Page 6A
OPINION
East Oregonian
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
OTHER VIEWS
Founded October 16, 1875
KATHRYN B. BROWN
DANIEL WATTENBURGER
Publisher
Managing Editor
JENNINE PERKINSON
TIM TRAINOR
Advertising Director
Opinion Page Editor
OUR VIEW
Liquor initiative has
dirty little secret
If it ain’t broke, don’t ¿x it.
Oregon’s burgeoning industries
That axiom is apt for the ballot
of craft brewers, distillers and
winemakers oppose the initiative,
initiative that would move liquor
sales out of state-operated stores and because of what they see coming.
Without the Oregon Liquor Control
into grocery stores. The measure
Commission stores,
is backed by the
craft distillers would
grocery industry.
their access
Petitioners will
Prices have gone lose
to a statewide
soon be gathering
up and variety retail network. If
signatures.
is moved
When
has gone down liquor
into supermarkets,
Washington voters
considered this
in Washington, brewers and
winemakers will
choice in 2011,
where liquor
see their shelf
it became known
space diminished.
colloquially as the
is sold in
stores are a
Costco Initiative.
supermarkets. Grocery
zero-sum game. If a
That’s because
body of new product
Costco largely
gains shelf space,
bankrolled the ballot
other products have less.
measure campaign.
OLCC stores produce revenue
Oregon is one of 13 states that
in excess of $200 million that’s
maintains state-owned stores. They
used for state and local government
are a considerable moneymaker for
services. The grocers’ ballot measure
state government. How the state
assumes the state Legislature will
would replace that revenue is this
¿nd another way to generate that
ballot measure’s dirty little secret.
amount of revenue. Good luck.
On the other side of the
Washington’s Costco Initiative
Columbia River, there is a measure
has demonstrated who really wins
of buyers’ remorse. The variety
with proposals such as this. The craft
Washingtonians once saw in their
distillers, brewers and wine makers
liquor stores is gone. Restaurateurs
¿nd that particularly vexing. And the have it right. They will lose, big
time. So will consumers.
products cost more.
Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the East Oregonian editorial board of Publisher
Kathryn Brown, Managing Editor Daniel Wattenburger, and Opinion Page Editor Tim Trainor.
Other columns, letters and cartoons on this page express the opinions of the authors and not
necessarily that of the East Oregonian.
OUR VIEW
A right to work ballot measure
The Oregonian
P
rior to Supreme Court Justice
Antonin Scalia’s death, it was
easy for Oregonians to overlook a
“right to work” ballot measure proposed
by Portland-area attorney Jill Gibson.
The court appeared ready during oral
arguments in January to prohibit public
sector unions from imposing fees on
nonmembers, as Gibson seeks to do.
A slim majority of justices, in fact, all
but invited this challenge to coerced
contributions in their resolution of a
related case two years earlier. Given
the long approach of a
seemingly inevitable
outcome, Gibson’s
initiative appeared to
be little more than an
insurance policy against
the unexpected.
The unexpected
happened in Texas a
month and a half ago,
and the consequences
are unfolding. The
eight remaining justices
announced Tuesday
that they’d deadlocked
on the right to work
case argued in January,
leaving public sector unions free in many
states to continue extracting money from
workers who don’t want to join. Public
employees in Oregon who object to such
coercion will now have to look to the
ballot box rather than the court for relief.
The right to work ¿ght is largely a
debate about the lesser of two evils.
One is mooching, and the other is
the violation of employees’ First
Amendment protections. In many states,
including Oregon, public sector unions
may collect money from non-members
who hold jobs covered by collective
bargaining — think public school
teachers. Employees in such positions
don’t have to belong to the union itself,
but they must pay fees in lieu of dues.
Such fees are appropriate, the thinking
goes, because even nonmembers in
covered positions bene¿t from the
bargaining and representation of the
union they are compelled to support.
The alternative would be to allow
free-ridership, in which nonmembers
enjoy the bene¿ts of bargaining and
representation without paying any costs.
On the other hand, compelling
nonmembers to contribute money to
public sector unions creates signi¿cant
First Amendment problems. The
California teachers who brought the
challenge upon which the Supreme
Court deadlocked argued that bargaining
with a government body is an inherently
political act given the issues involved
and the effects on ¿nite public dollars.
Justice Anthony Kennedy echoed this
sentiment, arguing that, “When you are
dealing with a governmental agency,
many critical points are matters of public
concern. And is it not true that many
teachers strongly, strongly disagree with
the union position on teacher tenure,
on merit pay, on merit promotion, on
classroom size?”
