Peter Courtney’s $113,000 Day Job

Since the Enough Courtney campaign began, I’ve heard some defense of Senator Peter Courtney. More, frankly, than I expected. The most interesting comments so far have been in defense of the nepotism laws in Oregon that allow legislators like Courtney to hire and pay their family members. I’ve heard Oregonians say this is appropriate because we pay our legislators so poorly in Oregon, $24,216 per year plus per diem. It doesn’t amount to much.

But is this a good reason to maintain the lax nepotism laws in our state?

Why aren’t we paying our legislators for the important work they are supposed to be doing?

In California, a state legislator makes $104,118 plus per diem; in New York it is $79,500 plus per diem; and Washington is $47,778 plus per diem. Legislators in New York and California are considered full-time, but the position in Washington—like Oregon—is considered “hybrid,” which is supposed to mean, according to Ballotpedia, that “[legislators] devote about 74% of a full time job to their legislative duties.”  Never mind the disparity between the legislative salaries of other “hybrid” states; there’s a bigger issue here.

Don’t we want full-time legislators in Oregon who can actually devote their time to understanding the complex issues facing our state, so they don’t have to pay their spouses to round out their salaries or work other jobs that take them away from truly understanding the problems in Oregon?

Not surprisingly, almost ALL Oregon legislators are either wealthy, retired, self-employed, or have a day job to supplement their “hybrid” position in Salem.

Peter Courtney is no different.  On top of having his income supplemented by employing his wife, he also held a day job, working at Western Oregon University (WOU) for 30 years. As stated in the Western Edge Magazine of WOU, he worked as an assistant to six presidents, as an instructor of speech communication, and also as Commencement Committee Chair. He retired from this job in 2014.

From what I understand, he was making $113,000 a year in the job at WOU and now has a pension of $68,000. Not bad for a hybrid legislator who had to hire his wife to make ends meet.

How can someone run our Senate and hold the most important and powerful position in our legislature and also work a job that earns him more than $100,000 a year? How does one do both of those jobs well? Obviously, this hasn’t worked for Peter Courtney.

Case in point: National Popular Vote.

National Popular Vote is a simple concept that Peter Courtney has been unable to grasp after ten years of legislative attention in Salem. In these ten years, he has had countless hours to read the 1,000-page book about NPV, brush up on the articles of the U.S. Constitution, and listen to the wise voices of the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, and other supporting organizations. Yet, our Senate President—again, the most powerful person in our legislature and maybe even in our state–still says things like the NPV bill “would effectively give away Oregonians’ electoral proxy to voters in other states.” A statement so false that it illustrates his complete lack of understanding of what is a very simple concept.

One person, one vote.

All votes equal.

It is as simple as that.

Maybe if Senator Courtney could just focus on one job and not worry about increasing his wages by hiring his wife or taking on extra work at a university, he would have the time to realize what is right for Oregon and what is right for our country. Maybe he would have time to understand that each vote in our country should be counted equally and that a vote in Florida shouldn’t hold more weight than one in Oregon.

Imagine our country if NPV were enacted.

There wouldn’t be spectator states and swing states. Presidential candidates would be forced to consider the issues throughout our nation and not focus unfairly on a select few. Our voter turn-out would rise. People would become more engaged in the political process. Voter suppression would drop and foreign meddling in elections would be a distant memory from the past. Our president would be someone elected by the people with every vote cast counting towards that election.

In Oregon, unfortunately, we are not going to get there without getting rid of Peter Courtney. We have an obstructionist Senate President who is spread so thin and is so ethically challenged that he can’t grasp the simple concept of NPV. But imagine if he could. Imagine if we really had legislators who worked full-time, who didn’t have conflicts of interests with other jobs, who were paid a decent, fair wage.

Imagine the possibilities.

The Nepotism of Peter Courtney

The Enough Courtney campaign has been running since September 29th. It has gotten the attention of local and national papers and of Courtney himself. Last week, there were at least 14 posts on Courtney’s Facebook page about National Popular Vote (NPV). Some Oregonians asked why he didn’t support it; others chastised him for his obstructionism.  Quietly, those NPV posts disappeared—deleted–no doubt, by the most powerful person in the Oregon legislature and perhaps the most powerful politician in Oregon.

Certainly, this is a title he reveres.

