1330 12th St SE Suite 200 Salem, OR 97302
(503) 581-5722
lwvor@lwvor.org

Standard Voters’ Guide – General 2018

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OREGON

Standard VOTERS’ GUIDE

November 2018 General

Section 1: Introduction

This Nonpartisan Voters’ Guide is published and provided free of charge by the League of Women Voters of Oregon. This is a FREE NONPARTISAN ELECTION REPORT for Oregon’s November 6th, 2018 General Election. Large print, audio (read aloud), screen reader accessible (automated), and Spanish Voters’ Guides are posted at our website www.lwvor.org/VOTEoregon, with more voting information.

The Talking Book and Braille Library at the Oregon State Library helped to pay for audio and large print Voters’ Guides. They send audio or Braille versions of this guide to registered users at the request of the Oregon Secretary of State. Contact them at 1.800.452.0292 for more information. For a complete and updated League events list, visit:  www.lwvor.org/join us/events-calendar/


Section 1: INTRODUCTION
Section 2: GENERAL INFORMATION
Section 3: COUNTY ELECTIONS PHONE LIST
Section 4: BALLOT MEASURES
Section 5: CANDIDATES for US HOUSE, INTRODUCTION AND CD 1
Section 6: CANDIDATES for US HOUSE, CD 2
Section 7: CANDIDATES for US HOUSE, CD 3
Section 8: CANDIDATES for US HOUSE, CD 4
Section 9: CANDIDATES for US HOUSE, CD 5
Section 10: CANDIDATES for OREGON GOVERNOR
Section 11: JUDICIAL CANDIDATES
Section 12: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Section 2: General Information

About This Guide

Qualified candidates for state-wide Oregon offices were invited to answer questions prepared by the League of Women Voters of Oregon. Candidate replies are printed as received, free of edits. Elections officials must publicly provide candidate emails in order for the League to invite candidates to list with us. Those who don’t respond, or did not have emails available at time of publication, will be listed but cannot participate. Contact lwvor@lwvor.org for more information.

ON THE WEB

For information on all Oregon races and ballot measures go to lwvor.org/voteoregon. All local races are covered there, from County to Municipal, including Special Districts.

Voter Registration

Check your Voter Registration. You can check, update &/or register to vote online in Oregon. Be sure to check if you have moved. www.oregonvotes.org.

Important dates:

  • October 16th, the Last day to register to vote or change your political party registration.
  • October 17th to November 1st , when most ballots are mailed. If you mail your ballot, remember to add more time because of our Oregon USPS site closures and rerouting. If you don’t get your ballot, contact your county elections office at:
    http://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Pages/countyofficials.aspx.
  • Election Day is November 6th, the last day to DROP OFF your ballot at an official drop-off site, by 8:00pm.
Find Candidate Information

IN THIS GUIDE

Candidates are listed by statewide races, from our 5 Congressional Districts, to Governor, Commissioner of Labor and Industries, and Judges on the Supreme and Appeals Court. We list candidates in random order using a list from OR Elections per ORS 254.155.

ON LINE

You can find your district, your ballot candidates and measures online at lwvor.org/voteoregon. We will have complete lists of all Oregon races and measures, by candidate and race name, and by County. For your specific ballot choices, go to www.Vote411.org and enter your address.

WHO IS ON YOUR BALLOT?

Back to top

Section 3: County Elections phone list

Baker…………………. 541-523-8207
Benton………………. 541-766-6756
Clackamas………….. 503-655-8510
Clatsop………………. 503-325-8511
Columbia……………. 503-397-7214
Coos………………….. 541-396-7610
Crook………………… 541-447-6553
Curry…………………. 541-247-3297
Deschutes…………… 541-388-6547
Douglas……………… 541-440-4252
Gilliam……………….. 541-384-2311
Grant…………………. 541-575-1675
Harney………………. 541-573-6641
Hood River…………. 541-386-1442
Jackson………………. 541-774-6148
Jefferson……………. 541-475-4451
Josephine…………… 541-474-5243
Klamath……………… 541-883-5134
Lake………………….. 541-947-6006
Lane………………….. 541-682-4234
Lincoln………………. 541-265-4131
Linn…………………… 541-967-3831
Malheur…………….. 541-473-5151
Marion 503-588-5041; 1-800-655-5388
Morrow…………….. 541-676-5604
Multnomah………… 503-988-3720
Polk…………………… 503-623-9217
Sherman…………….. 541-565-3606
Tillamook…………… 503-842-3402
Umatilla…………….. 541-278-6254
Union………………… 541-963-1006
Wallowa…. 541-426-4543; Ext 158
Wasco……………….. 541-506-2530
Washington………… 503-846-5800
Wheeler…………….. 541-763-2400
Yamhill………………. 503-434-7518

Back to top

Section 4: Ballot Measures

Measure 102: Municipal Bonds for Affordable Housing

View Ballot Measure Information

OFFICIAL TITLE:

Amends Constitution: Allows local bonds for financing affordable housing with nongovernmental entities. Requires voter approval, annual audits.

REFERRAL:

This measure is a constitutional amendment referred to voters by the 2018 Oregon Legislature with a unanimous vote in favor in the House and a vote of 24 in favor, 5 against, and 1 abstention in the Senate.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no financial impact to state revenue or expenditures. There is no financial impact on local government revenue or expenditures required by this measure. The revenue and expenditure impact on local governments would depend on decisions by local governments to propose bonding for affordable housing and voter approval of the proposed bonds.

PROBABLE RESULTS OF “YES” VOTE:

A “Yes” vote supports amending the state constitution to allow counties, cities, and towns to—with voter approval and certain restrictions—use bond revenue to fund the construction of affordable housing with non-governmental entities, without retaining complete ownership of the constructed housing.

As a result of the combined funding sources, more affordable housing units could be constructed or renovated, and thus more residents could be served. In communities where the local government issues an affordable housing bond, property taxes would increase to pay for it.

PROBABLE RESULTS OF “NO” VOTE:

A “No” vote retains Oregon’s constitutional prohibition on local governments raising money to loan credit to nongovernmental entities for any purpose.

BACKGROUND:

In the 1800’s, the Oregon Constitution was amended to prohibit the use of local government funds to directly help private enterprise. Later, the Oregon Supreme Court said that a city’s general obligation bonds could not be used for railroad improvements. Ever since, a bright line has been kept between local government funds and other financial resources that might be used for a common purpose, such as increasing access to affordable housing.

The Constitution presently allows local governments to issue bonds to finance affordable housing only if they retain ownership of the resulting structures. It does not allow the use of local tax revenues (including bonds) to finance private enterprises, including affordable housing built with additional resources by a public-private partnership. These restrictions mean that local governments may not use their funds to leverage other affordable housing funding opportunities, such as federal low-income tax credits, which are available to non-profit or for-profit affordable housing developers with restrictions.

