Introduction
There are many people who say that hands-on
experience is the best way to learn about a possible career before you actually
get into the field. For me, this was the internship possibility at the state
capitol in Salem. After sending off my application to the state capitol, I
received several calls and after a couple of interviews and some research on
each of the candidates, I ultimately ended up in the office of Representative
Max Williams from the Portland suburb of Tigard. Williams is a moderate
Republican who is serving his second term in the Oregon State House of
Representatives. Also working for him was his Legislative Assistant Aaron
Johnson, and co-interns Joanna Felo and Jimmy White. I had been told by people
who had previously interned there to expect some menial labor each day, but
also an opportunity to learn more about the workings of the State Legislature
by going onto the House Floor during the session, watching the committees and
by simply watching how the politicians interacted with each other. While many
of tasks that were required of me were not the most exciting in the world, I
did indeed get a chance to see the workings of a state legislature. Here below
are the experiences that I had with the internship at the state capitol.
Interview Process
During
the initial stages of the interview process, I received numerous phone calls
from representatives and senators on both sides of the aisle. In total, I
received nine phone calls showing interest in my skills. I was willing to work for
someone on either side of the aisle, since I did not have a party affiliation
or preference. Outside of Rep. Williams, another person whose office was
interested in me and even conducted an interview with me was Senate President
Gene Derfler, a Republican from Salem whose main vocation was being the owner
of a furniture shop before getting into politics. I thought the interview went
well enough at the time. However, I was informed afterwards that they did not
hire me because they supposedly did not need any interns for their office. A
later discovery, however, proved this to be a total fabrication. Apparently
this was to be my first introduction into the world of politics.
Another
person who I was strongly considering working for was House Majority Whip Rob
Patridge of Medford. Patridge had been a city councilor and prosecutor in
Medford before running for the House District 50 seat as a Republican and
winning for the first time in 1998. Another person who showed interest in my
application was Representative Wayne Krieger of Gold Beach. He is a moderate
Republican who was not interested in the issues that I was interested in,
leaving me puzzled as to why he would contact me until I found out that he
graduated from the same small coastal high school that I did (Seaside High
School). Despite that link, I chose not to pursue that position as well the
others, such as Rep. Tim Knopp, R-Bend, first-time Rep. Alan Bates, D-Eagle
Point, Senator Ryan Deckert, D-Beaverton, Rep. Al King, D-Mohawk Valley, and
Assistant Minority leader Gary Hansen, D-Portland.
Ultimately,
the reason that I chose to work for Rep. Williams was due to his role as
chairman on the Judiciary Committee as well as a key player in what was soon to
be the Measure 7 spectacle. This would give me the opportunity to learn more
about the type of legal issues that faced the state of Oregon and what made
them so important. In this session, Rep. Williams found himself to be a key
player on several fronts, thus creating a little more work for his office staff,
but ultimately also learning more about the processes of the state legislature.
Tasks
Of course, once I got into
the office of Representative Max Williams, there were many tasks that needed to
be done. In general, most of these tasks were related to maintaining the
office. Some of these tasks included activities related to bills, such as
filing them. Representative Williams had used them either in his committees or
on the floor session itself. Pulling the bills before the committee meetings or
the floor session was also another key element in the smooth operation of the
office. Sometimes the number of bills pulled and filed each day could
potentially reach over a hundred. It was also important to go to Representative
Williams’ desk to collect the stuff that was delivered to his House Floor desk,
such as future committee schedules and booklets of legislative summaries
prepared by the committee in which the bill was present.
After that, the next important function that I served in the
office was that of answering the telephone, especially when the legislative
assistant was busy on some other project. When those projects were done, then
it would on to checking the mail, both the electronic and snail variety. We
would then sort the mail into certain categories such as Immediate, Special
Interests, News, Personal Notes, Constituent Letters, and Signatures. Most of
the mail would be attempting to sway Representative Williams’ position on a
certain issue or an invitation to an event held by a certain group who wanted
to sway his opinion on a certain subject. Needless to say, the Special
Interests pile was usually the largest by far. Some of the more interesting
mail that he received was related to his position as the Judiciary Committee
chairman.