What he might not revere—or at least want publicized—is his nepotistic power.  As the longest-serving legislator, Courtney has had many years to award his friends and family members legislative jobs under a very lenient Oregon nepotism law, one that has allowed Courtney’s wife 20 years of employment as a member of his legislative staff. These 20 years have earned Margie Courtney an Oregon state pension.

Power comes in many forms.

Can the national popular vote bill fix the nepotism that “runs rampant in the Oregon Legislature?”  Of course not. NPV has nothing to do with the fact that in Oregon, legislators like Courtney are legally allowed to hire members of their families.

What this illustrates, however, is another example of the power of the Senate President, power that often goes against the will of Oregonians as happened the four times he blocked the NPV vote, and in 2007, when the legislature had the chance to pass HB 2595 and change the nepotism law to prevent state officials from hiring family members.

Not surprisingly, this did not happen.

After HB 2595 passed the House without an exception for state legislative staff, it moved to the Senate, where an exception for state legislative staff was added, something for which the whole senate and Courtney voted.

This law exists to this day, allowing legislators like Courtney to hire family members as stated by ORS 244.179:

“A member of the Legislative Assembly may directly supervise a person who (a) Is a relative or member of the household; and (b) Serves as a public official in a position on the personal legislative staff of the member of the Legislative Assembly.”

Courtney is certainly not the only legislator who takes advantage of this exception. Senate Rules Committee Chair Ginny Burdick employed her daughter as a legislative aide and commented about this exception that “It’s just the way it’s been.”

Burdick, of course, has her own connection to NPV, blocking the vote this year in the Senate at the behest of Courtney, following the lead of the most powerful politician in Oregon.

Just the way it’s always been.

But the way it can’t remain to be.

It’s time for a change. This is not just about NPV. This is about the health of our state.

Enough is Enough.

 

Enough Is Enough

Despite some good work in Salem in 2017, Oregon legislators failed to pass HB 2927, the National Popular Vote bill. This bill passed the House on May 24^th, moved to the Senate, and had–for the first time ever–a hearing in the Senate Rules Committee. This was an accomplishment, and all signs were indicating the bill would pass. The votes were there, and Senate Rules Chair Ginny Burdick had supported the bill in the past. But this is not what happened. Burdick let the bill die, allowing the power of one man determine its fate.

That man, of course, is Senate President Peter Courtney, an avowed opponent of NPV, and the person who influenced Burdick to block the Senate vote. Courtney killed NPV legislation in 2009, 2013, 2015, and 2017. But enough is enough.

It’s time to call Courtney on what he is: an anti-democratic obstructionist who is not listening to the will of the Democratic Party and to their constituents. 24 Democratic county parties passed resolutions of support for this bill in 2017 as did the Democratic Party of Oregon. In Salem, state legislators heard from more constituents on this bill than any other with Peter Courtney receiving over 14,000 emails of support about NPV. Why then did this bill fail? Don’t we have more important issues on which to focus in Oregon?

Courtney said earlier this year that “HB 2927 would effectively give away Oregonians’ electoral proxy to voters in other states.”  This statement illustrates his complete lack of understanding of National Popular Vote.  In 2016, more Oregonians cast votes for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump, yet Trump was elected president, a man who lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes. In 2000, more Oregonians cast votes for Al Gore than George W. Bush, yet Bush was elected president, a man who lost the popular vote by 540,000 votes.  Already Oregonians give away their votes to other states.

Courtney also said that “changing the way Oregon’s votes are cast is a decision that should be made by Oregon voters.” In other words, he wants NPV as a ballot measure. However, this is just his underhanded way to kill the bill again. A ballot referral will mean millions of dollars pouring in to Oregon from out of state opponents to create misleading advertisements that could easily lead to the kind of confusion that was responsible for the failure of Measure 97. If that happens, NPV will forever be dead in Oregon.

What Courtney also fails to acknowledge is that the Constitution makes it clear that the state legislature should chose the method of awarding electoral votes. This is stated in Article II, Section I:

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . . “

Maine and Nebraska, two states that award their electoral votes by the “congressional district method,” made this change via their legislatures. In fact, there has never been a case in U.S. history where anybody other than the state legislature made this decision.

Is our Senate President really advocating for Oregon to remain a forgotten “spectator” state and for our presidential votes to remain worthless? Why would he want this for Oregon? Does he really believe this or is he just ill-informed and unwilling to understand what this legislation really means?

