Post-primary election coverage

Oregon voters have now cast their ballots for the primary election.

May primary elections tend to draw low turnouts, despite some big items on the ballot, including an open race for the Congressional seat held for nearly 30 years by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Portland), who announced his retirement last October.

We hear from some of the winners of key congressional, county and mayoral contests that were on the ballot. OPB political reporter Dirk VanderHart also joins us for analysis of the primary, from the massive amounts of outside money flowing into the 3rd Congressional District race, to contests deciding who will be Oregon’s next state treasurer and attorney general.

Note: The following transcript was created by a computer and edited by a volunteer.

Dave Miller: This is Think Out Loud on OPB. I’m Dave Miller. Oregon’s 2024 primary is over. All that’s left to do is to finish counting the ballots. Some races, including many in the Portland area, are still too close to call. But there are a lot of results to dig into. We’re going to spend the hour doing that today, including conversations with some of the winning candidates. We start right now with OPB’s political reporter Dirk VanderHart. Dirk, welcome.

Dirk VanderHart: Hey, great to be here, Dave.

Miller: What does turnout look like right now?

VanderHart: Obviously, a moving target with turnout as always. The most credible numbers we have statewide are from the Secretary of State. They issued a release last night that said, as of the time polls closed, there was about 28% of ballots turned in. That’s pretty low. I was going through some county turnout results today though and it’s clear that that is an undercount at this point. It’s ticking up at least around 30, and I think we’ll keep seeing that rise in days to come. Remember, under Oregon’s current election law, any ballot postmarked on election day that arrives within a week of the election will be counted.

Miller: So we’re more like Washington state now. We’re a state that’s going to take even longer than in the past to get finalized results.

VanderHart: Right.

Miller: There wasn’t a competitive presidential primary here or a gubernatorial primary. Did a lack of a marquee matchup depress turnout?

VanderHart: I think that’s the conventional wisdom, certainly. And especially, remember in Oregon where we have closed primaries, folks that aren’t registered Democrat or Republican often don’t have a ton of reason to participate because maybe they don’t have interesting local nonpartisan races.

Miller: Or races that they don’t think are interesting.

VanderHart: Sure.

Miller: I’m a political nerd who wants to encourage people to vote.

VanderHart: I think that’s right. But it does look right now like we’re going to see a pretty low turnout, even for a non exciting presidential primary.

Miller: Were there any big surprises for you in the results that we’ve seen so far?

VanderHart: There really wasn’t. Looking over the races we were watching almost to a race, the candidates who we might have thought stood the best chance of winning did win or look like they might win. I think maybe more than anything, it was this sort of confirmation that some of this progressive excitement that we saw among the electorate in 2020 specifically has continued to ebb. I think we are seeing that clearly in some of the congressional races potentially, and maybe even in the district attorney race here in Multnomah County.

Miller: We’ll talk more about those in just a bit. But Mike Erickson joins us now, he is the founder and CEO of a supply chain and logistics consulting firm based in Tigard. Last night, he won the Republican nomination for Oregon’s 6th Congressional District, the newest district. It stretches from Portland’s southwest suburbs to Salem. It includes all of Yamhill and Polk counties, as well as portions of Clackamas, Washington, and Marion counties. He will now face Democratic incumbent Andrea Salinas in the general election.

Congratulations Mike Erickson, and welcome back.

Mike Erickson: Yeah, thanks, Dave. Appreciate your opportunity to be here today.

Miller: What do you think made the difference in this race?

Erickson: We had a lot of name ID from the previous cycle from two years ago. So we worked extremely hard getting our name out there. And so I think that carried on from the last election. Even though David Russ and some of the other camps ran for governor. We ran the campaign as if we were in a very close match. We just worked our tail off and I was really pleased with the results. We had a good team this time. We had a good team last year, but we’ve expanded on that, brought on more people that are gonna be working the grassroots side of it, and more things that I thought we maybe overlooked last time a little bit too much. So we’ve worked really hard the last few months, and I guess they get a name out there in a message and we had a good result. We had 75% of the voters voting for us yesterday.

Miller: You just now referenced the last time a fair number of times. For folks who don’t remember this history, you lost to Andrea Salinas two years ago by 2.5% points. So relatively close. But she is now an incumbent, which can confer a bigger advantage. It’s hard, even in purplish seats, to unseat a congressional incumbent. How will you be approaching the general election?

Erickson: Well unfortunately, we were outspent last time. Andrea Salinas and Nancy Pelosi, they put in about $5 million of their leadership PAC dollars into the race in the last month and they outspent us almost four to one. And to be as close as we were, I’m very optimistic that we can do some things differently this time. That would maybe get us over the edge. We also had a Constitution candidate that jumped in the race that took some votes away from us. I just think there’s things we can do differently that could maybe turn the tide this time.

