A8 The BulleTin • Wednesday, april 28, 2021
EDITORIALS & OPINIONS
AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER
Heidi Wright
Gerry O’Brien
Richard Coe
Publisher
Editor
Editorial Page Editor
Draft a wish list
for your legislators
T
oday we’d like you to draft a multimillion-dollar wish
list and send it off to your Oregon state senator and state
representative.
Each of Oregon’s 30 senators can
spend $4 million in federal funding
— almost as they please. And each
of the 60 members of the House has
command of $2 million.
Who knows better than you
where it should be spent? Or at least,
they should listen to your sugges-
tions and thank you for them.
The total $240 million comes
courtesy of the federal Ameri-
can Rescue Plan Act. This deal for
spreading around the money was
struck to keep Democrats and Re-
publicans in the Legislature focused
on passing legislation, not fighting.
State Sen. Tim Knopp, R-Bend, told
us he has until May 10 to come up
with his list. All the lists submitted
may well be rounded up into what
they call a Christmas tree bill, so
everybody’s goodies are rolled into
one. That way the bill will surely
pass.
Now you could be a penny
pincher and tell your Oregon legisla-
tors not to spend a penny. You have
to know, though, other legislators
won’t let the money sit around. They
will spend it. Might as well take lo-
cal control of the money. The overall
state budget is in good shape. The
early session pandemic financial
fretting melted away with the spring,
because the total Oregon is expected
to get from the federal rescue plan is
some $2.6 billion.
One-time spending of $4 million
or $2 million can’t fix affordable
housing in Bend. It can’t fix wildfire
risk in Sisters. It won’t build a new
runway in Redmond. It won’t make
La Pine’s industrial park take off. It
won’t fix the water supply issues on
the Warm Springs Reservation. And
it won’t bring logging jobs back to
Prineville. Some targeted dollars,
though, can change lives.
It perhaps makes sense not to
spend it on hiring people for new
jobs or to start up new programs.
How do you pay for them next year?
That said, it might make sense to
spend it on a pilot program if there’s
a good idea that needs testing out.
There’s such a big need for so
many things it’s not going to be
easy to divvy up a few million. Are
some needs more acute right now?
Would it help to spend some more
to encourage more people to get
vaccinated? Is there a program in
the schools that could make a real
difference for students who lost
learning because of the pandemic?
Could something be done to help
keep businesses operating? Is there
anything needed for public safety
training? Affordable housing, fight-
ing child abuse, homelessness and so
many more ideas that we have not
mentioning also are deserving.
It’s not going to be so easy for
legislators to pick. You may have a
good idea that your legislator never
thought of. You may have a good
idea that your legislator is on the
fence about. Let them know.
If you are not sure who your leg-
islator is, you can enter your address
at this website oregonlegislature.gov/
FindYourLegislator/leg-districts.
html and it will tell you. Click on
their name and their email address
should pop up. Then plan your wish
list.
Shouldn’t they need a
warrant to track you?
D
ata available for purchase
from the apps on the phones
of American special forces in
Syria could be used to track them,
The Wall Street Journal reported
Monday.
That’s unsettling. And though
your movements around Central
Oregon don’t likely require the same
level of secrecy, you are exposed by a
similar loophole in the law. Law en-
forcement and intelligence agencies
can buy your personal information
from data brokers. They can track
you without the need to get a war-
rant. All they need is cash.
Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, a Dem-
ocrat, and 19 other senators have in-
troduced a bill to close the loophole.
The Fourth Amendment was writ-
ten to protect Americans from un-
reasonable search and seizure. This
bill essentially makes it clear that the
government needs to get a court or-
der to compel data brokers to release
data — similar to the way the gov-
ernment needs a court order to get
information from tech and phone
companies. It only seems fair.
There’s more detail and nuance to
this issue than we have room to go
into here. More information is avail-
able at wyden.senate.gov. Search for
“Fourth Amendment.”
Editorials reflect the views of The Bulletin’s editorial board, Publisher Heidi Wright, Editor
Gerry O’Brien and Editorial Page Editor Richard Coe. They are written by Richard Coe.
My Nickel’s Worth
Hubbard for La Pine fire
I am running for re-election for di-
rector, Position 1, board of directors
at La Pine Fire because my career in
financial management has already
helped the district improve its finan-
cial situation. Additionally, I have de-
veloped plans to proactively deal with
the district’s future, and have worked
diligently to improve the dialogue be-
tween board members, fire district
personnel, and the public.