PROPOSAL:

The proposed Oregon Constitutional amendment, Ballot Measure 102, would allow local governments to issue bonds that could be used by public-private partnerships as a component in financing affordable housing developments along with federal tax credits and private capital. It would also allow local governments to take advantage of the expertise of housing authorities and other nongovernmental agencies that manage affordable housing in the ongoing operation of the completed housing units.

This measure could increase the number of affordable housing projects by adding local government-issued bonds to a mixture of funding sources. If voters approve bond measures proposed by local governments for affordable housing, their property taxes might increase.

The City of Portland and all other local governments in the Portland metropolitan area asked the Legislature to pass this resolution to help respond to the need for affordable housing. In the Portland metro region, a local housing bond on the ballot this fall would fund affordable housing units for approximately 7,500 people if approved alone; if Measure 102 is also approved, those bond funds will go further, building affordable homes for up to 12,000 people in the metro area.

Many parts of Oregon lack affordable housing. If Measure 102 is approved, local governments could enter into public-private partnerships to combine these bond funds with other funding streams for affordable housing. The partnerships could be with non-governmental entities, such as non-profit agencies or private businesses.

SUPPORTERS SAY:

  • Measure 102 would allow more local affordable housing to be built.
  • Measure 102 would allow the use of bond dollars in partnership with non-profit and private housing providers.

OPPONENTS SAY:

  • There is no organized opposition to this measure; however, the Constitution should not be amended lightly.
  • The state could use bond money for projects of more widespread benefit, like roads or parks.

Measure 103: Ban Tax on Groceries

View Ballot Measure Information

OFFICIAL TITLE:

Amends Constitution: Prohibits taxes/fees based on transactions for “groceries” (defined) enacted or amended after September 2017

REFERRAL:

This measure is a constitutional amendment placed on the ballot with an estimated 119,744 valid signatures.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The Secretary of State has determined that the financial impact is indeterminate although it constrains the future revenue-raising options that a government in Oregon may consider.

PROBABLE RESULTS OF “YES” VOTE:

If this measure passes, it amends the Oregon Constitution to prohibit state or local taxes or fees based on transactions for “groceries” (defined; see Proposal), including those on sellers/distributors, which were enacted/amended after September 2017.

PROBABLE RESULTS OF “NO” VOTE:

If this measure fails, state/local governments retain the authority to enact/amend taxes (including corporate minimum tax), fees, on transactions for “groceries” (defined; see Proposal), including on sellers/distributors.

BACKGROUND:

There is currently no sales tax on groceries in the state of Oregon except for a sales tax on restaurant-prepared foods in Ashland and Yachats. There is no current proposal to enact a sales tax in Oregon.

PROPOSAL:

Measure 103 would add a new section 16 to Article IX of the Oregon Constitution prohibiting the state or any local government from adopting, approving, or enacting on or after October 1, 2017, any tax, fee, or other assessment on any transaction for the sale, purchase, distribution, or transfer of “groceries,” or for the privilege of selling or distributing “groceries.”

Specifically, the measure prohibits taxes, fees, and assessments on the purchase or sale of raw or processed food or beverage intended for human consumption at all stages, including agricultural crops and food and beverage products of all types, whether in warehouses, transit, packaging and processing plants, restaurants, or other locations. The petitioners say that only certain restaurants that prepare food to be cooked at home, such as Papa Murphy’s pizza, are covered by the sales tax prohibition.  However, the Oregon Attorney General has ruled that because the measure includes the entire supply chain for food, from farm to consumer, it is sufficiently broad to include all restaurants.

The prohibited taxes and fees include any sales tax, gross receipts tax, commercial activity tax, value-added tax, excise tax or privilege tax and any change in the corporate minimum tax, to the extent that the corporate minimum tax is imposed on Oregon grocers.

There is a debate about whether the measure may affect the corporate minimum tax. Oregon businesses are taxed according to the greater of the following two options: (a) a tax that amounts to roughly 0.1 percent of sales or (b) 6.6 percent on taxable income up to $1 million and 7.6 percent over $1 million. The minimum tax on sales is capped at $100,000. Businesses that sell groceries are subject to the state’s corporate minimum tax. Proponents of the measure say that the measure won’t affect the corporate minimum tax, while the Oregon Attorney General’s office indicated their belief that a significant effect of the measure is that the corporate minimum tax could not be amended as it applies to sellers and distributors of groceries.

SUPPORTERS SAY:

  • A tax on groceries will fall most heavily on the people who are least able to pay it.
  • The corporate minimum tax on sales places a great burden on industries like the grocery industry with narrow profit margins. This measure would remove the burden for this industry of continuing to fight the corporate minimum tax by creating a constitutional amendment that is difficult to remove.
  • Banning a sales tax on groceries would also prevent a tax on sodas and other sugary beverages, as proposed by several municipalities.

OPPONENTS SAY:

  • Because there is no tax on groceries being proposed, Measure 103 is unnecessary.
  • The measure is inappropriately broad because it applies not only to a sales tax on groceries sold at grocery stores but applies throughout the food supply chain, from producers to retailers.
  • The measure is misleading. Rather than concerns about a prospective tax on groceries, this measure arose because the grocery industry, with narrow profit margins is concerned about changes in the corporate tax structure. A constitutional amendment is too blunt an instrument to deal with the complexity of tax structure; this is better left to the legislature.

Measure 104: Super Majority for Revenue Changes

View Ballot Measure Information

OFFICIAL TITLE:

Amends Constitution: Expands (beyond taxes) application of requirement that three-fifths legislative majority approve bills raising revenue.

INITIATIVE:

This measure is a constitutional amendment placed on the ballot by initiative petition with an estimated 124,428 valid signatures.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The financial impact to state revenue and expenditures is indeterminate.

PROBABLY RESULTS OF “YES” VOTE:

If this measure passes, it would require a three-fifths legislative majority vote (already required to raise taxes) to pass any bill that would raise state revenue, including tax exemptions, deductions and credits, as well as fee changes.

PROBABLE RESULTS OF “NO” VOTE:

If this measure fails, the current interpretation of the existing law on raising revenue would remain in effect, requiring a three-fifths majority only for bills that would levy new taxes or increase existing taxes.

BACKGROUND:

Current law requires approval by three-fifths of each legislative house to pass a bill to raise taxes. The 1996 law has been interpreted by Legislative Counsel and state courts to apply only to new taxes or increases to an existing tax, not to fee increases or changes to tax expenditures (often called tax breaks).

PROPOSAL:

If passed, Measure 104 would amend Article IV, Section 25, of Oregon’s Constitution to require a three-fifths vote of both the House and Senate to pass bills that not only raise revenue through new or increased taxes, but also on any bill that raises fees the state charges and any bill that changes tax breaks. Petitioners assert that fee increases charged by state agencies and reducing or eliminating tax breaks (deductions, credits and exemptions) technically raise revenue and should also require a three-fifths vote.

SUPPORTERS SAY:

  • The legislature is too partisan and tax reliant to reduce taxes or fees.
  • The 1996 constitutional provision should be strengthened so that it applies to all increases in taxes or fees.
  • It should not be easy to raise fees.

