Politics & Government
A Very Dark Day For Voting Rights And The Law In Oregon
Despite overwhelming evidence on the public record Oregon's prevaricating prosecutors provide lawless legislators a pass
Despite overwhelming evidence on the public record, (See *2A/B/C/D Below) Oregon’s prevaricating prosecutors provide lawless legislators a pass.
In a recent speech to our nation President Biden said, “I ask every elected official in America: How do you want to be remembered?” Do you want to be on the side of Doctor [Martin Luther] King or George Wallace? Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor? Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?”
Find out what's happening in Portlandfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
As elected officials in America, I asked Oregon Attorney General, Ellen Rosenblum, and every District Attorney in Oregon, Where do you stand? What will be your legacy in public office with regard to voting rights?
Find out what's happening in Portlandfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
Voting rights don’t mean much if the politicians create voting districts that are gerrymandered to choose the voters which will result in predetermined outcomes rather than districts where an equitable and defensible apportionment of differently registered voters choose the elected officials. Those who knowingly created voting district maps in violation of ORS 188.010 (2) No district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring any political party, incumbent legislator or other person have acted both indefensibly and illegally. (See *2A/B/C/D Below)
A failure to investigate much less prosecute high ranking public officials and their staffs for blatant public defiance (See *2A/B/C/D Below) of the redistricting laws diminishes their credibility and that of the justice system in general. How will the court of public opinion judge their failure to keep their oath of office to uphold the Oregon laws?
At the very least any or all of them could have convened a grand jury to examine and question those who actually made *1 the redistricting maps and those who voted to support the outcomes to determine if ORS 188.010 (2) was violated. If not a single grand jury in every county including one created by the Attorney General finds no illegal behavior then publicly announce the results, praise the legislators involved and so be it. Case closed.
However, if even one grand jury finds that ORS 188.010 (2) was violated by the actual map makers/cartographers *1 and others then all involved must be held to account. That is their job.
So how many Oregon District Attorneys including our Attorney General, Ellen Rosenblum, upheld their oaths, picked up the sword of justice on behalf of all Oregon voters and lunged at the miscreants holding high elected office and their staffs in our legislature who act with impunity because they are “above the law”, for knowingly, deliberately and illegally ignoring the most significant redistricting statute i.e. ORS 188.010 (2) No district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring any political party, incumbent legislator or other person? Exactly NONE.
Historians, journalists, politicos, teachers, attorneys, judges, voters, good-government advocates, law schools, ACLU, Common Cause, Princeton Gerrymandering Project et. al. take note and take action as appropriate.
Richard Ellmyer
North Portland
Oregon citizen since 1971
Portland Homeowner, Citizen Activist and Good-Government Advocate since 1975
NAV, Non-Aligned Voter
Legislative assistant to former state senator Bill McCoy, observer and participant in the 1981 reapportionment process.
Senior Policy Advisor to former Multnomah County Commissioner Gladys McCoy 1981-1984
Author of The Ellmyer Report, a newsletter that informs, educates and influences on public policy. Occasionally distributed to more than a quarter of million readers in Oregon and beyond. Facebook, Portland Politics Plus . Contributor: Patch.com
Project Champion and Data Wrangler - Metro/Oregon Public Housing Location Maps https://www.goodgrowthnw.org/m...
FYI - Public Evidence
*1
The person(s) who actually created the congressional and legislative voting districts maps did the following:
A. Choose what software program(s) to use
B. Obtained software and got permission to install the software program(s)
C. Downloaded and installed data sets
D. Manipulated the software to create the overlays for both congressional and legislative voting districts
*2 A
From: RWE <richard@goodgrowthnw.org>
Subject: Oregon Supreme Court Sanctions Legal Gerrymandering
Date: December 6, 2021 at 9:39:01 AM PST
To: Interested Parties <interested@macsolve.com>
Democracy and the rule of law begins with the equitable division of congressional and legislative districts, maximum access to the ballot box for all eligible voters as well as oversight and maintenance of those equitable voting districts and all voters’ rights by automatic judicial review.
Sadly, our U.S. Supreme Court has already proved itself a dangerously radicalized partisan cabal. Its restrictive decisions on voting rights, abandonment of redistricting oversight and indefensible creation of corporate “humans” with virtually unlimited overt and covert power to fund political campaigns supports American Plutocracy and Authoritarian minority rule.