Either way, there is no time for patience anymore, which is why the National Popular Vote organization has launched the Enough Courtney campaign to make Oregonians aware of Courtney’s anti-democratic and anti-Oregon actions. TV ads and a new website can be found at EnoughCourtney.com.

It’s time we stand up to the one person who has worked most ardently against Oregon joining the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, Senate President Peter Courtney.

Enough is enough.

SIMPLE “VULCAN” LOGIC – THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS ILLOGICAL

I am a committed supporter of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) because, quite logically, I believe in the concept of one person, one vote to elect ALL elected officials, including the President of the United States.

The United States is the only nation in the world that inserts the Electoral College between the people and the presidency.  Without it, candidates would have to campaign in ALL of America.

When the Electoral College was conceived by the Founding Fathers, there were fewer eligible voters than the population of Portland City today.  Just 2.5 million people lived in the entire country, and of these, only a fraction were allowed to vote*.

Battleground states receive a majority of attention.

With the current Electoral College System, a majority of campaign focus is on “battleground states,” those states that could swing either Republican or Democrat.  Presidential candidates spend an inordinate amount of time and money campaigning in those states, obviously listening to and addressing the issues of those voters.  If they don’t campaign in Oregon, do they really know or understand our unique issues?  94% of the 2016 events (375 of 399) were in just 12 states.

 

2016 General Election Campaign Events; source: nationalpopularvote.com

 

This practice makes the votes in these states worth more than those in other states because they could swing the election.

The 2016 election is the most recent example of the importance of battleground states and their electoral impact.  Donald Trump won Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 80,000 votes (.2, .7 and .8 percentage points respectively).  As such, he placed those electoral votes in his column and won the election.  Each and every vote cast in those states “counted” immensely.

With one person, one vote, every vote in a decidedly Democratic or Republican state would count.  Campaign in Oregon and a Republican candidate might well increase the number of votes they receive—the 1,784,509 votes cast here in 2016 would have really counted. The same logic applies for a Democratic candidate in Alabama, for example.

One by one, those additional votes may well win an election that is based only on the national vote count.

The Electoral College is dragging down voter turnout.  

The battleground states lead the nation in voter turnout.  In 2016, of 15 states that NPR labeled as battlegrounds or leaning states in its final battleground map, 12 had turnout rates above the national rate—58.4 percent of the voting-eligible population.

Turnout Tends To Be Higher in Battleground States

I heard so many times, “My vote doesn’t really matter in Oregon because the election will be over before our votes are even counted.  Ohio or Florida will decide.”

Remember, perception is reality and reality impacts behavior.  If the perception is “My vote doesn’t matter,” the reality will be that person most likely will not vote.

It is simple logic—if every vote counts equally, then candidates will have to vie for each and every one, just as they do in all other elections across our country.  The votes cast just in Oregon could very well win an election.

_________________________________________________________________________________________
*Kristin Eberhard, Oregon’s Chance to Fix the Electoral College, April 24, 2015

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/campaign-events-2016

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/donald-trump-will-be-president-thanks-to-80000-people-in-three-states/

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/26/503170280/charts-is-the-electoral-college-dragging-down-voter-turnout-in-your-state

The Swing Politics of Disaster Relief

The American West is on fire. Hundreds of thousands of acres are burning in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and California. In Oregon, 32,000 acres of the Columbia River Gorge are currently aflame. Ash from this fire has coated my city of Portland like a fine snow. The air quality is so bad that Portland Public Schools released students early on Tuesday and postponed the start of kindergarten. Recess is only indoors, and in the morning, students are not allowed on the playground but must go immediately inside. The sun shines a haunting orange, trying to push through the sheet of grey that is everywhere.

But these wildfires have not gotten much national news. The devastation of Hurricane Harvey and the anticipated devastation of Hurricane Irma have been more of a focus, and that is understandable given the number of people who have been and will be affected by the destructive forces of these storms. It makes sense that the focus has been there.

But what about the aftermath?  The recovery.

FEMA, the federal agency responsible for doling out disaster relief, has only so many funds, and our president’s current budget proposal shows he wants a $667 million cut for state and local grants under FEMA and the elimination of the National Flood Insurance Program.  Given our current slate of natural disasters, this is concerning.