A lot of it is more grassroots effort in the areas where we were weak last time. In our post race analysis we did, there are areas that we definitely can improve upon from two years ago against Salinas that we can definitely capitalize on this time.

Miller: What do you see as the areas where you fell short last time two years ago, where you think you can actually make changes?

Erickson: We won Marion County, we won Polk County, we won Yamhill County. We lost Washington County, where I’ve lived, and my business is right here in Tigard. I think that’s one area that I need to focus on, all the events, fairs and festivals, and door to door, really throw a lot more grassroots efforts into Washington County. And that’s something I think we need to do a better job of this time.

Miller: Democrats outnumber Republicans by about 25,000 people in the district. What’s your plan to attract either Democratic or non-affiliated voters, who make up a really large chunk of this district?

Erickson: I think it’s a different climate. Whether you’re a Democrat or a NAV/Independent, or Republican, people are concerned about what’s going on with inflation, skyrocketing inflation has hurt everybody from the gas prices, interest rates are affecting home prices. Everything is hitting hard right now to these families, families are struggling. I think they want someone a little more business, common sense, a little more fiscally responsible back in Congress now, being a watchdog for our federal dollars and doing everything we can to get things back in line like it used to be.

I think there’s a big difference from my business background, from Salinas who’s never run a business ever. She’s been a career politician. I think people really are fed up with what’s going on in DC and are tired of the career politicians.

Miller: Well, I look forward to having you and Andrea Salinas on in a debate as we approach the general election. Thanks very much for your time again.

Erickson: Thanks, Dave. Appreciate it.

Miler: That’s Mike Erickson, founder and CEO of a supply chain and logistics firm based in Tigard. He was the winner last night of the Republican for Oregon’s 6th Congressional District.

Dirk, let’s turn to some of the statewide offices. There are going to be three open races for some of the highest statewide offices in Oregon in November: secretary of state, attorney general, and treasurer. All partisan offices, so they all had primaries. Let’s start with secretary of state, which is second in line to be governor. Can you remind us who was running on the Democratic side?

VanderHart: Yeah, this was a race featuring state treasurer Tobias Read, who is being term-limited out of that seat this year, and state senator James Manning, who’s a Democrat from Eugene. They were the principal candidates.

Miller: Tobias Read had a lot more statewide name recognition as a former gubernatorial candidate, as treasurer, another statewide office. He won big. What did he emphasize in his campaign?

VanderHart: Tobias ran and has run in the past on a sort of platform of being a competent steward of state resources. He wasn’t the flashiest treasurer. I don’t know that we’ve had many flashy treasurers. But he did run a lot of programs based on helping people save for retirement or for their kids’ college fund. And he would argue he did a really good job sort of as a steward of the state pension fund.

And he wants to bring that to the Secretary of State’s office, which as you’ll remember, has seen a shake up. We saw our last elected secretary of state, Democrat Shamia Fagan, resign early because she was implicated in a pretty strange arrangement with a cannabis chain. So he’s talking about protecting democracy, restoring confidence in the office and being a competent steward.

Miller: Well that middle one, restoring confidence in the office, how much did Shamia Fagan’s really abrupt fall from grace – and it’s worth saying she was seen as a rising star in Democratic circles – loom over this race?

VanderHart: I mean, it’s unavoidable. And it’s something that the candidates talked about frequently, this absolute need to restore voter confidence in the secretary of state, who obviously oversees elections in Oregon, people need to have confidence that the who is running audits is not somehow corrupted or having their allegiances purchased.

Miller: Who is he going to be facing on the Republican side?

VanderHart: He will be facing an interesting character in state senator Dennis Linthicum. Dennis Linthicum is one of 10 Republican lawmakers who can’t seek re-election because they walked out from the state Legislature last year, and ran afoul of this ballot measure, Measure 113. So he is now seeking secretary of state.

Miller: There’s audits, there is business regulation, and then there’s elections as some of the big ticket items the secretary has to do. What has he said about the elections in particular?

VanderHart: He talks about restoring accountability, safeguarding the integrity of votes. There is an interesting subtext here though, with Linthicum, which is that he has been one of the people that has most forcibly been raising doubts about Oregon’s election system. He is one of a number of plaintiffs in a lawsuit that suggested that the vote-by-mail system and the way we tabulate ballots was corrupted, that people are being sort of massively disenfranchised, and really challenging the fundamental way we conduct elections here. Now that that lawsuit didn’t go anywhere, it was rejected by the US Supreme Court recently. But he is bringing that to this race, and I would have to say that it is going to be a big issue as November nears.

Miller: On the attorney general’s side, there is an open seat because Ellen Rosenblum decided not to seek re-election after three terms. On the Democratic side, Dan Rayfield has gotten around 75% of the vote, he is a Democratic nominee. Who is he?