During my term I have helped
the district by: facilitating the third
board of directors development of a
five-year strategic plan; preparing a
long-term revenue and expense study;
analyzing the district’s emergency
medical services program resulting
in increased revenue and community
involvement in addressing La Pine’s
need for 24/7 medical services; devel-
oping the long-range plan to improve
facilities including the 2021 addition
of additional restrooms at two sta-
tions; supporting the addition of new
dorms for students at station 103; rep-
resenting the district at various com-
munity events; attending fire district
and board of director conferences re-
sulting in new policies and actions to
strengthen the district.
My previous experience in manag-
ing multimillion-dollar budgets has
given me the background to help the
board and the fire chief move the dis-
trict forward in a financially respon-
sible way. With your vote I can con-
tinue to serve all of the fire district’s
residents and guests through cost ef-
fective management of the district’s
resources.
— Jerry Hubbard, La Pine
Lopez-Dauenhauer should
debate publicly
A political mailing arrived from
one of the “Gang of Four,” Maria Lo-
pez-Dauenhauer. This is the group that
has refused to meet with The Bulletin
or to appear at the customary candi-
date forums in our community. This is
both ironic and disturbing given they
are running to represent us as school
board members. The mailer endorses
the other three ‘ghost’ candidates. Fur-
thermore, it slings harsh accusations
at her opponent. It’s like firing from
the safety of a bunker, or acting like a
sniper. Very strange, and I’m not sure
how my name got on her mailing list.
Like many others, I take a dim view of
this negative campaigning and find it
hard to vote in good faith for candi-
dates who engage in it. What worries
me more in this climate, where we are
being made aware of the fragility of our
democracy, is this attempt to run a co-
vert campaign. If Maria Lopez-Dauen-
hauer has such strong feelings about
her opponent, she should meet her
in public. If she has such strong feel-
ings about how the school district has
acted in this unprecedented time of the
COVID pandemic, please show up and
debate that publicly. The behavior of
the “Gang of Four” is both reprehensi-
ble and undemocratic.
— Robert Currie, Bend
Disappointed in Bend City Council
I was disappointed but not sur-
prised at the editorial in the Sunday
paper regarding the Bend City Coun-
cil leaning towards removing park-
ing minimums. If you bothered to
read the survey last week on this very
subject, this flies in the face of reality
and ignores what the citizens of Bend
overwhelmingly are against. Just an-
other example of city councilors ig-
noring their constituents for their nar-
row-minded agendas.
— Gardner Willams, Bend
Bend loses again
Recently, I like most others in
Bend I’m sure, found out for the first
time any real and detailed informa-
tion about a plan to remove the pres-
ent Pine Ridge Inn and surrounding
covering of natural trees and ground
covering, situated above the dramatic
bluffs and popular Deschutes River
recreational area and along the busy
Century Drive on Bend’s west side.
The lack of any real attempts to ade-
quately inform the public about such
a major change to eliminate/alter yet
another of Bend’s natural attractions,
is apparently already on the drawing
board and advanced planning. This
poses major traffic concerns along the
Century Drive retail area and the con-
gested Reed Market Road, which bor-
ders the proposed development, along
with the loss of another piece of Bend’s
natural attractions. This proposed de-
velopment would dramatically change
the nature of biking, hiking, floating
and just visually enjoying this break in
retail creep that Bend is experiencing.
The city of Bend and the City Coun-
cil must put any further action on this
development on hold and then bring
a meaningful public information cam-
paign to us in order to get direction on
this major change.
—Jack Godlove, Bend
Letters policy
Guest columns
We welcome your letters. Letters should be limited to one issue,
contain no more than 250 words and include the writer’s signa-
ture, phone number and address for verification. We edit letters
for brevity, grammar, taste and legal reasons. We reject poetry,
personal attacks, form letters, letters submitted elsewhere.
Your submissions should be between 550 and 650 words; they
must be signed; and they must include the writer’s phone num-
ber and address for verification. We edit submissions for brevity,
grammar, taste and legal reasons. Writers are limited to one letter
or guest column every 30 days. Email: letters@bendbulletin.com
Supreme Court ruling could be bad news for gun regulation advocates
BY AMANDA HOLLIS-BRUSKY
Special to The Washington Post
O
n Monday, the Supreme Court
announced that it would hear
a National Rifle Associa-
tion-backed challenge to laws about
concealed guns. The challengers in
New York State Rifle & Pistol Associ-
ation v. Corlett claim that New York’s
100-year-old permitting process for
carrying a firearm outside the home
violates the Second Amendment. The
timing of the announcement is con-
spicuous. With gun violence and mass
shootings returning to the daily news,
President Joe Biden has signaled that
he intends to push Congress to pass
gun-regulation measures.
