Posts published in August 2026

Enthusiasts of the Greater Idaho proposal, which proposes to shift much of eastern Oregon to jurisdiction of the state of Idaho, may have just suffered a setback.

Its nature is economic, not political.

Greater Idaho is an idea supported by significant numbers of eastern Oregonians to break away from the state of Oregon — which as a whole is led by Democrats whose policies often differ from those of the Republicans in the east of the state — and unite with Idaho, which tends to vote more the way they do.

Voters in many eastern Oregon counties have backed ballot issues supporting the idea, though the most recent such election, in Wallowa County in May, went down as a crashing loss for the Greater Idaho movement.

In the most eastern Oregon counties many people have connections to Idaho, from commercial and shopping to media links and broadcasts to social connections. Ontario in particular gets heavy shopping and service traffic from Idaho, sometimes involving buying whatever isn’t legal in Idaho (or avoiding the Idaho sales tax).

But the largest direct and firm organizational link Oregon has had to Idaho in the last century has been an investor-owned electric utility company.

Idaho Power, based in Boise since its 1915 founding, serves a large chunk of southern Idaho and about a century ago expanded into a parts of four eastern Oregon counties: Baker, Harney, Malheur and Wallowa, with about 20,000 customers.

The land area is significant, but the population and commercial and industrial base is small, amounting to only about 3% to 4% of Idaho Power’s overall reach. By around the 1950s and especially before the era of massive interconnected power grids, there was technical logic to it because much of Idaho Power’s electric generation came from the Hells Canyon dams located on the Oregon-Idaho border.

This may be the Idaho-based organization with the tightest local connection in Oregon. There are of course other Idaho-based businesses with Oregon operations, but none that reach so directly into the lives of Oregon communities, and few reach people so directly where they live.

Where it operates in Oregon, it has to abide by Oregon laws and rules and operate under its regulators. That need to work within the different rules of different states does complicate life for Idaho Power, as it does many other utilities ranging across states.

On May 21, Idaho Power and the Oregon Trail Electric Cooperative at Baker City said it filed a request with the Oregon Public Utility Commission for IPCo to sell its Oregon territory to the Baker City cooperative, for $154 million. Assuming no regulatory hangups, and none seem apparent, the agreement will be final next year.

Operationally, as Idaho Power noted, “As Idaho Power’s geographic neighbor, their teams and resources are well-positioned to serve Oregonians with quick outage response times, a new service center and customer-facing office in Ontario, and a local board of representatives made up of member-owners from across their territory.”

Geographically, the agreement also seems to make sense. The existing Idaho Power territory ranges across four counties but includes only one regional center city (Ontario) and a few smaller communities (such as Vale, Jordan Valley and Nyssa).

Oregon Trail is larger, serving four counties (Baker. Union, Grant and Harney) and cities including La Grande, John Day and Burns.

OTEC said, “Oregon represents a small portion of Idaho Power’s business, and reducing the complexity of operating in two states allows Idaho Power to focus on Idaho’s growing population and energy demand. Because OTEC’s existing service territory is adjacent to Idaho Power’s Oregon operations, OTEC is well positioned to welcome these customers as member-owners and serve them efficiently. Increasing membership also gives OTEC additional economies of scale.”

So how does all this relate to the Greater Idaho project, which would carve away most of Oregon east of the Cascades and make it part of the state of Idaho?

One way to look at it: A large chunk of the pro-Greater Idaho area,which was divided between Idaho-based and Oregon-based utilities, now will be united under the Oregon operations.

Another way to look at it: Idaho is not terribly interested in eastern Oregon — at least to the point of concluding that, at least financially, it doesn’t pencil out as a long-range investment.

Meanwhile, the Oregon Trail cooperative saw enough value to spend what in its terms were a lot of money for the new service territory and physical operations.

For Greater Idaho, this may be another bit of air escaping from the balloon.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

Democrat Tina Kotek’s second television spot of her gubernatorial re-election campaign focused most directly on the unlikely subject of food banks. But the unsubtle subtext of the ad was the president.

