Judicial Watch is a not-for-profit, educational organization that filed suit on October 2024 on behalf of the Oregon Constitution party against the State of Oregon and the Secretary of State for violating the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) by not maintaining the Oregon voter rolls. That action was challenged by a motion to dismiss and the response, promised on June 18th for a decision in two weeks, didn’t come through until nearly seven weeks later. On August 5th, U.S. District Judge Michael J. McShane finally released his 23-page “OPINION AND ORDER” granted in part and dismissing in part.

Perhaps the DOJ’s Statement of interest made him pause when he read it. It begins: “This case presents important questions regarding enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act, ... for the limited purpose of addressing the requirements under the NVRA for states to maintain and make available for public inspection certain records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters”.

“Accurate voter registration rolls are critical to ensure that elections in Oregon are conducted fairly, accurately, and without fraud,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “States have specific obligations under the list maintenance provisions of the NVRA, and the Department of Justice will vigorously enforce those requirements.”

The case doesn’t refute the public’s increased concern that “the integrity of elections” is impaired by “the opportunity for ineligible voters to receive and cast ballots” which undermines “confidence in the integrity of the electoral process”. This could discourage “participation in the democratic process”; and cause “fear that their legitimate votes will be nullified or diluted by unlawful” votes. It also doesn’t deny the cause of those uncertainties, which is that “Oregon failed to conduct a general program to remove ineligible voters from voter registration rolls”.

The suit was originally structured on two premises. The court concluded that only the Constitution Party has plausibly alleged standing. This denied the standing of the individual voters named in the suit in the first count. It is troubling to consider that their possible disenfranchisement by potential fraud has no value according to the judge.

The court accepted, however, the plaintiffs’ allegations that their confidence had been undermined, “finding those allegations not speculative because the fear already existed and not generalized because there was “no indication those fears were shared by all”. That acknowledgement came as a surprise to local researchers who have already heard these reactions from the public. These investigators, who spent hours categorizing the anomalies in the voter rolls and verifying accuracy and applicable law, agree that “all” is currently a very large number.

Notable admissions from the opinion includes “the Constitution Party’s ability to contact eligible voters is impeded “because Defendants’ failure to conduct list maintenance required by the NVRA causes Oregon’s voter rolls to have many more outdated and ineligible registrations—both on its active and inactive voter lists—than they otherwise would.”

”As a result, the Constitution Party “waste[s] significant time, effort, and money trying to contact voters . . . who are listed on the rolls but who no longer live at the registered address or who are deceased.” The costs and decreased results have forced the Constitution Party “to adjust its activities.”

The Constitution Party raises one allegation that gave the Court pause: “The voter rolls also allow the Constitution Party to keep track of its own members whose registrations have become inactive.” Of all the alleged harms, this one rises above a mere ‘frustration-of-purpose argument.’ If the Constitution Party cannot monitor its members, it is plausible that it could lose its status as a minor party and no longer be entitled to limited liability or to nominate candidates. “Accepting the allegations in the FAC as true and construing them in favor of Plaintiffs, the Constitution Party has plausibly alleged that outdated or inaccurate voter lists impair a core function of that organization. The Court finds that the Constitution Party has properly established standing.”

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Ominously, Judge DeShane concludes, “the Constitution Party has adequately pled that its core-functions, which involve monitoring voter registration and increasing voter participation, have been hindered by non-compliance with the NVRA’s list maintenance provision. The Court therefore declines to dismiss the Constitution Party’s claim on a “zone of interest” argument at this time”.

The second count considered whether Judicial Watch “failed to provide adequate notice before commencing a lawsuit on the public records claim”, and when such notice would have been due. The discussion demonstrated the ambiguity of Oregon election law which lists various if-when possibilities which are confusing. The judge did not make a response as to which one was the definitive answer.

The most interesting claim is from a responsive email from the Secretary of state’s office that was sent in September, estimating that 5,000 hours of labor would be required to complete one aspect of Plaintiffs’ public records request for “a list of the names and addresses of all persons to whom notices ... were sent, and information concerning whether or not each such person responded to the notice”.

It said, “After internal review, we have identified significant additional labor cost to provide a full data set of returned voter notification cards (VNCs). Counties have historically used slightly different processes and have latitude to define some process steps in our current system. Researching this historical information would require significant consultation with county officials, including some who may have retired, and significant additional review of data by the SOS after such consultation. We estimate this work would take approximately 5,000 hours to complete due to the level of customization required for each of the 36 counties in Oregon.”

The county clerks bill their time at $100 per hour so the cost adds up to $500,000, but the final total could be even higher. At that point, Judicial Watch did not respond, which confused the SOS. “Instead of replying to this correspondence, Plaintiffs sent a notice letter on July 10, 2024, threatening to commence a lawsuit because “Oregon is not complying with its list maintenance obligations”. Judge McShane explained how this led to his dismissal of the second count, without mentioning the ridiculously high estimate (the definition of estimate implies a judgment, considered or casual, that precedes or takes the place of actual measuring or counting or testing out).

Now that everyone has thrown down the gauntlet, the public eagerly awaits the next episode of this legal maneuvering, and the costs to Oregon and national taxpayers continue to go up as each participant responds.


--Virginia Hall

Post Date: 2025-08-14 11:47:35

Last Update: 2025-08-14 17:22:50

Oregonians sighed relief when the legislative session left the Transportation bill in committee lacking support. But instead of reforming ODOT, Governor Tina Kotek has officially called the Legislature back to Salem on August 29th to take another swing at a transportation package. Governor Kotek is pitching this as a way to stop layoffs and restore basic services, but the truth hasn’t changed: ODOT’s financial problems are not the result of revenue shortages--they’re really the result of long-term mismanagement.

Kotek released her Transportation Funding Proposal for the special session proposing the need for increased taxes all about the 2% slice of ODOT's massive budget that goes to road maintenance. That’s where the layoffs are coming from, and that’s where the public feels it most. Instead of addressing inefficiencies, the Governor insisted on immediate layoffs for 500 employees before the end of the biennium to create a crisis and sympathy for those families. Then, in response to public outcry, she extended layoff timelines to September 15th and called for a special session proposing taxpayers pay more to keep a broken system on life support.

