Kate Brown screwed up
Regardless of her motivation or lack thereof, the Oregon Secretary of State has badly bungled the state labor commissioner election, according to just about everyone interviewed for this article (and then some). The pretzel logic that she's using to support her decision to postpone the May election to November is absurd. "If three people had filed, the election would have been in May, but since only two people filed, it had to be in November. That's what the legislature intended, even though they never said it."
It's a foul performance for her in a year when she's running for re-election herself. With Kroger gone and now this, Ted Wheeler's probably thinking about how often he'll stay at Mahonia Hall.
| Posted at 8:48 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (10)
So why wasn't Starr able to show he'd win in Marion County Court? Don't really care either way... but if there's no legal standing for Brown's decision, shouldn't he have been able to show a likely win on the merits?
Posted by pacnwjay | March 28, 2012 10:46 AM
Well, what is Brown going to do when voters write in her name on the Labor Commissioner's ballot in November and both Starr and Avakian don't get 50% of the vote?
The reason that Brown's name will be written in because people are disgusted with Brown's shenanigans and she'll need a new government job. What's the recourse if no one gets 50%, have a special legislative session to change the law?
Posted by lw | March 28, 2012 11:22 AM
why wasn't Starr able to show he'd win in Marion County Court?
If, as seems likely, Starr also had to show irreparable harm, I think a judge would find it difficult to label an election loss that way.
Posted by Allan L. | March 28, 2012 12:12 PM
Here's how it REALLY went down:
http://www.bpshow.com/shows/KorruptKate.mp3
Posted by Rob Kremer | March 28, 2012 4:08 PM
I got a much different take on this from reading Jack Roberts' Oregonian commentary of last week: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/03/jack_roberts_commentary.html.
Per him, the omnibus election bill passed in 2009 was revised to align the terms of office, and included a section noting that "the term of office of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries elected at the general election held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November 2012 shall be two years."
So my take is the reverse: The Legislature was very specific about the date, but they didn't really mean to be.
Posted by Roger | March 28, 2012 4:46 PM
I think at the end of the day, this is so technical and convoluted that the public will go, "Eh..." and move on.
Posted by Stan | March 28, 2012 5:10 PM
In Oregon, the law means whatever the highest ranking Democrat says it means.
Same as Portland.
Posted by Mister Tee | March 28, 2012 6:46 PM
Roger,
I believe you are reading more than is there.
"the term of office of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries elected at the general election held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November 2012 shall be two years."
The legislature was merely identifying the particular election when the 2 year conversion was to take place.
It is a big out of line presumption that Brown took to allow her to re-invent the entire election process for this position.
Stan,
It isn't all that complicated either. Brown concocted a hybrid election she had no authority to create.
She used part of the law mandated May primary process, halted it midstream and began a November election process that did not fit what she had started and does not allow for a runoff should no candidate get 54% +1 in November.
In effect, Brown made up her own version of a primary.
Posted by INFO | March 28, 2012 7:16 PM
"54% plus 1". You must mean 50% plus 1?
Posted by Mister Tee | March 28, 2012 9:00 PM
yeah typo
Or No, I was imitating Brown. Made up my own election law.
Posted by INFO | March 28, 2012 11:16 PM