed measures winning 71.4% of 21 ballot issues, and life-backed measures 27.3% (out of 44).

None of which necessarily predicts an Idaho result. What will the voters here do?

My estimate: It depends on what voters think they are voting on. How is the measure commonly described? What do voters think it will do, most basically?

The Iduhoans United measure self-describes: “This statute upholds a person’s rights to make their own decisions based on their own values, health care needs, and circumstances - free from the fear of external pressures or punitive consequences to them or their health care provider. The act supports a person’s right to reproductive freedom and privacy, protects the confidential nature of the patient-provider relationship, and secures a person’s right to make their own health care decisions without government interference.”

A statement from the Idaho Republican Party (which has declared war on the initiative, even pressuring legislators already to repeal it next session) outlines what the opposition will look like:

“The same measure that covers contraception and miscarriage care also legalizes abortion—even up to nine months as long as a provider says a delay might harm a woman's health.” Actually, no: The initiative draws a specific line at viability other than for a medical emergency.

“The initiative doesn’t reinstate any specific past Idaho statute. It creates new statutory language whose practical limits go far beyond what was allowed under Roe v. Wade. This is not going back to Roe. This is going past it.” It does create new language intended to overwrite existing law, but the thrust of it is not identical but similar to the regime under Roe, whether you like that or not.

“This initiative creates a broad ‘right’ to sexual libertinism with no age limit. It could be interpreted to conflict with parental rights and prohibit the protection of children.” The first is nowhere in the initiative; and finding rights restrictions for parents and children in a measure so specifically aimed at expanding them amounts to,(to be over-generous), a really creative interpretation.

“Idaho law protected both mothers and preborn life from the very beginning—starting after we became a territory in 1864. It was Roe v. Wade that was extreme and unprecedented.” Roe was a change all right; whether it was extreme or unwarranted would be a matter of individual opinion.

“Proposition 1 claims to protect conscience rights for physicians, but leaves out churches, pregnancy centers, faith-based providers, and more.” The initiative would have no effect on those other groups as far as expression of conscience is concerned.

So, what’s the initiative about? The best answer, as both the advocates and critics have suggested, lies in reading this short four-page document. The vote may hinge on how many people do.

 

Honor flights

Honor flights

July 15, 2026

Honor Flight Boise is scheduled to make its inaugural trip to the nation’s capital Oct. 3-5, and Patrick Teixeira – a World War II veteran – says he can hardly wait.

He will join about 25 other war veterans, from World War II to Vietnam, giving them an opportunity to see the memorials and share experiences.

The 97-year-old Army veteran has gone most of his life, not thinking about rewards that went with military service. Most of his post-war focus was on raising five kids, all of whom are living happily. But now he thinks he has earned this trip down memory lane, and those associated with Honor Flight fully agree.

“People should remember World War II,” he said. “I don’t think there is anybody who is left from the World War II era who say were there at the beginning (he was in Hawaii when Pearl Harbor was attacked on Dec. 7, 1941) and cleaned up at the end (at Hiroshima).”

He was 12 years old on that fateful day in 1941, but he wasn’t thinking about the magnitude from his mountainside viewpoint.

“I was thinking, ‘Whoa, look at the fire,’” he said. “At 15, I tried to enlist, but I was refused because I was too young. But I wanted to enlist and do my part.”

He took a civilian job at Pearl Harbor and successfully enlisted for a three-year stint when he was 17. He was honorably discharged in 1949.

Honor Flight Boise, which serves counties in Southwest Idaho (HonorflightBoise.org), is one of three hubs in Idaho. The Southeastern Idaho group, based in Pocatello (HonorFlightidaho.org), will have its inaugural flight on Sept. 1-2 for nearly 50 veterans. The Inland Northwest Honor Flight, based in Spokane and includes North Idaho (inwhonorflight.org), has been in operation since 2009. More than 3,000 veterans have gone to the nation’s capital over those years and about 100 are scheduled to fly out Oct. 13-14.

