John Minnis....John...Minnis...gosh, where have I heard that name before? Oh, I know I'm hearing it now, along with the rest of you, as the Attorney General's office has released the findings of its investigation into the (former) cop, (former) state legislator, and now (former) Department of Public Safety Standards and Training Director. It's a fairly interesting story, with the accused opting to resign immediately--rather than begin the parade of denials, walkbacks, confessions, political banishment and eventual political redemption we're used to.
If you're not totally up on things, here's the gist:
As first reported in last week’s WW, the issue that prompted Minnis to resign is the alleged sexual harassment and possible sexual assault of a female employee. Those allegations were the focus of a criminal investigation by the state Justice Department.
A letter (PDF) released today by DOJ chief criminal counsel Sean Riddell says prosecutors declined to pursue charges against Minnis because they can’t prove he broke any laws “in regards to his personal relationship with a particular employee under his supervision.”
However, Riddell’s letter to DPPST deputy director Eriks Gabliks notes Minnis “admitted to conduct that occurred outside of our jurisdiction that we do not have the authority to decline or accept prosecution.”
The DOJ forwarded a copy of its investigation to the San Diego Police Department and has offered to assist in that department’s ongoing investigation, Riddell’s letter says.
Minnis' quick goodbye suggests he understands that what happens in San Diego, does NOT necessarily stay in San Diego. But speaking of quick goodbyes, WWeek reports today that Minnis wasn't quite quick enough on the day the story broke, to avoid being confronted by an investigator for AG John Kroger:
While we were meeting [with other investigators] in the parking lot in front of the main building at DPSST, I received a phone call from [Deputy DPSST Director Eriks] Gabliks. He informed me that Minnis was moving personal items from his office and placing them in his private vehicle in the back parking lot of the building…Gabliks also informed me that he felt that Minnis was going to be leaving the building and that any effort to contact him should occur as soon as possible. I had obtained the number of Minnis’ cell phone and called him. When he answered, I identified myself and asked if he would make some time available for a meeting. Minnis said that he was already on the ‘highway’ and was unable to meet. I volunteered that we were currently in the front parking lot of the campus near the guard post and I believed he was still in the parking area at the rear of the building. At that time, Minnis became silent and I asked him to wait where he was until we could contact him. [We] drove to the back of the building and contacted Minnis at his vehicle.[emph mine]
I believe the proper term for this happenstance is, BUSTED! Sucks to tell a lie that's immediately verifiable as utter bullshit, I guess.
So that's what's going on now. But you might be forgiven if the name "John Minnis" and "sexual crimes" sticks in your memory for some reason. If you were a Loaded Orygun reader back during the 2006 election season, maybe your memory will be jogged by work done when Carla Axtman was still with us. Carla detailed Minnis' involvement in sexual assault allegations made against his brother Tuck, who worked at the pizza restaurant Minnis co-owned with his wife, former House Speaker Karen Minnis. For a quick recap:
In the girl's complaint (see pages 26-40), she alleges that John Minnis told her that "he could treat her any way he wanted because he was the employer." The girl further complained that she was forced to quit as they kept assigning her to late night shifts, ordering her to change her clothes on shift and off,setting rules for female employees that didn't apply to males and changing the girl's job description from hostess to cook--as well as treating her in a punitive and angry manner (anyone who watched Karen Minnis on KATU last night would totally buy this. Its obvious she's hella thin skinned).
Perhaps the part that rings the clearest bells, is the part where the Minnises quietly paid off their accuser to the tune of $20,000, despite claiming that they did not believe her story about Tuck. While professing innocence, Minnis nonetheless cut a deal and walked away. Sound familiar? The easy takeaway: for God's sake, don't let John Minnis hire you.
In one of the more ironic denouements of the whole mayoral sex scandal, it would appear from Attorney General John Kroger's investigative report (now available in pdf with a h/t to Willy Week for hosting it) that Portland Mayor Sam Adams has escaped criminal prosecution by having laid down with dogs.
In the 17-page report, the DoJ addresses the two most serious charges--sexual intercourse with a minor and lesser sexual contact (ie, "The Kiss")--and finds no evidence at all to support the former. On the latter, the evidence boils down to a he said/he said, where Adams denies inappropriate contact and Breedlove says it occurred. However, because of Breedlove's past as, well...a liar, Kroger's office finds him insufficiently credible to be used as the sole substantiation of the claim. The report notes:
The only proof DOJ has obtained that Adams may have engaged in illegal sexual contact with a minor comes from Breedlove. Breedlove's account of the two alleged incidents of kissing before his 18th birthday is called into question by the lack of corroborative witnesses or corroborative evidence. In addition, Breedlove's prior inconsistent statements, financial gain, and prior felony conviction for a crime involving deception has compromised his credibility as a witness. For these reasons, we conclude there is not sufficient credible evidence to justify criminal prosecution. [emph mine]
This doesn't really qualify as a technicality, where there might be otherwise provable evidence but some process mistake or violation of rights causes the whole thing to be thrown out. Let me be clear that Adams is fully within his rights to trumpet this report and say that the DoJ found no credible evidence he committed any legal wrongdoing with Breedlove.
But is there any doubt that Adams hit the ass-saving jackpot by choosing as his underage paramour, someone who conveniently happened to have a criminal record as a liar? If he'd dated anyone else, generally speaking, Kroger might well have seen fit to accept their account over Adams', seeing only Sam's interest in lying. But because the other potentially corroborating evidence (friends, City Hall security and staff) was itself contradictory and unclear, the crucial question in the case could not satisfactorily be answered--because their only witnesses are both known liars. How sweet and balls-out LUCKY is that for Sam? The man is SO charmed.
