It's that time again where I openly ponder my ballot. There were no interesting ballot issues and only few races are compelling to comment on.
|NOMINATING BALLOT FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY|
|US PRESIDENT||[X] Barack Obama INCUMBENT|
|US REP, OR 3RD DIST||[X] Earl Blumenauer INCUMBENT|
|OR SECRETARY OF STATE|
|I have to admit to feeling a little reluctant to vote for Kate Brown again over her seemingly partisan mishandling of an election. Although it's doubtful I would vote for her Republican challenger in the fall, I am concerned Brown's either incompetence or partisan mischief is a sign that Oregon Dems are becoming too complacent and sloppy in the absence of significant political challengers.|
|[X] Kate Brown |
|[_] Paul Damian Wells|
|OR STATE TREASURER||[X] Ted Wheeler INCUMBENT|
|OR ATTORNEY GENERAL|
|Rosenblum seems a better match than Holton for Oregonian's values. Although both candidates have been or are federal prosecutors, Holton seems to be more outspoken in criticizing Oregon's medical marijuana law and Portland's concern about terrorism task force oversight. It's hard to imagine he will suddenly defend the state's interests as Oregon's AG.|
[_] Dwight Holton
|[X] Ellen Rosenblum|| |
|OR STATE SENATOR, 21ST DISTRICT||[X] Diane Rosenbaum INCUMBENT|
|OR STATE REP, 42ND DIST||[X] Jules Kopel Bailey INCUMBENT|
|OR JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT, POSITION 3|
|The judicial races are difficult to decide. Candidates don't discuss specific issues and are non-partisan. And so far, I haven't found any articles mentioning anything controversial. Most articles say all the candidates are qualified. Timothy Sercombe seems to be the favorite based on his resume. However, I decided to go for Nena Cook. I think it fair to consider diversity when electing one member of a representative body. Cook has a diverse legal background. It's also worth noting that she would be the third-woman on a seven-judge court which would seem to even-out the court's gender disparity.|
|[X] Nena Cook || |
|OR SUPREME COURT JUDGE, POS 2||[X] Virginia L Linder INCUMBENT|
|OR JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, POSITION 6|
|[X] Tim Volpert|
[_] Allan J Arlow
[_] James C Egan
|OR COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE, POS 5||[X] Rick Haselton INCUMBENT|
|OR COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE, POS 8||[X] Lynn R Nakamoto INCUMBENT|
|OR COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE, POS 9||[X] Erika Hadlock INCUMBENT|
|OR COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE, POS 10||[X] Rex Armstrong INCUMBENT|
|OR 4TH DIST CIRCUIT COURT, POS 3||[X] Jerry B Hodson INCUMBENT|
|OR 4TH DIST CIRCUIT COURT, POS 4||[X] Adrienne Nelson INCUMBENT|
|OR 4TH DIST CIRCUIT COURT, POS 7||[X] Jerome LaBarre INCUMBENT|
|OR 4TH DIST CIRCUIT COURT, POS 8||[X] Eric J Bergstrom INCUMBENT|
|OR 4TH DIST CIRCUIT COURT, POS 12||[X] Janice R Wilson INCUMBENT|
|OR 4TH DIST CIRCUIT COURT, POS 16||[X] Susan M Svetkey INCUMBENT|
|OR 4TH DIST CIRCUIT COURT, POS 23||[X] Edward Jones INCUMBENT|
|OR 4TH DIST CIRCUIT COURT, POS 28||[X] Judith Hudson Matarazzo INCUMBENT|
|OR 4TH DIST CIRCUIT COURT, POS 29||[X] Kathryn Villa-Smith INCUMBENT|
|OR 4TH DIST CIRCUIT COURT, POS 31||[X] Cheryl Albrecht INCUMBENT|
|OR 4TH DIST CIRCUIT COURT, POS 32||[X] Merri Souther Wyatt INCUMBENT|
|OR 4TH DIST CIRCUIT COURT, POS 35||[X] Paula J Kurshner INCUMBENT|
|OR 4TH DIST CIRCUIT COURT, POS 37||[X] Leslie Roberts INCUMBENT|
|OR DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MULTNOMAH COUNTY||[X] Rod Underhill|
|MULTNOMAH COUNTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 1|
|[_] Wes Soderback|
|[X] Deborah Kafoury |
|CITY OF PORTLAND MAYOR|
I admit that I'm little reluctant to vote for streetcar advocate Charlie Hales. It's not very exciting to vote for a former council member who is merely returning at a political opportune moment (Why didn't he run against mayors Adams, Potter, or Katz?). Also, his tax-dodging may be technically legal, it's nearly unforgivable political hypocrisy (shouldn't lawmakers enthusiastically pay the taxes they impose?).
