Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current | View Entire Issue (Nov. 14, 2018)
Page 4A East Oregonian Wednesday, November 14, 2018 CHRISTOPHER RUSH Publisher KATHRYN B. BROWN Owner DANIEL WATTENBURGER Managing Editor WYATT HAUPT JR. News Editor Founded October 16, 1875 OUR VIEW Fixing a flaw in state’s jury system Albany Democrat-Herald L ouisiana voters last week decided to do away with that state’s oddball rule that allowed nonunanimous juries to decide criminal felony cases. That leaves just one state in which a jury can convict a defendant of a felony on a 10-2 vote. Can you guess what that state is? That’s right. But there’s an excellent chance that Oregon voters will get a chance in 2020 to erase this stain on the state’s constitution — and legislators are kicking around a fix in the 2019 session that could cover the gap until that election. Until last Tuesday night, Oregon and Louisiana were the only two states to allow a nonunanimous jury to decide a felony case, although Oregon does require unanimous juries in murder or aggravated murder cases. In Tuesday’s election, though, 65 percent of Louisiana voters approved a constitutional amendment to do away with nonunanimous convictions; the amendment goes into effect on Jan. 1. The measure drew support from political players of every stripe, from the state’s Republican Party to the Southern Poverty Law Center. In Louisiana, the nonunanimous jury rule dates back to 1898; scholars have argued that the measure was intended to limit the influence of African-American jurors. Oregon’s nonunanimous jury practice also was born out of prejudice — but in this case, it was anti-immigrant fervor that paved the way. The state amended its constitution in 1934 to allow juries to decide most felony cases on 10-2 votes. Legal scholars (most notably, Aliza Kaplan of Lewis & Clark Law School, who wrote an influential piece on this topic) point to a sensational Columbia County murder case that paved the way for the ill-considered amendment. That 1933 case involved a Jewish suspect, Jake Silverman, on trial for murder. One juror held out against conviction, and the jury eventually reached a compromise guilty verdict on a lesser charge of manslaughter. A judge sentenced Silverman to three years in prison. The backlash was considerable. The Morning Oregonian, for example, railed against the verdict on its editorial pages, in language that was — well, not even borderline racist, but you can be the judge. Consider this excerpt from a November 1933 editorial: “This newspaper’s opinion is that the increased urbanization of American life ... and the vast immigration into America from southern and eastern Europe, of people untrained in the jury system, have combined to make the EO Media Group file photo jury of twelve increasingly unwieldy and unsatisfactory.” The newspaper previously had editorialized against so-called “mixed-blood” jurors. (To be fair, The Oregonian recently recanted its 1933 editorial position on this matter.) The Legislature, responding to the outcry, voted to place a constitutional amendment on the May 1934 ballot to allow nonunanimous juries. The measure drew no organized opposition and was approved by 58 percent of voters. Since then, a number of attempts have been made to amend the constitution on this point — including a recent effort by the Oregon District Attorneys Association — but none has managed to gain much traction. (The effort by the District Attorneys Association seemed to lose steam after a premature rollout of a website leaked critical details, but many Oregon prosecutors support eliminating nonunanimous verdicts.) Since the effort requires amending the constitution, it would require a vote. Last week, Democratic House Majority Leader Jennifer Williamson said she’ll sponsor two bills on the matter in the 2019 Legislature: One would refer the question to voters in the 2020 general election. The other, she said, would be a statutory fix that would seek to ensure we don’t have to wait until after the 2020 election to do away with nonunanimous juries. Oregonians love to brag about the state’s independence, how we love to stand apart. But here’s a case where we need to fall into step with the rest of the OTHER VIEWS GOP leaders regretting Clinton impeachment I OTHER VIEWS Purpling of Texas is slow Dallas Morning News T he question is on more than a few minds now. Did Beto O’Rourke prove the once-unthinkable — that the near future of Texas is as a purple state? Those who hold out hope that, in fact, O’Rourke showed it is possible to repaint this red state will point to several factors. The congressman went from little-known El Paso figure to a national sensation overnight and raised $70 million in the process. He forced Sen. Ted Cruz, a national figure on the right with a dedicated core of supporters, to run hard to win. And he appeared to be in a very competitive position in a series of polls over the course of the campaign. Political prognosticators might also point to other factors. Texas is a rapidly changing state attracting a wide swath of new voters. And just as rapid growth helped fuel a Republican takeover of Texas, such growth can change the political trajectory of a state. Colorado and Virginia are examples of states that are competitive today in part because, over time, the influx of residents can flip voting patterns. In Texas, this appears to take on added significance because of the growing number of Hispanic residents. It is presumed that in the coming years, they will break in favor of Democrats. All of these things are true, but color us skeptical that they add up to a purple future for the state of Texas in the near term. Consider that Republicans who war with other Republicans tend to underperform. And Cruz spent the first few years of his term mixing it up with members of his own party in Washington, then made a name for himself challenging Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the East Oregonian editorial board. Other columns, letters and cartoons on this page express the opinions of the authors and not necessarily that of the East Oregonian. his party on its principles as he ran for