Isaac Laquedem

An unhappy historical coincidence

Franklin Roosevelt was the only man elected to four terms as president of the United States.  He died in office on the 39th day of his fourth term.

Yesterday was the 39th day of John Kitzhaber's fourth term.

Abdication

You all know the reasons which have impelled me to renounce the throne. But I want you to understand that in making up my mind I did not forget the country or the empire, which, as Prince of Wales and lately as King, I have for twenty-five years tried to serve.

But you must believe me when I tell you that I have found it impossible to carry the heavy burden of responsibility and to discharge my duties as King as I would wish to do without the help and support of the woman I love.

And I want you to know that the decision I have made has been mine and mine alone. This was a thing I had to judge entirely for myself. The other person most nearly concerned has tried up to the last to persuade me to take a different course.

I have made this, the most serious decision of my life, only upon the single thought of what would, in the end, be best for all.

-- Edward Windsor, formerly Edward VIII of Great Britain, December 11, 1936

The Oregonian catches up to Isaac, calls for Governor Kitzhaber to resign

The failure of Cover Oregon, the state's health exchange, was humiliating and costly, and Kitzhaber ultimately is responsible. If that's the only issue Oregonians care about, then perhaps Kitzhaber ought to go. Thoughtful voters, however, will consider the governor's full record. * * *  John Kitzhaber is not an ideal candidate, but he's the best one Oregonians have this fall.

--  The Oregonian, October 4, 2014, endorsing John Kitzhaber for a fourth term.

The real puzzle this year is the Governor's race.  John Kitzhaber, the incumbent Democrat, seeks a fourth term against Republican challenger Dennis Richardson, a six-term state representative from southern Oregon whose legislative experience has included extensive work on Oregon's budgets.  Rep. Richardson started his campaign several years ago with an extensive outreach program (I landed on his mailing list for reasons I still haven't fathomed), and he's run a competent campaign since then.  Where he has fallen short is on policy: when pressed in debate he retreats to platitudes instead of specifics, and he's awkwardly navigating the narrow and sometimes negative space between the social policy views of the conservatives who nominated him and the moderates whose votes he needs to win.  On policy grounds I would favor Governor Kitzhaber for a fourth term, albeit with serious reservations about his expensive lapses on Cover Oregon and the Columbia River Crossing.

To quote Ian Fleming, however: "But, but, but, and again but!"   The stream of revelations about the contracts of the Governor's fiancee, Cylvia Hayes, with entities that seek favors from the State of Oregon concerns me.  I have the same worries that I would have about our nation's energy policy if (say) Michelle Obama accepted a seat on the board of Exxon.  That tips the scale for me against voting for Dr. Kitzhaber. 

-- Isaac Laquedem, October 26, 2014 , recommending a vote for the minor-party candidates instead.

No doubt, the governor does intend to do the job Oregonians gave him, which, simply put, is to pursue the interests of his constituents. That intention, however, is no match for an ugly reality of his own making, whose sordid elements keep surfacing with dispiriting regularity, most recently this week thanks to the work of Nick Budnick and Laura Gunderson of The Oregonian/OregonLive. Two people involved in Kitzhaber's 2010 campaign helped Hayes find paid work with groups interested in Oregon policy, Budnick and Gunderson reported. Both have landed in Kitzhaber's administration.

More ugliness may surface, but it should be clear by now to Kitzhaber that his credibility has evaporated to such a degree that he can no longer serve effectively as governor. If he wants to serve his constituents he should resign.

-- The Oregonian, February 4, 2015, coming around to Isaac's view.

Six counties favored marijuana over Gov. Kitzhaber. Two make sense. Why the other four?