The union, Kennedy argued,
“basically is making these teachers
‘compelled riders’ for issues on which
they strongly disagree.”
Compelling people to support
positions with which they disagree
is a greater affront than allowing
for the possibility of free-ridership.
Not only does the former run up
against the Constitution’s free speech
protections, but the latter does nothing
more than require unions to make a
case for the contributions they now
may compel. Public
sector employees are
plenty smart enough
to understand the
consequences attached
to their pocketbook
decisions. And giving
them that choice is not,
as some like to claim,
“anti-worker.” It’s just
the opposite.
Nonetheless, the
possibility of allowing
free-ridership can be
a serious problem for
anyone seeking reform
via the ballot. It’s
far easier, and perhaps more effective,
for opponents to yell “moochers”
repeatedly than it is to explain the First
Amendment problems with forced
union contributions. For that reason,
Gibson’s initiative seeks to eliminate the
possibility of free-ridership. Independent
employees — those who wished
neither to join a public sector union nor
contribute to one — would be treated
as if they did not belong to a bargaining
unit, and their pay and bene¿ts would
not be determined by union contracts.
They wouldn’t be forced have to make
contributions and they wouldn’t bene¿t
from the work unions do.
Gibson knows of no precedent
for such an arrangement to prevent
free-ridership, but believes it would
work just ¿ne. Not all public employees
in Oregon are represented by a union,
she says, including those who work for
the state Supreme Court, which has yet
to rule on a number of challenges to
the initiative’s ballot title. (The same
goes, in fact, for the rest of the Oregon
Judicial Department, which includes the
Court of Appeals and circuit courts.) If
the measure passes, says Gibson, the
compensation of employees who are
now compelled to pay fair share dues
would be based on merit rather than a
contract bargained by a union.
Antonin Scalia’s death may have
stalled the right to work debate in
Washington, D.C., but that makes
initiatives like Gibson’s even more
crucial. Most people can agree that
protecting the rights of public employees
is a good thing, as is empowering
them to make decisions about the use
of their money. If these goals can be
accomplished without contributing to
free-ridership, so much the better.
It’s largely a
debate about
the lesser of
two evils: the
violation of First
Amendment
protection, and
mooching
The (Un)Democratic Party
T
here are two prominent features
single vote was cast, The Associated
of the Democratic Party’s
Press found that at least half of all
presidential selection process
those superdelegates (359) had
that are thoroughly undemocratic
already committed to supporting
and undermine faith in the party:
Clinton. Only eight had committed
superdelegates (which favor Hillary
to supporting Sanders. Clinton’s
Clinton) and caucuses (which favor
popularity among superdelegates has
Bernie Sanders).
only continued to rise. This is not to
As The New York Times editorial
Charles say that superdelegates can’t switch
board explained: “Superdelegates
allegiances, but the initial, premature
Blow
are party bigwigs — 712 Democratic
declarations are the real problem.
Comment
leaders, legislators, governors and the
Then, there are the caucuses.
like. They can vote for any candidate
As Zachary Roth wrote for
at the nominating convention, regardless
MSNBC ahead of the Iowa caucuses: “The
of whether that candidate won the popular
tightly limited hours are perhaps the most
vote. These unpledged delegates make up 30
glaring problem — especially at a time when
percent of the 2,382 delegates whose votes are Democrats are emphasizing the importance
needed to win the nomination, and could thus
of expanding access to voting, and are
make all the difference.”
responding to the needs of working people.”
Let’s start there.
He continued: “The
Superdelegates, whose
restricted hours are
votes are not bound by the
increasingly out of step not
millions of individual voters,
only with the direction of
make up nearly a third of all
the Democratic Party, but
delegates. That, on its face, is
also with broader economic
outrageous.
trends. Many of those who
It’s no surprise that
will be shut out are likely to
superdelegates were created
be low-wage workers, who
by establishment elites to
typically have little control
increase their own power.
over their schedules.”
Superdelegates were
This says nothing of the
invented by a Democratic
burden caucuses put on
rule change in the early
families without child care,
1980s after the nomination of George
students and senior citizens.
McGovern in 1972 and the devastating loss
It’s the height of irony that the caucuses
of Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan in 1980,
have favored Sanders, the candidate promising
precisely to help the establishment prevent the to decrease income inequality and ¿ght for
nomination of insurgent candidates of whom
higher wages.
the establishment disapproved. (Sanders is
So far, the Democrats have held 21
nothing if not an insurgent candidate.)
primaries, including Democrats abroad, and
As The New York Times reported in
14 caucuses in the states and the territories.