VanderHart: So Dan Rayfield is a state lawmaker, he’s been in the House for about a decade now. And most recently he was the speaker of the House, one of the most sort of powerful roles in state government. He decided to step down from that and actually pursue a role that in many ways is less powerful. I think there is a certain allure to an open attorney general seat if you are an attorney, and he was drawn to that. He is a pretty well connected, powerful Democrat, well regarded by a lot of people.

Miller: Who’s he going to face in the general election?

VanderHart: Yeah, he’s gonna face a Republican named Will Lathrop, who is a former assistant county DA in Yamhill and Marion counties. He spent some time in Africa doing human rights work. And he has really come back to Oregon pretty fired up about restoring order to the state that he says has been lost under Democratic leadership.

Miller; Then there’s treasurer. This is going to be a question of Elizabeth Steiner, a long time state senator, going against another former Republican state senator, Brian Boquist, who couldn’t run for re-election for that same reason, because of the unexcused absences from that record walkout. When you look at these three statewide races, which one seems like the GOP’s best chance for a statewide office pickup?

VanderHart: I don’t like to predict the future, but attorney general feels like the main event of these three. Partly because of what we talked about – we have a voter base that is pretty concerned with some of the things they are seeing, with the crime, the disorder. And we have a race that seems very much like it’s going to center on who is the best candidate that can rein in fentanyl or or help clean up the streets. Certainly, that’s what the Republicans want to make it about. And as I mentioned earlier, if the DA’s race we saw in Multnomah County is potentially any sign, that could be a very salient argument. The Republicans certainly think it will be.

Miller: And it’s also a candidate who did not take part in Senate walkouts, which might make it easier for them to attract Democratic or non-affiliated voters.

VanderHart: A little more of a clean slate, and also a background in some of the prosecutorial work that he will be emphasizing. So it will be interesting.

Miller: We’re going to turn right now to Oregon’s 5th Congressional District. Republicans flipped this district two years ago when former Happy Valley mayor Lori Chavez-DeRemer won the seat long held by Democrat Kurt Schrader. The 5th District stretches from a sliver of Multnomah County all the way down to Deschutes County. Republicans and Democrats see it as one of only a handful of races around the country that could decide the balance of power in the US house. Last night, Janelle Bynum won the Democratic nomination. The four-term state representative from Happy Valley will take on Chavez-DeRemer in November, and she joins us now.

Congratulations and welcome back.

Janelle Bynum: Thanks for having me.

Miller: How are you feeling right now?

Bynum: Well, I’m full of excitement. We were up at 6am, working again on the campaign. So no rest for the weary, but ready to roll up our sleeves and get the general election race in full gear.

Miller: Before we turn to that general election race – I do have questions about that – what do you think made the difference in this primary?

Bynum: This is my fifth big election run, and what I try to tell people is that there is no substitute for listening to voters. And so the amount of voter outreach that our campaign did, the amount of discipline that we ran with in terms of staying focused on working families, the economy, addressing health care, mental health, environmental issues, those are things that people really care about. And we’ve always tried to keep the main thing the main thing. I’m a really good and hard worker and disciplined campaigner, and that’s what makes the difference.

Miller: You have beaten Lori Chavez-DeRemer, is it twice?

Bynum: Correct, 2016 and 2018.

Miller: But never when she was an incumbent, which can bring with it more name recognition, more national money, a harder person to take down. What is your plan?

Bynum: Well again, I’ve run very disciplined campaigns if I remember correctly, Chavez-DeRemer was our sitting mayor, or just prior to our sitting mayor, so she had a lot more name recognition, a lot more political capital than I did when I first ran against her for the open seat in House District 51 in Happy Valley and Portland.

But really comes down to fundamentals. Are you listening to the electorate? Are you out there knocking doors? Are you understanding what people’s needs are? And then are you able to affect change? And I think the difference here is that I’ve had eight years of legislative experience, legislative wins, that outnumber and outpower her record, just based on her one-and-a-half years there.

Miller: How much do you plan to go to the center to flip this seat?

Bynum: I plan to be authentic. And that’s what people are attracted to in my campaigns and my legislative experience. I plan to be authentic about being a mother raising children who are both college age, as well as a middle and high schooler. I plan to be authentic about being a member of the sandwich generation, where I’m fully expected to care for and excited to care for my parents and my mother and my in-laws. I plan to be authentic about what it takes to address wildfires in the environment. My children have asthma, we understand what it means not to be able to breathe clean air and to have the threat of losing or actually losing your home.

So for me, it’s about meeting people where they are, listening to them. The issues around the district are very similar. People care about the environment, they care about health care, they care about reproductive fear. The contours are slightly different. But it is a level of authenticity that I don’t believe Lori Chavez-DeRemer can match in any way, shape, or form.