I haven't figured out a larger societal principle from comparing Governor Kitzhaber's election results today with those of the marijuana measure, but I think there's something interesting lurking in the data.  Measured by percentages, the Governor outpolled legal weed by a noticeable margin only in ultra-conservative Wheeler County.  Marijuana outpolled Dr. Kitzhaber by a consistent margin in most of our other counties, and by 10 points or more in six conservative counties around the east and south edges of the state: Baker, Curry, Harney, Josephine, Klamath, and Lake.  I understand the appeal of legal marijuana in Curry and Josephine Counties, where the stuff is said to grow well and may be the largest  cash crop in the area, but I don't have a theory for why the marijuana measure outpolled the governor in Baker, Harney, Klamath, and Lake Counties.  It may be that the good voters of those four counties believed that four years of a Dennis Richardson administration would be easier to take with a toke.

Kitzhaber wins re-election, but shouldn't crow about it

The Oregonian has called the governor's race for John Kitzhaber, who has 48.8% of the reported vote compared to 45.7% for Dennis Richardson and 5.6% for the other four candidates and write-ins.  Dr. Kitzhaber leads by 30,000 in the actual voting.

Isaac agrees with the Oregonian's call.  When all the votes are counted, Dr. Kitzhaber will have received about 808,000 votes, against 706,000 votes for Mr. Richardson.  The governor's margin will widen almost entirely because Multnomah County has many votes yet to count, and the uncounted vote in Multnomah County will add another 83,000 votes to the governor's margin, just enough to get him above the 50% mark.  Isaac predicts that he will end up with 50.8% of the vote against 44.9% for Mr. Richardson.

Yet Governor Kitzhaber shouldn't be complacent about winning.  Had the race continued another three weeks, he might well have lost.  He will carry only eight of Oregon's 36 counties (two of those by less than a majority), and is trailing in counties that he should have won, such as Clackamas, Marion, and Linn.  He will win the race only because of his strong showing in Multnomah County, where he is receiving 70% of the vote.  If Multnomah County didn't count, Dennis Richardson would be the next governor.  Put another way, in Multnomah County he's running barely evenly with legalizing marijuana, and he's well behind legal marijuana in most of the rest of the state.  He has a lot of catching up to do with the rest of the state in the next four years.  Good luck, Governor; you will need it.

Endorsements IV: the races for Senator and Governor get Isaac's yes and no

This year's senate race presents an easy choice.  The incumbent, Democrat Jeff Merkley, seeks a second term against a challenge from Republican Monica Wehby, a physician who is seeking her first elective office.  First-term senators are rather like fourth sons of reigning monarchs: they bear imposing titles and get respect in public, but aren't expected to accomplish very much.  It's sufficient for them to select one or two issues on which to seek the public's attention while they learn their way around the nation's capital.

Shortly after arriving in Washington, Senator Merkley found an issue: the financial crisis that hit in 2009 and its effect on Wall Street, the large banks, and the rest of America.  He and Senator Carl Levin proposed an amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act to add the "Volcker Rule," a rule that would have barred traditional banks (i.e., banks that the federal government insures, including those that the feds think are too big to be allowed to fail) from engaging in certain risky investments.  The bill to which the Merkley-Levin amendment was attached did not become law, but the text of their amendment was attached to another bill and in a slightly different form became law.  (It's also noteworthy that this was known as the Merkley-Levin amendment and not as the Levin-Merkley amendment because Sen. Levin joined the Senate 30 years before Sen. Merkley did.)  In several different ways since then, Sen. Merkley has continued to press for some fairness in the banking and tax system.

The Oregonian rightly rejected Dr. Wehby as a candidate -- she and her campaign both imploded and the race effectively ended weeks ago.  The Whimperer called Sen. Merkley "smart, thoughtful, certainly well-intentioned [and] even right at times," but declined to endorse him either, apparently (as far as I can tell) because he sometimes disagrees with Senator Wyden and wants to raise the cap on Social Security income taxes to fund higher benefits for old people.  The Oregonian correctly notes that in his first six years in the Senate Sen. Merkley has not solved any major problems. Neither have the other 99.  He is off on the right track, however, and has earned a second term.  You may, as I will, vote to re-elect Sen. Merkley.