OPPONENTS SAY:

  • Requiring the legislature to vote on every fee would create gridlock.
  • Fees support specific projects, such as maintenance of state parks. Requiring a three-fifths vote to change fees could prevent them from keeping up with the real costs of services.
  • This measure would make it harder to eliminate wasteful perks and tax loopholes lobbied for and used by special interests.

Measure 105: Sanctuary State

View Ballot Measure Information

OFFICIAL TITLE:

Repeals the law limiting use of state/local law enforcement resources to enforce federal immigration laws

INITIATIVE:

This measure is a statutory amendment placed on the ballot by initiative petition. More than 100,000 valid signatures were collected, with a requirement of 88,184.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

According to the Secretary of State’s office, the financial impact is indeterminate. After publishing that statement with two supporting statements, the Financial Estimate Committee held a public hearing. One person (from the Opponents side) testified, citing many possible negative financial results if the measure passes. She and the committee agreed there was not time to analyze those situations and make a reasonable estimate of the financial impact before the election.

PROBABLE RESULTS OF “YES” VOTE:

A Yes” vote repeals laws limiting (with exceptions; see Proposal) use of state/local law enforcement resources for detecting/apprehending persons suspected only of violating federal immigration laws.

PROBABLE RESULTS OF “NO” VOTE:

A “No” vote retains laws limiting (with exceptions; see Proposal) use of state/local law enforcement resources for detecting/apprehending persons suspected only of violating federal immigration laws.

BACKGROUND:

In 1850, the first year the United States collected data, fewer than 10% of the population were immigrants. The percentage increased to 15% in 1920 and rates rose and fell for the next fifty years. Since 1970 the number of immigrants (both documented and undocumented) has more than quadrupled, from 9.6 million to 43.7 million in 2016: 13.5 % of the total U. S. population of 323.1 million (American Community Survey). ACS is one of eight or more national organizations tracking population trends, from the U. S. Census Bureau to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Figures from agencies differ, due to using different data.

In 2014 an estimated 11 million people entered the United States without authorization (3.5 to 3.8% of the population). There is no official count of those crossing the U.S./Mexican Border.

In Oregon in 2014, undocumented workers were 3.2% of the total state population, according to the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit organization supporting immigrants. The total number of foreign-born in the state in 2015 was roughly 10% of the population. More than a third of all immigrants are naturalized citizens; one in eight workers in Oregon is an immigrant.

Oregon’s first “Sanctuary Law” was prompted by a lawsuit brought by a U. S. citizen of Mexican descent who was interrogated and humiliated in a restaurant in Independence in 1977. His attorney was Frank (Rocky) Barilla, who, later as the first Hispanic member of the Oregon Legislature, introduced HB 2314 in 1987. It was passed by the House, 58 to 1. The Senate passed it with amendments, 29 to 1. The House voted again, with the same numbers, 58-1. Representative Barilla thought the issue at that time was “really non-controversial.” The measure was signed into law by Governor Neil Goldschmidt. That bill was succeeded in 2017 by HB 3464 with similar wording. There was more opposition, but the measure was passed and signed into law by Governor Kate Brown.

Under current Oregon Law (Oregon Revised Statute 181A.820), state and local law enforcement agencies cannot use their personnel, equipment or funds to aid federal officers in detecting or apprehending anyone whose only crime is that he or she is violating federal immigration law.

Current law allows these exceptions:

  1. It is legal for state and local agencies to help verify a person’s immigration status or request criminal investigation information from federal immigration authorities.
  2. Police can arrest a person who is charged with a criminal (not civil) violation of immigration law, for whom an arrest warrant has been issued by a federal magistrate.
  3. Police can detect or apprehend persons charged with crimes in addition to violating federal immigration law.

PROPOSAL:

Ballot Measure 105 would repeal ORS 181A.820, making it illegal for a state, county, or city public safety officer to refuse to assist federal immigration authorities in detecting and/or apprehending persons believed to be in this country illegally. State and local police would be required to assist federal immigration officers in detecting/apprehending persons suspected of being undocumented immigrants.

SUPPORTERS SAY:

·   If people want to come to this country, they should not break laws to do so.

  • Because undocumented immigrants will accept substandard wages, they undermine the employment of legal workers.
  • The Sanctuary Law has kept Oregon’s state and local law-enforcement agencies from offering their fullest cooperation to the U. S. authorities charged with identifying and detaining illegal aliens.
  • Undocumented immigrants commit other crimes.

OPPONENTS SAY:

  • Passage of Measure 105 could open the door to widespread racial profiling, separation of families, and generate fear even in documented immigrants who might be perceived to be undocumented.
  • Undocumented immigrants work and pay taxes.
  • Passage of this measure would reduce the labor force in Oregon, especially in construction and agriculture.
  • Statistics show that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than US-born people, but passage of this measure could frighten immigrants and prevent them from reporting crimes or cooperating with local police.

Measure 106: Stop Taxpayer Funding for Abortion

View Ballot Measure Information

OFFICIAL TITLE:

Amends Constitution. Prohibits spending “public funds” (defined) directly/indirectly for “abortion” (defined); exceptions; reduces abortion access.

INITIATIVE:

This measure is a constitutional amendment placed on the ballot by initiative petition with an estimated 117,799 valid signatures.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The Secretary of State Financial Impact Committee finds that the state spends $2.9 million for abortions annually. If measure 106 passes, the state will save $2.9 million for abortions annually. It is anticipated that passage of the measure will result in an expenditure increase of $22.2 million for births and corresponding use of health care, food, and nutrition services provided by state government programs. A net cost increase of $19.3 million is estimated for the first year.

The initiative impact is also expected to increase annual corresponding federal revenue received by state government by $14.5 million. This would help offset the $19.3 million, leaving the state with an expected $4.8 million in increased expenditures in the first year that will compound in future years. Compounded subsequent year costs and local government costs are indeterminate.

PROBABLE RESULTS OF “YES” VOTE:

The state would be prohibited from spending public funds directly or indirectly (e.g. health insurance plans that cover abortion), with exceptions only for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, for an abortion to terminate ectopic pregnancy or to prevent death of a pregnant woman. This measure would reduce abortion access for low-income women and publicly employed women. It has not yet been determined whether the measure would restrict funding for contraceptives or the so-called “morning-after pill.”

PROBABLE RESULTS OF “NO” VOTE:

Current law would be retained; it places no restrictions on spending public funds for health-care plans covering abortion or for abortions approved by a medical professional.