The Mercury is also updating their story page pretty rapidly, and has reax from Commissioner Fritz (has the report on her desk, knows the conclusion, doesn't care beyond that), Jason Wurster (plans to move forward with recall despite what most analysts likely consider a crushing blow), BikePortland guru Jonathan Maus (good news, while damage has been done to Adams the bike community found out he's not the only supporter in town), Thomas Lauderdale (Yay! and Fuck off, Jason Wurster) and police union spokesman Scott Westerman (so what; he's still lying scum).
In the WWeek version of the reax, Westerman compares him to a cop lying in the course of his or her public duties, which seems odd given that Kroger cleared Adams of misconduct in his public duties. And I have to ask--what's the big boner the cops' union has for busting Adams' chops on this, anyway? Westerman has repeatedly made time to throw public statements on the fire regarding this case, and it's starting to look like a vendetta--particularly today, when just MAYBE a little fence-mending with the Mayor would not only be appropriate but prudent. Read the tea leaves on this one, Scott.
Of course more chatter will ensue, but it seems significantly more unlikely today that any recall effort against Adams will succeed--and in fact the effort to even get a recall on the ballot may now fall flat as well.
Kroger has planned a news conference for noon today, and Adams has indicated his interest in speaking to the media (duhhh....). Considering I've been unwavering in my support of his mayoralty if not his conduct, I'm hoping I might be able to get a couple minutes with him. We'll see.
Janice Thompson at Democracy Reform Oregon reminded me that there's an excellent, longer-term report on this kind of stuff that they published earlier this year. The more the better!
The report found the average Oregon legislative race raised $124,000 in 2008, a 51 percent increase from 2004. But even as the total amount increased, the actual competitiveness of the races decreased: Incumbents running for re-election were likely to hold on to their seats and fundraising was often lopsided.
Legislative candidates weren’t the only ones raising money in 2008. Ballot measure committees also raised significant amounts. Unions, which gave one of every three dollars in the state overall, contributed the most to ballot measure committees.
While the amount of money contributed to elections raised dramatically in 2008, the number of people giving did not. Only 0.1 percent of Oregon’s population gave money to a candidate, party, or ballot measure during the election cycle.
Earlier this week there was a report from TA Barnhart, writing in Blue Oregon, about a meeting of Multnomah Democrats where Attorney General John Kroger bluntly asserted his desires from the state Legislature:
Kroger and his Special Assistant, Ben Unger (who, like Kroger, is a Mult Dems precinct committee person) had come to the meeting to gather support for getting the Ways and Means Committee, and, in particular, Sen Margaret Carter to approve the assignment of DoJ lawyers to civil rights works. As if incredulous that it was the case, Kroger asked how Oregon could have a real Justice Dept if it did not prosecute civil rights cases. And then, to answer his own question, he stated that while the need for both civil rights and environmental crimes attorneys in his office seemed a "no-brainer," the "forces of inertia are immense." Switching to law professor mode, he stated if there was one lesson to be learned from the Civil Rights Movement, it's that "you don't get progress unless you sue people".
Clearly Kroger is a little frustrated at not getting what he sees as important pieces of his strategy for the AG's office. But as you can read from the comments, in the areas involving both civil rights and environmental enforcement there are already agencies handling some sort of monitoring against unlawful practices, and Kroger is being perceived in some circles as a typically aggressive Easterner who is overstepping traditional lines and protocol, with strong backfiring potential.
For my part, I think both BOLI and DEQ are inadequate to fully enforce the laws they're monitoring, otherwise the arguments Kroger made on the campaign trail about lack of functional enforcement outcomes would have rung hollow. And it's a logical argument: you can't civilly pressure wrongdoing; there has to be a hammer. Kroger wants to be the hammer, the Big Toe if you're a Stripes fan.
And speaking of the campaign, I thought it would be most helpful to remind readers (especially those in the Leg or clucking their tongues in the media) that these points and pleas being made by Kroger shouldn't be surprising at all, since they mirror exactly what he was arguing for on the campaign trail for last year's elections--elections in which he won nominations of BOTH parties. Maybe the Leg should think about that a little? They can read what Kroger said about his aims, in an excerpt from our extended interview with Kroger in February 2008. Hop below the fold for his near-verbatim commentary...
Fresh off a pretty busy calendar of events on Atorrney General John Kroger's docket last week, this week the People's Advocate is back on the trail for Oregon, suing the Oppenheimer Funds for $36 million he and Treasurer Ben Westlund say were negiligently lost for the state's 529 Oregon College Savings Plan. The reaction from Oppenheimer hasn't been positive of course, but it's sparked a mini-war of press releases in the last couple of days:
Oregon officials allege that Oppenheimer invested program participants' money in risky securities rather than in a conservative portfolio.
"We intend to use the full legal power of the state of Oregon to make sure Oregon families' dreams of a college education are fulfilled," Kroger said in a statement at the time.
Oppenheimer responded to the lawsuit in a statement, saying it was "very disappointed" that Kroger and Westlund sued, especially since the company has cooperated with the state's investigation into losses to the program.
"OFI is deeply concerned with the investigative process followed by Oregon and its decision to file a suit at this time. While OFI would have preferred reasonable, good-faith discussion and resolution, it is prepared to defend itself and its reputation vigorously against these claims, which lack legal merit," the statement said.
One could suppose that the AG's Office might have responded in any case, but generally I think the tendency is to let the defendants have their say in the media, and focus on getting the win in court. But apparently Kroger and Westlund could not let stand the fudgery that makes up Oppenheimer's "we're the victims" line; they responded within hours:
"In truth, lawyers representing Oregon discussed the case on numerous occasions by telephone and in person with counsel for OppenheimerFunds," their joint statement said.