Miller: I very much hope that the voters in Oregon’s 5th Congressional District will get a chance to listen to you and Lori Chavez-DeRemer on this show in September or October. I look forward to that conversation. Thank you.

Bynum: Awesome, thanks for having me.

Miller: That’s Janelle Bynum, who will be the Democratic candidate for the general election for Oregon’s 5th Congressional District. She has been a four-term Democratic state representative from Happy Valley.

We turn now to the state’s second largest city, which is going to have a new mayor. Eugene voters overwhelmingly elected Kaarin Knudson last night. She is an architect, the founder of the housing advocacy group, Better Housing Together, and the former president of Eugene City Club.

Kaarin Knudson, congratulations and welcome.

Kaarin Knudson: Hi, Dave. Thanks so much for having me from Eugene. It’s great to talk with you.

Miller: I’m thrilled to have you on. Has it sunk in yet that you are going to be the next mayor of Eugene?

Knudson: I think it’s starting to sink in, certainly. I got to celebrate and hug about 150 volunteers and people who supported our campaign during the whole year last night. And that started to make an impression. Just feeling really positive, thankful to our voters, and starting to think about the work that we have ahead.

Miller: What do you think made the difference in this race? In the end, this wasn’t particularly close.

Knudson: Thank you for that question. I’m really proud of the campaign that we ran. I am so delighted that people all across our community connected with this campaign and felt like they wanted to be a part of the future that we’re going to build in Eugene. I think it helps that I have a lot of relationships from 20 years of work in this community, certainly as an educator and then a housing advocate and an architect that touched our community in a lot of different ways. And I think all of that will be a strength as our future mayor. So just really glad that voters turned out and that the support was so strong, because I think that says great things about where we can go as a community in the future.

Miller: You won’t take office until January. How do you plan to spend the next seven months?

Knudson: I think it’s going to end up feeling like it’s shorter than seven months. But there is a lot of work to do to plan for this transition. Certainly, given the challenges that we face in our community, which are similar to other communities across Oregon, the work we have to do on housing and homelessness, the work that we need to do to address meaningful climate action in our community and racial justice, these are structural and systemic issues that take a lot of organizing, coordinating, and a really strong understanding of our current field position with policy. So there’s work to do there.

And the role of the mayor and Eugene is incredibly unique. It’s a responsibility that bridges and reaches across working with our staff and the rest of our council. I think that we’ll be doing a lot of work to just start planning for that future in January of ‘25, and continue connecting people to the work that we’re going to do on housing and homelessness especially, but on issues all across our community.

Miller: You mentioned housing and homelessness there, that’s obviously been one of the real focuses of your professional and volunteer work for years now. What are your specific first priorities?

Knudson: First priority is to continue the work that we’ve been doing in Eugene and build on the momentum that we have. I think we’re very fortunate and a lot of people are feeling encouraged and a lot of hope around the fact that we’ve changed the conversation we’ve been having about housing and homelessness in our community in this last couple of years. And so continuing to actually build on those policy steps and improve upon them, and actually learn from the successes that we have in implementing that policy, that’s got to be central.

When thinking about housing in our community and addressing homelessness, there’s a lot of different tracks that are necessary to actually make progress against that structural crisis, or those two crises. But we’ll be focusing a lot on a downtown housing initiative. Our city center needs new concentrations of positive energy and people within it. We have great spatial opportunity there. And we’ll continue to work on making sure that our neighborhoods are affordable and age friendly, and that we’re really planning for climate responses infill. The housing that we need to build now has to serve our community through the 21st century. And that’s going to mean more compact housing downtown, and better housing options all across our community.

Miller: Kaarin Knudson, thanks very much.

Knudson: Of course, thank you.

Miller: Kaarin Knudson is the mayor-elect of Eugene. She will take office in January.

Dirk, let’s turn to the state Legislature. We’ve talked a couple of times about soon to be former Republican state senators who couldn’t run again because they had too many unexcused absences from the walkouts. How did that ripple through legislative races this year?

VanderHart: There were six senators who were ultimately banned from running again because of their walkouts. They initially tried to sue to get the right to run again, they thought there was a loophole in the law, but the Supreme Court said that was not the case. So what actually wound up happening is as we talked about, a number of them are now running for statewide office. And then a number of the folks, two of them specifically, sort of had a plan B. I don’t know that they put them up, but they have relatives who are now running for their open seat. So Dennis Linthicum, who’s running for secretary of state, his wife Diane is running for his seat. Art Robinson is another senator who can’t run, his son Noah is now running to take his open seat.

Miller: How did these family connections from the walk-out limited senators do?

VanderHart: They ran the table. And actually, to the extent you asked me about surprises, Noah Robinson, who won last night, was going up against a pretty well funded state representative from that area, better funded than he was, and actually seems to have won handily. So that was a bit of a surprise for me in the legislative ... And then Diane Linthicum also prevailed.