The cost of the flights are not cheap, and the three nonprofits are on their own as far as raising funds. Julie Crider, executive director of Honor Flight Boise, estimates it will cost $100,000 for its trip.

Photina Haumschilt, the board president and executive director of the Eastern Idaho Honor Flight, says Anheuser-Busch, is paying for the veterans to take the flight. From there, the organization relies on private donations and money raised from an annual fundraiser called “Legacy of Honor.”

Linda Peters, board secretary for Inland Northwest, says a golf event and gala (casino night) are the major fundraising events. From there, she says, “We beg for it … we have amazing volunteers.”

And what a way to honor veterans as America celebrates its 250th birthday. World War II and Korean War veterans are dwindling in numbers and many of the Vietnam veterans have bitter memories about their homecomings.

“I’ve heard so many stories, and some are reluctant to make the honor flights because of that, said Haumschilt. “I know of one who remembers the smell of being pelted with rotten tomatoes and a head of cabbage being thrown to his head.”

Receptions are far different with the honor flights, she says.

Peters says she’s been on a about a dozen flights. “I love it. My heart is in it. It’s such a humbling experience, and such a pleasure to tell them what they have done and what their service has meant to us.”

Crider is a native and former resident of San Diego, where the military is part of the community’s lifeblood. Her husband, Clark, served 20 years in the Army.

“I’ve watched honor flights in San Diego for 15 years and I’ve seen many military homecomings. I became interested in the Honor Flight program when I was there, and I thought it would be good to start one here when we moved in 2025,” she said. “It’s a labor of love for me, and I will be thrilled when we make this first flight. I think it all will be easier after that.”

And, hopefully, this will be the start of a long tradition.

Chuck Malloy, an Idaho native and long-time journalist and columnist, is a volunteer writer with the Idaho Community Foundation’s Nonprofit Center. He may be reached at ctmalloy@outlook.com

 

Expanding anti-trust

Expanding anti-trust

July 12, 2026

The Trump administration’s take on monopolies, mega-mergers and related activity, among the most important economic actions available to a government, often has been buried under many of the other national headlines in the last year and a half.

But the Oregon attorney general’s office — with counterparts in other states — may be about to launch a significant effort in the area.

The general purpose of anti-trust laws has been “to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keep prices down, and keep quality up.” The laws have often fallen far behind the times, especially in times of rapid technology change, and often leave out concerns other than consumer prices.

Anti-trust enforcement in this country was kick-started here when Congress passed the Sherman Act in 1890, but less known is that some states were working on it even earlier, and Congress voted partly in reaction to them.

Nationally, anti-trust action has trended ever weaker over the last century, and as one analysis from a large law firm working in anti-trust noted, “the transition to the second Trump administration has ushered in a much more favorable antitrust enforcement climate for M&A [mergers and acquisitions].” Friends and allies of the administration appear to get concierge service rather than tough skepticism.

But the feds aren’t the only anti-trust game around.

Most states have anti-trust laws on their books as well, some preceding federal laws and sometimes mirroring them, and many states have been active in enforcing them. That’s not a far reach, either; even the Federal Trade Commission (one of the major national anti-trust enforcers, at least in theory) says on its website, “most states have antitrust laws that are enforced by state attorneys general or private plaintiffs. Many of these statutes are based on the federal antitrust laws.”

In recent years, states increasingly have been banding together to bring major anti-trust actions. Earlier this year, eight attorneys general (led by California’s but including Oregon’s) moved to stop the planned merger of Nexstar Media Group and the broadcast company Tegna,which owns KGW-TV; that fight is ongoing.

In May, five states (again including Oregon) went to court with an attempt to expand their ability to undertake more kinds of anti-trust action.

Oregon was also among the parties in the legal battle against the Kroger-Albertsons grocery merger, which ultimately fell apart. It also was a player in the Live Nation/Ticketmaster case.

Nearly all states have anti-trust law in place; Oregon’s is the simply-named Oregon Anti-Trust Law (in chapter 646 of title 50). One review of state anti-trust laws notes that while it includes provisions against cartels and conspiracy, single-firm conduct and price discrimination, it doesn’t include provisions other states have concerning monopsony (where a single major buyer effectively controls the market), buyer power or interlocking directorates.