BACKGROUND:

In 1969, Oregon passed SB 193 making the state one of the first to legalize abortion and protecting the right to an abortion in the Oregon constitution.  SB 193 legalized abortion for Oregon residents during the first 150 days of pregnancy and performed by a licensed physician in a hospital under the following circumstances:

  1. The fetus has a physical or mental handicap.
  2. The fetus was conceived by rape or other criminal intercourse.
  3. The pregnancy poses a substantial risk to the mother’s physical or mental health.
  4. Before any abortion took place, two physicians had to certify in writing that the woman’s circumstances justified the abortion.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade made abortions legal nationwide and gave a woman the right to abortion until viability, a point to be determined by her physician. After viability, a woman can obtain an abortion when continuing the pregnancy would endanger the woman’s life or when the pregnancy results from rape or incest. The ruling allowed each state to craft its own abortion laws to determine access, timing, waiting periods, notice, and consent.

In 1983, Oregon repealed its 1969 law, along with all its restrictions on abortion.

Oregon voters considered measures to restrict state funding for abortion in 1978 (losing 52%-48%) and in 1986 (losing 55%-45%).

In 2017, Oregon Governor Kate Brown signed into law the Reproductive Health Equity Act, a multifaceted measure that requires health insurers to cover a suite of reproductive health care services—including abortions—at no out-of-pocket cost to the insured.  The law allows public money to pay for an abortion when:

  1. a medical professional determines it to be medically necessary
  2. a woman’s medical insurance is provided by a public employer or
  3. a woman would obtain the procedure from a publicly funded reproductive health provider.

PROPOSAL:

This measure amends the Oregon Constitution to prohibit the state from spending public funds (defined in the measure as “funds and monies under the control or in the custody of the State of Oregon or any of its political subdivisions or public officials”) to pay for any abortion (defined in the measure as a “purposeful termination of a clinically diagnosed pregnancy of a woman resulting in the death of the human embryo or fetus”). The state also would not pay for health-care insurance that covers abortion, except for payments required by federal law for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest and for an abortion to terminate ectopic pregnancy or to prevent death of a pregnant woman.

SUPPORTERS SAY:

  • Taxpayers should not have to pay for abortions that violate their personal and religious beliefs.
  • This measure doesn’t stop anyone from choosing to have an abortion, it simply prevents using public funds to pay for it.
  • Many women carry emotional scars from past abortions.

OPPONENTS SAY:

  • This initiative to restrict access to abortion is out of step with Oregon values. Women should be able to choose when to parent.
  • The measure would constitutionally take abortion coverage away from women on the Oregon Health Plan as well as from state employees, including firefighters, teachers and nurses.
  • Low-income women on the Oregon Health Plan would face some of the most severe consequences under Measure 106.
Section 4: Oregon US House, Congressional Districts 1-5; CD 1

Terms and salaries are the same for all five Congressional Districts. For more information on all Oregon candidates, go to www.lwvor.org/VOTEoregon

  • Term= 2 years
  • Salary= $174,000

We asked candidates for US House of Representatives the same three questions. Here are the first 500 characters of each reply, as received with no edits or corrections.

  1. How do you think federal tax cuts balance with federal program cuts like health care and protections for the environment, consumers, and elections? Do Oregonians win or lose?
  2. Discuss the issues that are priorities for you and how they serve your districts.
  3. How will you try to reduce polarization in Congress so problems can be solved?

Drew A Layda, Libertarian, Pacific Green

View Candidate Responses
  1. On balancing tax cuts and program cuts:
    It depends on the wording of the tax cut legislation. Balancing federal programs with non-restrictive taxation practices requires responsible, and economically sound, spending practices. For example, Medicaid/Medicare has authorized payment of almost a thousand dollars for a single bag of saline with a market cost of two dollars.  This is unsustainable. So long as the people’s taxes are made to pay for $250 toilet seats, $750 hammers & $1k bags of saline Oregonians will loose & taxes will rise.
  2. On your priorities:
    Ending the Corruption: Ending Taxpayer defraudment and auditing the Federal Reserve. Ending predatory partisanship & elections manipulation. End the Lobbyist Kleptocracy and pay-to-play politics Ending the Wars: Ending the unconstitutional military interventions, ending the trade wars, ending the war on cannabis and state’s rights. Encourage education to decentralize and modernize, Enable solutions and legislation at the most local level possible. Everything for giving ethical representation.
  3. On reducing Congressional polarization.
    By not participating in red-team/blue-team partisanship: because it is predatory upon the people.  As the co-nominee of the Libertarian and Green Parties I would be the only third-party member of congress. This would mean I would have to work with members of both parties irrespective of them being members of differing political organizations. Reduction of predatory partisanship and political polarization is necessary to an ethical public administration.  I will be a neutral peacemaker

Suzanne Bonamici, Democrat

View Candidate Responses
  1. On balancing tax cuts and program cuts:
    We need a tax system that supports hard-working American families and grows the economy. The partisan tax plan gives most benefits to those at the top, will result in higher health care costs for many, and adds about $1.5 trillion to the debt. These tax cuts, and the cuts in federal programs that will likely follow, will make it more difficult for states like Oregon to fund vital services like public education, public safety, and health care. Overall, Oregonians, and Americans, will lose.
  2. On your priorities:
    In Congress, my top priorities are strengthening public education, addressing climate change, and supporting working families. A strong public school system and affordable higher education will help our economy grow. NW Oregon is a diverse and beautiful region with natural resources that must be protected. We need an economy that works for everyone, and that means advocating for policies that help working families, such as paid leave, equal pay, and strengthening Social Security and Medicare.
  3. On reducing Congressional polarization:
    I have found that it’s best to treat others with respect, even when we disagree. That’s especially true in Congress. Rather than focus on places of disagreement, I build relationships and find common ground. For example, I am part of the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, and I have many bipartisan legislative proposals like my PARTNERS Act to create more apprenticeships. I will continue to lead by example, build relationships, and work on solutions with colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

John Verbeek, Republican

View Candidate Responses
  1. On balancing tax cuts and program cuts:
    Our State Government is not doing anything for reprieve, but thanks to the Yeas to The Tax Cut and Jobs Act, taxpayers in Oregon’s 1st Congressional District are better off than the previous year on average by $ 1,529. Taxpayer (and regulatory) relief has been almost non-existent during the past century, in fact we live in a long term trend of increased government weight. There is still time to change one’s mind about our Congressional Delegation. Otherwise, the celebration may be short-lived.
  2. On your priorities:
    Priorities are Constitutional Rights, Transportation Infrastructure, and Good Health. The Founders are very clear about ‘live and let live’.  Freedom of religion – and academic freedom – is conditional on tolerance, and tolerance only exists if there is genuine willingness to respect – but no requirement for having to agree with – the other side. There is no greater cause to serve my district than to defend freedom and personal responsibility against ‘let government do it’.
  3. On reducing Congressional polarization:
    Reduced polarization of itself does not guarantee better results, but low taxation and reasonable regulations are conditions for prosperity.  I also support low tariffs as a basis for international economic cooperation, and limited government in international affairs as well if only to be consistent. No foreign entanglements to me does not mean isolationism, but our government’s ability to swim with the sharks of totalitarianism, defending the rights of the people, not taking these away.  
Back to top

