Oregon Election — How I Voted

I’ll divide this post into two parts: First, how I voted on the ballot measures, and second, which candidates I voted for.

BALLOT MEASURES

1. Measure 70, home loans for veterans: Yes.
2. Measure 71, the Oregon legislature should meet every year: Yes
3. Measure 72, refinancing debts as bonds. Oregon pays less in interest, saves money. Yes.

4. Measure 73, increased mandatory minimum sentences for some sex crimes, plus mandatory minimums for drunk driving. No. I’m generally against mandatory minimums, which shift the power towards prosecutors and away from judges and defendants. And mandatory minimums have never been shown to deter crime. And it would cost us $238 million we can’t afford. And this could conceivably lead to prison time for sexting. A definite No vote.

5. Measure 74, medical marijuana: Yes. I’d rather see it legalized altogether, but I don’t want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good (unlike Alworth and Axtman of Blue Oregon). Among other good things, this measure would provide assistance to low income Oregonians who have a legitimate need for medical marijuana but can’t afford it.

6. Measure 75, allow a casino to be built, with tens of millions of the profits to go to schools and other government functions. This one is difficult for me to decide. I’m leaning towards voting “yes,” based on this argument by Kari Chrisholm on BlueOregon:

I’m supporting Measure 75 because I think Oregon needs to do something to break the cycle of underfunding of our schools and city/county services. In Measure 75, we’ve got outside investors willing to drop hundreds of millions of dollars in building and operating a business in Oregon. Yes, it’s a casino – but it’s also a massive entertainment complex that will draw national and international tourists. (After all, Portland is two hours closer to Tokyo than Las Vegas is, and Oregon’s brand in Japan is huge. Dad gambles while Mom shops and the kids ski.) Measure 75 would create thousands of long-term family-wage jobs, and deliver tens of millions in funding to schools and local governments all over the state — at zero cost to the taxpayers. Do I like funding services on gambling dollars? Of course not, but I don’t see revenue reform happening anytime soon, and we have do something to break the downward spiral in Oregon.

I understand and agree with many of the anti-gambling arguments. But given Oregon’s desperate situations with school funding and high unemployment, opposition to gambling doesn’t seem like the highest priority at stake here. (I’m aware of the argument that a new casino will not lead to any net revenue gains for Oregon because of lost lottery revenue; I don’t find that argument persuasive.)

Measure 76: Extend lottery funding for parks. Yes.

Those were state-level measures. Now the local measures:

Multnomah County measures:
Measure 26-109, repeal term limits for county elected offices: Yes.
Measure 26-110, allows elected officials to run for another office without resigning from their current position. Yes.
Measure 26-111, instead of the Board setting the sheriff’s salary, the Salary Commission well. I honestly have no opinion on this one.
Measure 26-112, County commissioners have to live in the district they represent. Yes, obviously.
Measure 26-113, saves money by limiting special elections to May and November. Yes.
Measure 26-114, doesn’t actually fund libraries, but changes the rules so that local voters have an additional option for voting to support local libraries in future elections. A somewhat confused yes from me, based mainly on the fact that librarians seem to endorse it, and I trust librarians to favor what’s best for libraries.
Measure 26-118, a five-year levy to support the Oregon Historical Society. Yes.

City of Portland measures:
Measure 26-108, publicly financed elections. Yes.
Measure 26-117, bond measure to fund the fire department. Big shiny red engines! Yes.

Tri-Met measures (yes, our bus system gets its own measures):
Measure 26-119, bond measure to support better bus service for disabled people and elderly people. Yes.

CANDIDATES

1. US Senator. This is a “safe” race, so normally I’d vote for one of the third parties rather than the Democrat. But I think wonky Ron Wyden (D) has done an exceptionally good job recently (not perfect, but good), so I voted for him.

2. Representative, 3rd District. Another “safe” race for the Democrats, so I voted for Michael Meo, of the Pacific Green Party and of the Progressive Party. (Candidates in Oregon can now be affiliated with more than one party.)

3. Governor. I voted for John Kitzhaber, since this is not a “safe” race, and anyway, there’s no third party candidate on the left to vote for.

For my conservative friends reading this, however, I urge you to maintain your conservative credibility and purity by voting for either Greg Kord of the Constitution Party or Wes Wagner of the Libertarians, either of whom will more truly represent your views than that sell-out RINO Chris Dudley.