When all of the other
projects were completed, then it would be on to the task of writing letters
either responding to the mail received or congratulatory letters to his
constituents or their kids. The source of the congratulatory letters was the
weekly editions of the Tigard Times. We would find stories in the newspapers
that were candidates for such letters and then we would find their addresses in
either the Washington County phonebook or in the Tigard High School directory.
Most of the congratulatory letters that we wrote were indeed for the students
at Tigard High School who had done well in some sporting event or other school
related activity. Some of the school events that we wrote congratulatory
letters for included district winning teams in girls golf, speech, chess, and
girls basketball as well as letters to every graduating senior from the school.
There were also letters congratulating people for their volunteer work,
weddings, and other notable activities.
However, there were
instances when my presence was needed outside of the office. Every once awhile,
drafts of bills needed to be picked up from the office of the Legislative
Counsel and distributed to lobbyists and other interested parties affected by
the particular bill. I was also called upon a couple of times to arrange
lunches between Representative Williams and interested parties who wished to
discuss important legislative issues. There were also certain situations that
called upon by ability to react quickly to that situation and respond
appropriately. An example of this was when the Oregon Education Association
came by asking if a letter addressing the entire House of Representatives
promoting a certain bill that was up for a vote that day had been delivered.
Soon we found out that it had not been delivered and that we only had a few
minutes before we needed to have that letter on the House Floor. I found the
letter and after making the appropriate number of copies, was able to make the
deadline only by seconds. I was also called upon to respond to constituent
concerns that they felt needed to be taken care of by Rep. Williams’ office.
These concerns usually included construction that was blocking driveways,
consumer concerns about products and other services, and dealing with other
agencies in the state, such as the Washington County Sheriff and other branches
of the city government in Tigard. This was some of the many experiences that I
ended up sharing with my co-interns as we learned about the working processes
in the State Legislature.
The
atmosphere at other offices compared to mine was quite varied. It ranged from
the perfectly ordered offices to ones that were a complete mess almost beyond
any hope of redemption. The most immediate distinction between my office and
other offices was the amount of attention paid to it by the lobbyists. While
the lobbyists paid lots of attention to Rep. Williams, due to him being the
chairman of the Judiciary and Measure 7 Committees, some of the other
representatives had very few lobbyists approach them for anything. The
representatives that tended to get the most lobbyists knocking on their doors
were the ones who were either chairing committees or those who were considered
the moderates in their parties. For example, Rep. Williams received far more
lobbyists because he was the chairman of two committees as well as being
considered a moderate Republican. Other moderate Republicans who received
numerous lobbyists included our neighboring office of Rep. Lane Shetterly,
R-Dallas, due to his position as chairman of the Revenue Committee, as well as
also being known as a moderate within the Republican Party.
Among
the differences that were evident between the Republican offices and the
Democratic offices was the style of dress in the office. Republicans tended to
have strict dress codes for their employees while the Democrats tended to be
looser. There were even a couple of Democrats who did not wear a dress shirt
and tie in the office, something that would have never been seen in any Republican
office. Although both parties tended to have offices that had numerous
paraphernalia from schools within their districts, especially pennants, the
Republicans tended to have offices that looked a little bit more spartan than
those of their Democratic counterparts.
In
terms of other work that the interns had to do at their offices, it was not
much different than what I had to do, although some offices made their interns
keep detailed databases of all of their constituents within their districts.
There were also certain legislators who would require their interns to write
letters to constituents who wrote letters to the local newspaper in their
districts. In that sense, I was lucky that none of the above tasks was required
of me, since I already had a relatively full load as it was.
