Oregon Election — How I Voted
Sunday, October 31st, 2010 by Barry Deutsch
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.