Oregonians are seeing through the coercion and threats of layoffs to garner support. Holding 700 workers hostage to get legislators to vote for funding in the special session is coercion and illegal under ORS 163.275. Using her powers to threaten layoffs and then to delay layoffs exposes the lack of an emergency for the layoff announcement. For that reason alone, the unethical posturing should offend all legislators into a no vote. Proposing increases three or more years down the road without justification leaves Oregonians with a stanch in their nostrils.

The special session's focus hasn't just shifted from the comprehensive overhaul of the transportation system to securing immediate funds to prevent further service degradation and job losses, but it's raising over $538 million plus millions that hasn't been calculated, to plug a $325 million hole. There’s even a .1% payroll tax increase thrown in for good measure, which Kotek opposed when Salem voted it down.

To add a layer of polish, the plan includes some accountability provisions: a performance audit, a revamped advisory committee, and a project dashboard, but none of it changes the fact that this is yet another short-term fix to a long-term problem in terms of ODOT's funding model. Doesn't accountability include transparency? Kotek is focused on 50% of the 6-cents increase to pay for the deficit, but that is insignificant to the total tax proposed. How will the remainder be used? Recent U.S. Supreme Court Chevron case requires legislators to be explicit in authorizing non-elected agencies to administer laws. We don't yet know of a bill number or specific wording the Democrats will introduce, but it is unconstitutional for the Governor to submit a bill.

Kotek's proposed plan for the special session on August 29 will include more than necessary in these key elements:

• Gas tax increase: A 6-cent per gallon increase, raising the state's gas tax from 40 cents to 46 cents per gallon raising an estimated $144 million. The increase gas tax revenue would be split with 50% going to the state transportation department, 30% to counties, and 20% to cities.
• Vehicle registrations for MPG vehicles, mopeds and motorcycles will increase by $42 estimating over $260 million increase.
• Electric vehicle (EV) and 40+ high-MPG vehicles will also have a surcharge increased of $30.
• Base Title fees will increase by $139 for a total charge of $216, the surcharge will not change.
• Payroll tax dedicated to transit would double from 0.1% to 0.2% amounting to $134 million increase estimated.
• Road User Charge (RUC), a per-mile charge for electric vehicles and hybrids in the coming years.

Kotek makes the same mistake made in 2021 with over funding a 10-year plan and now the money is gone with very little to show for it. She states, "In order to take meaningful steps to modernize how we pay for transportation in the future, the RUC program, as envisioned in House Bill 2025, will be included with a delayed start date. Mandatory RUC would begin on the following dates for the following types of vehicles paying the RUC won't pay the supplemental registration fees:

• 7/1/27: Existing EVs
• 1/1/28: New EVs
• 7/1/28: Hybrids/plug-in hybrids

Besides these delays, tolling will be paused in previous transportation legislation, except for a replacement bridge on Interstate 5. She proposes delays in heavy vehicle rates increases to 2029 to address the imbalance in rates and do an update of the methodology that addresses the imbalance before the next Highway Cost Allocation Study.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Kotek is confident that this plan will pass at the special session. Her proposal, when fully implemented is still the $11-15 billion tax increase originally introduced in HB 2025 that was totally rejected by Oregonians. Even with increased accountability, the Governor seems to be tone deaf. Oregonians have clearly stated - no new taxes. The unethical posturing should offend all legislators into a no vote. Proposing increases three or more years down the road without justification leaves Oregonians with a stanch in their nostrils. It's one thing to win a vote when it's fair and square, but unethical manipulation is illegal and everyone associated cannot hide from their public record.

House Republican Leader Christine Drazan (R-Canby) says, “The governor’s tax package is going to hurt struggling families. Oregonians will be paying more but getting less—no new lanes, no improved bridges, just higher taxes. House Republicans proposed using money from the state’s Legislative Emergency Board to protect maintenance and preserve essential jobs that keep our roads safe, but the governor rejected any plan that didn’t raise taxes. Her plan to cut maintenance workers was dangerous and wrong, and her push to raise costs at the pump is extreme and out of touch. She should listen to Oregonians, work across the aisle and pursue a measured approach to the transportation needs of the state without forcing the largest transportation tax increase in Oregon’s history.”

Much has been said about Republicans not showing up for the special session that would block any movement and potentially force some reforms. But this isn't just a Republican pushback. These tax increases will hit everyone living in Oregon. If you aren't hit directly by a tax, it will raise food prices, along with every thing transported to stores or online shipping. It will raise housing costs. Oregon is ranked fourth in the nation for under producing housing, and with an increased cost of transportation, Kotek is shooting herself in the foot. It's a good bet she has her eye on the kicker to fill the gap.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-08-10 12:55:46

Last Update: 2025-08-10 16:18:17

The Trump Administration has canceled plans to use large areas of federal waters for new offshore wind development.

Oregon’s South Coast has had a long fight against the 2021 House Bill 3375, and against Representative David Brock Smith, who voted for the bill. HB 3375 established a plan for offshore wind energy development and set a goal of 3 gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2030. Despite his vote, Smith continues to tell his constituents he opposed offshore wind development claiming the bill slowed down the process.

President Trump signed a temporary executive order in January 2025 halting offshore wind lease sales in federal waters. It paused approvals, permits, and loans for wind projects. The Interior Department issued directives to end preferential treatment for wind and solar facilities, labeling them as unreliable and foreign-controlled energy sources.

Oregon has turned its back on many of the President’s Executive Orders putting Oregon at risk for funding and partnerships that would benefit Oregonians. Oregon State University and the Pacific Marine Energy Center conducted a study on how government agencies and private organizations deal with public perception of potential offshore wind development. The Institutional Review Board at OSU reviewed and approved the research in the Coos Bay area.