I seriously considered Eileen Brady and Jefferson Smith, but I couldn't convince myself either was a better option than Hales. I was attracted to Brady's bold campaign and the idea of a business executive of a popular local supermarket leading the city's economy, but the revelation that Brady wasn't an actual employee, owner, or officer of New Seasons soured me.
I like Smith's criticism of the Columbia River Cross (a.k.a. The-Job-Stealing-Tax-Dodging-Vancouver-SUV-Bridge), but am concerned about his admitted lack of organization.
|[_] Jefferson Smith|
|[_] Eileen Brady|| |
|[X] Charlie Hales |
|[_] Max Brumm|
|[_] Steve Sung||[_] Scott Fernandez||[_] Dave Campbell||[_] Robert James Carron|
|[_] Max Bauske||[_] Samuel Belisle||[_] Loren Charles Brown||[_] Shonda Colleen Kelley|
|[_] Josh Nuttall||[_] Blake Nieman-Davis||[_] Lew Humble||[_] Michael P Langley|
|[_] Cameron Whitten||[_] David (The Ack) Ackerman||[_] Tre Arrow||[_] Bill Dant|
|[_] Howie Rubin||[_] Christopher Rich||[_] Scott Rose|
|CITY OF PORTLAND COMMISSIONER POSITION 1|
I admit that I'm a little disappointed in Amanda Fritz's performance since I first voted for her. She has made some notable comments during her term, but I had hoped she would be more outspoken and willing to challenge the council. Turning from blogger-critic to politician is harder than it looks, so I think she could be given more time.
Maybe it's just me, but even the newspaper endorsements for Mary Nolan sound reluctant.
|[X] Amanda Fritz |
[_] Mary Nolan
|[_] Bruce Altizer|
|[_] David G Gwyther||[_] Teressa L Raiford|
|CITY OF PORTLAND COMMISSIONER POSITION 4|
|[_] Scott McAlpine|
|[_] Brian Sidney Parrott|
|[X] Steve Novick|| |
|[_] Mark White|| |
|[_] Jeri Williams|
|[_] Leah Marie Dumas||[_] James Rowell|
|METRO COUNCILOR, 6TH DISTRICT|
[X] Bob Stacey
[_] Jonathan P Levine
|MULTNOMAH COUNTY MEASURE #26-125|
LOCAL LIBRARY FUNDING: CONTINUES LOCAL OPTION LEVY AT CURRENT RATE
QUESTION: Shall county maintain open libraries, programs, services; renew levy of $0.89 per $1,000 assessed value for three years beginning 2012?This measure renews current local option taxes.
|[X] Yes|| |
|CITY OF PORTLAND MEASURE #26-126|
AMENDS CHARTER TORT NOTICE PROVISION FOR CONSISTENCY WITH STATE LAW
QUESTION: Shall tort claim notice provision in Portland City Charter be amended to be consistent with state law?
SUMMARY: Currently, Portland City Charter Section 1-106 states that tort claim notices must be presented to the City Attorney. The Oregon Tort Claims Act identifies who may receive tort claim notices for the City, including the City Attorney and other City officials. For consistency with state law, this measure removes the Charter requirement that service be made only on the City Attorney.
|CITY OF PORTLAND MEASURE #26-127|
AMENDS CITY CHARTER PROVISIONS REGARDING MAYOR’S FUND
QUESTION: Shall Charter language allowing use of Mayor’s limited fund without documentation be deleted and name of fund be changed?
SUMMARY: Portland City Charter Section 2-105(a)(14) currently provides that the Council may appropriate up to $2,000 per year to the Mayor for a secret service fund and that no supporting documentation of expenditures from that fund must be provided. This measure would delete the Charter language allowing the fund to be used without providing supporting evidence of expenditures. As a result, expenditures from this fund would be accounted for in the same manner as other City expenditures. The measure would also change the name of the fund from “secret service Fund” to “discretionary Fund.”
|[X] Yes|| |
|CITY OF PORTLAND MEASURE #26-128|
AMENDS CHARTER BY DELETING UNENFORCEABLE OBSCENITY PROVISIONS
QUESTION:Shall unenforceable power in Charter regarding regulation of obscenity be deleted to be consistent with state constitution?
SUMMARY:Charter Section 2-105(a)(50) currently states that the City has the power to define what materials are obscene, to prohibit distribution and to punish persons who distribute such materials. Prohibiting obscenity has been foreclosed by the Oregon Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article I, Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution. This measure would delete Section 2-105(a)(50) to make the Charter consistent with the Oregon Constitution. Deletion of this section of the City’s specific powers would not impair the City’s general powers and authority to protect and support public health and safety.
|[X] Yes|| |
|CITY OF PORTLAND MEASURE #26-129|
AMENDS CHARTER: DELETES OUTDATED, UNENFORCEABLE PROVISIONS REGARDING VAGRANTS AND PAUPERS
QUESTION: Shall outdated and unenforceable Portland City Charter power regarding vagrants and paupers be deleted?