The whole area of anti-trust law has been busy enough that the Oregon State Bar has an Antitrust and Trade Regulation Section for members.

Don’t be surprised if a few expansions in Oregon’s anti-trust are proposed in an upcoming session of the legislature.

Legal activity seems about ready to expand. On June 17, Attorney General Dan Rayfield asked the Oregon Legislature’s Emergency Board for permission to hire 16 staffers — five attorneys and 11 other support staff — to triple the capacity of the already-existing Antitrust Division.

That speaks to something more ambitious than the state has seen so far. You can get a sense of that from the source of the funding for the new jobs: Not from state tax funds but from money recovered from losers in anti-trust cases.

In his statement after the funding approval, Rayfield seemed to indicate what he has in mind:.“Grocery bills are skyrocketing, there are fewer choices for things like cable and internet service, and things like tickets to concerts and movies are increasingly out of reach. A big part of the reason is that corporations are being allowed to consolidate unchecked – with no federal oversight. Oregon and other states are now the last line of defense to protect working families and that’s what drove the urgency behind today’s action.”

As a matter of politics, such a mindset is aimed directly at the barely affordable cost of living so many Oregonians experience. The Democratic argument writes itself: The Trump administration won’t do anything meaningful about prices, so we will.

Expect to hear more about this in the months ahead.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

Whither Idaho Democrats

Whither Idaho Democrats

July 10, 2026

While Democrats in Maine struggle with their preferences for the U.S. Senate, Idaho Democrats, for different reasons, are struggling too. They’re having to deal with two big considerations: One short term, one longer term, both focused now on the Gem State race for the U.S. Senate.

The Republican nominee is three-term incumbent Jim Risch. The Democratic nominee is David Roth, who won a contested primary with 64% of the vote.

Roth’s track record up to now is similar to that of most Democratic nominees for federal office in recent decades. In 2024, he received 31% of the vote against Republican Representative Mike Simpson. In 2022, running against incumbent Republican Senator Mike Crapo, he pulled 28.7%. In 2020 he got 34.9% in an Idaho Falls-area legislative race. His percentages have been in a consistent range and comparable to many other Democrats. There’s little reason to think he would much exceed those numbers this time.

The Senate race has a complicating factor in the person of Todd Achilles, a former Democratic legislator who has been running an energetic and evidently well received campaign as an independent. His race is in the mold of several other recent red-state independent candidacies, such as independent Dan Osborn, who took 47% of the vote in 2024 against a Republican incumbent, and is running again now. In his case, this year, the Democratic nominee for the Senate there, Cindy Burbank, withdrew in favor of Osborn.

So, if you’re a voter who would rather not reelect Risch, what do you do? That question has evolved in a spat among Democrats.

Former Representative Larry LaRocco sparked the debate shortly after the primary election when he wrote an essay saying: “the best course for Idaho and the United States would be for Roth to channel the pragmatic decision of Burbank in Nebraska. Roth should drop out of this hopeless and biennial cause, endorse Achilles for the U.S. Senate and ask the Idaho Democratic Party to do the same. This unselfish act would allow Idaho to have a fully funded, fully debated, fully visible and fully engaged campaign for the U.S. Senate.”

There’s been some pushback on the idea that Achilles would be a stronger general election candidate than Roth, and both sides can cite some polling to pitch their case. In truth, it’s speculative, since Idaho hasn’t had an independent candidate for the Senate like Achilles before, so we can’t be sure how well he will do. (Polling results have conflicted.) The argument is between the upside prospect of another Osborne against another near-certain Democratic overwhelming loss.

LaRocco’s main point is that the largest chance of a non-Risch win in November lies in an opposition unified behind Achilles. He argued that Roth should drop out to allow that opposition to coalesce, and that more candidates would surely benefit Risch. He is right about that.