Section 5: Candidates, Congressional
District 2

Mark R Roberts, Independent

View Candidate Responses
  1. On balancing tax cuts and program cuts:
    Oregonian’s lose everyday we wait on the state or federal government to solve our problems. Assistance goes hand in hand with low wages & the people on the receiving end choosing between the lesser of two evils to stay there rather than try to become self sufficient & make a better life for themselves & their families. Environmental protection is already at disaster levels so we have that covered despite cuts in the EPA. I believe real governmental cuts are needed rather than budget rearranging.
  2. On your priorities:
    My primary concern is the restoration of forestry on federal lands & the saving of the environment from disease & fire. The prosperity generated from our forests formerly made Oregon the nations leader in building products & now with every effort by the federal government to restore that prosperity we end up on the losing end of a legal battle that has cost us high dollar jobs. My pledge is to put people back to work in high paying forest jobs whose wages expand throughout our local economy.
  3. On reducing Congressional polarization:
    I’m an Independent. A vote for me is not a vote for the so called ‘Independent’ leadership eschewed by Bernie Sanders. In reality I’m a disenchanted life long Republican who sees very little difference between the current Republican & Democratic parties. I will vote for leadership & good legislation regardless of what political party it emanates from and my core governmental beliefs are less government spending & interference in your personal world makes for a prosperous, opportunistic future.

Greg Walden, Republican

(candidate did not respond by deadline)

Jamie McLeod-Skinner, Democrat

View Candidate Responses
  1. On balancing tax cuts and program cuts:
    Americans need a fair-share tax system capable of funding Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and veterans’ services. I support repeal of the $1.5 trillion tax giveaway Congress gave to major corporations and wealthy individuals, which exploded the federal debt. Expanded federal investments in communication, energy, health care, transportation and water infrastructure are central to my platform of building stronger communities and promoting economic innovation, especially in rural communities.
  2. On your priorities:
    I am committed to improving universal and affordable access to the full range of physical and behavioral health services for all Americans. Federal investments to improve access to broadband, renewable energy, transportation and water infrastructure also are central to my economic prosperity platform. My focus will be ensuring rural communities see investments creating economic opportunities for businesses and workers to improve our quality of life.
  3. On reducing Congressional polarization:
    By focusing on what unites us: caring for our common and basic needs. We all care for our families and communities, want health care for our families, educational opportunities for our children, and food on our tables. A strong economy helps our communities to thrive. Some in Congress work for corporate interests — dismantling our healthcare, selling out our children’s future with a deceptive tax bill, dividing us and undermining democracy. I am committed to a new brand of leadership.
 Back to top

Section 6: Candidates, Congressional District 3

Marc W Koller, Independent, Green, Progressive

View Candidate Responses
  1. On balancing tax cuts and program cuts:
    It is obvious that the Trump Tax cut will be bad for Oregonians. Our government priorities are not in line with the needs of the American people. Services for the neediest are being used to offset the outrageous tax cuts for the wealthy.   Oregonians who think that they are doing fine under the tax cuts are deceiving themselves.   They have been offered a short-term and insignificant tax cut while the wealthiest will be reaping permanent gains. 
  2. On your priorities:
    The disparity between the wealthiest Americans and the poor continues to be one of the greatest issues facing our city and country. As more and more of the wealth of this nation is being controlled by less than one-tenth of one percent of our billionaire class, the struggles for equality will be harder and harder to achieve.   The uncontrolled spending on elections as a result of the Citizens United decision has legitimized the buying of politicians of both parties.
  3. On reducing Congressional polarization:
    Until we break the stranglehold that the Duopoly has on our election process, partisan politics will be the rule. The political process does not work when there is no debate, no attempt to build consensus, and the only thing that matters is which party takes control.  This will be remedied when Independent voices are heard.  The young voters who are leaving both parties in record numbers are the hope for the future. The growth of the Non-Affiliated voter will soon represent the majority.

Earl Blumenauer, Democrat

View Candidate Responses
  1. On balancing tax cuts and program cuts:
    The Republican tax scam raised taxes on middle-class families, hiked health care costs for millions, and lavished the most well-off and well-connected Americans with massive tax breaks. Rather than pad the coffers of those who need it the least, Congress should be lifting people up and investing in education, health care, protecting the environment, and rebuilding our roads, bridges, and rails that connect our communities – helping everyone achieve the American dream.
  2. On your priorities:
    There is much to do but my priorities are all held together by two fundamental issues: how we live and how we treat each other. Issues I want to focus on are: Provide true universal health care (like Medicare for All), tackle climate disruption by placing a price on carbon and more clean energy, ensure fair, secure elections and pass real campaign finance reform, invest in infrastructure, rebuilding communities and creating family-wage jobs, reform our food and farm policies.
  3. On reducing Congressional polarization: Model the behavior you expect from others; do not engage in hyper-partisan insulting behavior. Find areas of bipartisan common interest on second and third-tier issues that will make a difference. This is what I have done with work on rebuilding and renewing America. I have bipartisan legislation in several areas including healthcare reform, reforming marijuana laws and international water and sanitation. These issues that people like to work on can actually pass and make a difference.

Gary Lyndon Dye, Libertarian

View Candidate Responses
  1. On balancing tax cuts and program cuts:
    Nobody will be able to escape the great destruction caused when the US Treasury can no longer sustain the national debt. That will happen soon if the course of our government is not changed. Our national debt has quickly grown to a level surpassed only during WWII. This has taken the efforts of Democrats and Republicans a decade to accomplish.They both spend with reckless abandon. We must drastically curtail our spending — even on things we like. Libertarians will do this. Trust us, not them.
  2. On your priorities:
    ONLY Libertarians will lead Republicans and Democrats to reducing the size of government, reducing interference in our lives, and reducing our taxes. Monstrous budgets, deficits, and debt are effectively producing a bipartisan totalitarian state. A crisis is coming with our unprecedented debt, which will — soon — result in catastrophic failure of the dollar (hyperinflation), if not abated. We must curtail spending — now. We must discontinue enforced charity at the hands of government.
  3. On reducing Congressional polarization: Bipartisanship is a terrible ideal, implying that our democracy is failing to achieve diversity of ideas, such that only two parties (Democratic and Republican) or two ideologies (liberal and conservative) are allowed in our government, or even in the political debate. I will try to guide Republicans and Democrats toward a bipartisan free state, rather than their current path to a bipartisan totalitarian state. Libertarians want to be the centrists, displacing totalitarian “moderates”.  

Michael Marsh, Constitution

View Candidate Responses
  1. On balancing tax cuts and program cuts:
    Oregonians win.
  2. On your priorities:
    Support deportation of foreign criminals to make our area safer. I will vote no on impeaching President Trump.
  3. On reducing Congressional polarization:
    I’m not a Democrat or Republican, so electing me sends a message of rejection of the polarization currently in Congress.