The real puzzle this year is the Governor's race.  John Kitzhaber, the incumbent Democrat, seeks a fourth term against Republican challenger Dennis Richardson, a six-term state representative from southern Oregon whose legislative experience has included extensive work on Oregon's budgets.  Rep. Richardson started his campaign several years ago with an extensive outreach program (I landed on his mailing list for reasons I still haven't fathomed), and he's run a competent campaign since then.  Where he has fallen short is on policy: when pressed in debate he retreats to platitudes instead of specifics, and he's awkwardly navigating the narrow and sometimes negative space between the social policy views of the conservatives who nominated him and the moderates whose votes he needs to win.  On policy grounds I would favor Governor Kitzhaber for a fourth term, albeit with serious reservations about his expensive lapses on Cover Oregon and the Columbia River Crossing.

To quote Ian Fleming, however: "But, but, but, and again but!"   The stream of revelations about the contracts of the Governor's fiancee, Cylvia Hayes, with entities that seek favors from the State of Oregon concerns me.  I have the same worries that I would have about our nation's energy policy if (say) Michelle Obama accepted a seat on the board of Exxon.  That tips the scale for me against voting for Dr. Kitzhaber.  The Pamplin newspapers also concluded that neither major party candidate in the Governor's race deserves support.  They recommended that Democrats write in Ted Wheeler and Republicans write in Allen Alley.

I don't plan to write in a non-candidate; the governorship should be reserved for people foolish enough to want to serve.  I intend to cast my vote, with some hesitation, for Chris Henry of the Oregon Progressive Party.  If you feel as I do about Gov. Kitzhaber and Rep. Richardson, I recommend a vote for the minor party candidate with whom you are most closely aligned.  For Tea Party conservatives, that's likely Aaron Auer of the Constitution Party.  More traditional conservatives can vote for Libertarian Paul Grad.  Those to the left of Isaac have Jason Levin of the Pacific Green Party available on the ballot.

Endorsements III: Measure 89 (equal rights)

Measure 89 [not 88; thank you, Sarah Ames Carlin] would adopt as part of the Oregon constitution the sentence "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the State of Oregon or by any political subdivision in this state on account of sex."  If the words sound familiar, it's because they are adapted almost word for word from the national Equal Rights Amendment, which Oregon and 34 other states ratified in the 1970s but which did not get approval from the necessary 38 states to become part of the United States constitution.  This measure would be unremarkable but for the reason that the Oregonian advances for voting against it.  Its editorial writers recommend that Oregonians vote against Measure 89, not because it is bad policy, but because (in their view) it isn't necessary.  Current law, the Whimperer says, already provides women protection against state and local discrimination, and so this measure would do nothing but clutter up the Oregon constitution.

Let us retrace the slow movement of Oregon women toward full status as persons.  The Oregon constitution of 1857 granted full remedial rights to men with this noble phrase: "Every man shall have remedy by due course of law for injury done him in person, property or reputation."  It is not known whether the framers believed that women should not have remedies at law, or that remedies were unnecessary for women because they would never be injured.  However reluctant the framers were to protect women, they did at least protect their property, adopting as Article VI, §5, this passage: "The property and pecuniary rights of every married woman at the time or marriage, or afterwards acquired by gift, devise, or inheritance, shall not be subject to the debts or contracts of the husband, and laws shall be passed providing for the registration of the wife's separate property."

Then in 1862 Oregon moved backward a step, passing a law that the husband of a married woman must be joined with her in any lawsuit, except if the action concerns her separate property, or wages for her work, or a "wrong committed against her person or character."  This law remained in force until 1927.

In 1878 Oregon expanded the rights of married women, slightly, by authorizing a married woman "to receive the wages of her personal labor" and to sue and be sued in her own name.