Just as concerning is the idea of presidential politics affecting how this money is distributed.

As stated on the National Popular Vote website, “Battleground states [or swing states] receive 7% more presidentially controlled grants, twice as many disaster declarations, and numerous favorable actions from Presidents, as detailed in recent books such as Presidential Pork and Presidential Swing States: Why Only Ten Matter.”

Twice as many disaster declarations.

With FEMA funds short and hurricanes raging, the wildfires affecting Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and California may get the short end of the stick. Yes, because funds are short and because Houston and Florida and other places might need them more. But there could also be another reason.

Swing Politics.

The wildfire states have no say in who gets elected president. These states are considered “spectators” and are ignored during presidential campaigns because it is the swing states on which candidates must focus if they are to win the presidency. That is why two-thirds of the 2016 general election campaign events (273 of 399) were held in a total of six states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and Michigan) and why 94% were held in just 12 states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Arizona).

Electing a president in the U.S. is about the game of electoral votes, not about who gets the most votes. And Trump played that game beautifully, ignoring Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, California and many other states, so he could focus on the “more important” swing states.

Interestingly, one of those wildfire states has already been denied disaster funding this year. This winter, FEMA denied Oregon disaster funds to help with more than 17 million in damages from the biggest snowstorm the state had seen in four decades. Senators Merkley and Wyden and Representative Walden sent a letter to FEMA demanding to know why. They asked some hard questions about FEMA’s process and how the decision was made.

But the truth might have been much simpler than they were willing to acknowledge. Could that decision have been tied to Oregon’s swing state status and our archaic and problematic winner-take-all system for electing the president?

Of course, we can’t be certain. Disasters are complicated things, and even more so in a divided government where there is little consensus on what the right answer is for any one issue we are facing. But what if that were to become reality? What if these wildfire states were denied FEMA funding—or denied all they needed? What if that denial had nothing to with available funds but was tied in some way to their spectator status?

If the swing states are granted twice as many diasaster declarations as spectator states, it sure seems like that could become reality.

 

 

 

Electoral College Deniers

I’ve come to accept that there are climate change deniers. I don’t agree with them, but I’ve accepted that they are out there and that they believe what they believe despite little credible scientific evidence to support their opinion that climate change does not exist or is not a threat.

However, I can’t quite wrap my mind around the vocal minority of Electoral College deniers, those who fail to acknowledge the problems with The Electoral College. Those who claim this antiquated system, the only one like it in the modern world, is a good thing for the United States.  And, most incredulously, those who deny that the Electoral College was founded on the backs of slaves.

On racism.

Of all the arguments I hear in defense of the Electoral College, it is the one that denies its racist origins that sticks in my craw more than any other, and especially now, when we have a president who finds “fine people” among the neo-Nazis and the KKK. The same man who accepts congratulatory Tweets from David Duke. The man who is sending us back to our racist past, a past in which a system like the Electoral College was created.

Jonathan Chait in his article for New York Magazine took on this issue recently in response to an op-ed by one of these deniers, a debate coach at King’s College named Josiah Peterson.  In this op-ed, Peterson claims that “the oft-maligned Three-Fifths Clause was designed to limit the influence of slave states in congressional apportionment.” But Mr. Peterson is incorrect.

I’m not sure why he believes this. Is it a lack of knowledge of American history? Is it a lie that has sprung from watching the behavior of our 45^th president? Or maybe he is simply misinformed. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it’s the latter because the Three-Fifths Compromise did the opposite of what Peterson claims. It was enacted to benefit the slave states. Chait quotes Paul Finkelman to illustrate the truth: “One of the central purposes of the electoral college . . . was to insure that the largest state, Virginia, would be able to elect the national president, and that the slave states would be able to use their slave population to influence the election of the president.”

I’d call that racist, and most level-headed, thoughtful Americans would too.

We must call the Electoral College what it is and acknowledge all the reasons it was founded and especially the one steeped in racism. In this time of backward thinking, of Charlottesville, the immigration bans, anti-immigration laws (like SB4), the Arpaio pardon, and so much more, we need to acknowledge that the system in which we elect our president is founded in slavery and, thus, in racism.

To call it anything else would be to deny the truth.