Tom Harrison, Republican

View Candidate Responses
  1. On balancing tax cuts and program cuts:
    The tax cuts recently enacted are marginal rate cuts, not dollars, and the rate cuts have already provoked substantial economic growth. Rarely is there equilibrium between either tax RATES or tax collections, and program spending, since the economy is not constant. But full-spectrum tax rate cuts will positively affect all taxpayers, including Oregonians, particularly since within a few money cycles all taxes spread out to all people, likewise reductions benefit all people. Growth is the goal!
  2. On your priorities:
    Primary issue is stopping unlawful immigration and false “sanctuary”. We all can lock our doors, offering entry only to those we choose, so as a country we may, by law, offer entry to whom we choose. This core function of government — protecting the rights each of us has privately, and together — has been trampled by those not waiting for permission to enter. Add improper “sanctuary”, and it enables tragedies like the horrific crimes of Sergio Martinez against two Oregon women. No more!
  3. On reducing Congressional polarization:
    Two attorneys battle from opposite positions to convince a jury. This is also the function of Congress, in this age when so many views on successful governance are at polar opposites to each other. What is the compromise between reducing or increasing taxes, or between limited or unlimited government power? The people choose their advocates, and when the people are divided, so too Congress will be divided. How could representative government be otherwise? Congress justly mirrors the voters.
 Back to top

Section 7: Candidates, Congressional District 4

Arthur B Robinson, Republican, Constitution

(candidate did not respond by deadline)

Richard R Jacobson, Libertarian

(candidate did not respond by deadline)

Mike Beilstein, Pacific Green Party

View Candidate Responses
  1. On balancing tax cuts and program cuts:
    Federal tax cuts are a loss for Oregonians and all working people in the USA. The tax cuts contribute to the widening gulf between haves and have nots in America.  The country, and Oregon, have been on a tax holiday for decades.  The wealthiest 1% of the 1% need to pay their share.  No lower tax rate for “unearned income.”  Confiscatory estate taxes.  Tax stock market transactions.  No cap on Social Security contributions.  Close deficits with taxes, not borrowing.
  2. On your priorities:
    My priorities are reduction of military spending, climate action to slow the destruction of our ecosystem, and ending the racialized prison industrial complex. The $5.6 trillion spent by the US on wars over the last 18 years could have been spent on health care, schools, housing and transition to a sustainable economy.  No one benefits from the war economy but the greedy criminals who have now taken  control of the two main political parties and all branches of our federal government.
  3. On reducing Congressional polarization:
    Members of Congress must concentrate on getting the work of the country done.  As a Corvallis City Councilor, I worked with other elected officials, citizens and staff with a wide variety of philosophies and world views.  Very few agreed with me on most issues, but we got our work done by concentrating on our common goal of a better community.

Peter A DeFazio, Democrat

View Candidate Responses
  1. On balancing tax cuts and program cuts:
    The Republican tax plan reduces revenues by $3 trillion; 83 percent of the tax cuts go to those earning over $500,000 and wealthy passive investors. It will increase the debt by at least $2 trillion. That money could be better spent with investments in education, health care, and job-creating infrastructure projects. Republicans are already using the debt they created to justify ransacking our critical social programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
  2. On your priorities:
    My top priorities focus on common-sense proposals to create jobs, restore economic and educational opportunities, and lower healthcare costs. I will work to find solutions to address healthcare costs by expanding coverage, protecting consumers, creating a public option outside of the for-profit insurance industry, and strengthening Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. My district is the sixth highest nationwide in expanded Medicaid recipients. Congress must fully fund these programs.
  3. On reducing Congressional polarization:
    I support legislation to overturn the Citizens United decision that opened the floodgates to special interest spending and influence in elections. Public financing of federal elections would allow campaigns to run on small donations and give ordinary Americans a stronger voice over special interests. We must put a stop to partisan redistricting and gerrymandering. I support redistricting commissions that draw more balanced, competitive districts which would produce more moderate candidates.  
Back to top

Section 8: Candidates, Congressional
District 5 

Mark Callahan, Republican

View Candidate Responses
  1. On balancing tax cuts and program cuts:
    The Federal tax cuts allow for taxpayers to keep more of their money, and to spend the money saved on their own healthcare, as well as taking care of the environment through personal accountability & personal responsibility. Citizens, not the government, are far better stewards of the environment. Citizens, not the government can best increase the output of the economy as consumers investing in the economy to build small businesses and support their families. Election integrity begins locally.
  2. On your priorities:
    1. Veterans Health Care Reform. Veterans served us, it is time for us to serve veterans. My idea is to give all veterans a card, to go to any doctor they want for services, and the VA picks up the tab, without delay or red tape.   2. Immigration Reform.  If a person is going to be here in the United States, they need to be here legally.  I am an Oregonians For Immigration Reform Board member.  I support a Yes vote on Measure 105.  3. Tax Reform. We can spend our money better than the government
  3. On reducing Congressional polarization:
    By having an “Open Door Policy” to listen, empathetically, to anyone, regardless of political affiliation, in order to represent everyone in Oregon’s 5th Congressional District.

Dan Souza, Libertarian

View Candidate Responses
  1. On balancing tax cuts and program cuts:
    I think we all lose. We have got to get the debt under control and balance the budget. In order to do so we have to cut certain programs. However, I do not believe we should be cutting healthcare funding or environmental protections. If it damages the environment or negatively effects our health then it is counter productive.
  2. On your priorities:
    I care a lot about our environment, as do most Oregonians. I am a big proponent of renewable energy sources. I am opposed to offshore drilling. Climate change is really, and it is caused by humans. Protecting our environment is number one. After all, an unhealthy environment is an unhealthy population. Next is government spending. Let’s face it: we’re broke. We have got to get government spending under control and balance the budget. Also, let’s end the wars! That save a huge amount of money.
  3. On reducing Congressional polarization: The deadlock in Washington has got to end! Nothing gets done anymore. With a third party in the capitol the democrats and republicans will have no choice but to work together with me in the name of putting the good of the country before the good of the party. Let’s get to work!

Marvin Sandnes, Pacific Green Party

View Candidate Responses
  1. On balancing tax cuts and program cuts:
    1) The tax cuts are temporary for individuals and permanent for corporations.  2)  Health care is a RIGHT.  3)  Environment:  The trees and ocean are dying, ozone gone, diabetes, Autism, addiction climbing – cut defense and use resources and talents to save our living space.  4)  Consumers and elections ??  5)  Oregon resources are being wasted on the federal government’s empire-building around the world, these lies about security have absolutely nothing to do with District 5.
  2. On your priorities:
    Beginning our 18th yr. at war with the planet’s 5th poorest country which produces 93% of the opium produced (unodc.org). 1,100 Salem/Keizer kids homeless today as a direct result of the heroin epidemic.  We must have dialogue about this catastrophe.  We have murdered between 800,000 and 3 million innocent people prosecuting criminal wars on 3 continents.
  3. On reducing Congressional polarization:
    Let’s begin by demanding the return of a Free Press by fragmenting the monopoly of the media corporations.  And, for the next two yrs. let us accept Trump as President and get on with the business of government. 