Miller: So perhaps a sign that among the Republican electorate, taking part in a walkout and not being able to still serve in the state senate as a result, that’s not a black mark against the notion of a walkout, right? Is that potentially a fair way to read those results?

VanderHart: Sure. And I think the people that walk out always make the argument that they are actually doing what their constituents want, even though this measure that banned walkouts was broadly popular in almost every county. They will make the case that their constituents actually support the reasons that they’re walking out.

There’s a number of things we could read to this. Obviously, there is name recognition for Linthicum and Robinson, and those people have been around. You can’t put any one factor on it. But certainly this is an indictment of walkouts by any means.

Miller: One of the issues that you wrote about as a potential harbinger of things to come, a Democratic primary for a state House seat in Eugene. Why did you focus on this race?

VanderHart: Yeah. So this was a race between Lisa Fragala, a longtime teacher, and Doyle Canning, an attorney down there. What became really interesting in this race is that we are used to seeing candidates in Oregon who can raise as much as they possibly can and spend that money, that’s just the sort of wild west that we live in. What became clear here is that there was going to be a significant amount of outside money coming in that wasn’t affiliated with either candidate, but was very interested in which one won. In this case, this group Oregonians Are Ready decided to pour more than $100,000 into the race, attacking Doyle Canning and supporting Lisa Fragala even though they acknowledged that they didn’t actually know Lisa Fragala.

What seems to be the case and what they told us, that this was kind of a grudge on behalf of former Congressman Peter DeFazio, whom Doyle Canning had challenged a number of years ago. He was really intent on seeing her not be elected to the state House, and that has now happened.

Miller: It’s always hard to say these ads were the reason. But what they wanted to happen did happen. How might this be a harbinger of things to come?

VanderHart: Well, as I’m sure you’ve talked about on Think Out Loud, we have just enacted new campaign finance rules that are going to kick in in 2027. And what that is going to do is limit the ability of candidates to take unlimited contributions from wherever they want, and sort of amass that money and spend it how they see fit. What many, many people believe, and I think what is undeniable at this point, is that that is going to open the door for this kind of independent expenditure which the US Supreme Court has said can’t be curtailed. So when candidates are unable to take as much as they can possibly spend, that opens the door for outside interests that want to influence the race to dump their own money in, to purchase their own ads. And I think a lot of people see issues with that, with outside groups and not the candidates speaking to voters.

Miller: Let’s hear from another winner. We’re gonna turn right now to Oregon’s 3rd Congressional District, which stretches from Portland’s east side all the way to Hood River. It is among the safest districts for Democrats in the country, meaning that the winner in the Democratic primary will very likely go on to represent the district in DC. That winner was Maxine Dexter, a pulmonary and critical care physician and a Democratic state representative from Northwest Portland. She joins us now.

Congratulations Maxine Dexter, and welcome back.

Maxine Dexter: Thank you so much for having me. It’s good to be with you.

Miller: What went through your mind last night when you realized you had won?

Dexter: I was just grateful, excited and frankly a bit surprised by how quickly it all went.

Miller: Why surprised?

Dexter: I am not necessarily walking into that expecting to have an early definitive win. And so I was really excited to see the numbers coming in as they did, but I was not expecting that. I had prepared myself for a much closer race.

Miller: As you just heard Dirk talking about the independent expenditures in the legislative race, this has been one of the big themes in this race as well. Outside groups spent over $5 million either supporting you, or, more of that money was putting out a barrage of negative ads against your closest rival, former Multnomah County commissioner Susheela Jayapal. A lot of that money came from donors who still haven’t been made public. How much do you think you benefited from this independent expenditure, this barrage of negative ads against Jayapal?

Dexter: I am excited about the fact that people came out in support of me. And I think the message that really resonated is that I had experience as a lawmaker and I had background as a physician with real exposure to the things that people are struggling with. And the support that I gathered, absolutely, it helps. But I am very clear that the voters are who supported me.

Miller: How do you feel about this system as a whole though? In the end, there were about over $3 million in negative ads against Susheela Jayapal, a lot of them had misleading information. And we still don’t know, we won’t know for weeks, who actually put that money forward because it came in under the deadline. I should say again, this was not you. But you were the beneficiary of this system. What do you think of this system?

Dexter: I’ve been so clear on this from the very beginning. I have been publicly asking for us to firmly commit to publicly funded campaigns, from the time that I have been in office. This should not come as a surprise to anyone that I don’t support this system. I think that we are undermining the voices of voters. And yes, I benefited from it, and I will use that benefit to help fight it. We need to get campaign finance reform passed. And it’s going to be one of the hardest things to do, but I’m committed to working for it.