The Federal government designated more than 3.5 million acres for wind energy areas, the offshore locations deemed most suitable for wind energy development. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is now rescinding all designated wind energy areas in federal water, announcing an end to setting aside large areas for “speculative wind development.”

BOEM said it was acting in accordance with Trump's action and an order by his interior secretary to end any preferential treatment toward wind and solar facilities, which were described as unreliable, foreign-controlled energy sources.

The Biden administration last year had announced a five-year schedule to lease federal offshore tracts for wind energy production. Attorney Generals from 17 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit challenging Trump's executive order halting wind energy leasing and permitting for wind energy projects. States involved in the coalition includes Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Washington, D.C. They say they’ve invested hundreds of millions of dollars collectively to develop wind energy and even more on upgrading transmission lines to bring wind energy to the electrical grid.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Oregon is fortunate for a strong opposition to not have offshore projects in progress on the 195,000 acres designated offshore of the southern Oregon coast.

In June 2025, a federal judge in Massachusetts expressed skepticism about the states’ request for a preliminary injunction, asking for more specificity on the harm caused and legal violations. The judge collapsed the injunction motion, and the case was set for a hearing on a potential dismissal.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-08-10 11:03:12

Last Update: 2025-08-10 16:18:41

Oregon Governor Tina Kotek provided notice to the Legislature that she is considering vetoes of the following bills and budget items from the 2025 legislative session. The Governor make the release pursuant to Article V, Section 15b(4), of the Oregon Constitution. She has until August 8, 2025, to take final action.

Policy bills:
House Bill 3824 - Allows physical therapists to practice dry needling. Senate Bill 976 - Allows an individual to verify whether cattle are pregnant without holding a valid license issued by the Oregon State Veterinary Medical Examining Board under certain circumstances. Senate Bill 1047 - Requires Curry County and the Water Resources Department to expedite review of applications for use on specified lands.

Reason for potential vetoes: The Governor and her team will continue to review these bills and consider perspectives for and against to inform her final decision.

Budget line items in House Bill 5006:

• Willamette Falls Trust - $45 million in lottery bonds
• House Bill 5006, Section 110(15) Project limitation to grant funds to Willamette Falls Trust
• House Bill 5006, Section 108 Cost of Issuance limitation
• Senate Bill 5531, Section 38 Lottery Bond Authorization

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Reason for potential veto:
The Governor supports the opportunity of creating public access to the natural wonder that is Willamette Falls, from both sides of the falls. She is exercising her due diligence to understand more fully the use of these dollars and wants to hear more from all interested parties. She has been a supporter of creating public access to the falls in the past and is committed to dedicating public funding that builds that access in the most equitable, responsible manner possible. As a steward of tax dollars, the Governor is specifically interested in how past allocations, including $12.5 million in state lottery bonds and $20 million in Metro parks and nature bonds, will be or have been spent before approving an additional $45 million. She looks forward to the conversations ahead to inform her final decision.

YourOregonNews.com reported on The Willamette Falls Trust — a partnership of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs — initially asked lawmakers for $50-75 million to acquire about 60 acres of land on the West Linn side of the falls. The Willamette Falls project, which was first announced to the public in 2023, would bring public access to the falls and restore the surrounding uplands along the river. The trust’s vision includes public walkways as well as “spaces for interpretation, cultural events, community programming, viewing structures and other public amenities, all informed by Indigenous-led design.”

The trust was initially the Willamette Falls Legacy Project, which stopped work in 2022 on a plan to build public walkways on the Oregon City side of the falls when the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, one of the original trust members, withdrew as both a project partner and a trust member.

The Grand Ronde, which now owns the Blue Heron Paper Mill property overlooking the falls from Oregon City, asked Gov. Tina Kotek and state leaders to hold off on granting funds to the trust for the Inter-Tribal Public Access Project. “Proponents are presenting this project as returning land to Oregon’s tribal nations, however the Trust excludes Grande Round, which is the Tribe of record in the area, and includes an out of state tribe,” Grand Ronde Tribal Council Chair Cheryl Kennedy wrote in the letter to Kotek. Is Grande Round asking to be placed in the trust after they sabotaged the project in 2022?

To comment on these vetoes, message Governor Kotek here.

UPDATE August 7, 2025

• Willamette Falls responded to Kotek's demands taking them off of the veto list.
• Senate Bill 976 - Allows an individual to verify whether cattle are pregnant without holding a valid license issued by the Oregon State Veterinary Medical Examining Board under certain circumstances. See veto letter here.
• Senate Bill 1047 - Requires Curry County and the Water Resources Department to expedite review of applications for use on specified lands. See veto letter here.
• Every bill from the 2025 session that the Governor signed or vetoed, including House Bill 3428 which was signed, as well as accompanying signing letters, can be found here.

--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-08-10 10:29:34

Last Update: 2025-08-10 16:19:12

The Oregon Elections Division's recent decision against Senator David Brock Smith reveals a systematic pattern of political coercion that extends far beyond simple campaign finance violations. The investigation, which found Smith failed to report $4,968 in radio airtime contributions, has helped uncover a web of donor influence, media manipulation, and constituent deception that challenges the integrity of an Oregon Senator.

The case centers on Smith's unreported 92 three-minute segments on KWRO radio in January 2024, valued at $18 per minute, which he received after pressuring the station owner to cancel Rob Taylor's show. Taylor was a local radio show host who had been on the air for over five years. However, the story behind these broadcasts reveals a calculated quid pro quo arrangement in which a station owner was coerced into silencing a critic. Then the politician applying the pressure was rewarded with unchallenged airtime to spin his story.

The Silencing of Rob Taylor

The controversy began when Smith appeared on "The Rob Taylor Report" radio show on KWRO, owned by Bi Coastal Media. During the interview, Taylor confronted Smith about his campaign contributors and his support for offshore wind turbine projects. Smith's response was not to address the questions honestly but to demand the show's removal from the air.

Smith did not like an interview he was part of on the radio show. Smith demanded that the owner of the radio company, Mike Wilson, remove the show from the air because he didn't like the questions being asked by the host, Rob Taylor.