Kurt Schrader, Democrat

View Candidate Responses
  1. On balancing tax cuts and program cuts:
    Oregonians lose with the tax bill passed last year. The bill will add $1.5 trillion to the deficit, about $5,000 for every Oregonian. The bill stripped vital deductions for seniors’ healthcare and debt-fraught students. Instead of fairness for cash-strapped small businesses, larger corporations received big tax cuts. We could have seized this opportunity to help working families and small businesses, increase our economic competitiveness abroad, and not burden future generations with more debt.
  2. On your priorities:
    I prioritize helping families, small businesses and farmers. Everyone deserves affordable healthcare. I passed a bill to reduce prescription drug costs and go after pharmaceutical industry bad actors. My bipartisan plan to stabilize the individual marketplace would bring down costs for millions. Rural Oregon is struggling. My forest stewardship plan will create jobs and help protect against devastating fires. We need comprehensive immigration reform and a path to citizenship for DACA recipients.
  3. On reducing Congressional polarization:
    As Chairman of the moderate blue dog democrats I have emphasized opportunities on finding bipartisan solutions. My legislation is bipartisan. My office is known as the go to office for bipartisan support. I founded the Congressional bipartisan No Labels Problem Solvers Caucus, which is now 48 members strong, evenly divided between democrats and republicans. My work has led to my designation as one of the 10 most effective members of Congress and many major bipartisan initiatives this past year.

 

Back to top

Section 9: Candidates, Oregon Governor

The Oregon Governor is elected by popular ballot and serves a term of four years, limited to two consecutive terms in office, with no limit on the number of total terms. The Governor’s current annual salary is $98,600.

We asked candidates for Governor the same three questions.

  1. How will you encourage tax reform in Oregon and what does that mean to you?
  2. In today’s highly polarized political climate, how would you bring Legislators together to address our shared responsibilities?
  3. What makes you better suited for this office than your opponents?

Here are their replies, as received with no edits or corrections:

Aaron Auer, Constitution

View Candidate Responses
  1. On Tax Reform:
    I believe tax reform involves two components: reducing government expenses and targeting revenue sources that are sustainable. The power to tax is the power to destroy as wisely put by our Supreme Court. Therefore taxes should be levied in a way that doesn’t discourage increase in the tax base. Income tax should be replaced entirely by a sales tax that exempts certain basic commodities such as food and medicine. Sales tax also should be used to minimize dependence on local property tax revenues.
  2. On reducing polarization:
    The vast majority of the legislators owe their souls to the financiers of the two major political parties in Oregon. My being a member of neither of those parties means that they will have no leverage with me except as they show themselves able to compromise for the good of the citizens of Oregon. My calling is not to be a politician, but a preaching statesman. I will call their attention to the clear words of the Oregon and American Constitutions and the Bible – the Book of Heaven.
  3. How are you a better candidate:
    I am a fifth generation native of Oregon and a self taught student of Oregon history. The office requires a strong moral compass which has been sadly lacking in the past. Treatment of the inalienable rights of the people granted by their Creator with respect is best served by someone who is on good speaking terms with that Creator. The shameful lack of this quality is evident in those who don’t defend the preborn, seek to silence conscience in the market place and abuse property owners rights.

Nick Chen, Libertarian

View Candidate Responses
  1. On Tax Reform:
    I am not educated enough in the subject to provide specific and unique insight. I have learned that there is more than one way to solve any problem.  There are ways of increasing revenue without increasing taxes.  We cannot let our infrastructure and safety be neglected but are there alternate solutions yet to be considered?  How can we expect small business owners to pay fair wages when they lose half of their income to taxes?  Could part of the problem be wasted and frivolous spending?
  2. On reducing polarization:
    I am not burdened by promises to donors. I am just a fellow citizen who has been presented the opportunity to be on the ballot.  I care much about Oregon, the home I grew up in.  I appreciate receiving input from multiple perspectives.  I want the two major parties to remain in existence only alongside many more parties.  To give a voices back to the majority who belong to neither.  Listening to both sides and finding the shared roots that creates so many seemingly unrelated symptoms. Together.
  3. How are you a better candidate:
    I have nothing unique to offer.  No special qualification that makes me irreplaceable.  I tested with above average intelligence but I am never going to be the smartest person in the room.  I am capable of learning anything I put my mind to. This hasn’t been to build a business and hadn’t thought I’d ever to be a politician.  I was given this opportunity and I have been encouraged to try hard.  Try and make a difference.  Don’t waste this chance.  Be on the side of Hope when they tell us to fear

Kate Brown, Democrat, Working Families

View Candidate Responses
  1. On Tax Reform:
    I believe in the Oregon way. It’s how we’ve managed to tackle complex problems like funding the most comprehensive transportation package in Oregon history, and making sure that Oregonians have access to health care. What Oregonians want, is to see us fulfill our commitments to our schools and our students. And to do it in a fair way. I am committed to continuing to work with legislators from both parties, Democrat and Republican, to find a way forward that meets both of those goals.
  2. On reducing polarization:
    As governor, I have brought legislators from both parties together to fight for Oregon families. We passed a transportation package that will reduce traffic, create 16,000 new jobs and make our roads safer. We passed a first in the nation pay equity and fair scheduling bill with bipartisan votes. We worked together to ensure that thousands of Oregonians, including 400,000 children, have access to affordable health care because everyone should be able to see the doctor when they’re sick.
  3. How are you a better candidate:
    I led bipartisan work on transportation, Medicaid funding and ensuring all kids have healthcare. We worked together, urban and rural, to build a better Oregon.  When politicians tried to cut Oregonians’ healthcare, I fought back. I protected our coast from offshore drilling. I made sure every woman can access reproductive healthcare.  I have been clear during my time as governor that I will do what I say and say what I do. My record is clear. I will stand up and protect the Oregon that we love.

Knute Buehler, Republican

View Candidate Responses
  1. On Tax Reform:
    Under Governor Brown, our taxes have increased by $13 billion. That is $13 billion. I’ll stop the tax heavy approach that has defined Salem for far too long. As Governor, I will not sign a single new spending bill until I have a PERS reform bill on my desk. We must reform the state pension program before pensioners receive pennies on the dollar. We also must rein in government spending and set the right priorities to create a better Oregon for all.
  2. On reducing polarization:
    Leaders should bring people together and unite them around a common goal. As Governor, I’ll lead with an open mind, a caring heart and a thoughtful voice to make sure the best ideas from Democrats, Independents and Republicans are used to solve Oregon’s most pressing issues. Since 2015, I have been a State Representative for District 54 in Bend. During this time, I have earned the reputation as a thoughtful, independent, effective leader and lawmaker.
  3. How are you a better candidate:
    I’ll bring moderate, independent leadership to help fix our failing schools, homelessness crisis and foster care system and restore Oregon’s reputation as a leader in health care innovation. I’ll break down barriers, sign permits and make State government a partner for business success. I’ll stop the tax heavy approach that has defined Salem for far too long. I’ll challenge the powerful special interests that defend the status quo, and build, brighter future for all Oregonians.