SUMMARY: Charter Section 2-105(a)(51) currently states that the City has the power to define vagrancy and to provide support, restraint, punishment and employment of vagrants and paupers. This measure deletes Section 2-105(a)(51). Portions of this Section are outdated and unenforceable because the City does not have legal authority to punish or restrain or to require employment of vagrants and paupers. Deletion of this section of the City’s specific powers will not impair the City’s general powers and authority to protect and support the City’s public health and safety.
|CITY OF PORTLAND MEASURE #26-130|
AMENDS CHARTER: DELETES OUTDATED PROVISION PROHIBITING EXHIBITION OF PERSONS, BEGGING.
QUESTION: Shall outdated Portland City Charter language referring to prohibitions on exhibition of “deformed or crippled persons” and begging be deleted?
SUMMARY: Currently, Charter Section 2-105(a)(54) states that the City may “prohibit the exhibition of deformed or crippled persons” and prohibit all persons from begging on streets or in public places. This measure deletes Section 2-105(a)(54). The terms “deformed or crippled” in the current Charter section are outdated and offensive. Further, the City does not have legal authority to prohibit all begging. Deletion of this section of the City’s specific powers will not impair the City’s general powers and authority to protect and support public health and safety, including constitutionally allowed restrictions on activities in the right of way and in public places.
|CITY OF PORTLAND MEASURE #26-131|
AMENDS CITY CHARTER PROVISIONS REGARDING COUNCIL EMERGENCY FUND
QUESTION: Shall Charter language allowing use of Council emergency fund without documentation be deleted?
SUMMARY: Portland City Charter Section 2-108 currently provides that an annual appropriation of $5,000 will be placed in a fund to be used at the Council’s discretion. The Charter further provides that the Council is not required to provide documentation of use of the funds. This measure would delete the Charter language allowing the fund to be used without providing supporting evidence of expenditures. As a result, spending from this fund would be accounted for in the same manner as other City spending.
|CITY OF PORTLAND MEASURE #26-132|
AMENDS CHARTER TO CLARIFY ELECTION PROCEDURE FOR FILLING VACANCIES
QUESTION: Shall Portland City Charter procedures to fill vacancies in elective office be clarified?
SUMMARY: Section 2-206 of the Charter specifies the elections process and timing for filling vacancies in elective City offices. Section 2-206 provides an election procedure to fill vacancies that may occur at any time during a City elected official’s four year term. Each of the three subsections of Section 2-206 - (b), (c) and (d) - applies to different periods of time during the four year term. While the wording of Subsection (b) is ambiguous, the City has interpreted Subsection (b) to apply to the periods of time not covered by Subsections (c) and (d). However, because of one ambiguous word, Subsection (b) could possibly be interpreted in a way that renders Subsection (b) meaningless. Changing the single word “but” to “or” in Subsection (b) would clarify that section’s meaning consistent with intent and would ensure that vacancies occurring during the first three years of an elected official’s term are appropriately addressed by the Charter election procedures.
|CITY OF PORTLAND MEASURE #26-133|
AMENDS CHARTER: ADDS TERMS AND VACANCY PROVISION FOR CHARTER COMMISSION
QUESTION: Shall terms of office and vacancy provisions for the Charter Commission be added to the Portland City Charter?
SUMMARY: Currently, Charter Section 13-301 directs the City Council to appoint a Charter Commission at least every ten years. The Charter does not specify the length of Charter Commission members’ terms, nor does the Charter identify how vacancies on the Charter Commission will be filled. This measure provides that the term of office for Charter Commission members shall be no less than two years; the Council will also have the power to reappoint members to additional terms or future Charter Commissions. The measure defines when a vacancy exists on the Charter Commission and how vacancies will be filled.
|CITY OF PORTLAND MEASURE #26-134|
AMENDS CHARTER: DELETES OUTDATED EXPOSITION-RECREATION COMMISSION CHAPTER
QUESTION: Shall obsolete Exposition-Recreation Commission Chapter of Portland City Charter be deleted?
SUMMARY: Charter Chapter 14 provides for the creation and operation of the City Exposition-Recreation Commission. Charter Chapter 14 is no longer needed. The functions that were previously carried out by the City Exposition-Recreation Commission are now carried out by the Metropolitan Service District (Metro) through its Metropolitan Exposition and Recreation Commission under a 1989 agreement (as amended) among Portland and other government bodies. Any remaining rights or obligations of the former City Exposition-Recreation Commission vest in the City Council pursuant to the Charter and these agreements. This measure would delete Charter Chapter 14.