Why We Need the NPVIC

The first time I cast a vote for a U.S. president was on my 18^th birthday, and when I entered that voting booth, it was an historic moment in my mind: 18-year-old birthday girl casts first vote for president. My candidate lost, but it didn’t stop me from voting at every opportunity I had and in every state I’ve lived. I’ve voted in Iowa, Illinois, New Mexico, California, and Oregon. My 2016 vote in Oregon, however, was different.

In 2016, I voted in a state that was ignored in 2008, 2012, and 2016 by all major presidential candidates. There was no historic snapshot in my mind this time. I filled out my ballot mechanically, darkening the bubbles of those I supported, knowing that support would not matter. Friends felt the same. Some didn’t vote or voted for a third-party candidate they didn’t support. One friend wrote in my husband as president. Sure, some of this was the Sanders Effect, but for others, it was something else. In Oregon, we know our votes don’t count towards electing the president, and we are not alone. In 2016, two-thirds of campaign events occurred in six states (Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia), and 94% of campaign events occurred in twelve states. That means the thirty-two other states are relatively worthless. It means my vote as an Oregonian is worthless.

That is why I am a strong advocate for Oregon and other states to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). NPVIC is an agreement among states that would award the winner of the national popular vote the presidency. It would make my vote count, and it would reform an electoral system that has never really worked.

In the first presidential election in 1789, only 6% of the population voted because most Americans were barred from voting. At that time, white, Protestant land-owning males were the privileged few who could vote. Population numbers, however, were different, and many who could not vote counted in other ways. Slaves, despite having been afforded no human rights in our new nation, were counted towards electoral votes and representation in the House of Representatives through the Three-Fifths Compromise, which made slaves worth three-fifths of a person.  This was our founding system.

This system did not last long. By 1804, reform was already in process. The 12^th Amendment fixed some of the systemic flaws, but not all of them. Slowly our nation started to polish the rough stone our Founding Fathers gave us:

• 1792, property requirements were lifted in New Hampshire
• 1828, Religious restrictions were lifted in all states
• 1856, property requirements were lifted in all states
• 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment granted African-American men the right to vote
• 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment granted American women the right to vote

But this polish dulled with voting restrictions like the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, the various state laws aimed at prohibiting Native Americans from voting after the passage of the 1924 Indian Citizen Act, and, of course, the many barriers to voting that targeted African-Americans throughout the 20^th century. In 2016, 14 states passed new voting restrictions. Our stone continues to be rough.

Like many Americans, I have been pondering why voting has been such a challenge in this country. Of what are politicians afraid? In 1789 it was clear: the slave states were afraid that they would lose their grip on slavery without a system like the Electoral College.  But what about today? Why are presidential candidates afraid of allowing a national popular vote to decide the presidency? In 1912, the nation wasn’t afraid to reform how we elect U.S. Senators. The 17^th Amendment changed that broken system to a popular vote. All 50 governors are elected by popular vote today, a change from the original gubernatorial electoral system. So why not the presidency?

In 1969, we were close to amending our Constitution with a bill that called for the direct popular election of the president. Endorsed by Richard Nixon, the bill passed the House 338-70.  Despite strong bipartisan support and the support of many leaders from small states, two senators who voted against every civil rights and voting-rights measure presented to them were responsible for its death. These two senators were also avowed segregationists. It’s time to try a different tactic.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would circumvent the arduous amendment process and allow states to decide how to cast their votes. This would not abolish the Electoral College. Article II of the Constitution says, “Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors . . . ” The power to determine how electors vote is clearly granted to the state legislatures, and states have already been making that decision. Maryland was the first state to join the NPVIC in 2007; New York was the last in 2014. Currently, there are 10 states plus Washington D.C. in the compact for 165 electoral votes. Once enough states join to reach 270 electoral votes, the compact will go into effect.

Am I advocating for this compact because our current president–a man who recently called neo-Nazis and white supremists “very fine people”–lost the popular vote by almost three million votes? Perhaps. But this is not a unique occurrence. Five times in American history we have elected a president who has not won the popular vote, and this has happened on the rough stone of an electoral system that is founded on power, privilege, and inequity. We the people should be embarrassed by this system. We the people need to check our privilege and look deeply into our electoral system. The system does not protect small states; it does not encourage voter turnout; it does not allow each American’s vote to count. It’s time for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to become reality and to finally polish that electoral stone to the brilliance it deserves.