1981: “Gov. James B. Hunt Jr. of North
Clinton won 16 primaries but just four
Carolina, who heads the latest Democratic
caucuses, while Sanders won 10 caucuses but
rule-changing group, an unwieldy, 29-member just ¿ve primaries. For context, Democrats
agglomeration of the innocent and the
will have a total of 19 caucuses in the states
experienced, describes its task as one of
and the territories, while the Republicans
writing ‘rules that will help us choose a
have only 13. (North Dakota doesn’t hold
nominee who can win and who, having won,
a caucus or a primary, while Colorado and
can govern effectively.’”
Wyoming hold only informal caucuses,
The article continued: “Much of this year’s where constituents vote for delegates, not
deliberations have seemed infused with a
candidates.)
desire to deny future nominations to political
Furthermore, caucuses dispense with the
reincarnations of the Jimmy Carter of 1976.”
privacy and anonymity of the voting booth
So today we have an establishment
and have the potential to inject an element
structure that equates a single establishment
of peer pressure into the democratic process.
vote with thousands of citizen votes.
People should be free to vote with their
conscience — and in private! — and feel no
As Tom Foreman wrote for CNN.com in
pressure whatsoever to bend to the consensus
2008 when the role of superdelegates was
of the community.
also being hotly debated: “A few decades
Indeed, the Boston Globe editorial page
ago, Democratic leaders felt that sometimes,
argued for the elimination of caucuses last
Democratic voters were choosing poor
month, saying: “In a caucus, voters who aren’t
presidential candidates: campaigners who
physically able to sit in a school gymnasium
couldn’t win elections, or even if they could,
and debate the merits of their candidate with
they didn’t please Democratic kingmakers.”
their neighbors get shut out. And obscure
This system is unjust, in part because
rules that vary from state to state governing
those superdelegates are not prohibited from
delegate allotment and proxy balloting make
declaring their loyalty before voting has
ended. At the very least, they should be barred for confusing inconsistencies when tallying
results.”
from committing before voting is completed
For a Democratic Party that prides itself on
in their own states.
the grand ideals of inclusion and fairness, the
Without this prohibition, the establishment
nominating process is anything but.
puts its thumb on the scale and signals its
Ŷ
approval and disapproval ahead of Democratic
Charles M. Blow is The New York Times’s
voters. How can this be defended?
visual Op-Ed columnist.
This cycle, nearly three months before a
Superdelegates
make up nearly
a third of all
delegates.
That is
outrageous.
YOUR VIEWS
Colorectal cancer kills
hundreds of Oregonians
This year, roughly 1,600 Oregonians will
be diagnosed with colorectal cancer and
approximately 660 Oregon residents will die
from it — the second leading cause of cancer
death in the country.
Colorectal cancer is also preventable
with early detection and screening, so this
many people shouldn’t die from it. If you
have private insurance, you’re not charged
copayments for colonoscopies and other
screenings. However, senior citizens on
Medicare can get a large bill if a polyp is
found and removed during their routine
colonoscopy. That’s because of a loophole that
reclassi¿es this procedure as diagnostic.
Congress is considering legislation to
remove this loophole and make these cancer
screenings more attainable for everyone.
In 2009, my dear friend Jim Schweigart, a
retired 3endleton police of¿cer, died of a rare
form of cancer shortly after retiring. To help
myself heal from his death, I got involved
with cancer advocacy so others don’t have to
lose loved ones from it.
As an American Cancer Society Cancer
Action Network volunteer for Oregon’s 2nd
Congressional District, my goal is to get
lawmakers to help eliminate this disease. I’m
grateful to Rep. Greg Walden for supporting
lifesaving legislation to remove this Medicare
barrier. Thanks to his support, we’re closer
to making these preventive screenings more
accessible for rural Oregonians.
Karen Malcolm
Pendleton
LETTERS POLICY
The East Oregonian welcomes original letters of 400 words or less on public issues
and public policies for publication in the newspaper and on our website. The newspaper
reserves the right to withhold letters that address concerns about individual services and
products or letters that infringe on the rights of private citizens. Submitted letters must
be signed by the author and include the city of residence and a daytime phone number.
The phone number will not be published. Unsigned letters will not be published. Send
letters to Managing Editor Daniel Wattenburger, 211 S.E. Byers Ave. Pendleton, OR 97801
or email editor@eastoregonian.com.