To the credit of our long-gone legislators, they did in 1880 enact an omnibus statute that removed from wives all civil disabilities that did not exist against husbands, "provided, however, that this act shall not confer the right to  vote or hold office upon the wife."  A long history of the state's meanderings toward but not to equality is in the Oregon supreme court's opinion in Smith v. Smith, a 1955 case in which a wife sued her husband for injuries from an automobile accident.  The question before the court was whether the law barred her from suing her spouse for injuries resulting from his careless driving.  The court -- again, this was as recently as 1955 -- held that Mrs. Smith's status as the wife of Mr. Smith barred her from suing Mr. Smith for her injuries.  If she wanted to be protected from his careless driving, the court said, she should have bought insurance.

Return now to the Whimperer's editorial.  The writer said that Measure 88 is unnecessary because Oregon courts have held that Article I, Section 20 of the Oregon constitution accomplishes the same thing.  That is absolutely correct.  What Oregon courts have said today, however, they may say differently tomorrow.  The Smith court upheld the common-law rule prohibiting one spouse from suing the other for negligence with these homely sentences, that sound as if they come not from 1955 but (barring the reference to the automobile) from 1855:

The argument to the effect that when a husband has beaten his wife, the peace and harmony of the home has already been destroyed, is a valid one, but it applies with force only to intentional wrongs. We are sure that the learned jurist would not say that the peace and domestic tranquillity of the home is ended every time that a wife is shaken up by the inattentive conduct of her husband in operating the family automobile, or vice versa. Nor can it be said that domestic felicity has been forever lost if a husband slips on a carelessly oiled kitchen floor.

Fifty-nine years ago the Oregon supreme court assumed that husbands and wives might both drive, but only a wife would oil a kitchen floor.  It's time to put a statement of equal rights into the constitution and not trust in our supreme court to believe tomorrow what it believes today but didn't believe yesterday.  Isaac is voting "Yes" on Measure 89.

Endorsements II: The high (Measure 91) and the mighty (Measure 87)

The Oregon constitution prohibits persons who are employed in one branch of our government from holding a paying position in either of the other branches, with some exceptions.  This prohibits judges, who are employed by the judicial branch, from teaching in public colleges and the University of Oregon law school (Oregon's only public law school), which are part of the executive branch, and similarly prohibits them from serving in the Oregon National Guard, which is also within the executive branch.  Measure 87 would allow the public schools and colleges to employ state judges as teachers, and would allow judges to receive compensation for serving in the Oregon National Guard.  (The law doesn't prohibit judges from being employed by private schools, only by public schools.)  Judges have enough problems in their workaday lives to make me wonder why they would seek out yet more hostile fire, whether from silent snipers or snarky students, but this proposal doesn't create any ill effects that I can see.  It will get a "yes" vote from Isaac.

Measure 91 would allow the state to regulate and tax the cultivation, sale, possession, and use of marijuana: it would make marijuana legal in a manner similar to our regulation of alcohol.  In fact, the measure proposes that the OLCC would regulate marijuana growers and sellers.  Of all the arguments pro and con this measure, the two that most appeal to me are these.  First, legalizing the possession and use of marijuana in small amounts would reduce what we spend on the justice system by removing from the justice system people who aren't dangers to society and letting the courts and jails prosecute and house people who really ought to be in prison.  Second is that the press by the government (mostly the national government) to fund its police forces through civil forfeiture (i.e., "If we catch you running a grow house, we'll take your house away even if we never charge you with anything") has pushed commercial growers to set up shop in the unforfeitable and not very policeable national forests, creating dangers to Oregonians who want to enjoy the outdoors without running into booby traps or armed guards.  Adopting this measure would remove the financial reason for large operators to set up in the forests, would reduce the money flow to organized gangs, and would let a number of our politicians (including some that I know) be a little more honest about how they like to unwind after a hard day of legislating.  Isaac is voting "yes" on 91.