Wilson capitulated to the political pressure, canceling Taylor's contract and removing the show from the airwaves. Then, after silencing a prominent critic of Smith's, Wilson provided Smith with 92 three-minute segments worth $4,968 to present his version of events without challenge or rebuttal.

The $150,000 Question

The questions that prompted Smith's retaliation centered on a wealthy California Democrat who contributed $150,000 to the rural Republican senator's political action committee. The donor contributed $125,000 in annual increments of $25,000 over 7 years, while his deceased wife had previously contributed $25,000. The donor in question made his money managing hedge funds in China, which was an interesting aspect to the story, because Smith is on the Oregon Chinese Council. Smith's inability to explain why such a substantial sum would flow from a California Democrat to a safe Republican seat in rural Oregon raised immediate red flags. The donation becomes even more suspicious when viewed in light of Smith's voting record on environmental legislation.

In 2021, Smith voted for Oregon House Bill 3375, which established a roadmap for offshore wind energy development and set a goal of 3 gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2030. Despite this vote, Smith repeatedly told his constituents he opposed offshore wind development.

Video Evidence Contradicts Public Statemen

Video evidence from the Oregon Legislature shows Smith giving testimony in favor of the offshore wind bill and supporting the use of wind turbines. When confronted with this contradiction during the Taylor interview, Smith claimed the bill "slowed down the process" rather than acknowledging it created the framework for massive wind energy development off Oregon's coast.

"Smith said the bill slowed down the process, but instead, it created a roadmap and set a goal of 3 GW of offshore wind energy by 2030," sources confirmed. "It was a blatant lie." The deception runs deeper when examining Smith's funding sources. Records show Smith has accepted money from PACs funded by green energy companies involved in solar and wind energy projects.

Significantly, the last remaining company bidding on offshore wind leases in Coos and Curry Counties was among the green energy companies that contributed to a PAC that has contributed money to Smith's PAC.

Coordinated Intimidation Campaign

Following the confrontational interview, Smith's wealthy donor threatened to take legal action against the radio station if Taylor's show were to remain on the air. The donor objected to having his name and that of his deceased wife mentioned in connection with their political contributions, despite these being public records.

This coordinated pressure campaign succeeded in silencing Taylor, who was deplatformed and unable to respond. The timeline reveals the calculated nature of this arrangement: Smith appeared on Taylor's weekly radio show for a 30-minute interview, didn't like the tough questions, pressured Wilson to cancel Taylor's show, and then received 92 three-minute segments to spin his story without Taylor being able to respond.

The station's owner canceled the host's contract and gave Smith an inordinate amount of time to spin the story to the public on the same station where the show was broadcast. The story was mostly forgotten until the Secretary of State found the Senator guilty of violating campaign finance law.

Smith’s Lousy Voting Record

Smith's actions reveal a pattern inconsistent with conservative principles. He maintains low voting scores with organizations like CPAC and the Republican Liberty Caucus of Oregon, while simultaneously accepting funding from green energy interests that directly benefit from his legislative votes. In the recent legislative session, Smith voted for a controversial bill, SB 147, concerning the Elliott State Forest. It was the final nail in the coffin for education ever receiving funding from timber harvests, and turns the forest into a research forest where the state will sell carbon credits for sequestration efforts.

Smith voted for the Fire Mapping Bill, SB 762, in the 2021 Regular Session, only to have to vote to repeal it in the 2025 Session because it would have put financial burdens on the property owners due to higher insurance rates and new regulations. His voting record is marked by bills that include funding for DEI. Smith even voted for the Menstrual Dignity Act, which directed schools to put tampons in the boys’ bathrooms.

There is a Grassroots Response Emerging

Smith faced the most contentious primary challenge in any state Senate district due to his questionable character. Smith spent $250,000 against his primary opponent, who spent only $25,000. It may have illustrated the influence of wealthy donor networks in insulating politicians from accountability, but it ultimately cost him and his donors a lot of money.

Despite the suppression efforts, Taylor's show survived by moving to podcasting, where it continues to expose political corruption. Citizens in Smith's district are beginning to organize within the local Republican Party structure to demand accountability.

People are getting involved in the local chapter of the Republican Party in Smith’s district. People are working to change the leadership through participation in the local party's central committee. Hopefully, they will establish standards for their candidates, as they do not want to be fooled again.

The Secretary of State's investigation and the potential for a subsequent fine may provide vindication for Taylor's original reporting, proving for independent journalism can ultimately prevail against political intimidation.


--Staff Reports

Post Date: 2025-08-10 10:06:35

Last Update: 2025-08-10 16:19:46

A formal petition (SEL 350), to recall Oregon Governor Tina Kotek, was officially recorded by the Oregon Elections Division on July 27, 2025. The petition cites allegations of failed leadership and violations of her oath of office. The petition, filed by William Minnix of La Pine, accuses Governor Kotek of prioritizing the interests of undocumented immigrants over law-abiding Oregonians and claims that her administration has neglected key constituencies such as veterans, low-income families, and victims of crime.

Minnix, who is a disabled veteran, in his official statement, argues that Kotek’s policies have created a burden for Oregonians by failing to comply with presidential executive orders, and contributing to the loss of federal funding. He claims the governor’s refusal to enforce federal mandates forces Oregon taxpayers to makeup for funding shortfalls, thereby contributing to financial instability within the state. The petition asserts that this ongoing behavior reflects an abuse of gubernatorial power and a failure to uphold constitutional obligations.

The petition states that no paid circulators will be involved in collecting signatures, indicating it will be a grassroots-style campaign led by volunteer efforts. Under Oregon law, they will have 90 days to gather over 280,000 valid signatures from registered voters. The probability has turned in favor of a recall in the last 20 years. Less than 50% of Oregonians think the state is headed in the right direction. The NIV registered voters, which now exceeds both major parties, only recorded 30% that think the state is headed in the right direction.

