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.