FRIDAY, MAY 1, 2015
4 — THE BAKER COUNTY PRESS
Opinion
— Letters to the Editor —
‘Bitter partisan politics’ made
up by 1-63 campaign
To the Editor:
What is “Bitter Partisan Politics?”
I thought it amusing that one letter
writer is urging you to vote yes on I-63 in
order to keep “Bitter Partisan Politics” out
of Baker County Government, and another
mentions “Bitter Politics.” Sounds like
they have the same coach directing the
play.
I’ve lived here all my life and have yet
to witness this so-called “Bitter Partisan
Politics” in local elections.
Ask yourself why you registered as a
Republican. Was it because your “core
values” lined up with other Republicans?
Why did you register as a Democrat? It
was because you believed in the Demo-
crats’ philosophy or “core values” Who
do you want making decisions for the
County? Someone who shares the same
values with you, or someone who has a
different idea about what’s good for you?
The non-partisan elective County offices
that we have must follow the laws that
govern that particular office. They don’t
make the same type decisions that our
County Commissioners have to make.
Decisions that affect us for years.
I’ve always voted for the person who I
thought would do the best job. Most of
the time it is the person who shares the
same core values.
A person running for office can say any-
thing, make any claim, promise anything,
and spend lots of money to get elected. If
you have to guess at their “core values,”
you’re buying a pig in a poke. If a candi-
date has been vetted by his local Central
Committee, you can rest assured that he
has the same “core values” that you look
for.
If you want single party politics locally,
why do you belong to a local Republican
or Democrat Central Committee. Why not
get out and start your own Single Party
political Central Committee?
One party politics is akin to one world
government.
Vote NO on measure 1-63. Thank you.
Terry Speelman
Baker City
Baker’s politics are bitter
To the Editor:
I support Measure 1-63. I want bitter
partisan politics out of the management of
Baker County government.
In speaking with many Baker County
citizens, I am dismayed about the misin-
formation that has been circulated regard-
ing Measure 1-63. Local nonpartisan
elections do not hide a local candidate’s
core values. In fact, core values are not
always evident simply by party affiliation.
It is up to you, the voter, to learn about
the candidate. Party registration does not
always tell you about the person.
The People over Politics Committee that
support this bill are not a far left group of
liberals. They are Republicans, Democrats
and non-affiliated persons, of all ages,
working hard and working together.
I have heard a lot about Commission
resignations.
Today, and under Measure 1-63, if one
commissioner resigns, the two remaining
commissioners appoint the replacement.
Under Measure 1-63, all interested
candidates may submit their name for con-
sideration. Candidates’ names are public.
Much like the recent appointment process
of the Baker County Sheriff, public par-
ticipation will be encouraged. No closed
meetings. No secret votes. The selection is
transparent. Baker County Commissioners
will continue to appoint someone to fill a
single vacant post until an election is held.
When two County Commissioners
resign at the same time, there is no change
in the current process. ORS 236.225 treats
partisan and nonpartisan appointments in
the same way.
On June 19, 1986, two commissioners,
Rod McCullough (D) and Ben Dunleavy
(R), submitted letters of resignation effec-
tive July 1. On June 26, Mr. McCullough
agreed to stay until a replacement was
appointed. Mr. Urey, a Democrat, was
appointed. Commissioner McCullough
resigned on July 16. Commissioner Urey
and Judge Smith appointed Mr. Leonard,
a Republican. At no time did the gover-
nor name a replacement. At no time were
there two vacancies.
We do not lose control with this Mea-
sure 1-63. We vote. We only lose bitter
partisan politics.
It’s time to make our County Commis-
sion positions nonpartisan. Let all Baker
County voters have a voice that matters.
Vote yes on Measure 1-63. Thank you.
Bob McKim
Baker City
Feds, not States, should
manage lands
To the Editor:
Much has been said recently in the West
about local control of and “taking back”
our public lands.
Taking them back from whom? The
public lands never “belonged” to the
States … these lands are what was left
after the U.S. government made land
available for, among other things, home-
steading, road-building, selections by the
states as each came into the Union, and
constructing railroads, welding our young
country together.