Roth has declined to withdraw. In his own online post, he made a variety of arguments, such as that when he ran for and won the Democratic nomination, he did so with the clear intent of staying into November. In other states (as in Nebraska), Democrats have prepared for the independent possibility by nominating candidates who said in advance they would drop out. He also pointed out issues disagreements with Achilles.

Roth’s statement also included the suggestion that the Achilles candidacy really represents a lack of faith that in Idaho, Democrats can win a major race.

Here we have a very large point to consider. Democrats have not won an Idaho race for the U.S. Senate since 1974, for the U.S. House since 2008, for governor since 1990, and for any other statewide race since 2002. Democrats have held only about a fifth of state legislative seats since the early 90s.

The question becomes reasonable: Is the Democratic brand in Idaho simply too torched, too untouchable (for whatever reason) to succeed anymore in this state? Is it too toxic for any person, however wonderful they may be or how bad their opponent, to succeed electorally (outside of Boise and a few other places) in Idaho anymore? Is some very new approach, maybe including independent candidacies, what’s needed?

That’s a question this debate raises that Idaho Democrats ought to grapple with in a serious way. Soon.

 

Rewind: A sign of hostility

July 8, 2026

This column was first published several years ago.

Walking the dog a while back, I came upon a yard with three Trump signs.  
 
Not an unusual sighting hereabouts - those Trump signs.  Except one was very different from the other two which were the standard versions.  The unusual sign said "MAKE CHRISTIANITY GREAT AGAIN - VOTE FOR DONALD TRUMP." A garland of flowers was woven - photographically - across the top.
 
"Make Christianity Great Again?"  I damned near lost my breakfast!  For the first time in my long life, I was overcome with a heated desire to grab that sign and rip it to pieces.  Even our dog - Skeezix - could feel my sudden anger.
 
Donald Trump is going to "make Christianity great again?'  Trump?  The guy who had dozens of peaceful protesters tear gassed and shoved off public streets so he could stand in front of a church he doesn't attend, to hold up a Bible (backwards) so he could have a photo op?  That serial-lying, mean-spirited, grossly incompetent and incredibly dangerous human being?  The guy who pays porn stars thousands of dollars to keep quiet about his sexual activities.  Him?
 
No, my foolhardy and incredibly ignorant neighbor!  No, not him.  Not him ever!  Trying to link that political disaster of a presidential aberration to anything Christ-like is absolutely impossible.  That sign says more about your out-of-touch political knowledge and your lack of understanding of the Christian way of life than trying to show your neighbors your political presidential preference.
 
Trump has put this nation through dozens and dozens of political indignities, lowering standards in nearly everything he's touched.  Christian?
 
New evidence of how low Trump will go - and how unlike Christ the man is - came in a conversation between ace reporter Bob Woodward and Trump's "in-over-his-head" son-in-law, the young Jared Kushner came to light.
 
You don't have to listen to the entire thing.  You need only 30 seconds or so to hear Kushner's - and Trump's - depravity.  Their plan - when our COVID-19 deaths at the time stood around 40,000 souls - was to make a large government push to open everything back up.  Right now!  Schools, businesses, manufacturing, airlines, etc.  Trump would be the self-proclaimed economic booster.  "Open everything up!"  "Things will be O.K.."   But, if - if - coronavirus cases continued to mount, blame governors!  Blame the governors!
 
That's about the most devious, heinous political thinking I've ever heard.  And I've been around a lot of politicians and a lot of political conversations for a long time.
 
Imagine.  To please his backers - his political "friends" - he planned to reopen a then-shuttered economy so those folks could profit - no matter how many Americans died - then blame the nation's governors for "acting too soon!"   
 
Over the last several years, I've not hidden my feelings about Trump.  From the git-go, he's been a political train wreck, receiving fewer popular votes but winning several key electoral college states.  So, the "winner" became the "loser" while the "loser" became the "winner."  
 
From day one, he's exhibited how lacking he is in leadership qualities; empathy, compassion, knowledge of government, ignorance of the working side of the presidency, how to conduct himself as leader of the world's most powerful nation. 
 