4. State Treasurer I don’t know if this is a safe race or not, so despite my fondness for perennially candidate Walter F (Walt) Brown, I voted for the Democrat, Ted Wheeler. Plus, Wheeler is also endorsed by the Working Familes Party.

5. State Senator, 24th District. Rod Monroe (Democrat and Working Families Party).

6. State Representative, 48th District. As a blogger, I hate voting for someone who hasn’t updated his blog since 2007. But Jeff Caton, his opponent, is pro-life, so this is an easy choice. Edited to add: Oh, yeah, so the person I voted for is Mike Schaufler. Thanks, Charles!

7. Metro President. The endorsements say it all: “Stacey counts endorsements from the Oregon League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club[…]. Hughes is endorsed by… multiple chambers of commerce, including the Portland Business Alliance.” Hughes is the candidate favored by millionaires; Stacey is the candidate favored by environmentalists.

As Tim writes:

Candidate Tom Hughes, a former mayor of Hillsboro, is supported by donors who wants to expand the urban growth boundary (that means paving more open space to make strip malls and gated communities). He also supports the excessive Columbia River Crossing (CRC) proposal that will create a bridge to bring more traffic to Portland from the ‘Couv. Bob Stacey is none of those things: he’s a critic of the pro-car version of the CRC plan, has solid environmentalist cred, and, y’know, isn’t a suburbanite who wants to turn the whole world into a parking lot.

Although I do like me some parking lots, I voted for Bob Stacey.

8. East Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District. Urban farmer Jill Kuehler simply has more relevant experience with water and soil than any of the other candidates, plus she seems really interested in the position (rather than it being a stepping stone), plus she’s been endorsed by the other soil & water folks.

This entry posted in Elections and politics, Oregon blogs. Bookmark the permalink. 

15 Responses to Oregon Election — How I Voted

  1. 1
    RonF says:

    6. Measure 75, allow a casino to be built, with tens of millions of the profits to go to schools and other government functions

    Here in Illinois the institution of the lottery was sold on using it to provide funding to schools. But what has actually happened is that the money went into the general funding. There was no separate accounting for the money and there was no actual additional funding for education.

  2. 2
    Robert says:

    Man, I like the clarity of your ballot issues. Ours are horrible. If you don’t do extensive research, it’s hard to know WTF they are talking about or what even the obvious ramifications will be. Plus our pre-Tea Party local radical right wing is very active in the initiative process and while some of their initiatives have been great, others are appalling. Meanwhile local Democrats attempt to prove that the classic dichotomy of the stupid party and the evil party doesn’t actually require two parties – one is plenty!

    “Shall we caucus to determine annually the procedural resolution for recohering the ninth district, coterminous to all districts relating to the processing of frozen salmon or Indian gambling, posited tri-monthly on a recumbently procedural basis in accordance with the fifth statute of the appendix to the Council on Mineral Treaties with Aboriginal Nations Resolutions of 1793?”

    I don’t know, man, shall we? Ask me if the library can be on the bonds ballot sometimes, and I understand what it is we’re discussing. Fund or not fund the parks? I can swing that.

  3. 3
    Katie Lane says:

    26-114 is a definite YES. A district is a means of funding a library system. There are two ways of making one: the voters determine that that’s how they’d like to fund their library system and vote to create a district OR every municipality in the proposed district gets to determine if a district should be formed, and if one of the principalities says, “No,” the district isn’t formed. Currently, the Multnomah County voters cannot exercise the first option. A “Yes” vote fixes the County Charter so that they can.

    Basically, the only reason you’d vote against it is if you hate democracy.

  4. 4
    Aaron V. says:

    Generally agree with you, but I voted for Tom Hughes specifically because of the CRC project – the way to stimulate the economy is to put large public works projects like the CRC, or in the 30s, the Bay Area Bridges, Hoover Dam, etc.

    No formal WPA, but the CRC will bring tons of well-paying engineering and construction jobs to North Portland and Vancouver, jobs that pay good wages and benefit working-class people.

  5. 5
    Ampersand says:

    Aaron, that’s a good argument.

    Katie, thanks for explaining that!

    Robert, yeah, this was an exceptionally clear-cut bunch of ballot measures. Often there’s a bunch that are opaque as something very very opaque.

    Ron, yeah, that’s a good point; although the measure specifically funds schools (among other things), money is fungible, so it’s possible the state will react by diverting money from schools to other things, so there’s no net increase in school funding. OTOH, the government as a whole is critically underfunded, so if something other than schools ends up benefiting, that’s not necessarily a bad outcome — other things need funding too.