The case the Supreme Court agreed
to hear could throw a wrench in those
plans. Here’s why we can expect a pro-
gun ruling from the court.
The Supreme Court’s 2008 pro-gun
ruling has been applied narrowly by
lower courts
In 2008, the Supreme Court de-
cided in D.C. v. Heller that the Sec-
ond Amendment protects an indi-
vidual’s right to keep and bear arms
for self-defense. Many constitutional
scholars saw this as a dramatic shift.
For 70 years, the court had consid-
ered Second Amendment rights to be
confined by the text’s opening phrase,
“a well-regulated militia,” and treated
it as a collective right. However, in
Heller, writing for a five-justice ma-
jority, Justice Antonin Scalia insisted
that “the right secured by the Second
Amendment” was robust enough to
warrant striking down the District
of Columbia’s handgun ban. Scalia
stressed that the amendment’s right
“is not unlimited” and could be sub-
ject to some regulation.
Many conservatives and libertari-
ans praised the decision as a landmark
victory for the Second Amendment.
Others, such as Nelson Lund, feared
that the opinion left too many gaps
and loopholes. Lund predicted that
lower courts would apply Heller in a
limited way. He was right.
Lower courts have applied Heller in
a way that has upheld a broad range
of gun regulations. This has prompted
gun rights activists to urge the Su-
preme Court to take up the issue
again and to clarify the scope of the
Second Amendment right established
in Heller.
The Supreme Court receives close
to 8,000 petitions to hear cases but has
space for about 80 on the docket each
Since Heller was decided, five of the six conservative
justices have telegraphed their disappointment in
how narrowly lower courts have applied it.
term. To sort through these, the court
has some informal rules to help de-
cide what to hear. The most import-
ant is the “rule of four,” which means
that at least four justices have to agree
to take up a case. Since it typically
takes five justices to form a majority
voting bloc, this encourages what po-
litical scientists have called “strategic
behavior.” The four who vote to take
up a case must be reasonably certain
that they can convince at least one
colleague to join them, so they don’t
accidentally end up on the losing end
of a case they voted to take.
With only three liberal justices re-
maining on the Supreme Court since
the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
the fact that at least four of the cur-
rent justices voted to take a Second
Amendment challenge is a reliable
signal that they believe that a majority
will agree to expand the right to bear
arms established in Heller.
But we don’t need to rely on the
case grant alone to make this predic-
tion. We can listen to the conservative
justices themselves. Since Heller was
decided, five of the six conservative
justices have telegraphed their dis-
appointment in how narrowly lower
courts have applied it.
Justice Clarence Thomas has been
the most vocal, issuing scathing dis-
sents from the Supreme Court’s re-
fusal to take up Second Amendment
cases. In one, Thomas lamented that
his colleagues’ “continued inaction”
on these cases proved that the Second
Amendment has become “a disfavored
right.” In another, joined by Neil Gor-
such, Thomas wrote that “the time has
come” to decide whether the Second
Amendment protects more than the
right of an individual to carry a “gun
from the bedroom to the kitchen.”
Often, “judicial signals” that com-
municate a majority’s readiness to
revisit or alter the law are subtle, per-
ceptible only to those paying close at-
tention to the court. When it comes to
the Second Amendment, the conser-
vative majority’s signal is being broad-
cast loud and clear.
But a sweeping pro-gun Second
Amendment decision from the Su-
preme Court could backfire for con-
servatives. It is no secret that the
Supreme Court’s six-justice conser-
vative supermajority is under intense
scrutiny from the left, with some
Democratic activists and lawmakers
calling for “court-packing” — add-
ing new seats for Biden to fill — and/
or “court-curbing” — stripping the
justices of jurisdiction, life tenure or
both. So far, the president has com-
mitted only to a bipartisan court com-
mission to study court changes.
Most Americans support gun reg-
ulation. In New York State Rifle &
Pistol Association v. Corlett, the NRA
wants the court to vastly expand in-
dividual gun rights and limit govern-
ment’s ability to regulate their use.
If the conservative Supreme Court
delivers such a decision, liberal activ-
ists might have the ammunition they
need to prompt reluctant Democratic
lawmakers to change the court.
e e
Amanda Hollis-Brusky is associate professor of
politics at Pomona College.