"Oregon repeatedly indicated that it would like to resolve the case amicably. Unfortunately, OppenheimerFunds did not take this case seriously, even after being advised that a lawsuit would be filed if OppenheimerFunds was not prepared to discuss a serious settlement."
Whoops! Perhaps what they meant by "reasonable good faith resolution" was that Kroger and Westlund would admit it was really all for show, agree to work out some kind of easy-to-swallow settlement that allows Oppenheimer to avoid admitting culpability, and drag it out so that everyone eventually forgets what it was all about."
Our new sheriffs don't seem particularly predisposed to that kind of response, however. Good for them. I can't speak to the specific legal merits, but I have to think that they wouldn't attempt to file a suit if it were as simple as poor investment decisions that didn't pan out. So assuming there was some kind of prior agreement as to the general makeup of the portfolio, OFI will have to argue that the securities they purchased on behalf of the Savings Plan were conservative investments that just went bad. We'll see.
I quite like the legislative effort here, and it stands to confirm my pleasure with new Attorney General John Kroger, who will get a chance to continue making good on promises to act on behalf of Oregon consumers--the target this time being unscrupulous and harrassing debt collectors, who of course are legion these days:
The legislation will allow Attorney General John Kroger, beginning in January, to sue overzealous debt collectors who harass Oregonians by making middle-of-the-night collections calls or for engaging in verbal abuse, for instance.
"This important legislation will help us crack down on debt collectors who routinely violate state and federal law," Kroger said in a statement Thursday.
Senate Bill 328 specifically will allow the state's attorney general to go to court to enforce a 1977 law against illegal collection practices, the Unlawful Debt Collection Practices Act.
Currently, the attorney general can only sue collection agencies under Oregon's Unlawful Trade Protection Act. The Department of Consumer and Business Services licenses debt-collection agencies and regulates third-party debt collection.
I really don't think most Americans grasp the concept that consumer protection is not a worldwide, automatic phenomenon. Corrupt and impotent governments alike give companies free reign to sell impure products (Mexican pharmaceuticals anyone?), poisoned products (anyone buying Chinese cat food?) and unsafe products (two words: Ford Pinto).
The libertarian point of view has some benefits, but a key failing of the philosophy for me is that it divides human effort unnecessarily, dismissive of the economy of scale. Taxation is a good thing because it allows large numbers of people to contribute small amounts to achieve big goals.
Ceding authority but not oversight allows a bigger, more powerful agent to control behavior we want controlled. Maybe there's debate over what to control, but we can agree that even people in debt have the right to be free from trickery or harrassment, can't we? And admitting that there are some consensus items means admitting there IS reason for state-level authority.
That's what bothered me about Jeff Merkley's crusade against payday lenders. Nobody wants usury, which is what those places were doing before the Legislature wisely passed an interest cap and other reforms. But once that was done--once a reasonable level of profit and accountability was agreed on--it should have been OK for those places to continue doing business. So why was Merkley celebrating their shutdown? Didn't he agree that what they were doing was legal, in part by his own vote?
Obviously we can't ban bill collectors, or prevent them from using the phone to collect. But we CAN make sure they're doing it legitimately and professionally. Kudos to the Leg and the AG for getting this done when so much else is out there to tackle.
I'd mentioned the distinct possibility of President Obama's Department of Justice reversing the Bush-era policy of conducting federal raids on marijuana clubs and grows in states with medical marijuana laws (like Oregon), tempered by the fact that those raids had continued shortly into the new President's term.
Attorney General Eric Holder said at a press conference Wednesday that the Justice Department will no longer raid medical marijuana clubs that are established legally under state law. His declaration is a fulfillment of a campaign promise by President Barack Obama, and marks a major shift from the previous administration.
After the inauguration, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) continued to carry out such raids, despite Obama's promise. Holder was asked if those raids represented American policy going forward.
"No," he said. "What the president said during the campaign, you'll be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we'll be doing in law enforcement. He was my boss during the campaign. He is formally and technically and by law my boss now. What he said during the campaign is now American policy."
Aside from what I consider to be very, VERY good and sensible news, isn't it such an astonishingly welcome change to have top bureaucrats answer questions with simple words like "yes" and "no?" It's so confusingly...unambiguous!
Other than a celebratory "smoke 'em if ya got need 'em" for the weekend, I don't have anything to add to the story, except that the article I linked above has an interesting excerpt from the reporter's 2007 book This Is Your Country On Drugs--and a microcosmic moment on the relative merits of California's Senators:
"It's good news for people in California who are so ill that they have gotten a doctor's note in compliance with the law," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) when told of Holder's promise. "If you have a doctor's note, you should be able to get whatever medicine you need."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) was not as quick with approval. "I've got to think about that a little bit," she said. Feinstein was mayor of San Francisco when in the '70s and '80s when the issue was first being debated.
Out today is an interesting piece cobbled together on the downlow about John Kroger's first high profile gig as Attorney General--investigating Sam Adams for criminal behavior. As the AG's office refuses to comment, the story is left to educated speculation on who's doing what, but it does name names:
While it's unclear which of the Department of Justice's attorneys has taken the case, the agency has assigned Ron Nelson as lead investigator in the Adams matter, said sources familiar with the case.
Nelson retired as a special agent for the department in June. But the agency hired him back on July 15 as a temporary criminal investigator, said Lonn Hoklin, a spokesman for the state Department of Administrative Services.
Nelson has worked his share of major investigations during an 18-year career with the Justice Department, distinguishing himself as a tenacious investigator on drug, prostitution and public corruption cases. He spent part of this week interviewing key witnesses in the Adams case.
