VOTE411 Voter Guide

Oregon has one of the most beautiful and diverse geographies and natural environments in the world. Often, our climate policies are the environmental benchmark for other states. We must consider protecting our environment and reducing our impact on the climate while carefully and realistically balancing it with our need to build affordable homes, bring new industry, support economic drivers, maintain smart timber policy, and more. I do think the legislature is a good place to start, but these conversations must include local, regional, and state officials, energy providers, business owners, land use experts, natural resource leaders and conservationists. We have to drive towards solutions by working together.

I support an independent redistricting commission or committee. Allowing partisan politicians to draw the lines themselves for their voting districts in a state with partisan elections is a huge conflict of interest. The process for redrawing district lines should be as neutral as possible.

No. I support the constitution as it stands, which requires three-fifths majority of the legislature for tax increases, and two-thirds majority for conducting business.

Though I believe that human development across the globe has effected climate change as we know it today, I'm also honest enough with myself to know that Oregon's already minuscule carbon output is inconsequential to what we are all living through today. One of the best things Oregon can do to fight climate change is by expanding tree-planting programs as well as the planting heavy carbon-eating crops like industrial hemp, both of which have the ancillary benefit of reducing landslides, a very real and unfortunate reality of climate change we see all too often in our state. This problem is very real, but I believe the resources available to the Oregon Legislature to solve it are extremely limited.

We have seen in states as politically opposed in their political temperament as California and Idaho have adopted supposed “independent redistricting” commissions and in both cases, all such a reform did was put a veneer of non-partisanship on a still markedly partisan process, with both State's still containing extremely partisan gerrymandering in the majority of their legislative districts. For that reason, and many others, I think it is better to maintain the process as it is now, warts and all, so the people of our State can watch the legislature's work fully aware of the partisan nature of the exercise and judge them accordingly rather than adopt a phony “non-partisan” system to deceive Oregonians.

I think Measure 113, which forces legislators with repeat unexcused absences to give up their right to seek re-election, should have a chance to work before we decide to amend the State Constitution yet again regarding such a partisan issue. State Courts have upheld the constitutionality of Measure 113, and since that ruling, there have been no legislative walkouts. That said, if the problem of legislative gridlock by partisan walkout persists, I would certainly consider an Amendment lowering quorum to 36 members in the House and 18 in the Senate, but not to a bare majority. I believe that if a single party is to control the entire legislative process, without the input of any opposition, that they should at least have a mandate.

Candidate has not yet responded.

Candidate has not yet responded.

Candidate has not yet responded.