2014 Endorsements: Ballot Measure 86 (educational fund)

It's ballot season!  Leading off is Ballot Measure 86, which would amend the constitution to requirethe legislature to establish the "Oregon Student Opportunity Fund," to issue bonds to fund it, to invest the proceeds, and to devote the net earnings to provide financial assistance to Oregon students "pursuing post-secondary educatoin, including technical, professional and career training."

This measure attracted 14 "yes" arguments in the Voter's Pamphlet, and only one "no" argument, which came from the irrepressible Steve Buckstein of the Cascade Policy Institute.  "God," as Napoleon famously said, "is on the side of the big battalions," but sometimes public policy isn't.  The state needs to do more to support public education, but Measure 86 is a good idea poorly implemented.  Isaac will be voting against it.  Here's why.

First, it's missing an important definition.  The measure provides financial assistance to "Oregon students," but does not define whether an "Oregon student" includes only an Oregon resident studying in Oregon, or if it also includes an Oregon resident studying out of state, or an out-of-state resident studying in Oregon.  If the state is going to borrow money to invest in post-secondary education it should make it clear that the money will be spent only in Oregon.

Second, I'm innately suspicious that the trustees of the large fund will invest portions of the funds to advance noble social policy goals (e.g., supporting innovation in the manufacture and delivery of solar panels), or to high-fee hedge funds, rather than to provide a reasonable return combined with safety of principal.  Our track record of sticking to our knitting isn't very good.

Third is the loophole in Section 6, which provides that if the Governor declares an emergency and a supermajority of the legislature concurs, the money in the fund may be spent for "any lawful purpose," as long as the legislature approves a plan to replenish the fund eventually.  Would the legislature call the near-bankruptcy of several Oregon counties an emergency to justify tapping the fund?  Maybe . .  . and there goes the money for the fund's stated purpose.

The drafters of this measure meant well, but they executed poorly.  Thumbs down from Isaac.

Dennis Richardson's and Monica Wehby's campaigns, compared

The sense that I'm getting from my political friends, except a few of the diehards, is that Oregon's senate race is over.  Barring any flagrant fouls, Senator Merkley will defeat Monica Wehby handily.

The far more interesting race, and so far underappreciated, is the gubernatorial campaign between John Kitzhaber and Dennis Richardson.  My Democratic friends have lumped the two races together, often talking about the Wehby and Richardson campaigns as if they are the same.  They aren't, and I advise against overconfidence.  Here are the important differences between the campaigns and the candidates.

First, Dr. Wehby came to this race with no political experience and no name familiarity.  By contrast, starting several years ago  Representative Richardson meticulously built his mailing list across the state and brought himself to the attention of Oregonians outside of southern Oregon who hadn't yet heard of him. 

Second, Dr. Wehby's platform has followed more closely to the tea party ideology than has Mr. Richardson's.  Her approach will attract voters in eastern Oregon and parts of Southern Oregon, but is going to fail in Washington and Clackamas Counties, the two battlegrounds that statewide candidates need to capture.  Mr. Richardson is not so easily categorized.

Third, Dr. Wehby is running against an incumbent who has made no significant errors.  His record in his one term in the Senate is thin, but this is the case for most first-term senators, who don't spealk until their elders speak to them first.  She hasn't advanced any compelling reason for Oregon voters to believe that she would be more effective in her first term than Senator Merkley will be in his second.

Mr. Richardson has a more interesting opponent, a physician seeking a fourth term as governor, one of whose major programs was to implement universal health care in Oregon.  The Cover Oregon failure needs no retelling here.  Its importance is that Mr. Richardson has the advantage of running against an incumbent opponent who tied himself to a specific program and then couldn't implement it on time and on budget.  The crash of the Columbia River Crossing, though less tied to the governor, doesn't do Governor Kitzhaber any favors either.

The election is seven weeks away, and a lot can happen in that time.  I don't know that Dennis Richardson will defeat Governor Kitzhaber, but I'm confident in saying that the Democrats who treat his campaign and Monica Wehby's as being the same are underestimating him.