As I said, that's about as close as it comes to news. The rest is largely former DAs and legal people using their experience to paint a picture of what the investigation would likely entail (They're going to interview anybody who knows anything, in case you were wondering). But the end of the article hones in on the question of misdemeanor assault, the criminal charge being focused on as applicable to any pre-18 romantic contact between Adams and Breedlove:
The issue of whether a kiss amounts to sex was decided by the Oregon Court of Appeals in 2001. A panel ruled that lips can be considered intimate body parts, and that a kiss can be considered sexual contact under certain circumstances.
In the Adams case, both Breedlove and Adams would have to consider the kiss more than chaste, according to the law. Or if Adams didn't view it that way, then the test is that a reasonable person would consider the kiss intimate.
As an aside, I know it's a meaningless distinction to most readers, but it would be helpful to some to know exactly what case we're talking about when referring to a legal precedent. The Appeals Court in 2001 said, in Horny Gent v Saucy Teen...etc. Regardless, the way The O parses the law, how is Adams not in serious danger of indictment? Does any reasonable person not consider a one minute kiss slightly more than chaste? Because this interpretation differs from previous reportage about lips being "initmate parts" that I've seen, it's why I'd love to know what case we're talking about here. If the above is correct, isn't that...relevant?
I'm still uncomfortable about the entire investigation given that as far as I know, no individual has lodged a specific criminal complaint--the allegation of a crime committed by Adams. That's not what we have here; what we have is a fishing expedition to see if there's any illegal activity surrounding the relationship Adams revealed. But no one has made any on-record allegation that a crime occurred. If that sounds reasonable to you, ask yourself if you'd welcome an investigation without complaint, into any of the activities you've comported that simply "look suspicious." Does the fling in question look suspicious? That is, causes a question by the known facts and not by the appearances? If so, it's only because Adams lied in a political context, which is dangerous ground IMO for the legal system to inject itself into.
Would I support a City ethics investigation? Wholeheartedly. I think there are rules of conduct that all City employees are accountable for, and as Commissioner Adams certainly would seem to have given some of those rules short shrift. If an ethics rebuke is warranted by investigation, it should be given. That's a response to Adams' behavior that requires neither recall nor resignation, but is still an on-record black mark on his professional portfolio--as it should be.
What I think, ain't stopping John Kroger of course. I think the most interesting path to take is the notion left by KATU's anonymous Breedlove "friend," who claimed he received a text message from Beau admitting a prior-to-18 affair. If that's true, there should be an electronic record, or? More coming, undoubtedly. Meanwhile, Willamette Week breathlessly notes that Sam Adams went to a big meeting in a test of his effectiveness...and they had the meeting. But wait! Some big business leaders weren't there! Oh, they said it had nothing to do with Adams. But something COULD have happened! Really! And it would have been scaaaaandalous!
In his inaugural speech President Barack Obama said that he would make sure our federal government would "do our business in the light of day". He meant it - his first official act was an executive order strengthening the federal FOIA act.
Oregon needs to do the same thing. Our public records law gives too much discretion to state agencies and too little power to citizens who want to know what those agencies are doing. We need change. We can get it quickly. Here's how.
In theory, Oregon's public records law makes it simple for people to get documents that are in the possession of a state or local agency. An email to the agency head saying "this is a public records request for" followed by a description of the document is all it should take. The agency is required to make a pro-forma response "as soon as practicable" and make "proper and reasonable" efforts to get you the documents promptly.
In practice things don’t work this way. Oregon law doesn't tell agencies how quickly they must respond and some state agencies use this loophole with glee. The only recourse - short of court - is to petition Oregon’s Attorney General and ask him to order the agency to give it up. But with no firm deadline, the interpretation of "proper and reasonable" is all up to the AG. Former AG Hardy Meyers and his deputy Pete Shepherd routinely let state agencies take at least a month - sometimes even two - to produce even a single page document.
John Kroger, Oregon's new Attorney General, can change this overnight, by using a more reasonable and proper definition of "reasonable and proper". The obvious choice would be the same 5 day standard that most other states use. In a pinch agencies could take longer, but only if they could justify it to the AG. Oregon would move, well, not to the front, but at least to the middle of the pack with respect to public records access.
I've posted more about this, including some practical information on how to get public records, at http://openuporegon.com
Bill Harbaugh is a professor of economics at UO. His most recent research uses fMRI brain scans to study why people give to charity. In his spare time he tries to change things.
When the most recent contempt ruling against Bill Sizemore was announced and Bill actually went to jail for 36 hours or so, perhaps the most interesting part of Judge Judy (!!) Janice Wilson's ruling was "Appendix A," a four-page catalog of what Wilson called Sizemore's "deceits"--false statements on documents and in testimony under oath among them, it appeared. What both former Sizemore employee Becky Miller and I both wondered was, "When is Sizemore going to have his blatant lies catch up with him?"
Am I psychotic? Is it wrong to think that when a judge writes "oh by the way, you are a compulsive liar who has repeatedly written bullshit down on your declaration forms and given bullshit answers under oath," that someone might well consider whether a crime has been committed? Don't they call that perjury? It's a five year beef if you do it under federal purview, which some of the tax documents Wilson accuses of making false statements on, would appear to be.
But there are other statements apparently made in Oregon civil courts pursuant to his long legal battle against the state's labor coalition, and those should be locally prosecutable. Since the ruling was handed down in Multnomah County, the Multnomah County District Attorney (MCDA) would be the natural choice. So shortly after the ruling was made public, I started trying to ascertain who knew about, and was interested in investigating, what a Multnomah County judge was accusing him of in a civil proceeding.