Our Oregon Supreme Court has recently followed its federal brethren in its diminution of democracy by sanctioning legal gerrymandering. Its recent decisions in both congressional *1 and legislative *2 redistricting cases ranged from self-serving self-inflicted ignorance to judicial cowardice. Regardless of which future entity makes voting districts maps, i.e. Legislature, Secretary of State, Citizens committee etc., they are now all bound by the precedent set by the Oregon Supreme Court voting district decisions of 2021.
Despite having been forewarned that the members and staff of the Senate and House Democratic caucuses refused to acknowledge who the actual map makers/cartographers were in order to coverup the fact that their maps ignored ORS 188.010 (2) No district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring any political party, incumbent legislator or other person *3, the justices charged blindly into the darkness of their own making without due diligence and with a disturbing disregard for the law.
Norman R. Williams, professor of law at Willamette University College of Law writes, “The Oregon Supreme Court has shown little willingness to enforce the statutory requirements in any significant manner.” *4 The high court’s 2021 redistricting decisions provide more evidence that professor Williams is right.
Common Cause writes, “Oregon law requires that district lines are not to be drawn for partisan advantage, so partisan data is not analyzed publicly. But in reality, legislators share this data behind closed doors, and are well aware of how various options will affect party advantage. Oregon needs to end the “wink and a nod” sharing of partisan data behind closed doors and make this information available for public scrutiny.”*5 It certainly got that right. There is clearly no way the congressional and legislative redistricting maps were made without input from political data sets.
The court failed to include an analysis by Princeton University’s Gerrymandering Project which graded Oregon’s congressional maps with an “F”. *6
OPINION OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL PANEL The SJP must affirm a legislatively adopted redistricting plan “if the plan complies with all applicable statutes *3 and the United States and Oregon Constitutions.” *2
Based on ORS 188.010, we will void the Legislative Assembly’s plan only if we can say, based on the record, that that body “either did not consider [ignored] one or more criteria [set out in ORS 188.010] *3 or, having considered them all, made a choice or choices that no reasonable [What does reasonable mean?] [reap- portioning body] would have made.” *1
The most, indeed, the only credible method to determine if ORS 188.010 (2) No district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring any political party, incumbent legislator or other person, has been violated, i.e. ignored, is to ask the person(s) who actually created the maps. In this regard, none of the judges involved in the approval of both the congressional and legislative district maps ever asked who actually created these maps, nor did they ask the actual map makers/cartographers to testify to ascertain whether or not they created these maps with knowledge of the political data. No reasonable person would believe that both the congressional and legislative district maps under review were made by map makers/cartographers who had NO knowledge, NO advice and NO instructions based on a political data set of the street addresses and party registration of registered voters and or a data set of precinct voting history. Access to both of these data sets is both legal and easy to get. The fact that these data sets are not present as data sets within the maps presented to the all the justices involved is NOT proof that the map makers/cartographers did not seek out and receive this political data from outside sources *5 and thus deliberately and covertly violate ORS 188.010 (2) *3
Oregonians, indeed, most Americans, want an equitable division of congressional and legislative voting districts. This cannot happen unless and until the statutory guidelines are revised to reflect political reality and the supreme court is directed to rule on the reapportionment maps on behalf of the citizenry without requiring a legal suit. Here are the only three necessary guidelines.
1. Districts must have equal populations
2. Districts must be contiguous
3. Political data sets must be used to create congressional and legislative voting district maps that are comprised, as nearly as possible, of districts that each have equal numbers of registered Democrats, Republicans and Others.
Of course, to accomplish this citizen oriented, democracy enhancing task we must depend on partisan legislators. The chances of that happening are slim to none.
If this message is too depressing and cynical for you then find some solace in Bonnie Meltzer’s current inspiring installation - Mending the Social Fabric, on until January 29th at the Portland Jewish Museum and Center For Holocaust Education.*7 If hostile partisan politics, Big Stolen Election Lies, bizarre conspiracists, insurrectionists, dysfunctional governments, a Rajneesh style cult posing as a grand old American political party, sensationalist supermarket tabloids masquerading as legitimate media news sources, unaccountable police behavior, criminals pretending to be legitimate citizen demonstrators, legislators who protect the very rich from paying taxes, anti-vaxers and the failures of the legal system to demonstrate that no person is above the law have taken their toll on you the past couple of years, don’t despair. Bonnie Meltzer’s work, inspired by the Hebrew text “Tikkun Olam” - repair the world, will rejuvenate your spirit. Go. Participate. Recharge.