His walk-away from political disasters has mirrored his personal conduct as a private businessman.  If you lose, disassociate yourself from the loss, declare you "won" and go on to some other doomed venture.  Except, in government - especially at the top of government - it doesn't work that way.
 
The longer he's been in office, the more his dangerous qualities are displayed.  Un-friending our historic world partners, our treaties and other agreements with them, while cozying up to some of the world's worst dictators.  Openly admiring Vladimir Putin and all things Russian while being told by his own security professionals of the extreme dangers represented by Putin.
 
Now that we've had six years of his version of the presidency, we've come to know him.  Really know him.  His complete ignorance of business and ethics - long-known to people who've had dealings with him over many years - are now known by other world leaders.  
 
And, by us.  The governed.  His ignorance of the office he holds, his "bull-in-the-china-shop" attitude about relationships and world dealings, his lack of understanding the Constitutional roles of the presidency versus the other two branches of government, the inability to relate to regular citizens of this country - all this and more has marked his tenure.
 
I guess, given the knowledge of Trump's publically-known failings, the danger he poses for all Americans, his abuses of power and seeming lack of common values, combined to set me off when it came to someone publically believing he could have a positive affect in matters of Christianity.  And, I suspect that sign would bring a lot of laughs in the Vatican.  Trump to "make Christianity great again?"
 
Now that I've had a few hours to calm down, the anger is less.  But, what's left of it is directed at me for forgetting my own Christian values and the tolerance we're expected to have for others.  "Forgive them, for they know not what they do."
 
Put THAT on a sign in your yard.  In my yard.

 

Voting in the rearview mirror

Voting in the rearview mirror

July 6, 2026

Voting rights in America were a Republican thing for over 100 years, but the GOP made an about-face on the issue beginning with President Nixon’s southern strategy. The Republican regression has reached a fever pitch with the GOP push for passage of the preposterously-named SAVE America Act (Save Act). It would make it infinitely more difficult for women, minorities and military personnel to participate in our elections. Thankfully, the Save Act is not likely to become law, due to strong opposition from affected voter groups, including many traditional Republicans.

President Abraham Lincoln set the stage for extending voting rights to formerly enslaved African Americans in a speech delivered at the White House on April 11, 1865. Following Lincoln’s assassination, his Republican Party was able to obtain ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. It granted voting rights for the first time to Black males. Voting rights for females of any race were not on the table until ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. Again, Republicans were behind that effort.

Despite the Fifteenth Amendment, southern Democrats were able for almost 95 years to prevent Black Americans from fully exercising their voting rights. That was accomplished by intimidation, poll taxes, literacy tests, and a variety of other insidious stumbling blocks. Those tactics came to a halt with the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Act). The Act would not have passed without strong support from Republican Members of Congress.

I was working as a legislative assistant for former GOP Senator Len Jordan (R–ID) during the summer of 1965 and recall being proud of his support for the Act. Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D–MT) and Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R–IL) strongly pushed for the Act, overcoming fierce opposition from southern Democrats. Its passage made a dramatic change in the composition of Congress.

Civil rights opponents immediately geared up efforts to marginalize the effects of the Act. Perhaps the most important development was President Nixon’s adoption of his “southern strategy,” which sought to capture the support of white southern voters by appealing to racist themes. The strategy proved wildly successful, eventually turning southern segregationist Democrats into newly minted Republicans. In recent years, a number of western states, including Idaho, have followed suit.

Former Governor Phil Batt, who exemplified traditional Idaho Republicans, was a life-long supporter of civil rights until he passed on March 4, 2023. His successors, Dirk Kempthorne and Butch Otter, both respected the rights and voices of Idaho voters. Governor Brad Little, determined to keep his Trump endorsement, has bought into the MAGA narrative. Idaho’s entire Congressional delegation and Attorney General strongly support the Save Act, despite any credible evidence of voter fraud in our elections. They know better but are fearful of straying from the Trump agenda.