Miller: It’s very possible now that after the November election, five out of Oregon’s six congressional seats will be held by women. How significant would that be, do you think?

Dexter: This is a landmark shift. When I reached out to Congresswoman Bonamici to talk about running for the seat, she was very quick to point out she had been the only woman in this delegation for a very long time. To have five women representing Oregon is fundamentally a change that I’m excited and inspired by. And I think many of our voters should be. This is a real change, and I think leadership, when it’s in the hands of women, is different. And I’m looking forward to that.

Miller: Maxine Dexter, thanks very much and congratulations again.

Dexter: Thank you so much.

Miller: Maxine Dexter is a longtime Democratic state representative from Northwest Portland. Now, the Democratic candidate for Oregon’s 3rd Congressional District.

Dirk, I want zero in a little bit more specifically on the Multnomah County DA’s race. We talked about it briefly, but this is one of the most high profile races in the region. It hasn’t been called yet, but right now Nathan Vasquez, longtime prosecutor in the DA’s office has a pretty sizable lead over one term DA Mike Schmidt. Vasquez’s big message was basically that Mike Schmidt was too easy on crime, there are more details there, but that was the heart of it. It seems like that worked?

VanderHart: Yeah, it goes to what we were talking about since the top. We had a 2020 electorate that elected Mike Schmidt by like 77% to 25% or something like that, he came into office with this mandate to lead in the progressive mode that he had sold himself as. And four years later, with the fentanyl crisis behind us, rising homelessness, all the different things that we talk about a lot these days, I think people have a lot more misgivings about that approach and want someone who they feel is going to pull back the reins and course correct.

Miller: What might that mean for Multnomah County Commission races, three of which seem to be headed for November runoffs, the makeup of which is not even clear yet?

VanderHart: I mean, it’s a fascinating question, and not just for Multnomah County, but for the Portland City Council races – will this continue on to November? I think one thing we look at is, for instance, the District 2 race in Multnomah County, where Shannon Singleton, maybe the more progressive person on that ballot, is leading right now, but did not get the 50% plus one to win it outright. She was up against two people with a more pro-business background I would say, Sam Adams and Jessie Burke. They split the other vote, we will see in November whether that maybe more business backed candidate can prevail, given the way voters are feeling.

Miller: Dirk, thank you very much.

VanderHart: My pleasure.

Miller: We turn now to K-12 money measures that some Oregon voters had on their ballots. Natalie Pate is one of OPB’s education reporters, she joins us now. Hey, Natalie, welcome back.

Natalie Pate: Hi, Dave.

Miller: There were a number of bonds and levies on the ballot last night. How did schools fare overall?

Pate: I would say it was a fairly typical election night actually. There were mixed results. A few really critical levies passed in places like Portland and Eugene. A do-or-die construction bond passed in Gervais. But some measures didn’t pass, like the levy in Bend-La Pine.

Miller: So let’s dig into some of these. First the levy in Portland. On the one hand, maybe it’s not a huge surprise. Portland voters have a habit of supporting tax levies for schools. But this has been a rough year for PPS. The long labor dispute and strike stands out as one example of that. What did it mean for this levy to pass?

Pate: From the practical side of things, it means not having to cut hundreds of teaching positions in the future. So the renewed levy is expected to pay for about 660 teachers and classroom support staff over the five years. And to be clear, PPS is still cutting hundreds of positions in the budget it approved earlier this week for next year. That now goes to the board for official adoption. But if the levy had failed, it would have had to cut even more down the line.

And from the political side of things, to your point, many people disagree about how things have happened throughout the district this year – the strike, lost school days, enrollment going down, and so on. But I think this kind of points out that when it mattered, voters said yes. Eugene is another city with a history of supporting schools, and they did it again in this election. It looks like they’ve renewed their levy for another five years as well, which will pay for about 205 teachers or 32 school days each year.

Miller: On the flip side, there’s the levy in Bend-La Pine, which is not passing. First of all, what’s that going to mean?

Pate: On paper at least, it’ll mean going back to their budget and figuring out where to cut. They’ve already built their proposed budget for the upcoming school year, just like I mentioned with Portland and Salem-Keizer, and other districts. And they’re facing cuts as part of that, just not layoffs. But leading up to the vote, the district warned voters that if the levy didn’t pass they may have to cut up to 180 positions over the next two years, average class sizes will increase, there’d be limited access to career technical education and advanced courses, counseling and support services would be stretched thin, and there would be a 30% reduction in building budget. So it’s likely we’ll start to see those actions come down. But district leaders have told me they’re also focusing on securing more state funding for the 2025-27 biennium.

Miller: Why do you think the Bend measure didn’t pass when measures in Portland and Eugene did?