Governor Tina Kotek, a Democrat who took office in January 2023, followed Governor Kate Brown as one of the top three worst governors in 50 States. Her failed priorities has been at the center of several high-profile policy debates, including housing, homelessness, and public safety. Even though the state has shown improvement after the pandemic, it couldn't go much lower and was virtually a bounce-off the bottom when Oregonians were freed from pandemic mandates.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

The state of Oregon has attempted multiple recall efforts against public officials, but successful recalls involving statewide elected officials is rare due to the rigorous signature requirements and time constraints. With less than 50% supporting the state's direction, this filing indicates ongoing dissatisfaction and underscores the continued polarization surrounding immigration policy and state-federal relations.

This is not Kotek's first brush with a formal workplace complaint. In 2019, during her tenure as House Speaker, a complaint filed by former state representative Diego Hernandez, alleged that Kotek used political pressure and threats, though the investigating attorney concluded her actions did not violate legislative workplace rules. It was investigated and discussed in a legislative committee hearing in October 2022. This matter drew significant scrutiny but did not constitute a recall effort.

The next steps in the recall process will be to see if the grassroots can gain enough momentum to advance to the ballot. A signature-gathering rally will take place August 29 in combinations with the protest to the Special Sessions. Kotek aims to push through an unpopular ODOT funding Bill, which has the potential to inspire volunteers.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-07-31 16:09:02

Last Update: 2025-07-30 22:51:39

Oregon Governor Tina Kotek signed HB 3792, which will double the existing size of Oregon's Oregon Energy Assistance Program (OEAP) from $20 million to $40 million. Governor Kotek claims this increase to OEAP will help low-income Oregonians by providing financial assistance to prevent shut-offs of their residential electricity service. But does it?

While the OEAP may have doubled the amount available to assist low-income families, the bill also doubles the maximum payment a low-income household or business would pay from $500 to $1000.

The increase to the OEAP will come from customer rates, which are limited to 2.5% without legislative approval, and the maximum payment amount may also be changed if it exceeds the 2.5%.

John A. Charles Jr., President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute, stated in testimony, “HB 3792 will make most ratepayers worse off by taxing them to increase funding for the OEAP.” He suggested an offset by reducing the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that is scheduled to increase “clean energy” purchases by 25% in 2025. The cost to ratepayers for PGE’s 2025 forecasts costs $74.7 million, a surcharge of 3.4%. The total estimated cost, 2013-2025 is $565.8 million. Further, in 2021 the legislature required that PGE and PacifiCorp completely decarbonize their systems by 2040, which the RPS is now redundant. This single act would more than double the OEAP and still make all ratepayers better off.

With all the flexibility to the HB 3792, it seems misleading for the Governor to say this bill will help low-income Oregonians. In fact, it does the opposite by allowing an increase in the maximum low-income families pay out, plus participating in rate increases. The Governor’s press release states: “Under HB 3792, the average residential ratepayer’s bill will increase approximately .70 cents per month and large industrial users will pay a maximum amount of $1,000 per month, up from a current cap of $500 per month. In addition to doubling the existing OEAP capacity, these additional ratepayer charges for residential ratepayers will be indexed each year to help keep up with inflation.”

HB 3792 actually states: Section 1 (d) [The commissioner shall] “Ensure that no customer pays more than [$500] $1,000 per month per customer site for low-income electric bill payment and crisis assistance.” It is not limited to large industrial users. Besides raising the maximum, those receiving assistance will still pay rate increases to fund the program. Further, there is no ties to an index to keep up with inflation as claimed, which is another rate increase if it does exist.

Over the last four years, low-income Oregon ratepayers have faced dramatic spikes in their residential electricity bills. During 2024 there were nearly 58,000 residential shut-offs in Oregon among PGE and Pacific Power customers – the highest number on record. It is debatable whether raising the customer payout amount to $1,000 will protect customers from shut-off or increase the number that can’t pay their bill.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Rep. Tom Andersen (D - South Salem), chief sponsor of HB 3792 said: “Disconnections should not be a collection mechanism for our most at-risk Oregonians.” If HB 3792 was intended to give added protection from disconnection, it does not add to what ORS 757.698 already says: “In consultation with electric companies, investigate and may implement alternative delivery models to effectively reduce service disconnections and related costs to customers and electric companies”.

“Our Oregon Energy Assistance Program has a proven track that we should all embrace. By doubling the amount available under this program, HB 3792 will likely cut the number of annual shut-offs in half. Many single income families with babies or young children face significant risks when their electricity is cut off,” said Representative Mark Gamba, (D – Milwaukie), a co-sponsor of the bill.

HB 3792 will double the amount of funds available for Community Action Agencies to distribute funds and help prevent disconnection of residential electricity services. What that means to ratepayers can only mean a rate increase.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-07-27 22:45:35

Last Update: 2025-07-27 23:53:53

It wasn't unexpected that Governor Tina Kotek announced using her constitutional authority to call a special session of the Oregon Legislature. In anticipation, following the adjournment of the 2025 legislative session, the news has covered that without sufficient resources to fund ODOT’s budget, the agency initiated 483 of an estimated 600 to 700 total layoffs coming because HB 2025 didn't pass. However, Governor Kotek directed ODOT to postpone the start date of layoffs for an additional 45 days to allow legislative action to preserve Oregon’s transportation services, and avoid a second wave of layoffs early in 2026.

When the legislative session ended with HB 2025,"The Big Ugly Tax Bill" left on the table, Republicans announced a big win for Oregonians. Now Republican legislators have a big challenge to stay true to their constituents and keep that win and resist the bribes to show up for a special session. Attendance is not mandatory under the session rules. Republicans have all the power in a special session, especially where increasing taxes requires a three-fifths vote. They can limit the session to what will be in a bill to fund the Department of Transportation or not attend. Governor Kotek is calling lawmakers to pass "The Big Ugly Tax Bill" in an open-ended session that will take up legislation to pay for basic road maintenance and operations at the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), as well as address funding needs for local governments and transit districts.