If passed, the Save Act would likely be struck down as a flagrant violation of the US Constitution, which gives states the power to control elections. If the MAGA-influenced Supreme Court should bow down to MAGA, the SAVE Act would seriously impact important voter groups. Those voters who have changed their names from that on their birth certificates, particularly married women, would have to dig up birth certificates, divorce decrees, passports, or a variety of other documents proving their identity and citizenship in order to vote.

Members of the military, particularly those overseas like the more than 50,000 currently located in the Middle East, would likely be unable to find documentation proving their citizenship. Many service personnel would find it nearly impossible to register and vote. Our military forces deserve better than this. After all, they are responsible for defending all of our freedoms. Their military identification should, in and of itself, be the key to allowing their vote and they should be allowed to send their ballots by mail, as has been the case for decades.

I’ve been registered to vote in Idaho since 1963 and have voted in every election since then. Between that time and 1973, when I physically moved back to Idaho from out-of-state school, military service and work in the Senate, I voted by mail. The 1968 election was particularly difficult because the election occurred when I was fighting communists for my government in South Vietnam. If the requirements of the Save Act had been in place at that time, there is no chance I could have reregistered and voted in the 1968 election. Even with present-day communications, it would be nearly impossible for today’s overseas military to gather the citizenship documents necessary to participate in elections.

Idaho’s Members of Congress and Attorney General Labrador do not have much regard for the voting problems the Save Act would heap on our military. None of them ever stepped forward to serve. Senator Risch lamely claims that he did not serve in Vietnam because he “had an ongoing ulcer and they didn’t want” him.

Quite frankly, the military was not very picky during the Vietnam buildup about who they allowed to serve. Practically anyone who could stand on two feet was fair game. Despite having broken both legs in a horrific auto accident, spent 14 weeks in the hospital with my left leg in traction and my right leg in a full cast and being unable to walk unaided for almost a year, the Army was happy to honor my request for Vietnam service.

Our elected officials should stand up and speak out in favor of voting rights and against the ill-named Save Act. If they can’t find the courage to do so, they should step aside.

Abraham Lincoln set the stage for expansion of voting rights to all US citizens.

 

Two simple proposals

Two simple proposals

July 5, 2026

Not everything in the newly-released report of the Governor’s Prosperity Council is uncontroversial, or should be, or points specifically to major systemic problems that limit Oregon’s economic growth.

But some do. Two general proposals especially, which may at first sound almost like anodyne boilerplate, seem on reflection like matters of real significance and specific relevance to the way Oregon works, or doesn’t.

And in theory at least, both ought not to be non-controversial because they touch on matters of simple competence and fairness.

Gov. Tina Kotek formed the 15-member council, which includes a number of business leaders around the state, in January to “recommend actionable steps to accelerate Oregon’s economy, create good paying jobs, and recruit and grow Oregon’s businesses.

It didn’t stint on recommendations: The report runs 452 pages. Some of its ideas are very specific, such as those concerning taxes and spending, and some still seem a little more vague, even if numbers are attached (such as a recommendation to reduce regulations by a set percentage, without more specificity on which regulations exactly should be dropped).

But at least two ideas have deeper implications for the way things are or should be done in Oregon.

The topline for the first: ”The state should transform Business Oregon [a state economic development organization] into the Oregon Commerce Authority, governed by a board of business and innovation leaders and the Governor …”

Which sounds like: “Great, let’s set up a committee and slap a new name on it.”

Except that’s not what the report was getting at. (The new name would be beside the point.) There’s an underlying problem in Oregon’s economic development system this proposal is designed to address:

“More than 850 organizations make up Oregon’s economic development system, all broadly focused on business growth and job creation. However, consistent collaboration around shared priorities is the exception, not the norm. For businesses of all sizes, this fragmentation can make it difficult to identify a clear entry point, navigate available programs, or receive coordinated support.”

The simple number of 850 economic development organizations in Oregon suggests the issue: Clearly the problem doesn’t involve inadequate resources or effort, but rather the lack of a unified effort. If Oregon’s economic development efforts are that fractured, that incoherent, there should be little argument the system presents a real handicap to economic growth.