Patrick Starnes, Independent

View Candidate Responses
  1. On Tax Reform:
    We cannot have tax reform or any other reforms until we get big money out of politics. In my first 100 days as Governor I would sign no other legislation until we first get campaign finance reform. I believe the tax system should be fair and balanced and that the working poor and middle class should not carry the brunt of the tax burden.
  2. On reducing polarization:
    I believe there are many State Senators and State Representatives who would rather represent their districts instead of spending all their time raising money from special interest PACs, corporations and billionaires. Getting big money out of politics will allow them the freedom to come out of the shadow of big money and do their jobs honestly, openly and constructively. They will then be free to work for Oregon rather than big special interests.
  3. How are you a better candidate:
    I have no strings attached.  I have limited all my donations to $100 per person in an effort to role model reform, as all candidates should. I believe in one person one vote.  I have received no donations or endorsements from corporations, billionaires or special interest PACs, which distort politics and lead to corruption. I feel this is the biggest challenge to our democracy now, as it discourages voters and voter turnout.

Chris Henry, Progressive

View Candidate Responses
  1. On Tax Reform:
    Oregon has a tax system that imposes heavy burdens on the poor and middle class and very light burdens on corporations and the wealthy. Oregon still has the lowest taxes on business of any state (Council on State Taxation).  The Oregon corporate income tax has fallen by 60% since 1975 as a share of the economy.  Oregon has the 3rd highest income taxes in U.S. for a family of 4 at 125% of poverty level.  We need to cut income taxes on those near poverty and restore corporate tax rates to 1970s.
  2. On reducing polarization:
    Legislators elected in our big money system will not come together to address shared responsibilities. They will just do the bidding of their campaign paymasters.  The solution is to limit campaign contributions and expenditures, so that the elected legislators actually have the public interest in mind.  We also need much more disclosure of the activities and funding of paid lobbyists.  Currently over 96% of their expenditures are not reported to the Oregon Government Ethics Commission.
  3. How are you a better candidate:
    I am not beholden to big money donors. So far, over 60% of the funds in Knute Buehler’s campaign have come from contributions of over $5,000 each, including $1.5 million from Phil Knight alone.  Kate Brown claims to have lots of small donors, but over 61% of her campaign funds have come from contributions of over $5,000 each.  I am not accepting any contribution over $100 from individuals and zero from corporations.  I am also an ordinary working person who knows the financial challenges.
Back to top

Section 11: Judicial Candidates

Oregon Supreme Court and Court of Appeals judges are chosen in nonpartisan elections to serve six-year terms. They must run for re-election if they wish to continue serving.

Oregon annual judicial salaries are $147,560 for Supreme Court judges and $144,536 for Appeals Court judges.

We asked judicial candidates the same three questions:

  1. What qualifies you to be a judge on this court?
  2. Describe your legal practice during the past ten years.
  3. What do you see as the greatest obstacle to judicial fairness in Oregon, if any?

Here are their replies, as received with no edits or corrections:

Candidates, Oregon Supreme Court Judges

Adrienne Nelson, (non-partisan race)

(candidate did not respond by deadline)

Oregon Appeals Court Candidates

Bronson D James, (non-Partisan race)

(candidate did not respond by deadline)

Robyn Ridler Aoyagi, (non-Partisan race)

(candidate did not respond by deadline)

Steven R Powers, (non-Partisan race)

(candidate did not respond by deadline)

Oregon Tax Court Candidate

Robert Manicks, (non-Partisan race)

View Candidate Responses
  1. Qualifications:
    I practiced law in state and local taxation for 25 years, focusing mainly on Oregon state and local tax and handling many cases in the Oregon Tax Court. In my practice, I represented a wide range of taxpayers, from businesses to individuals and nonprofits.  I also did substantial work for government clients.  I am proud that Oregon created the first state tax court in the judicial branch in 1961, and I believe strongly in our tax court as an institution that ensures fairness in our tax system.
  1. Your legal practice:
    Please see my qualifications above. Please also see my official Voter’s Pamphlet submission. 
  1. Judicial fairness obstacles:
    Everyone needs access to a fair court for tax disputes, but legal services are expensive.  The Oregon Tax Court’s Magistrate Division addresses this problem by allowing non-lawyers such as CPAs and appraisers to represent taxpayers, and by allowing the taxing authorities to appear without lawyers as well.  As Judge, I oversee the Magistrate Division and also hear appeals from the Magistrate Division, and I strive to ensure that proceedings are fair for represented and unrepresented persons.
Back to top

Section 12: Acknowledgements

Thanks to the Talking Book and Braille Library at the Oregon State Library.

The League Of Women Voters® of Oregon publishes this nonpartisan Voters’ Guide. Please join us in encouraging informed and active citizen participation in government. You can make tax-deductible donations to the League of Women Voters of Oregon at: http://lwvor.org/donate/.

Our membership is open to men and women, ages 16 and up. There are Leagues in many communities around the state. For information, send your name, address, phone number and email address to:

503-581-5722 lwvor@lwvor.org
1330 12th St. SE, Suite 200 Salem, OR 97302

Vote Oregon Team

• Rebecca Gladstone, First Vice President for Voter Service & Education
• Sarah Andrews, Administrative Manager
• Amanda Crittenden, Office Support Specialist
• Information management was done by:
Mary Sinclair, for data collection and input
Rebecca Gladstone, database management
Margaret Bengry, for Multnomah data collection & input
• Spanish Edition:
Luis Nava, for distribution
Beatriz Robles Kieser, Crosscultural Now for translation, proofreading and editing
• Large Print, Audio, Braille and translation scripts were created by Sarah Andrews and Amanda Crittenden
• Proofreading: Rebecca Gladstone, Peggy Bengry, Debbie Kaye, Barbara Klein, and Mary Sinclair

Benefactors who contributed $6,000 or more to this program:

  • Carol and Velma Saling Foundation
  • Vernier Software and Technology
  • League of Women Voters Members

Supporters since 2017 who have contributed between $500 and 5,000 include:

Debbie Aiona
Alice Bartelt
Heather Drake
Lucinda Ebert
Becky and Igor Gladstone, Jr.
Mary Hepokoski
Diane Howieson
Kris and Steve Hudson
Sara Ingle
Lauren Isaac
Ruth Kistler
Lucie La Bonte
William and Ann Lincoln
Betty Mack
The Multnomah Bar Foundation
Margaret and Gordon Noel
Merilyn Reeves
Eleanor Revelle
Roz Shirack
Mary Sinclair
Frances Smith
Talking Book and Braille Library,
Oregon State Library
Mike and Karen Taylor
Norman Turrill
Arthur and Carol Wilson

This guide is produced by the League of Women Voters® of Oregon. Thank you for taking the time to read this important information. This concludes the November 2018 LWVOR Voters’ Guide.

Back to top