Governor Kotek stated: “In the weeks since the adjournment of the legislative session, my team and I have worked every day with legislators, local partners, and key stakeholders to zero in on a solution and a timeline for the legislature to come back together and address the state’s most immediate transportation needs. Oregonians rely on these basic services, from brush clearing to prevent wildfires to snow plowing in winter weather, and they are counting on their elected representatives to deliver adequate and stable funding.

“I am confident that lawmakers will step up next month to avert these layoffs by approving the necessary funding for the state’s transportation needs. I appreciate their partnership and am eager to be on the other side of this crisis.”

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

The Governor’s priority is to deliver needed funding for the state highway trust fund for the 2025-27 biennium and continue the state’s commitment to revenue sharing with local governments. In addition, her goal is to forestall immediate impacts to transit service through increasing the amount of funding available to the Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund.

The Governor also believes that key provisions related to ratepayer fairness, funding reliability, and agency accountability must be included in the solution. That seems to require some form of tax and fee increases and she foresees more increases in the future will be necessary to reach her goals.

“The special session will be focused on critical near-term solutions to stabilize basic functions at ODOT and local governments,” Governor Kotek continued. “This is just the first step of many that must be taken to meet our state’s long-term transportation needs.”

In the height of the debate, Republicans presented HB 3982, to reform ODOT and preserve core maintenance, especially in rural Oregon, and stabilize ODOT while avoiding raises to the cost of living. House Republican Leader Christine Drazan (R-Canby), a co-chief sponsor of the bill, said "Our legislation seeks to rebuild Oregonians’ trust in ODOT by refocusing their priorities without asking Oregonians to pay more. With a state budget that has doubled over the last decade alone, we reject the premise that politicians must make life more expensive for Oregonians if we want to fix potholes, plow the snow and keep our streets safe.”

Senate Republican Leader Daniel Bonham (R-The Dalles), the other co-chief sponsor of HB 3982, stated: "Senate and House Republicans are leading on transportation solutions that center around Oregonians’ transportation needs and their family budgets. HB 3982 proves that better outcomes come from better priorities, not bigger budgets. Democrats have given Oregonians two bad options: raise taxes, or raise them even more. Republicans are offering another path: cut the waste, refocus ODOT on its core mission, and stop asking taxpayers to subsidize government’s failure.”

Now we will see if they can lead their party to rebuild trust taking control of the special session and standing behind their words. Oregonians will be watching on Friday, August 29, 2025, whether Republicans are going to stand for Oregonians. Tell legislators how important it is to not add new taxes.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-07-22 15:17:49

Last Update: 2025-07-22 18:39:03

Governor Tina Kotek joined the states of Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, New York, and Washington raising concerns and taking action to mitigate potential economic consequences of President Trump’s tariff process to grow the economy. Kotek claims the tariffs disrupt essential supply networks across vital sectors of the Oregon economy, such as medical supply chains, food processing, construction, and all facets of Oregon’s manufacturing base.

The Governor issued a directive to state agencies including the Oregon Business Development Department (OBDD), the Oregon Employment Department (OED), the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA), and the Department of Emergency Management (OEM) to provide an analysis within 90 days that provides a comprehensive picture of how tariffs are and will continue to impact the state.

Kotek held a Business Leader Roundtable in the spring to hear directly from Oregon-based businesses impacted by the tariffs. She also launched a survey with Business Oregon to get additional information about the impact on businesses. That occurred when President Trump first issued Executive Order 14257 outlining modifications to the tariff policy, before consequences of implementation could be realized. Oregon still has not experienced the disruption in the food chain as she had warned.

The strategy for Oregon to benefit from converting federal taxation to tariff seems to be lacking. Kotek wants Oregonians to think President Trump is creating chaos that will affect the food supply. Governor Kotek stated: “I don’t like surprises, especially when it comes to Oregonians’ pocketbooks for things like groceries, school supplies, or even medications. We need a full picture of where we anticipate the pain points are for Oregon’s economy."

Perhaps the Governor didn't read President Trump's July 7, 2025, extension to Executive Order 14257 to continue the modifications on tariffs. These modifications includes goods for consumption.

Sec. 2. Tariff Modifications. The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) shall be modified, effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on July 9, 2025, by suspending headings 9903.01.43 through 9903.01.62 and 9903.01.64 through 9903.01.76, and subdivisions (v)(xiii)(1)-(9) and (11)-(57) of U.S. note 2 to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS, until 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on August 1, 2025.

What Kotek is demanding of the Federal Government is something she hasn't been able to do as governor. Tariffs aren't the reason for the $15 billion tax bill to fund ODOT. While the federal policy is to eliminate federal taxes to reduce the burden of taxpayers, Kotek is headed for a special session to push some or all of the $15 billion increase in taxes onto Oregonians, affecting every form of transportation raising costs on everything.

Kotek doesn't walk her talk: “People should be able to get what they need from the store at prices they can afford. And businesses need predictable conditions to succeed. When I heard from businesses earlier this year, there was anxiety, uncertainty, and an information vacuum from the federal government. While the Trump Administration has failed to fill in the gaps, there are actions we can do right here in Oregon to be better prepared. That’s why I am exercising my authority to direct relevant state agencies to analyze everything from supply chain impact in the agricultural sector to employment trends across industries.”

The Governor’s directive is as follows:

The Oregon Business Development Department, in collaboration with the Oregon Employment Department, shall consider and report on the following:

• Employment trends observed since tariff implementation.
• Industries and economic development regions that are most notably affected by trade-related changes.
• Key challenges reported by Oregon businesses related to the new trade environment and tariff policy.

The Oregon Department of Agriculture shall consider and report on the following:

• Agricultural supply chain disruptions and industry adaptations observed since U.S. tariff implementation.
• Food cost trends and impacts on Oregon consumers.
• Export challenges facing Oregon agricultural sectors.