The United States acquired its land base
primarily through conquest, purchase,
and treaty. The Constitution provides the
authority for the Feds to own and manage
public lands, and the Supreme Court has
long-recognized this authority.
Managing public lands is complex.
Transferring them will not simplify these
issues, and folks who think so are either
deluding themselves or are woefully un-
educated about them.
Utah has been cited as an example of
how to implement this ill-advised scheme.
But the efforts of the legislature and the
governor fly in the face of the state at-
torney general’s legal advice, case law,
the economic analysis from the University
of Utah requested by the legislature, and
common sense.
Imagine Oregon or Baker County try-
ing to manage these public lands. Fire,
grazing, wildlife, recreation, logging/
timber management, water quality, energy
and mining, access and transportation,
wilderness, rights-of-way, public safety,
and many other uses would have to be
managed. How would this be paid for?
Proponents say we could simply cut
more timber, mine more minerals, lease
more oil and gas and coal, sell more land,
charge more for grazing and recreational
uses, and cut administrative costs. A
simple answer to a complex problem.
And the wrong answer.
We have a system of representative
government in this country. Let’s get over
ourselves and get to work cooperating and
coordinating with the agencies and each
other to address real issues, not wasting
our time and money on half-baked, poorly
thought-out strategies that already have
proven ineffective and not based in law or
logic.
Dave Hunsaker
Baker City
1-63 one huge mistake
To the Editor:
Jefferson County, where I live, moved
to the nonpartisan election of county com-
missioners a few years ago. Why people
chose to try to fix something that was
not broken, I do not know. I believe the
more we know about how a person will
vote and if he/she will vote in accordance
with their political philosophy is impor-
tant. Whether Democrat, Republican, or
Independent, each Political Party has the
ability to nominate candidates for the pri-
mary election. It is in the primary where
political parties choose the person(s) they
believe will best represent their beliefs.
It is in the general election where the dif-
ferences among the political philosophies
should become relevant to the voters.
In the recent election in Jefferson
County, we had two individuals running
for one county commission position. One,
although a Democrat, never expressed his
true political leaning. In forums, he most
often espoused conservative positions on
the issues when he knew the audience was
conservative. Yet everyone who knew
him knew these were neither his posi-
tions nor how he would have voted had he
been elected. It is easier to hide ones true
beliefs when partisan political views are
not considered.
The Baker City Herald recently said the
Republican Party didn’t open the primary.
Question: Did the Democrat Party? Rather
than nonpartisan positions, the various
political parties need to field candidates
so they too will have representation in the
general election. It is their responsibility.
The non-partisan election for any position
that makes policy that affects the citizens
is akin to Milk Toast!
The unaffiliated voters make that choice.
They too have every opportunity to be a
member of a political party. That is how it
works in America.
I urge the citizens of Baker County to
Vote no on Measure 1-63. Why change a
system that works for one that has shown
to cause problems in other counties of this
State? You will not regret saying no to
Measure 1-63.
Kate Adams,
Oregon GOP CD2 Chair
Jefferson County
— Guest Opinion —
Nonpartisan
positions of
no benefit to
Baker County
By Bill Currier
Special to The Baker County Press
Voters in Baker County are faced
with an interesting choice in the up-
coming election.
They can choose to continue select-
ing their county commissioners with
full knowledge of the candidate’s
party affiliation, known as partisan
elections, or they can change the elec-
tion system to a non-partisan method
where that information is not dis-
closed to the voter on the ballot.
Proponents of Measure 1-63 (non-
partisan elections) tend to argue
that political parties exert too much
influence in partisan elections and
therefore elections should be non-
partisan. This argument clearly relies
on the notion that partisan elections
are inherently undesirable. Before we
get caught up in that tempting thought,
we should examine the history and
purpose of partisan politics.
The word partisan originally meant
like-minded, and was applied to
groups of people who shared common
values or beliefs —what we call politi-
cal parties today. However, lately, the
word partisan has taken on a negative
connotation, being applied to those
who strongly follow a certain ideology
without regard to logic. The propo-
nents of Measure 1-63 are relying on
that connotation.