This happened a few days earlier (ably newswired by skywaker on Wednesday) and I saw it coming a mile away about a week or so ago, but access and time failed me in order to get something published properly. Certainly better a little late than never, as it's a pretty big story that touches all major parties and a couple of minor ones in Oregon, and deals with a recurring topic at LO about ballot access and electoral reform.
As the headline and our initial reportage indicate, a coalition of minor parties and a major party candidate for Congress in Oregon's First District have joined to sue the Secretary of State in order to force what they believe is compliance with Oregon statutes, said to allow simultaneous (or cross-) nomination from different parties, represented in list format after a candidate's name on the ballot. The Independent Party of Oregon (IPO) is leading the suit, and as I said at the top has not been shy about their opinion or intentions on the matter as the story and responses from the state developed to the question.
The IPO and Working Families Party (which I belong to) are also strong proponents in the Legislature for fusion voting, and in fact the "list-style" ballot is a valid form of fusion, albeit one that diminishes the ability of the minor endorsing party to claim a numeric level of support. In full fusion voting, each qualifying party has their own line, and candidates may appear multiple times. This is not currently allowed in Oregon law--but the IPO, WFP and Haugen all agree that the law does allow list-style endorsing. It's in part on this basis that I believe the groups sued the state for banning fusion, but lost. Their argument is far more salient here, in my opinion. From IPO's release:
"We had hoped that the Secretary of State would recognize the mistake and allow us to move on," said Party Secretary, Sal Peralta. "The opinion of our legal advisors is that the state's actions are inconsistent with Oregon law, and we need the court to make a determination."
“The Independent Party makes a strong argument that the statutory changes in 1995 require that party nominations accepted by a candidate should appear on that candidate’s ballot line,” said Senator Ben Westlund, who was recently cross-nominated by the Independent Party in his bid to become State Treasurer. “The statute seems to indicate that both nominations should be printed in this case.”
Westlund joins fellow Democrat, Jeff Merkley, and Republican, Joel Haugen as the candidates who have been cross-nominated by the Independent Party.
The case is set out in the attached Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief. The Marion County Circuit Court has scheduled a hearing for August 21. [emph mine]
No doubt Ben is perfectly positioned to take advantage of the endorsement and the legal argument, and has no real debt of fealty to any major party system--but he happens to be right and he's respected for a reason. It speaks well for the suit to have Westlund back it. In a Mapes piece online, Merkley's team has welcomed the nomination, but seems a bit less strident in their advocacy for the principle of ballot access. (Fairly, it should be said the roadblocks to fusion in 2007 were mostly in the Senate, not the House, and incumbent House member Peter Buckley is representing the WFP as the cross-nominated candidate showing potential harm).
Oregonians like to brag about being independent types, probably more than they like actually thinking independently--but there's very definitely a libertarian, "Western" political stripe that paints down both sides of the party aisle, characterized chiefly by a healthy distrust of the central government. There's no shortage of ire towards state and local bureaucracy of course, but special jaundice is reserved for the feds.
However anecdotally you want to characterize that vague essence of Oregonians, it has manifested itself fairly clearly and regularly in a number of areas. Oregon singular method of voting has been the subject of high interest and scrutiny by the Bush administration and Karl Rove. Oregonians at various levels have fought the federal government on law enforcement issues like death with dignity, medical marijuana, and the Joint Terrorism Task Force. The depth of support for sticking it to The Man varies by issue, but for perceived health issues like med-mar, support is high for following state law within state borders.
At the same time, the unspoken undercurrent of the coming Democratic wave in Oregon politics is that the election stands to result in a regression in crime policy--previewed by the passage of Measures 51, 52 and 53, spearheaded by a competition between Measure 11 expansions, and featuring a future green light for get-tough meth policy from the AG-elect's office. If "soft on terror" is the main fear of national Democrats, state Democrats seem well primed to shrink in fright at the term "soft on crime."
And now I am really depressed to read the release last Thursday from Jeff Merkley's campaign, which (along with some meritorious suggestions) proposes a hard tack to the right on crime enforcement, including a fight for legislation to bring more federal prosecutors into Oregon to enforce federal laws. Tbat idea ought to chill a lot of Oregonians, left AND right.
Shortly after the May 20th primary I heard the news that some 13,000 write-in votes for the Attorney General race were recorded statewide. Given the lack of a Republican candidate for the race, speculation ran rampant that Ron Saxton--despite already having refused the nomination if it came to that--had nonetheless won the write-in campaign. There was another candidate that right-side blogs like Oregon Catalyst pushed as well, so maybe it was that person--lawyer James Leuenberger--who won.
There was no Republican candidate on the ballot, but GOP voters had the option of writing in the name of a candidate.
More than 13,000 Oregon Republicans indicated their preference.
Some were serious. One Multnomah County Republican wrote in U.S. Attorney Karin J. Immergut.
Some were not: Ignorant War Mongers also received one vote in Multnomah County.
But according to a highly unofficial survey of the state's five largest counties by The Oregonian, Kroger will get the most Republican write-in votes. Including misspellings, Kroger received nearly 1,600 votes in the top five counties, more than twice as many as the second-place finisher.
The results were somewhat surprising given an unofficial Republican write-in campaign for former GOP gubernatorial candidate Ron Saxton.
But in the top five counties, Saxton didn't even come in second. He trailed Macpherson by a wide margin (238 votes).
The state Elections Division has until June 19 to certify the election results.