Richard Ellmyer
North Portland
Oregon citizen since 1971
Portland Homeowner and Citizen Activist since 1975
NAV, Non-Aligned Voter
Legislative assistant to former state senator Bill McCoy observer and participant in the 1981 reapportionment process.
Senior Policy Advisor to former Multnomah County Commissioner Gladys McCoy 1981-1984
Author of The Ellmyer Report, a newsletter that informs, educates and influences on public policy. Occasionally distributed to more than a quarter of million readers in Oregon and beyond. Facebook, Portland Politics Plus . Contributor: Patch.com
Project Champion and Data Wrangler - Metro/Oregon Public Housing Location Maps https://www.goodgrowthnw.org/m...
*1
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21117597-oregon-congressional-redistricting-opinion-11-24-21
*2
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21115899-p17027coll3_9432
*3
https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_188.010
Criteria for apportionment of state into congressional and legislative districts
(1) Each district, as nearly as practicable, shall:
(a) Be contiguous;
(b) Be of equal population;
(c) Utilize existing geographic or political boundaries;
(d) Not divide communities of common interest; and
(e) Be connected by transportation links.
(2) No district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring any political party, incumbent legislator or other person.
(3) No district shall be drawn for the purpose of diluting the voting strength of any language or ethnic minority group.
*4
*2 B
From: RWE <richard@goodgrowthnw.org>
Subject: Self-Inflicted Ignorance Destroys Judicial Redistricting Special Master's Credibility
Date: November 4, 2021 at 12:27:37 PM PDT
To: Interested Parties <interested@macsolve.com>
Retired state Judge Henry Breithaupt, appointed to serve as the “special master” in Oregon’s congressional redistricting case, has failed his required due diligence. Breithaupt was tasked with making findings of fact for a five-judge panel that will decide the outcome by Nov. 24.
1. Breithaupt’s report to the five-judge panel included the following: IV. WHETHER SB 881 WAS INTENDED TO FAVOR ANY POLITICAL PARTY, INCUMBANT LEGISLATOR, OR ANY OTHER PERSON: ORS 188.010(2). *1 The law is nothing if it is not about language. Misspellings in legal documents can have disastrous results. ORS 188.010(2) refers to “incumbent” legislators.
A Breithaupt ruling on a Public Records case in 2019 denied public access to certain records in the possession of pubic officials. Several highly respected Public Records advocates challenged Breithaupt’s opinion with strong arguments.*2
2. Breithaupt’s Findings of facts failed to reveal an analysis by Princeton University’s Gerrymandering Project which graded Oregon’s congressional maps with an “F”.*3
3. Breithaupt’s Findings of facts failed to reveal who were the map makers/cartographers that actually created the congressional redistricting maps. One of seven statutory guidelines for creating voting district maps is the following: No district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring any political party, incumbent legislator or other person.*4 The most credible method to determine if this instruction has been violated is to ask the person(s) who actually created the maps.
“Oregon law requires that district lines are not to be drawn for partisan advantage, so partisan data is not analyzed publicly. But in reality, legislators share this data behind closed doors, and are well aware of how various options will affect party advantage. Oregon needs to end the “wink and a nod” sharing of partisan data behind closed doors and make this information available for public scrutiny.”*5
“The Oregon Supreme Court has shown little willingness to enforce the statutory requirements in any significant manner.”*6
“The court views its task not to ascertain whether there is a superior, alternative districting plan that should or could have been adopted, but rather to determine whether the Legislature or secretary of state ignored one of the constitutional or statutory criteria or whether it applied the criteria in an unreasonable fashion.”*6
It is a certainty that Oregon’s congressional redistricting map, created by the Senate Democratic Caucus Staff, approved by the Legislative Policy & Research Office, LPRO and then winning a majority of votes in the Oregon House and Senate, albeit along strict Party line votes, violated ORS 188.010(2) No district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring any political party, incumbent legislator or other person. To ascertain whether or not this statutory instruction has been ignored by the map makers/cartographers who created this map within the confines of the Senate Democratic Caucus Staff it is absolutely necessary for any and every legal body making judgments about the legitimacy of the process to question the map makers/cartographers. This can only be done by uncovering the names of the Senate Democratic Caucus Staff persons who actually made the congressional redistricting map and then questioning that person(s) under oath. The most cursory analysis by even an untrained cartographer will recognize immediately that the congressional redistricting map was made with knowledge, advice and instructions based on a data set of the street addresses and party registration of registered voters and or a data set of precinct voting history. Access to both of these data sets is both legal and easy to get. The fact that these data sets are not present as data sets within the maps presented to the LPRO is NOT proof that the map makers/cartographers did not seek out and receive this political data from outside sources.*5
Several red flags have been raised in alert of potential scandal and conspiracy.