The Oregon Department of Emergency Management shall consider and report on the following:

• Overview of emergency response supply challenges resulting from the new trade environment and tariff policy, including categories of emergency supplies affected by procurement or cost challenges and any notable stockpile or equipment concerns.
• Summary of emergency procurement adjustments resulting from the new trade environment and tariff policy, including changes to sourcing strategies for critical supplies and approaches to maintaining preparedness, within budget constraints.
• Following receipt of the above information, observations, and consideration, the Oregon Department of Administrative Services shall prepare and publicly produce a report describing the impact of the Trump Administration’s U.S. Tariff Policy on the State of Oregon based on the information reported.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Where appropriate, the aforementioned agencies shall coordinate with private sector partners, including but not limited to the businesses community, industry associations, labor unions, academic institutions, and other relevant organizations, to gather qualitative and quantitative data regarding the impact of the Trump Administration’s U.S. Tariff Policy on the State of Oregon.

Oregonians should be asking how will the state benefit in the long run if the state doesn't develop policies to sync with the conversion to tariffs? How can Kotek ever take credit when the bumpy road of change smooths into an explosion in the economy? How will she keep Oregonians bound in her taxation schemes without waking up Sleeping Beauty?


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-07-20 10:42:09

Last Update: 2025-07-19 19:01:03

On June 26, 2025, the North Coast Recall 2025 committee launched a recall petition against State Representative Cyrus Javadi, District 32 (Tillamook - Clatskanie). The petition was approved for circulation giving them 90 days to collect 5,417 signatures to force a recall election. The petition cites three key legislative votes as evidence of Javadi’s disconnect from his constituents, and the basis for the recall accusing him of losing touch with the district’s conservative values.

Javadi's vote for SB 1098, which prohibits discrimination in the selection or retention of school library materials, aims to protect explicit content from being censored based on race, gender, or other characteristics. Javadi views this as a way to ensure access to a broad range of educational materials. Petitioners argue that SB 1098 “makes it impossible to remove pornography from schools, and it undermines parental rights and exposes children to inappropriate content. So inappropriate that it was stopped from being read on the house floor.”

“He voted to honor black drag queens who disgustingly pranced and twerked on the House floor prior to voting on HR 3. This was a national embarrassment. He was one of two House Republicans who stayed on the floor to applaud the show. He needs to either resign or clarify his position to his constituents before he makes these kinds of decisions on our behalf.” Javadi defends his vote by highlighting inclusivity and First Amendment rights. His position on this resolution is not sitting well with many conservative Republican voters in District 32.

“Javadi also voted yes for the Christmas Tree Bill (HB 5006), which is a pork-filled Bill that allows certain legislators to fund many pages of questionable projects around the state like art museums, festivals, and a mega restaurant in Portland. Many of the projects benefit Portland at our expense. No matter how Javadi tries to spin and justify his votes, the effects of them show he’s clearly out of touch with our conservative community's moral order and values. HB5006 is fiscally irresponsible and we deserve transparency when it comes to spending our money. But according to him, “It’s worth it”.”

The recall campaign against Cyrus Javadi highlights a fast-growing dissatisfaction rooted in his votes on SB 1098, HR 3, and HB 5006. His decisions have exposed a divide between his moderate stance and the conservative expectations of many constituents, driving a determined effort to hold him accountable. The campaign’s outcome will depend on how effectively this frustration translates into action and how Javadi responds to the mounting criticism. Petitioners are demanding stricter adherence to conservative principles. His decision to stay and vote during Republican walkouts in Salem, rather than join the protest, has further fueled criticism from Republicans across the state.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

The “North Coast Recall 2025” committee must gather the 5,417 valid signatures by late September to trigger a recall election. The success of this effort depends on mobilizing enough voters who share the sentiment that Javadi’s actions reflect a broader appeal.

A Facebook page, Recall Javadi Dist 32 (Northcoast), is dedicated to the effort where supporters can learn how to assist, and find a link to the North Coast Recall 2025 web page. The web page will include information on how to find and sign the petition, or how to assist.

If you have any questions, contact Christopher Mann; chrismannomsn@gmail.com.


--Katrina Nelson

Post Date: 2025-07-19 16:55:42

Last Update: 2025-07-19 18:56:50

Democrat votes were key in telling Governor Tina Kotek they won't allow her to veto protections for foster youth. By overriding her veto on Senate Bill 875, the sponsors see this bill as correcting miss treatment of youth in foster care.

Emily Cooper, Disability Rights Oregon, testified that they filed a class action lawsuit in 2019 due to actions that took rights from foster youth. She identifies two critical things that SB 875 does:

1. Section one and five, it makes clear that foster youth will have access to their current and future siblings unless a Court enters an order that such contact be limited due to safety concerns. One of the greatest sources of grief and separation anxiety from foster youth, is the lack of contact with their siblings. SB 875 allows those relationships to continue when safe and appropriate.
2. Section three, expressly includes other legal rights youth currently have regarding to be free from inappropriate seclusion and restraint, confidential access to their attorney, freedom of religion, and to have their belongings move appropriately with them.

Governor Kotek said in ner veto memo, it was unclear why “this level of prescriptiveness” was needed in statute. Kotek claimed HB 3835, which died in House committee, as her priority bill dealing with child welfare that would have allowed the state to send children in foster care to facilities in other states. It also changed the definitions around restraints and seclusions. This would reverse the move in 2020 to bring foster youth back to Oregon after abuse was found. Does Kotek really have the 5,000 foster youth in mind or HB 3835?

Senator Sara Gelser Blouin (D-Corvallis), chair of the Senate Human Services Committees, lead the fight against the Department of Human Services (DHS) to bring foster youth back to Oregon and improve in-state foster care. In 2023, the state paid $40 million to settle a lawsuit after four children were sexually and physically abused by their foster parents. “This is an agency under two federal court orders and who is bankrupting our state insurance fund with all these payouts for wrongful death and sexual abuse and civil rights violations,” Gelser Blouin said. DHS has since focused on developing in-state placements to ensure better oversight and care for foster youth. Gelser Blouin continues her commitment to keep Oregon’s youth here, and is probably the strongest advocate against HB 3835.