As Mapes notes, the immediate implication is that Kroger's name would appear on both the Democratic and block the appearance of the Republican line for the general election, essentially locking up his victory even beyond the presumption lent by his primary win over Greg Macpherson. Ironically, in 20064 Macpherson was able to achieve the same feat in his state House district. It's a neat little trick, and while campaigns to create a double-line candidate in situations where one major party doesn't file are pretty common, I don't know how often it works. I'd be curious to see how many candidates have achieved the feat over the last 10 years or so.
But beyond the official implications, one has to wonder: is this the end of Ron Saxton's political career? We may have already lost Kevin Mannix to the winds of time after his beatdown by Mike "Here's Bus Fare, Baby" Erickson, and while perhaps "turnout" was minimized by Saxton's refusal to serve if nominated, both the selection of Leuenberg by the right-o-sphere and Ron's failure to attract more than a smattering of votes may signal that his elective political career is well on the wane.
As someone who painted himself in a seemingly oxymoronic sort of "compassionate law and order guy" fashion, it's not hard to imagine Kroger's crossover appeal. His general support of Measure 11 hurt him with some Democrats, but it likely helped/helps him with Republican voters. And while we may think of things like environmental justice and child support as "Democratic" issues, the truth is that they're actually fairly universal concerns across the spectrum in Oregon. And as the spate of GOP voters for Obama indicates, there are more than a few Republicans hungry for a change message, which Kroger deftly delivered.
That broad support shouldn't be underestimated; it is likely to provide a wellspring of good will and "honeymoon" period for the new AG, something crucially important to one who has proposed some fairly broad and fundamental changes in approach for the office. Changes never come without controversy and pushback, and he'll need every bit of good will he can scrounge up to weather those future trials.
One of the more maddening issues in any campaign manager's life, I've come to find, is not what to do but when to do it--how to best time even the smallest of announcements--and certainly the big ones. Money is a good example. Notice how neither Democratic campaign has said anything yet about their 1Q take? Neither has Smith, but he's always closer to the deadline and doesn't really care anyway.
When you announce depends not only on how you did, but how you want to project your results or direct the media to another focus. Did Merkley have a down quarter, or is he waiting for Novick to go first so he can trump him? Is Novick trying to bury OK fundraising in among the weeds, or is he just playing it cool and--this could be novel--is still counting? It DOES take a lot of effort to reconcile (although electronic donations are making it easier), and there's a reason there's a lag.
The following to me illustrates the ultimate folly in trying the choose the perfect timing. The Lefty Blogs aggregator service plucks new entries from Oregon on a roughly hourly basis, so things posted within that hour often come out all at once. Like the two endorsement announcements from the Attorney General candidates today--coincidentally, they were both announcing the same kind of endorsement as well. And I'm sure the Macpherson press person figured it was as good a time as any to post the good news....
Oregon Attorney General candidate John Kroger today announced the endorsements of eight Oregon sheriffs, further cementing his support among law enforcement leaders and associations from across the state. The eight sheriffs endorsing Kroger are: Wasco County Sheriff Rick Eiesland, Yamhill County Sheriff Jack Crabtree, Umatilla County Sheriff John Trumbo, Clatsop County Sheriff Tom Bergen, Linco... John Kroger for Attorney General - 2:04 p.m. - 18 clicks
This week Tillamook County Sheriff Todd Anderson and Washington County Sheriff Rob Gordon declared their support for Greg in the race for Oregon's next Attorney General. "Sheriffs Anderson and Gordon understand my proven record of protecting Oregonians from the dangers of meth labs, internet predators, and repeat property criminals," said Macpherson. "I'm honored to have their support." ... Greg Macpherson for Attorney General - 2:04 p.m. - 14 clicks
Haven't spoken much about the AG race lately; it's actually been fairly quiet. Still hard to get traction in March, and if the Presidential race isn't sucking out all the oxygen, the Senate race is breathing the rest.
Also, it seems as if one candidate has been building momentum from the start and continues to garner strong endorsements from a wide variety of people and groups from all walk of life. For instance, mayors:
Oregon Attorney General candidate John Kroger today announced the endorsement of Mayors Kitty Piercy of Eugene, Bruce Abernethy of Bend, Alan Unger of Redmond and Phillip Houk of Pendleton.
Eugene Mayor Kitty Piercy
“I support John Kroger because he wants to tackle two of the biggest challenges our state faces –environmental pollution and child abuse,” said Kitty Piercy, Mayor of Eugene. “He will be an Attorney General who works hard to make a real difference for Oregon families, our quality of life and our future.”
These endorsements follow the support of city leaders around the state. John has also garnered the support of Portland City Commissioners Randy Leonard, Erik Sten and Dan Saltzman, and Hermiston Mayor Bob Severson.
“Winning the support of mayors across the state makes a huge difference in our campaign,” Kroger commented. “It shows that our message of tackling our meth problem and protecting the environment is important to civic leaders all across the state. I look forward to working with Mayor Piercy and all my supporters when I am elected Attorney General.”
Eugene, Bend...Redmond and...Pendleton? Not your usual coalition of leadership, but it seems the best candidates are the ones who end up having a little crossover flavor for some reason. Obama has the Obamacans, Novick has them in stitches at Fox, and now Kroger has the Mayors of the Desert (and Eugene). Throw in Hermiston and he's got the watermelon farmer vote, too.
Do they mean a whole lot individually? Probably not, although the smaller the town the mayor oversees, the better the influence on his domain. But it's a signal of Kroger's wide appeal. He has a number of strongly progressive principles working for him, but he doesn't come off as a softy or someone who just thinks everyone needs a hug.
I think the objective eye on this race has to see Kroger as the minimal frontrunner over Macpherson, based on the surprise of some endorsements, and the way in which he's actually seemed to have raised the profile of the AG's race. It's still mostly under the radar, but he's garnered his support base quickly and continues to build it. And side by side, I just think Kroger impresses more.