After noting that she had once worked at the Oregon Food Bank, the rest of her narration said this: “that’s why President Trump’s cuts to food assistance were so cruel, and why I fought back so hard. … I will always stand up to Trump and anyone else to protect Oregonians.”

Gubernatorial races usually concern the personalities (or at least images) of the candidates and the issues arising in the state. Those aren’t irrelevant this year, and I wrote about them in an earlier column.

But this year, those considerations are matched by something else: The president of the United States, Donald Trump, who has become such a forceful figure in the country that many political contests beyond the federal are impacted by him. Oregon may be among the states where that is especially true.

But the dynamics are a long shot from places like Idaho or Wyoming. Oregon gave Trump in 2016 about 39.1% of the vote, in 2020 about 40.4% of the vote and in 2024 about 41% — a thin upward climb, perhaps, but each time far behind the Democratic nominee (by about 11%, 16% and 14% respectively).

Trump is in a clear minority position in Oregon when it comes to voting popularity. He appears to have support among most Oregon Republicans, but most Oregon voters are not Republicans: Non-aligned and Democrats both have larger shares.

But it’s more than that. Oregon appears to have been targeted in a number of ways by the Trump administration, and Oregonians are well aware of it. Trump’s comments about Oregon and Portland (which he described as “war ravaged”) have been highly negative.

Proposals to install ICE facilities, such as at Newport, have been heavily protested, as have been the ICE center and activities in the Portland area. Policies such as tariffs and crimped trade relations have hit Oregon as they have elsewhere. Points for criticism are at times indirect, such as the president’s close relationship with tech business executives pressing AI and data centers, both evidently unpopular in Oregon.

And the Republican candidates for governor this year, not only nominee Christine Drazan but also her former rivals for the party nod, appear to know that well. Their collective websites scarcely mention the name “Trump.” When the leading contenders gathered for an April 16 debate at Hillsboro, the name of their incumbent president of their party was never spoken.

Nor will you easily find the word “Trump” on the Drazan website, or in press releases.

The Democratic Party of Oregon wasted no time making the connection, saying on the day she announced for governor last year, “Christine Drazan’s announcement makes one thing clear: Donald Trump is officially on the Oregon ballot. Drazan has sided with Donald Trump on deploying the National Guard onto Oregon streets instead of standing with local law enforcement and Oregon business leaders. She supported a dangerous abortion ban, pushed to cut funding for Medicaid, and opposes vote-by-mail.”

On the day Drazan won her nomination this year, state Democrats said, “Trump is on the ballot in Oregon.”

Even Drazan has implicitly acknowledged as much, saying July 24 at the Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association, “She’s gonna talk for the next 100-plus days about the president of the United States, because that is all she has to point to.”

Knute Buehler, the 2018 Republican nominee for governor, opined: “This election is going to come down to Kotek running against Trump. And Drazan is going to run from Trump.”

This isn’t just a matter of partisan alignment. The relationship of presidents and governors can matter.

One one hand, Trump has shown a distinct willingness to withhold funds and other federal support from states led by elected Democrats. Presumably, Drazan could make a point of that, though she seems not to have.

The counter side is that a Republican governor of Oregon might well be inclined to relate smoothly with a Trump White House, and that could mean major shifts in direction which no one in this campaign has yet addressed.

That’s not all this race is about: See my previous column. But the Trump factor is likely to occupy a lot of the thought process of Oregonians this fall. Maybe about half of it.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

The Oregon governor’s race this year may hinge on two factors. One is the record of incumbent Democrat Tina Kotek and Republican Christine Drazan’s critique of it and issues on the ground. The other is the Trump administration.

Here, let’s look at the first of those, the ideas and topics more specific to the candidates and Oregon. (The Trump factor will come later.)

A good shorthand comparison of what the candidates generally seem to want to emphasize, and how they address those subjects, can be found on the issues pages on the respective websites of Drazan and Kotek.