Annette Smith, a lawyer who represented youth sent out of state the first time around, told OPB, when you send children across state lines, they often lose whatever community and connections they have. “It makes it more difficult for people who love this child and care about this child to ensure their well-being on a daily basis.”

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Now Kotek is advocating for her failed project “Preschool For All” program. Trying desperately to save public school enrollment, which took a drop after she signed SB 1098. To disguise it, she says the preschool for all program is not being filled and seats remain empty. There is $485 million in unspent funds combined with spotty implementation with only 11% potential licensed sites participating. Is this really the fault of disinterested facilities or an overregulated program? Kotek admits changes are needed. Perhaps the same scrutiny is needed for HB 3835.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-07-19 13:25:28

Last Update: 2025-07-19 18:58:04

Your right to vote on utility rates just vanished with the stroke of a pen.

The Legislature, in passing SB 1062 has quietly stripped voters of their authority in three cities to approve utility rate increases, transferring that power directly to mayors and city councils. The legislation effectively overrides voter initiatives that had previously secured this authority within city charters.

Two Republican Senators, Anderson and Wright, spearheaded this significant change by sponsoring SB 1062. This bill limits voters' right to choose, effectively betraying constituents in three specific cities: Bandon, North Bend, and Reedsport. Their action represents more than a procedural adjustment. It alters the balance of power between the voters and local government officials.

The state legislature's vote to approve this bill, which has a Democratic majority, was ironic because it represented an apparent attempt to circumvent established democratic processes.

The Players

The city officials of the three cities mentioned in the bill initiated the political play to discreetly remove voter authority without them having to follow any election requirement of sending a local notice to the voters. They knew they would never get the voters to give up their rate-setting authority, so they had Senator Anderson and Senator Wright do the dirty work. Officials from all three cities colluded with the local state senator and state rep to secure that authority through legislation, which some believe is validated in their testimonies on the bill.



In an excerpt from testimony in favor of SB 1062 written by the Mayor of Bandon, Mary Schamerhorn, she made promises assuring the legislators and voters the city officials would not abuse their authority when that was the reason the voters passed the City's rate-setting amendment in the first place.

"Senate Bill 1062 offers a thoughtful, targeted solution by restoring this critical authority to the cities of Bandon, North Bend, and Reedsport. If passed, our City Council is committed to ensuring that any future rate adjustments are based on objective, data-driven methodologies, supported by transparent and empirical cost analyses to justify the need and scale of such changes."

The City Manager of Reedsport Deanna Schafer complains about the City's electorate and how they have constrained the City in her testimony on the bill.

"The City of Reedsport has been operating under the constraints of a citizen-initiated City Charter amendment that says that any creation or increase in any tax or public utility rate, shall not be effective unless ratified by a majority of the City's qualified electors who cast a ballot (May 2012). To compound the issue, the City had not had a water rate increase since 2006."

North Bend City Administrator David Milliron complains about the voters and then attempts to claim that SB 1062 will restore local authority. The voters of North Bend might think they were the locals and their vote was the authority.

"Why are we stuck? A 2020 charter change—passed by a simple majority—now demands a double-majority of all voters before the council can raise sanitary-sewer rates at all, and it caps any hike at the Social Security COLA—currently at 2.5 percent. One sentence wiped out the state-granted duty you gave us to keep this regulated utility safe. SB 1062 A is the narrow fix. It restores local authority—nothing more—for three coastal cities, costs the state nothing, and leaves every councilor fully answerable at the ballot box. With that power our governing body will move in clear, planned steps—so families can budget and our bay can stay clean."

Maybe Milliron should have made that passionate plea to the voters during the election, and the City would not have suffered from voters who had lost trust in the local authorities.

The Power Shift

Supporters of this legislation might argue that elected officials already represent voter interests, which was the argument made by the North Bend City Administrator, but it has not passed scrutiny.

When a charter requires direct voter approval for rate increases, utilities must make their case to every city voter. They must demonstrate genuine need and reasonable pricing. Without this check, the path of least resistance often leads to higher rates with less justification.

When all levels of government waste taxpayers' money, there must be political mechanisms of legal restraint the people can foist on authorities to check the balance of power. The reason the voters might reject a rate increase is due to the city’s spending habits in other areas. The people have a right to require fiscal responsibility.

The shift away from voter approval also removes a crucial transparency mechanism. Rate hearings before city councils typically receive minimal public attention, while ballot measures force broader public engagement and media coverage.

The Larger Pattern

This legislative action reflects a broader trend in both major parties of consolidating power away from direct democratic processes recognized in the state constitution. State legislators are willing to modify the locally established process by overriding local charter provisions established through public initiatives.

These policies give utility rate-setting authority to city voters but do not oppose our Constitutional Republic, where the federal system enacts law through the people's representatives. These mechanisms were complex to enact by average citizens who campaigned on the people's right to choose their style of government in their cities and counties under the authority of the State and the US Constitution. Oregon has a long tradition of voter-approved initiatives, demonstrating the state's unique respect for the people's right to choose where their authority resides.

Citizens should ask the simple question: If utility rates do not require voter approval, what other local decisions will the legislators remove from public oversight?

The charter provisions requiring voter approval for rate increases for these three cities did not materialize by accident. A group of concerned citizens established those charters, and now their work was for naught. They recognized the potential for abuse when essential service pricing fell under the exclusive control of a small group of officials.

What Happens Next?

Bandon, North Bend, and Reedsport will immediately feel the impact after the governor has signed this legislation. City councils will gain unilateral authority to set utility rates without voter approval.

The longer-term consequences may include higher utility costs, decreased transparency in rate-setting processes, and further erosion of direct democratic participation in a local government's decision-making authority.

Citizens concerned about this shift should recognize the severe consequences of losing a direct voice in decisions that affect essential services and household budgets. The transfer of authority from voters to officials represents more than a procedural change. It alters the relationship between citizens and local government.

When politicians take away your vote on utility rates, they change who makes decisions and who those decisions ultimately serve.


--Rob Taylor

Post Date: 2025-07-19 11:12:58

Last Update: 2025-07-19 19:03:24