Pate: It’s a lot harder to get people to vote for new taxes than it is to get them to renew a tax they’re already paying for. The Portland levy has been around through several election cycles and so has the one in Eugene. And this levy would have been new to them. Convincing people to sign off on a tax measure when they haven’t had to do that before is a bigger ask. Bend-La Pine officials told me they will analyze why the vote went the way it did, because it was rejected with a pretty healthy margin. And they said that’s a clear message that voters are not in favor of adding a local option levy in the district at this time.

Miller: Does Bend have options at this point besides budget cuts?

Pate: What districts will often do is go back to voters again. Often they’ll change what they’re asking for, maybe a little less money, or change how they characterize the measure so that it might resonate better with voters. And sometimes voters will reject measures repeatedly and then finally say yes. And district officials told me today it’s too early to say if the board will want to consider going back to voters again anytime soon, like going back to the November ballot, for example. But superintendent Steven Cook will discuss the election outcomes with the school board at an upcoming board meeting to kind of talk through those options. So they’re expecting that maybe at their meeting on June 18th,

Miller: That brings us to Gervais. They tried eight times to get a bond approved, and the ninth time last night, folks said yes.

Pate: That’s right, nine times the charm. This means the Gervais district won’t fold, district leaders said that that would be necessary if it didn’t pass. Now that it, with pretty healthy margins for them, appears to be passing, they’ll have $34 million in bond money and matching state funds that will be used to repair decades old building needs across their schools.

Miller: Natalie, thanks very much.

Pate: Thanks for having me.

Miller: Natalie Pate is one of OPB’s K-12 education reporters.

We’re gonna end today with an important vote in North Plains. It’s been described as the first time Oregonians have put forward a referendum to challenge a local urban growth boundary expansion. According to the latest numbers, the result was clear – 72% of North Plains voters rejected the expansion. We’re going to hear from the North Plains mayor in just a bit, but first, Aaron Nichols joins us. He’s a co-owner of Stoneboat Farms near North Plains. He was one of the leaders of the effort to prevent this expansion, and he joins us now.

Aaron, welcome.

Aaron Nichols: Thank you, Dave.

Miller: Why have you been against expanding the North Plains urban growth boundary?

Nichols: I’m not against expanding the boundary entirely, I’m against the specific plan for expanding the urban growth boundary. The plan that was rejected last night by 71.77% of the voters was a plan that would more than double the size of the city, adding 855 acres, primarily for industrial land which appeared to be North Hillsboro-style data centers and that sort of thing. I’m a farmer and that did not feel like a good use of our very best farmland. About 70% to 80% of the land that would have come in was prime farmland, which we have only about 4% prime farmland in the state. It’s rapidly disappearing, and I don’t think data centers are the right use for good farmland like that.

Miller: City leaders, as you know, have said that they need to add these 855 acres to expand these tax base and to add public services. What’s your response?

Nichols: The city has said that they have offered no evidence to show that this would expand the tax base, or that such a large expansion is needed. The city’s own documents show that this would have the lowest number of jobs, lower than any other urbanized area in Oregon. North Hillsboro did a similar expansion, also very near North Plains. It’s costing them over $300 million I believe for just a 200 acre expansion, the kind of money North Plains cannot bond and and cannot afford. An independent analysis by a city planner here who worked for our group found that this would cost around $200 million, including a large arterial road going through North Plains. Those sorts of costs, it is not clear how they would be paid by the sorts of industries North Plains was looking to bring in. So it is unlikely to me that it would have expanded the tax base.

However, the argument that some expansion may be needed for greater tax revenues and for more housing is a legitimate argument. However, no city has ever expanded by this much. And so a smaller expansion is certainly possible, and certainly much more suited to the rural town of North Plains.

Miller: What size expansion or where would you support?

Nichols: My group doesn’t have a number. One of us is a city planner, but for the most part, we’re not city planners. What we want and what we would like to see is a process starting a process now that is very inclusive, that includes people in the city in a way that was not done in the first time. So actively inviting people to participate rather than doing simply the minimum legal notice or less than that, as the city has done in the past. And also including people who will be affected by the plan even if they don’t live within the city boundary. So people whose farms abut the the expansions, people who will be affected by it, should be included in this next stage.

And from there, we’ll go and see where it is. I’ve knocked on hundreds of doors in North Plains, and spoken to hundreds of voters. And I am quite sure that the people of North Plains do want some expansion. They do want some new housing, and many of them want new amenities such as grocery stores and that sort of thing. That all can be planned for, that all can be done in a fraction of the land that the city is looking for now.

Miller: After that door knocking, after those conversations, were you at all surprised that almost 72% of voters so far according to the latest tally said “no” to this particular expansion?