However, at election time, partisan
information about values and beliefs is
precisely what voters do need to know
about a commissioner candidate.
Without this information elections
tend to devolve into contests about
who has the most money or who has
the most name recognition. Voters
benefit by knowing what set of values
and beliefs the candidate is committed
to upholding.
Without partisan information on a
given commissioner candidate voters
are more likely to rely on unreliable
secondary cues, such as the ethnic-
ity of the candidate’s name, or their
apparent popularity. Obviously, these
cues do not help voters choose the
best possible candidate. Likewise,
without party affiliation, candidates
are not accountable to any particular
set of values or beliefs.
Without a commitment to a set of
values or beliefs while campaigning
a candidate is less likely to a follow
a predictable course of action once
elected. This is a major source of
Submitted Photo
Bill Currier is Chair of the Oregon
Republican Party and Mayor of
Adair Village, Oregon.
voter frustration—candidates who do
not perform as the voter could have
reasonably expected. This disen-
franchisement is magnified by non-
partisan elections because candidates
are not accountable to a set of values
and beliefs.
Put another way, without partisan
information about commissioner
candidates, elections become less
about the issues and more about the
non-performance related aspects
of a candidate. Is this the basis of
commissioner selection that Baker
County voters really want to encour-
age? Don’t we want to know what the
candidate stands for, and what they
are willing to commit to, in a tangible
way?
Another unfortunate side effect
of non-partisan elections is that they
result in lower voter turnout—about
10 percent lower on average. This is
due to voters having less confidence in
their choice because they are lacking
useful information about the candi-
date’s value and beliefs. Partisan
information about candidates actu-
ally causes voters to become more
involved in the political process of
choosing candidates.
In the last 25 years there has been a
slight increase in non-partisan county
elections across the U.S. Oregon has
seen a number of counties move to
non- partisan elections. However,
the data shows that this trend has
resulted in decreased voter confidence
in candidate selection, a decrease in
voter turnout, and an increase in voter
frustration with candidates who do not
perform as expected once elected.
Non-partisan elections do not
inherently favor one party or another.
Nationwide statistics show that coun-
ties utilizing the non-partisan election
method can be either Republican or
Democrat controlled. However, it is
clear that the performance of elected
officials is less predictable in non-
partisan races. In order to choose
wisely voters need to know more
information about their candidates, not
less.
— Contact Us —
The Baker County Press
PO Box 567
Baker City, Ore. 97814
Open Monday-Thursday for calls
9 AM - 4 PM
Open 24/7 for emails
Office location: TBA
Phone: 541.519.0572
TheBakerCountyPress.com
Kerry McQuisten, Publisher
Editor@TheBakerCountyPress.com
Wendee Morrissey, Advertising and Sales
Wendee@TheBakerCountyPress.com
David Conn, Advertising and Sales
David@TheBakerCountyPress.com
Published weekly every Friday.
Subscription rates per year are $29.95 all areas,
e-mail delivery. $39.95 print issue, home delivery,
Baker City city limits only. $49.95 print issue,
mail delivery, outside Baker City city limits only.
Payment in advance.
A division of
Black Lyon Publishing, LLC
Copyright © 2014
YOUR ELECTED
OFFICIALS
President Barack Obama
202.456.1414
202.456.2461 fax
Whitehouse.gov/contact
US Sen. Jeff Merkley
503.326.3386
503.326.2900 fax
Merkley.Senate.gov
US Sen. Ron Wyden
541.962.7691
Wyden.Senate.gov
US Rep. Greg Walden
541.624.2400
541.624.2402 fax
Walden.House.gov
Oregon Gov. Kate
Brown
503.378.3111
Governor.Oregon.gov
State Rep. Cliff Bentz
503.986.1460
State Sen. Ted Ferrioli
541.490.6528
Baker County
Commissioners Bill Harvey;
Mark Bennett; Tim Kerns
541.523.8200
541.523.8201