1. After many requests neither the Senate Democratic Caucus and its staff, nor the House Democratic Caucus and its staff, nor the House Republican Caucus and its staff have been forthcoming with the names of the persons in those caucuses who actually made the maps submitted to the LPRO. This is surely a sign of a coverup. There can be only one reason, to prevent the map makers/cartographers from being questioned by journalists, lawyers and all the judges involved in reviewing these maps.
2. Other alarm bells began ringing when Cameron Miles, a staff attorney in the Legislative Counsel’s Office, wrote responses to Public Records requests to several members of the legislative leadership stating that they had no access to the names of those who created the congressional and legislative maps. This would mean that none of the legislative leadership would have access to any of the staffers in the House and Senate Republican and Democratic caucuses or any member of the House and Senate Interim Redistricting Committees or staffers from LPRO assigned to the Redistricting committees. Quite unbelievable. It must be concluded that there is a conspiracy to hide the identity of the actual map makers in each caucus led by Cameron D. Miles, staff attorney in cahoots with legislative leadership.
This is especially concerning because one of those leaders is Tina Kotek, who ostensibly represents me in the legislature, is the Speaker of the House and is a declared candidate for governor.
A case for conspiracy and coverup among legislative leaders and Legislative Counsel is readily apparent. The lawyers and judges looking into the validity of these congressional maps will most certainly want to take these revelations into account. Other members of the legal community may want to investigate the process for prosecuting such behavior in state and/or federal courts.
In conclusion, the five-judge panel hearing the contested congressional Redistricting map, the Oregon Supreme Court and the Secretary of State must all recognize that they are under scrutiny. Oregonians deserve and must have transparency in all the legislative and judicial procedures connected to these maps. It is our government and we want to know the truth about what is going on.
Richard Ellmyer
North Portland
Oregon citizen since 1971
Portland Homeowner and Citizen Activist since 1975
NAV, Non-Aligned Voter
Legislative assistant to former state senator Bill McCoy observer and participant in the 1981 reapportionment process.
Senior Policy Advisor to former Multnomah County Commissioner Gladys McCoy 1981-1984
Author of The Ellmyer Report, a newsletter that informs, educates and influences on public policy. Occasionally distributed to more than a quarter of million readers in Oregon and beyond. Facebook, Portland Politics Plus . Contributor: Patch.com
Project Champion and Data Wrangler - Metro/Oregon Public Housing Location Maps https://www.goodgrowthnw.org/m...
*1
https://www.opb.org/pdf/BREITHAUPT%20tentative%20fof_1635865838561.pdf
*2
Oregon’s public records advocate, Ginger McCall, said Thursday that the judge’s position is at odds with the way she, the state archivist, the attorney general’s office, the Oregon League of Cities and “everybody” has interpreted the law and trained local officials to comply with it in the nearly five decades since it went into effect.
Duane Bosworth, a lawyer who has specialized in Oregon public records law for decades and has at times represented The Oregonian/OregonLive on such matters, said the case should be appealed because the judge’s decision is wrong. He said lawyers for the city of West Linn persuaded Breithaupt to misread the statute.
Rep. Karin Power, D-Milwaukie, is a member of Oregon’s public records advisory panel and a leading lawmaker on public records issues. She told The Oregonian/OregonLive Wednesday that if the ruling is not appealed, she also will consider adding clarifying language to the public records law.
*3
https://www.koin.com/news/oregon/report-oregons-congressional-map-receives-an-f-grade/
*4
https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_188.010
ORS 188.010
Criteria for apportionment of state into congressional and legislative districts
(1) Each district, as nearly as practicable, shall:
(a) Be contiguous;
(b) Be of equal population;
(c) Utilize existing geographic or political boundaries;
(d) Not divide communities of common interest; and
(e) Be connected by transportation links.