The point of the Authority would be to place someone in actual charge, someone setting a consistent approach and message and harnessing the grab-bag of small pieces into a larger, comprehensive effort.

It went on: “The Authority should establish measurable statewide economic development goals and maintain a public-facing dashboard tracking key metrics such as business growth, job creation, project timelines, regional investment, customer response times, and economic competitiveness outcomes to improve transparency and accountability …”

Simple provision of coordination and competence could help quite a bit. It’s not that all those people working in economic development aren’t capable; lots of them surely are. But if they’re not working together, the state isn’t going to get traction from them.

The argument for the second point may be a little less clear cut for some people, but the underlying principle should not be: Justice delayed is justice denied.

This relates to the state’s overall system — not so much its content, but its process — of regulation. The Council said that people commenting on it around the state said much of the statewide regulatory system is “fragmented, lengthy, inconsistent, and costly.”

That assessment probably wouldn’t draw a serious argument broadly around the state, and across a large number of agencies, and it would apply to individuals and non-profits as well, and really almost anyone other than people trying to use the flaws in the cumbersome system to achieve a result not through merit but through wearing down the opposition.

Those too-frequent realities of the system build distrust generally in government systems, and ought to be something advocates of government action would want to address as well.

The proposed solutions involve setting action deadlines and even penalties for unnecessary delays: “The process should prevent projects from being delayed indefinitely and should include accountability measures such as public reporting and partial fee refunds when deadlines are missed.”

The idea is for greater efficiency and timeliness in addressing regulatory issues, not merely as an aspiration but backed up with legal teeth and top-level enforcement. A more rigorous system surely would provide economic benefits, but the positive implications would ripple beyond that.

These are things a governor and Legislature should be able easily to do. They seem clear and obvious enough, and the benefits seem direct enough if the rules are strong enough and they are enforced from the top down.

This column first appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

Hitting the ground

Hitting the ground

July 3, 2026

David Hahn was hired formally on July 1 by the State Board of Education to become Boise State University’s eighth president, and the expected expressions of energy and enthusiasm were there in abundance, even if the meeting was mostly an online Zoom session.

Hahn remarked, “Boise State University is the place for me. I can’t wait to get going.”

The reply from Board President Kurt Libich was, “I hope you’re ready to hit the ground running, because you’re running as of today.”

Take that response seriously: The challenges waiting for Hahn at Boise will be formidable.

Some of what he encounters, what may be a serious, important and intensive but ultimately easier part of the job, should be very much in his wheelhouse.

We don’t know a lot about him - his name wasn’t even associated publicly with BSU until about two weeks before the hiring - but much of what we do know sounds as if it should match up well with large parts of what the university does.

Hahn’s background is in mechanical engineering research, and he holds a dozen patents. He has not been an institution president or vice president, which might have been expected and often has been the case; he is dean of the College of Education at the University of Arizona. That’s probably a stronger credential, though, than it may first suggest, since UA is a major research institution. Before that he was an administrator at the University of Florida.

BSU is in a major growth mode, and UA has been a growing institution too, and in some of the same areas that BSU seems most likely to position itself for. You could easily imagine someone with Hahn’s background locking into a smooth working relationship with, say, Micron. Words like “builder” were often used to describe him, with some reason.

Administering, managing, developing at Boise State are undoubtedly an important part of the job, and he appears well suited to it. What we don’t know a lot about, yet, is how in other ways he will fit into his new environment, something that may be more challenging in some ways than what he’s worked with before.

Idaho’s governing Republican Party of yore was a clear supporter of higher education, but these days it and the governing structure of the state have a touchy relationship with it. To judge from its actions, the Idaho Legislature seems as least as skeptical as supportive of the college and universities and their mission. At the same time, BSU’s student and professional base, and the city where it is located, have a very different set of expectations from much of political Idaho.

The canyon between the two put a BSU president, any BSU president, in a difficult spot. Hahn’s immediate predecessors probably could have quite a bit to say about that.