These pages aren’t all that the candidates have, can or will say about various issues. But they do offer useful core messages. The first Drazan television spot this season, for example, plays like a short summary of her website’s issues page.

The two candidates talk about many of the same things, especially toward the top of their lists.

Both lead with the rising cost of living, described as a major problem.

From there, they diverge. Kotek says she has addressed high costs through attacking “corporate price gouging,” seeking to pause new taxes in the Portland area, blocking freeway tolls and utility rate increases and signing “bills that protect credit from medical debt, ban hidden online fees.” Drazan calls for lowering taxes, “repeal(ing) regulations that drive up gas, utilities and food prices,” and ending “Oregon’s unique death tax” (though how that would cut costs broadly is unclear).

Both also talk about affordable housing as a top priority, though again differently. Kotek mentioned her efforts to increase housing stock through legislation and otherwise. Drazan proposed regulatory reduction, property tax cuts and programs to help first-time home buyers.

After affordability matters, education was the hottest topic for both candidates — again, in different ways.

Kotek noted funds for early literacy, child care programs, expanding access to books and requiring reports from local districts on student learning. Drazan talked about increases in special education funding but also efforts to “restore teachers’ ability to remove disruptive kids from the classroom …  Defend and protect women’s sports (evidently a reference to transgender students) … Stop indoctrination from the Department of Education … End social promotion and ensure kids can read by 3rd grade … Ensure curriculum transparency and the right for parents to opt out.”

Both had plenty to say too about the economy, where Kotek referred to “strengthening” it and Drazan to “unleashing” it.

Kotek spoke of business partnerships and projects and focused on efforts to develop clean and renewable energy; elsewhere, she spoke favorably of a moratorium on new data centers.

Drazan’s bullet points were painted with a broader brush: “Fire anti-business bureaucrats. Freeze new rules and regulations. Clear barriers to trade. Tear up anti-business executive orders. Get government out of the way. Invest in Oregon’s infrastructure. Prioritize access to affordable, reliable energy. Unleash our natural resource economy. … Roll back Oregon’s hidden sales tax.”

Kotek spoke more about public safety, environmental concerns (except for wildfires, which Drazan simply said should be prevented so people could “get our woods working again”).

In her review of Kotak’s term, Drazan appeared to bear down on the governor’s case four years ago that she would be a tough and effective administrator, suggesting she has not been. The headlines on the Republican’s issues page says, “Oregon deserves better. Christine Drazan will deliver.”

Drazan devoted a major issue section to this theme: “Root out fraud and corruption. Fire ineffective agency heads. Issue a moratorium on new rules and regulations. Eliminate three rules and regulations for any new one. Undo Tina Kotek’s legacy by tearing up her  executive orders. … Veto special interest giveaways, special interest and pork projects.”

Drazan’s website, however, offers few specifics to go with the rhetoric. Maybe she could document fraud, waste, inefficiency and so on, but she hasn’t brought the receipts yet.

Oddly missing from both candidate’s major specific talking points: Transportation funding, on which the two clashed repeatedly in the last couple of years, and in which voters strongly rejected a Kotek-signed plan. Maybe that’s coming later.

Let’s pull back. From a campaign perspective, what do these messages tell Oregon voters?

Both contenders are doing what you might reasonably expect of them. Kotek is making the case that her administration has been active and productive on key issues, and cites programs, funding and legislation to support that. Drazan characterizes the term as ineffective and incompetent, and proposes mainly time-tested Republican answers (lower taxes, less regulation) in response.

She would, of course, have to deal with an (almost certainly) Democratic legislature. Of course, the popularity (ahem) of the Legislature isn’t something Kotek has emphasized, either.

That brings us to an unknown: how Oregonians perceive these arguments. The answer seems likely to be a jumble, since Kotek’s polling popularity has not been high (raising the question of how well her message will sell), but Republican policies haven’t been scoring well at least in Oregon either.

The decisive outlying factor could be summed up in one word: Trump.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.