(2) No district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring any political party, incumbent legislator or other person.
(3) No district shall be drawn for the purpose of diluting the voting strength of any language or ethnic minority group.
*5
Is gerrymandering a problem in Oregon?
*6
Legislative Redistricting in Oregon : A Primer
by Norman R. Williams, professor of law at Willamette University College of Law
https://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/11febmar/redistricting.html
*2 C
How much did interest groups shape Oregon's new legislative districts? Here's why it's tough to say
12-16-21 By Hillary Borrud
How much did interest groups shape Oregon's new legislative districts? Here's why it's tough to say
Oregon lawmakers led an extensive public process this year to redraw the state's 90 legislative districts and craft six new congressional districts, with a dozen public hearings and thousands of pieces of testimony from Oregonians.
Privately, a parallel process played out. The executive director of the state's largest public employee union advised House Democratic leaders on political strategy. Lobbyists for unions and at least one industry-affiliated group used sophisticated data analysis to calculate how proposed districts would impact Democrats' and Republicans' chances in future elections and shared that information with lawmakers, legislators said. Other outside groups did the same, according to testimony in a redistricting lawsuit.
And practically none of that is required to be disclosed to the public.
Kate Titus, executive director of the good government advocacy group Common Cause Oregon, said party control of the Legislature impacts industries' and interest groups' ability to get their priorities passed, so those interests have an incentive to lobby for district maps that could benefit the party most sympathetic to their causes.
Common Cause Oregon is among the groups trying to get a ballot initiative before voters in 2022 that would hand the job of redistricting to a new independent commission. The group also supported a 2015 proposal, sponsored by Republican lawmakers, that would have required all data used to draw electoral districts to be made public. Democratic leaders let it die in committee.
"As long as the political process is so controlled by political parties, who's in the majority controlling what can move in committees, then interest groups that are trying to be effective in this state have a strong vested interest to advance the political power of one party or another," Titus said.
The lack of transparency around the forces at play in shaping how Oregonians' votes will count during the next decade is a result of both how the state handles redistricting, with the job given to lawmakers or a partisan secretary of state, and the state's limited lobbying disclosure requirements.
"We don't collect this data from lobbyists," state ethics commission administrative specialist Kathy Baier wrote in response to a reporter's question about how to find out whether any lobbyists were trying to influence redistricting lines this year.
In Oregon, lobbyists do not have to disclose which bills or policies they're working to advance or kill and clients paying for lobbying are only asked to list general topics of interest. Neither a labor union nor a business-affiliated political nonprofit publicly identified in records and news reports as involved in redistricting listed "redistricting" as a legislative interest in their state filings.
Ron Bersin, executive director of the Oregon Government Ethics Commission which oversees lobbying, confirmed the interest groups and lobbyists do not have to disclose what they're trying to influence. "They're just not required to do it at this point," Bersin said. He noted that attempts to require lobbyists and interest groups to publicly report what they're working on have gone nowhere. "So we are where we are."
Rep. Dan Rayfield, D-Corvallis, and Sens. James Manning Jr., D-Eugene, Chuck Riley, D-Hillsboro, and Kim Thatcher, R-Keizer, chief co-sponsored a proposal in 2017 that would have required lobbyists to disclose the specific policies and spending they attempt to influence. Then-Sen. Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, killed the proposal in the final hours of the legislative session. Since then, Oregon's elected leaders haven't shown much interest in increasing lobbying transparency.
House Democrats' tight circle of redistricting decision-makers got a boost in their line-drawing efforts and strategizing from the public employee unions SEIU Local 503 and SEIU Local 49, which hired political consultant Hannah Love this year to advise them on potential maps, two House Democrats said. They declined to be named to remain in good standing with Democratic legislative leaders. Ben Morris, a spokesperson for SEIU Local 503, confirmed the union hired Love both to help with unspecified other lobbying priorities in 2021 as well as to work on redistricting.
Previously, Love led House Democrats' 2016 and 2020 legislative campaigns as well as the 2018 campaign to defend hospital tax increases in a special election. Between those stints, Love worked for other political campaigns and organizations including the nonprofit that advances the public policy interests of public employee unions and left-leaning groups, Our Oregon.