(Good info to know, and nice recall! I'd have to agree it's probably Kroger's; Kitz endorsed him and he kind of sticks out in that list. I'd be real curious to see what that number is now, though! - promoted by torridjoe)
I answered a poll on the Oregon Democratic Primary this evening. It was being conducted by McGuire Research, a mostly market research outfit out of Denver (but they were calling from their Las Vegas office).
I figure you all might have some interest in this. From the content I assume the Kroger campaign paid for it, but you can never be too certain I suppose. TJ, you used to do this stuff -- you have any insight?
The interviewer (and then her supervisor) wouldn't identify the client, the sample size, or whether or not the survey would be public.
They confirmed for me, when I asked specifically, that the poll screened for likely Democratic voters. That was the only screening question, as far as I could tell.
Unfortunately I didn't think quick enough to record the call, and they refused to provide me with a transcript of the call or of the questions asked. Here's what I do know:
They first asked general opinions of candidates -- my best recollection is that they asked about Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kroger, Greg Macpherson, and John Kitzhaber. Each on a scale of Very Favorable, Somewhat Favorable, Somewhat Unfavorable or Very Unfavorable.
They then asked about the races. They asked about President, Senate, AG, and SoS. I fucked up here because in my eagerness to answer quickly (and not listen to the interviewer wrestle with Pavel Goberman's name) I answered before I heard them read all the candidates. Judging from the inclusion of Goberman, though, they probably cast a fairly wide net.
Then they dug right into the AG race and didn't look back.
There were two series of questions -- the first asked whether certain things would be a very, somewhat, not too, or not at all convincing reason to support John Kroger for Attorney General. Here are the ones I can remember, in brief:
-- He would fight for the environment -- evidence sole Sierra Club endorsement.
-- Crime Victims United endorsement.
-- Would go after "drug dealers, predatory lenders, and scammers" [which struck me as an odd conflation]
-- Courtroom experience ("has tried more than a hundred cases" and mentioned awards)
-- Would go after big corporations and powerful interests
Then it asked one question before heading into the next batch (this is almost verbatim):
John Kroger passed the Oregon bar only 4 months ago. Some people say this makes him too inexperienced to be Attorney General. Having heard this, for whom would you vote in the May 20th Democratic Primary election for Attorney General -- John Kroger or Greg Macpherson?
The next series of questions were phrases. The interviewer wanted me to say how well I felt they described John Kroger. The first batch were flattering (probably 6-10) and the last few were unflattering (just a few, the only I remember was inexperienced).
And that was it. A few demographic questions for crosstabs (union membership, own or rent, education. Notably absent: race, income) and we were done.
I've never met the Kossack known as skywaker9, but he/she has been active during Oregon election time and provides one of the most thorough looks at state and local races, easily as good as what The O pumps out close to the election (or like they did today, after filing for candidacy closed yesterday).
While skywaker9 is a Merkley and Macpherson fan, they do an excellent job of keeping the analysis mostly devoid of biased concepts (although I have to disagree that Merkley's run a good campaign or is a fine candidate anymore). They call the Senate primary a "tossup" with a Republican lean for the general, and that's exactly where I'd put it. Some other excerpts:
Attorney General (D-Open) Major Democratic Candidates: Former Prosecutor and Current Law Professor John Kroger, State Representative Greg Macpherson. No R candidate filed. My vote: Macpherson. Summary: Kroger and Macpherson are neck and neck at this point. The conventional wisdom has suggested for a while that Macpherson has an edge but with the Oreogn Education Association's substantial endorsement of Kroger last weekend it is clear that this one could be close. Since there will be no Republcian candidate, except this primary to be close fought and both sides to leave nothing in the tank. Primary Rating: Tossup. General Election Rating: Uncontested D.
Secretary of State (D-Open) Major Democratic Candidates: State Senators Kate Brown, Brad Avakian, Vicki Walker and Rick Metsger. Major Republican Candidates: Former Eugene TV anchor Rick Dancer. My vote: Undecided. Summary: What a collection of talent on the democratic side! Oregon would be well served with any of our candidates. My best guess is that it will come down to Avakian and Brown with perhaps a very slight edge to Brown for now, but don't count either Walker or Metsger out. Both have proven that they can win tough elections, especically Walker. I'm not that worried about Rick Dancer this fall. Primary Rating: Lean Brown. General Election Rating: Likely D.
State Treasurer (D-Open) The Matchup: State Senator Ben Westlund (D) vs. Pixelworks CEO and former Kulongoski aide Allen Alley (R). My vote: Westlund. Summary: Westlund is proof that it is possible for a Republican to recognize that they are wrong and to beomce a true progressive. He shouldn't have any problem winning here. Alley was a last minute candidate recruited largely as a stand-in. Rating: Likely Westlund.
It's a harsh world in real-journalism land; it's no big deal if the site makes money (although lately it's been doing very well, thanks to our advertisers--please go click even if you really don't care!), but if you're a scribe and you get downsized in a shrinking job market, what then?
Happily Chris Rizo, late of the Ashland Daily Tidings, which has been embroiled in job cuts and abuse charges against the editor, has put his Oregon political chops to good use in a piece for the national legal aggregator Legal NewsLine. Naturally, it profiles the two candidates for Attorney General in the Democratic Primary--but it does so after interviews with both men, meaning some fresh quotes and articulations of the differences between them. Such as:
Taking a swipe at Macpherson, who he said lacks trial experience, Kroger said when voters choose the next attorney general they are electing more than just the state's legal representative, but also their advocate in court.