Nichols: Our data showed 70%. So we were slightly above that, which is wonderful. I was surprised nonetheless, but mostly I was extremely grateful. The people of North Plains really looked at this issue, I think they really considered it. There was more data available, and many of the voters clearly had read it when I spoke to them at their doors, than there was when the city council passed it. The DLCD has weighed in and said that much of the information North Plains used initially were what were what they called “incorrect facts.” There isn’t a need for North Plains to expand, it isn’t required, it can be done at North Plains’s pace, and in a way that fits North Plains.

And the city voters really understood, and really looked at that. They’re well informed voters who have dealt with this kind of issue before. And it was gratifying to see that people who often knew as much or more about the issue than I did chose to vote with us. So I was grateful.

Miller: Just briefly, why is it that you think that residents should have the chance to weigh in on this in a “yes” or “no” vote to begin with?

Nichols: Yeah, that’s a fair question. This has never been done in Oregon before, as far as we know, and I’m pretty sure we’re right about that. I think Oregon’s direct democracy system is built for extreme cases, for times when there isn’t a better way for citizens to weigh in. And I think this is a good example of it. In this case, the expansion was, like I said, the biggest by-percentage basis in Oregon’s UGB history. It was not well designed and did not fit the city, and it was honestly poorly planned. There were two industrial areas on opposite sides of the city that would have required some sort of large arterial between them. Many basic mistakes with the plan. And the city council was not responsive when people both in the city and out of the city came and talked about it. Hours of testimony, and the city council voted the first time with no discussion of the testimony. They used, as the DLCD said, “incorrect facts” to come to their conclusions.

In those extreme cases, I think that we have a chance for citizens to say “we don’t have to wait till the next election to get new councilors.” Better to correct the problem that’s happening here.

Many of the councilors, I believe all the councilors and the mayor, are good people who care about their town. And the goal is not to have people kicked out as happened in King City, but rather to have to have the exact issue that is upsetting to people and is a major change in their way of life, have that looked at, have that decided by the voters. This is something that has more effect on people in North Plains and people around North Plains than almost any other ordinance that could be passed.

Miller: Aaron Nichols is the co-owner of Stoneboat Farms. Thanks very much.

Nichols: Thank you, Dave. I so appreciate you having us on the show.

Miller: For another perspective on this, we are joined now by Teri Lenahan, the North Plains mayor. Mayor Lenahan, welcome to the show.

Teri Lenahan: Hey, Dave. Thanks so much for having me. I really appreciate it.

Miller: Why was this particular expansion the right expansion for North Plains?

Lenahan: Over 20 years ago, North Plains went through the first urban growth boundary expansion. And at the time, they focused clearly on housing and did not even consider any type of employment land. So as our city grew over the years, and when we started to look at the urban growth boundary expansion again, this most recent one, we thought we need to factor in some employment land. So prior to actually adopting the ordinance, we went through the economic opportunities analysis process. We also went through the housing needs analysis process. Both of those documents were acknowledged by the State of Oregon. And the need within those documents showed that we did have a need for employment land over the next 20 or 30 years, and additional housing over the next 20+ years.

So the documents that we used took hours and hours and hours, several years of of public meetings, planning meetings with community members, volunteers, staff, regional, local and state partners. It’s well documented that the numbers that we have presented show the need over time.

Miller: Your argument has not just been that this expansion should go forward, but it’s that residents shouldn’t have been able to have an up or down vote on it. In fact, the governor and the legislature agreed, they passed and signed a bill respectively to make that happen. A judge said “no, let the vote go forward.” Why shouldn’t this be the subject of a referendum in your mind?

Lenahan: In my mind, it’s a land use decision, and the state of Oregon has a process that cities are supposed to follow in order to expand their urban growth boundaries. North Plains had followed that state approved process. There was an issue with the state approved process by saying it was not addressed as an administrative decision, and the state had to go back and clear that up and provide clarity actually for cities, so cities can continue to work.

Now, I think it’s important to acknowledge that every individual has a right to express their viewpoint and have an opinion about this topic. And it’s definitely an emotional topic to talk about. There’s a lot of tough questions, tough conversations that people have to have. And I get that. But if our land use system in the state of Oregon – and I’m not an expert by any stretch of the imagination – but if we put every land use decision to the voters, I don’t think that we would ever see any progress moving forward. And it’s my understanding that’s not how this was designed to work.

Miller: Teri Lenahan, we’ll be following up on this because this is not all over. The courts are still going to be weighing in and this is an issue I think Oregonians all across the state will be thinking about. But thanks so much for joining us today. I appreciate your time.

Lenahan: Thank you. I really appreciate your time today, too, Dave.

Miller: Teri Lenahan is the mayor of North Plains.

Contact “Think Out Loud®”

If you’d like to comment on any of the topics in this show or suggest a topic of your own, please get in touch with us on Facebook, send an email to thinkoutloud@opb.org, or you can leave a voicemail for us at 503-293-1983. The call-in phone number during the noon hour is 888-665-5865.