One caucus member had learned of Love's hiring to advise Democrats on redistricting by spring 2021, while another reported learning of it in late summer. "She's smart as hell and I would say one of the sharpest political workers that I've come in contact with so I would say it's no coincidence" the unions hired Love to inform Democrats' line drawing, one of them said.
"Redistricting is about giving a voice to the people," Morris wrote in an email. "SEIU 503 represents 72,000 working people across Oregon — Democrats, Republicans, and Independents from every corner of the state. We participated in the redistricting process as advocates for our members, along with many other groups, by providing input to the state Legislature with the goal of making sure Oregon's elections are fair and representative."
Love registered Jan. 30 to lobby for just one client: SEIU Oregon State Council, which represents the combined forces of 503 and 49. Lobbyists don't have to disclose any information about what they're working on; only clients paying for the lobbying services must do so. And Oregon allows the payers to describe the issues they're lobbying on in broad terms.
SEIU Oregon State Council reported paying Love's consulting business, Love Campaigns, $2,750 in the first quarter of 2021. It listed just one legislative interest: "labor."
The only other arm of the union that disclosed to the state it made payments to Love was SEIU 503. It reported paying Love's consulting business, Love Campaigns, $55,000 in the first quarter and $3,000 in the third quarter of 2021. Its list of legislative interests was much longer: "labor law, human services, long term care, state budget, worker rights, health care."
Neither organization mentioned anything about trying to influence the drawing of Oregon's new legislative or congressional districts. Their combined reported spending on all lobbying in Oregon as of Sept. 30 stood at $221,000.
Love is now managing the congressional campaign of Democratic Rep. Andrea Salinas of Lake Oswego, who led House Democrats' redistricting work. Salinas is a former lobbyist whose clients included SEIU. Love did not respond to a call for comment.
At least one union leader was also integrally involved in Oregon's redistricting process. Melissa Unger, executive director of SEIU Local 503, acknowledged in a deposition that she advised House Speaker Tina Kotek and Salinas on how to get Republicans to allow a vote on the congressional and legislative maps. Unger said the union was particularly focused on the new House and Senate districts.
Additionally, Unger said while under oath that Democrats had access to analyses of the likely partisan electoral implications of congressional line drawing from other outside groups but she did not know the identities of those groups.
Kotek, who is running for governor in 2022, did not respond to questions that The Oregonian/OregonLive sent to her spokesperson, including what information Love shared with her, which other interest groups lobbied her on redistricting and whether Oregon should require more lobbying transparency.
Salinas also did not respond to questions from The Oregonian/OregonLive about lobbying on redistricting.
House Majority Leader Barbara Smith Warner, D-Portland, sent an emailed statement in which she praised the public hearings on redistricting and did not mention the lobbying and closed-door negotiations. "Oregon is an example for how this work can and should be done," Smith Warner wrote.
Industry also played a role in trying to shape Oregon's legislative and congressional maps. Preston Mann, a registered lobbyist for the trade association Oregon Manufacturers and Commerce which has ties to the timber industry and battery parts manufacturer Entek International, served as director of the political nonprofit Fair Maps Oregon.
"The primary purpose of the effort was to share information with Oregonians and urge them to get involved" in weighing in on lawmakers' proposed districts, Mann said. He said the trade association was "supportive of the Fair Maps Oregon effort and that included some of my time."
The trade association reported spending more than $140,000 on all its lobbying through Sept. 30 but did not list redistricting among its legislative interests.
llows it to be very opaque."
Correction: An earlier version of this story understated the total amount SEIU Local 503 reported spending on lobbying by political consultant Hannah Love. The union reported spending $55,000 on Love's work in the first quarter of 2021 and $3,000 in the third quarter.
*2 D
Oregon gubernatorial candidates House Speaker Tina Kotek and recent state senator Betsy Johnson failed the credibility test. Both were members of the Democratic Caucus during the redistricting process. Despite repeated requests both Kotek and Johnson refused to identify the actual House and Senate Democratic caucus redistricting map makers/cartographers. Potential prosecutors should consider their behaviors as a de facto admission of a coverup of the illegal violation of ORS 188.010 (2) No district shall be drawn for the purpose of favoring any political party, incumbent legislator or other person by the actual House and Senate Democratic caucus redistricting map makers/cartographers *1 and those members of the Oregon House and Senate Democratic Caucus who aided, abetted and or covered up this illegal behavior.
*/ /*-->*/