Kroger said in his time as a prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office in Brooklyn, N.Y., he worked on hundreds of felony cases, including actions against Mafia bosses and drug kingpins. He was also a member of the U.S. Justice Department's Enron Task Force.
"I come to this job with a lot of experience in court at both the trial and the appellate level, and Greg Macpherson has never tried a case in court," Kroger said. "I also have a strong law enforcement background and that's another fundamental difference between us."
Macpherson, a longtime attorney at the state's largest law firm, Stoel Rives LLP, specializes in employee health benefits. He said Kroger's claim that he has never tried a case in court is false.
"I am the only candidate in the race who has represented a client in an Oregon courtroom," Macpherson said, adding that Kroger was only admitted to the Oregon Bar late last year
As you may have noticed, we've been running the transcript from our in-depth interview with Attorney General candidate John Kroger. As I noted at the beginning, I've had the pleasure to meet Mr. Kroger more than once, and as someone represented by his primary opponent in the Legislature I was very surprised how quickly I was ready to ditch the gentility of The Mac Report for the Sustainable Spitzer guy.
After a lunch in late fall where we informally covered some of the same ground as in the formal interview this week, I told Kroger that I was going to wait and watch the race before an endorsement--but I pretty well knew at that point that I was going to give whatever worth Loaded Orygun's endorsement has, to John Kroger for Attorney General of Oregon.
As pleasant and apparently very competent as Macpherson is, Kroger's enthusiasm, sharply detailed vision and obvious desire for public service--in all senses of the phrase--make him the more compelling candidate. He better exemplifies the borderline-angry demand of the electorate for post-partisan change, post-fear. He's ready to fight, but on principles for people, not for parties and politics.
His profile is not perfect; there's a swath of Eastern law-and-order swagger from a former Marine that manifests itself in a relatively firm personal validation of Measure 11--but with rationally compelling arguments for keeping parts of it. He's properly and starkly dismissive of Kevin Mannix's proposed extension, calling it "stupid public policy." And while he's careful to protect the lives of juveniles and those of low IQ, he's still for the death penalty overall, and is "skeptical" of medical marijuana. He's not the groovy uncle AG who's going to let you get high on the Capitol grounds in Salem, that seems clear.
But Kroger is doggedly focused in an almost John Edwards-like way on how the DoJ can address the serious, small-scope but vastly important challenges the lower and middle classes face-- things like child support, consumer protection and clean food and water. There's an almost To Kill a Mockingbird corny charm to the way Kroger harps on 'the citizens of the state,' sounding as if he really believes that's who the Attorney General should be acting for on a daily basis, in court and out. There's guile in his ambition for sure, but it's guile reserved for when he has to put the cape on and fight the bad guys. Otherwise he wears a sweater and rescues kittens.
Well, it's not THAT bad. But in this season where we cynics are being constantly bombarded with nasty messages of hope and faith from all sides of the aisle, it's becoming harder and harder to ignore people who really and truly just are passionate about impacting people's lives in some kind of positive way, because they think they have learned a thing or two and know how to lead others to get things done. One of those folks is John Kroger, and he has our endorsement for Attorney General.
[Last Thursday I sat down with Kroger for an hour at Huber's downtown, and while he discreetly made his way through an open face turkey sandwich in gravy, he laid out in strong detail his plans and visions for the office. The text is about 95% verbatim; I've removed some "ums" and "you knows" for at list a little brevity, and deleted the conversations with the waiter, etc. And with such a long text, I may choose to emphasize in bold and italics the crux of his comments. Anywhere that appears, consider it my emphasis. But otherwise this is exactly what he said.
Part One of the interview is here. Part Two is here. In this final installment, I throw some tougher questions at him, trying to pin him down on fairly specific legal scenarios. He shied away from none of them, although at times he considered his words carefully. We talk Measure 11, death penalty, Death With Dignity, medical marijuana, legal presence and immigration--the whole nine yards, closing with an introspective look at his rather surprisingly well-received campaign to date...and stay tuned for an announcement on the Attorney General's race from Loaded Orygun.]
You've come out previously against Kevin Mannix's proposed extension of Measure 11 crimes, but you have stated that you will support and enforce the current measure law on the books. If you could first comment on what you know about the proposed legislative deal that would theoretically have Mr. Mannix withdraw his petition--and also whether you know whether that's even possible, although that might be more of a Secretary of State question, and also whether there are parts of Measure 11 that you would support changing.
Let's start with Mannix's measure. Mannix's measure would require a 36-month mandatory minimum for a first property crime. I strongly oppose it. Fiscally it's insane. It'd cost us 200, 300, $400 million, that's money we don't have, so it comes straight out of the K-12 education budget, and our education system is underfunded as it is.
But it's not just the fiscal problem that makes me oppose it. I just know as a prosecutor it's stupid, as a public policy matter.
If you want to tackle crime in Oregon--and I do--the way is not to throw a first property crime defendant in jail for three years, which is incredibly expensive and in most cases counterproductive. When you're talking about a third offense, OK--prison time is appropriate. But when you've got someone on a first offense, almost all of those people are committing crimes because of substance abuse problems. You want to get them on probation and get them into drug treatment. And that's how you reduce the crime rate. I just know that, factually. And that's why I think this measure is just incredibly reckless.I'd love to see it disappear.
Constitutionally I haven't researched it, but my gut reaction is that once a ballot measure is qualified I think it might be hard to pull it back. I'm sure some very good legal minds at both the Department of Justice and outside the department are going to be looking into that. And I don't know what the legal answer is. But it's not obvious to me that one can do that after you've obtained the signatures and qualified the measure.
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