president. And, although anecdotal, we have met a lot of staunch Republicans who didn’t vote for Cruz because they just don’t like him. All of that adds up to the fact that Cruz had work to do to win a second term. But there is more evidence to suggest this year’s results are peculiar to the circumstances. We’ll start with President Donald Trump’s leadership style. To the extent that this election cycle was a referendum on the president, the results broke against Republicans generally. That is especially true in our suburbs. One reason Pete Sessions won’t be returning to Congress is that he was a Republican running in the suburbs this year. Despite all of this, however, Democrats still failed to win a statewide race. They weren’t able to defeat Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who became synonymous with divisive politics. The party of Beto also failed to unseat Ken Paxton, the state’s attorney general who is under indictment. In the end, O’Rourke outperformed Lupe Valdez, who ran a lackluster campaign for governor, by just five points in a year that was supposed to be a wave election against the president’s party. To us, what all of this shows is that there is a hunger among voters for candidates who offer a mix of optimism and who work against those who would divide us. Republicans are just as capable of offering that message. Indeed, it is the message that enabled George W. Bush to turn the state red in 1994. It’s the message Ronald Reagan used to endear himself to a generation on the right. And, we suspect, it is a message candidates will rediscover as they consider what it will take to remain competitive in the years ahead. f Democrats are trying to a Republican president. In any reassure anyone that they won’t event, though, they point out that impeach President Trump, impeachment can put a party in a they’re aren’t doing a very good very dangerous position. job of it. Of course the Trump and Just days after her party won Clinton cases are different. Yes, control of the House, Rep. Nancy Trump’s job approval is nearly Pelosi made clear that Democrats the same as Clinton’s was at this Byron might impeach the president even point in his presidency, according York if Trump-Russia special counsel to Gallup. But Trump has been Comment Robert Mueller does not find the target of relentlessly negative evidence to warrant charges against media commentary, while during him. the Clinton scandals much less of the “Recognize one point,” Pelosi told the commentary targeted the president, and a Atlantic. “What (Trump-Russia special good portion instead targeted Republican counsel Robert) Mueller might not think is investigators. indictable could be impeachable.” Today, there is one group that really wants impeachment, and that is Democratic “We’re waiting to see what the special voters. According to an NBC News exit counsel finds,” Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who poll, 78 percent of Democrats who voted in will run the House Judiciary Committee, told CNN. “And we will then have to make the midterms say Congress should impeach judgments. I certainly hope that we will not the president, versus just 17 percent of Democrats who oppose the move. find the necessity for an impeachment. But Outside of Democrats, 57 percent of you can’t rule that out.” Before Pelosi and her fellow Democrats independents are against impeachment, versus 34 percent who support it. And 94 turn down the road to impeachment, they percent of Republicans oppose it, versus 5 might do well to listen to the last speaker percent who support it. of the House who tried to remove a House Democrats will investigate president. Newt Gingrich famously led the Republican impeachment of Bill Clinton in Trump on a whole range of topics. But any impeachment would likely be based 1998 and 1999. Today, he has regrets. on the Russia affair. As Nadler suggested, In a recent interview at the Washington Democrats will wait to take action until Examiner’s Sea Island Political Summit, after special counsel Mueller reports his I asked Gingrich about Senate Majority findings. But as Pelosi noted, Democrats Leader Mitch McConnell’s recent reserve the right to impeach Trump even statement that the Republican campaign if Mueller does not uncover evidence of against Bill Clinton backfired on the GOP. serious wrongdoing. “The business of presidential harassment, What is extraordinary, given some which we were deeply engaged in in Democrats’ appetite for impeachment, is the late 1990s, improved the president’s how little a role the Russia investigation approval rating, and tanked ours,” played in the midterms that brought McConnell said. Democrats to power in the House. “I think McConnell is largely right,” Democratic candidates did not campaign Gingrich told me. “I think we mishandled on an elect-me-and-I’ll-impeach-the- the (Clinton) investigation ... and I think president platform. Indeed, in many races that we should have been calmer and the issue never came up at all. Democratic slower and allowed the country to talk to strategists warned candidates against using itself before we reached judgment.” the I-word, suggesting they instead pledge Gingrich pointed to another House leader, Democrat Tip O’Neill, who handled to serve as a “check and balance” on the House action against Richard Nixon during president and hold him “accountable.” Now, however, with the elections Watergate. “O’Neill was better than I was safely over, impeachment talk is back. at managing that process,” Gingrich said. Democratic leaders know that nearly eight Gingrich’s words — and McConnell’s, out of 10 of their voters want them to too — are extraordinary admissions of mistakes. Together, they serve as a warning impeach Trump. Political leaders do not to Democrats to be cautious when it comes usually ignore the wishes of eight out of 10 of their supporters. to impeaching Trump. ■ On the other hand, some might see Byron York is chief political correspondent Gingrich and McConnell as simply trying for The Washington Examiner. to scare Democrats away from pursuing 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. 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.
