OREGON
Thursday, January 6, 2022
East Oregonian
A7
Nick Kristof lawyers argue candidate is Oregonian
Kristof says intent,
not voting history,
should dictate
residency ruling
By JIM REDDEN
Oregon Capital Bureau
PORTLAND — Lawyers
for former New York Times
columnist Nick Kristof have
submitted a 15-page letter
to the Oregon Secretary of
State’s Offi ce asserting he is
legally qualified to run for
governor this year.
The office, which regu-
lates elections in the state, is
questioning Kristof’s qualifi -
cations, in large part because
he registered to vote in New
York while working at The
Times. The Oregon Consti-
tution requires candidates for
governor be a resident of the
state for at least three years
before their election, or no
later than November 2019
in Kristof’s case.
“Mr. Kristof is an Oregon
resident and has been for his
entire adult life,” said the letter
from Misha Isaak and Jeremy
Carp, of the Perkins Coie law
fi rm, dated Monday, Jan. 3.
Among other things, the letter
cited a 1974 Marion County
Circuit Court case that found
where a candidate votes does
not determine residency. The
Portland Tribune fi rst reported
on the case Dec. 28.
Kristof fi led as a Democrat
for governor on Dec. 20. The
next day an election compli-
ance specialist sent him a
letter which said, in part, “We
typically determine whether
candidates meet residency
requirements by checking
their voter registration records,
but your Oregon voter regis-
tration record has insuffi cient
information. In addition, it has
come to our attention that you
voted in New York State as
recently as 2020.”
Kristyna Wentz-Graff /Oregon Public Broadcasting, File
Nick Kristof answers questions about his campaign for Ore-
gon governor on Oct. 27, 2021, at First Presbyterian Church
of Portland.
In their response, Isaak and
Carp note that many people
have multiple residences,
sometimes in diff erent states,
but that Kristof has always
considered Oregon his home,
even when going to college or
working out of state. Among
other things, the letter said
Kristof has returned to his
family farm in Yamhill every
summer over the past three
decades, built an addition large
enough for his growing family
there in 1994, and purchased
three nearby parcels of land
between 1993 and 2020. Kris-
tof also has called Oregon his
home in numerous columns
and interviews beginning in
1982, the letter said.
According to the letter,
there has only been one
Oregon court case that consid-
ered the question of whether
voter registration determines
residency. It took place in
1974 after former Oregon
Secretary of State Clay Myers
ruled then-Clatsop County
state Rep. Bill Wyatt off the
ballot because he had regis-
tered to vote in Lane County
while attending the University
of Oregon in Eugene. Wyatt
challenged the decision in
court.
Marion County Judge
Jena Schlegel disagreed with
Myers, ruling that “the ques-
tion of domicile is largely
one of intent” and Wyatt “by
his testimony maintained his
ties with Clatsop County and
never made an affirmative
decision to change his domi-
cile elsewhere. Continuous
physical presence (within the
district) is not required.”
Myers did not appeal the
ruling.
“Thus, today, the Marion
County Circuit Court decision
is the only judicial decision
to address the significance
of registration and voting in
evaluating an Oregon candi-
date’s residency. That decision
squarely resolves the issue in
favor of Mr. Kristof’s posi-
tion,” the letter reads.
In their letter, Isaak and
Carp also say that residency
requirements are historically
rooted in racism, especially in
Oregon.
“They applied originally
both to voting and serving
in elected office and were
adopted by powerful white
elites to keep themselves in
power and to exclude from
political participation people
of color, ‘foreigners,’ and other
disempowered newcomers,”
the letter reads.
Oregon Supreme Court: Only active voters can sign initiative petitions
By PETER WONG
Oregon Capital Bureau
SALEM — The Oregon
Supreme Court has held
again that only active voters,
excluding people who remain
on county registration rolls
but are considered inactive,
are eligible to sign petitions
for ballot initiatives and
referendums.
The court upheld the
secretary of state, who
declined to place an initiative
on the 2016 statewide ballot
because it relied on signa-
tures from inactive voters to
qualify it. Judge J. Channing
Bennett upheld the state’s
action in mid-2020 in Marion
County Circuit Court. But
a three-judge panel of the
Oregon Court of Appeals
overturned it in a 2-1 deci-
sion released on Dec. 30,
2020.
Exactly one year later, on
the fi nal business day of 2021,
the Supreme Court upheld
the original 2016 decision
by then-Secretary of State
Jeanne Atkins to exclude
signatures from inactive
voters. The resulting total fell
short of the amount required
to qualify the initiative for a
statewide ballot. (Atkins has
had three successors: Repub-
lican Dennis Richardson,
elected in 2016; Republican
Bev Clarno, appointed in
2019 after Richardson died,
and Democrat Shemia Fagan,
elected in 2020. The case
now bears Fagan’s name as
the respondent.)
The Oregon Constitu-
tion specifi es the signatures
required to qualify a refer-
endum, initiative or consti-
tutional amendment for a
statewide election, based
on the total votes cast in
the most recent election for
governor.
Justice Thomas Balmer,
who wrote for the court,
said voter registration for
elections has been required
by state law since 1920 and
by the Oregon Constitution
since 1927.
He wrote:
“Defi ning and regulating
voter registration and veri-
fi cation of registrations has
been within the purview of
the legislative branch. And
this court has issued several
decisions squarely holding
that voters may sign initiative
petitions only if they could
legally vote in an election at
the time of signing.
“We conclude that voters
with inactive registration,
who statutorily may not vote,
may not have their signa-
tures counted on initiative
petitions either.”
Voters are considered
“inactive” under a state
administrative rule if they
have not cast ballots for at
least 10 years and county
elections offi cials have sent
specified notices to them.
They can become active and
eligible to vote if they notify
the Division of Driver and
Motor Vehicle Services or
their county elections offi ce.
The legal challenge was
fi led by Richard Whitehead
on behalf of the Citizens in
Charge Foundation, based in
Virginia. It sought to qual-
ify a ballot measure barring
disclosure of certain voter
information to third parties,
such as the status of a voter’s
ballot, without a voter’s writ-
ten consent. The lawsuit was
joined by Timothy Grant,
who became an inactive
voter because he joined his
spouse on active military
duty out of state.
Three lawyers from
the Portland fi rm of Davis
Wright Tremaine were
involved with the plaintiff s’
challenge: Chris Swift; Evan
Christopher, who now is a
counsel with the U.S. House
Judiciary Committee, and
Greg Chaimov, a former
counsel for the Oregon
Legislature.
EARN YOUR TICKET
AND CHANCE TO WIN
$20,000 CASH!
January 3 –30
Qualifying rounds start January 3, 2022
11am–Noon & 6–8pm
Every Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday
12 players selected every session
Horizon members only every Thursday!
Star and Sky members are automatically entered into Finals weekend!
MORE Golden Ticket Fun!
Sundays Entry Stacker • 17X Entry Multiplier
$1,000 VIP Saturday Slot Tournaments
Willy’s VIP Wild Cards • VIP Point Chase to the Finals
CASINO • HOTEL • GOLF • CINEPLEX • RV
MUSEUM • DINING • TRAVEL PLAZA • FUNPLEX
®
800.654.9453 • PENDLETON, OR • I-84, EXIT 216 • wildhorseresort.com • Owned and operated by CTUIR
Management reserves all rights to alter, suspend or withdraw promotions/offers at any time.
CAT10895-1