  6. 6
    Jake Squid says:

    Feh to the casino. In addition to the other problems casinos bring, this screws over the Tribal casinos by placing one directly in Portland, it creates some construction jobs in the short term but merely replaces existing jobs with likely lower paying jobs in the long term. Worst of all, this creates precedent to create non-tribal casinos throughout the state which enhances the possibility of eliminating the major source of funding for the Native Tribes in Oregon.

    Vote Nonononononoonoononoonoooooooo! on this.

    Robert,

    It’s always good to caucus. It’s the caucusing that matters, not the subject of the caucus.

    As to our conservative friends in this Great State of Oregon… Greg Kord has one of the best candidate photos ever and, speaking from personal knowledge, the Libertarian candidate is simply an embarrassment. If this is the best the Libertarian Party can do in Oregon, it’s pretty much a dead party. Which makes me weep inside. Really.

  7. 7
    Jake Squid says:

    My comment is awaiting moderation? Well, I never!

  8. 8
    Charles S says:

    I was out canvasing for Kitz today and I ran into a guy who hates both Kitz and the Dud and said he was going to vote for Wes. I asked him as a personal favor to not vote for Wes, but the only other option is the Constitution Party, so we were left at a loss.

    I voted no on the casino for all the reasons Jake gives, and I’m unconvinced by Aaron’s argument for Hughes. We don’t need to trash the future of the Metro area by electing Tom “Highways, highways, highways” Hughes, even it would mean a incidental jobs program. Anyway, Kitzhaber’s jobs program (massive energy efficiency retrofitting of schools, paid for by bonds based on the resulting energy savings) is a way better jobs program than the bridge (jobs programs should do good, not harm, as a side effect of providing jobs).

    The endorsement of Mike Schaufler would be more effective if you mentioned his name.

  9. 9
    Charles S says:

    Mine too. Something about this thread is freaking out the moderation cue.

    Oh wait, I’m a mod. Pity I have no clue what the password is.

  10. 10
    Felicity says:

    I agreed with you on most things, but I voted against the casino. As you said, you know the arguments against it (and Jake mentions some above). Another sore point for me was that I don’t like corporate chaps buying sweetheart deals from the voters much more than them buying them from politicians, and this really smelled that way.

    I’m pretty desperate for our schools to get better funded, but this seemed like a sketchy track for uncertain, variable funds, as well as kind of a dick move with regards to the tribes. I’d hate for this to pass and then better, more stable, less morally questionable measures to be opposed on the grounds that “they have the casino money” or “any minute the casinos will really start bringing it in.” I suppose I did let the perfect be the enemy of the good in this instance, but that’s obviously a call each voter has to make for herself/himself.

  11. 11
    George Hayduke says:

    Tom Hughes is supported by the same corporate developers buying Dudley’s campaign. Fuck both those assholes.

  12. 12
    Jake Squid says:

    I’m pretty sure that the moderation causing term is, “Casin0.”

    And, yeah, I think that it’s always a bad idea to have the Metro president (or any metro councilor) be somebody wholly owned by developers. It kind of goes against my idea of what Metro is supposed to be.

  13. 13
    mike says:

    OLCV recruited Hughes tor run for mayor of Hillsboro and endorsed his mayor race twice, but somehow Hughes is pro-paving over everything. As mayor, Hughes revitalized downtown and helped build up density around max stations. Nobody ever names examples of anything he paved over, and he never says anything about liking parking lots. Fearmongering ads and mailers are the only place we hear these attacks, and again no examples.

    The only thing that sticks is the donors shared with Dudley, and I admit that’s a little unsettling. I think some of that is about the CRC bridge, where you have a lot of people wanting the jobs building it so they’re giving to the pro-bridge guy.

  14. 14
    Kevin Moore says:

    I also voted No on the casino. Don’t wanna take money away from Indians (in fact, we probably still owe them a few billion bucks). Schools deserve more stable sources of funding directly from the state and fed — like Social Security stable.*

    *No, I won’t entertain wise-cracks about the Impending SS Doom, cuz it’s an overhyped crock.

  15. 15
    Sarah says:

    I like your “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” argument; it’s one I applied to voting for the casino. Sure, we could have a bake sale to support schools, but people tend to be a lot more interested in giving money to slot machines than to cookies.