So could people at BSU. Just one occasion was built into the presidential selection process when people at the university could question Hahn directly; it drew about 500 people, which as he remarked is a sign of strong interest.

That interest may not always be easy to manage. A couple of exchanges, as reported in the Idaho Ed News, make the point.

One student, a self-described conservative, said people in that group often feel outnumbered on campus, and asked how Hahn would protect freedom of expression. (That concern about free expression also cuts the other way in Idaho.) Hahn’s response - that an open atmosphere helps and “when everyone comes, that’s when you have what society looks like” - was not bad but won’t come close to resolving tensions on either side of the political fence. These days, feel-good statements won’t be enough.

Nor will his response to a question about legislative attacks on diversity and inclusion: That he wants to see a welcoming university, but that state laws have to be obeyed. He was trying to thread a needle, but wound up making an internally conflicfting statement.

The arrival of a new university president is always marked by a small tide of optimism. But the challenges ahead are likely to be large, and as Hahn hits the ground he will have his hands full.

 

Pruning

Pruning

July 2, 2026

Martha, my wife loves to plant and fertilize. When I can’t walk on the walks, I prune.

Plants can deal with pruning. Elk nibble off the tender ends. Plants can deal with us butchers.

It’s time to consider pruning here in Idaho.

Some legislators have called for an Article 5 Constitutional Convention to alter our Federal Constitution. If 2/3 of the states (33) make that call it should happen. We are currently at 28 states who have made such a call.

Idaho has not made that commitment.

Some argue for a balanced budget clause in our federal Constitution. Some worry such a convention would go rogue.

So why don’t we try it here?

Idaho has an archaic Constitution.

Let’s have a Convention to fix it.

I love fixing things. You should see the mess in my garage.

When Idaho (wisely) amended our state Constitution about how we redistrict we forgot to remove our 1890’s founders’ definition of “apportionment” signifying who gets represented in the legislature. There

are still Idaho Constitutional designations for representatives from counties that no longer exist.

Let’s clean up this mess.

While we’re at it, maybe we could agree on taxation.

Our state dominant Republican party wants to abolish property tax. If so, they have to rewrite Article VII of the Idaho Constitution. I would encourage all of you to read our Idaho founders words there. It was clear those old guys wanted the rich robber barons owning the mines and railroads to pay their fair share.

Maybe we current Idahoans don’t.

So maybe we need to get about rewriting our defining document.

Other states have done this. It’s not AI, rocket science. We just have to get a bunch of people together and they have to work to agree on some principles.

Like, should we let go of our Idaho Constitutional demand for funding public education? We have subverted public funding to charter schools and now home schools and religious schools with no oversight. Maybe this ideal is outdated. It’s worth a statewide conversation.

Maybe most Idahoans don’t know our own Constitution. Maybe they don’t care what was once written down as a founding document to direct us.

Maybe my worry about pruning and cleaning up my garage shop is beyond their daily concerns. I appreciate that.

But we have a mess before us. Among us.

We should clean up our mess.

250 years ago our rich, landowner, slave holder founders inspired a bunch of us weak, worthless pogues to grab muskets and fight for “independence”. And we won.

So let’s do the work.

It doesn’t involve stealing cannons from Ticonderoga or crossing the Delaware. It just means we need to share our ideals and write them down.

Idaho needs a Constitutional Convention.

The Idaho Constitution, written in a hot summer of 1889 might have served us for this while. I applaud those who call for an Article 5 convention to amend the US Constitution.

But we should be looking more closely. If you really care about governance, why not clean up our own mess here in Idaho?

Indeed, this was the dream of those old founders. That states would be the laboratories of democracy.

So let’s get to it.

Quit writing bills and getting them passed that flout our founders’ principles.

Call for a new writing of what you believe. Put it down in ink on paper. And get us huddled masses to approve our vision.

What has been happening on the federal level and indeed on our state level is opposed to the Constitutional mandates written by our old guys.

If we want something new, we should argue it out.

This back door shit has to stop.

Call for a state Constitutional Convention. Let’s get real.