Representative Max Williams
was born and raised in Bend, Oregon. After graduating from Bend High School,
Max received a Bachelor of Science degree in Information Management from
Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. Williams worked in the computer
industry for both IBM and IBM business partner companies before attending law
school at the Northwestern School of Law at Lewis and Clark College in
Portland. Max graduated magna cum laude in 1991 and began work at the Portland
law firm of Miller Nash. He is counsel to the firm and primarily represents
business and commercial clients in litigation matters. Max has been married to
his wife, Gina, for fourteen years. They have three children, son Max, age nine,
daughter Morgan, age seven, and the newest arrival, daughter Isabelle, who
celebrated her first birthday on February 1.
In
1995, Representative Williams served as the counsel to the State Judiciary
Committee. He is a former member of the Tigard City Budget Committee, an active
member of the local Chamber of Commerce and Rotary Club, and on the Board of
Directors of the Cascade Pacific Council Boy Scouts of America. Representative
Williams also serves on the board of the new Tigard Homeless Shelter – the Good
Neighbor Center and on the board of the Tigard Community Foundation.
Currently,
Representative Williams represents Oregon House District 9, which includes
Tigard, King City, Durham, and other parts of eastern Washington County. During
the 70th legislative session, Representative Williams was Vice
Chairman of the Civil Judiciary Committee, a member of the Revenue Committee,
and Rules Elections and Public Affairs Committee. Representative Williams was
recognized during the 70th session as the top-rated member of the
House by Willamette Week’s biennial issue ranking metro-area legislators.
Representative Williams has also been recognized for his legislative support of
the disabled community and his support of affordable housing in Oregon.
This
session he retains his seat on the Revenue Committee and took over from Kevin
Mannix as the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, as well as being the
chair of the House Committee on Land Use and Regulatory Fairness, which is
addressing the issue of Measure 7’s impact on the state and local governments.
House
District 9 consists of Tigard, Durham, King City, and other miscellaneous parts
of eastern Washington County. Within the boundaries of the district, there are
16,000 registered Republicans and 13,000 registered Democrats. The first
election for Representative Williams in 1998 was a relatively easy victory by a
margin of 60% to 40% for his Democratic rival Robin Smith. In 2000,
Representative Williams’ re-election was even easier winning by a 70% to 30%
margin over Democrat Ramon Velji, who would have become the first
Indian-American to serve in the Oregon Legislature. It will also be the center
of redistricting efforts in the 71st Legislative Session, since the
area has grown tremendously since the last redistricting effort in 1991. Among
the issues that were most important to the district were senior issues,
education, and transportation matters. Within District 9, especially King City,
there is a large number of senior citizens who wish to see legislation
affecting them get the most attention as possible and there were numerous
letters that came into regarding these wishes. Education was also another key
issue that many constituents wanted to see worked on in the state legislature,
especially regarding issues of funding urban schools, like Tigard High School,
versus the funding of the rural schools of the state, which was a key part of
the proceedings in the Revenue Committee this year. Although transportation
matters were not as important this session as it has been in past sessions, the
congestion that many Tigard streets suffer was a key element in the concerns of
many people living within the district.
Judiciary Committee
One
of the most important committees in the House is the Judiciary Committee. It
was the focus of nearly every lobbyist in the building since a vast majority of
them had at least one bill in the Judiciary. The bills, ranging from
cockfighting to abortion waiting periods to child support regulations, affected
nearly every special interest group in the state. Rep. Williams was also the
focus of attention for lots of constituents who wanted him to look their way on
certain issues, especially since he had the power not to hear any bill that was
not to his liking.
As
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Rep. Williams would meet every morning
with the Civil or Criminal subcommittees to take in testimonies on the bills
before them that day. Most of the people who would testify before them would be
lobbyists for the various groups involved in a certain bill. Although the
lobbyists often only ended up furthering a cause for a particular bill, there
were a few bills that managed to survive due to the persistence of these
lobbyists. A noteworthy example was the Humane Society and its fight to end
cockfighting loopholes in the state of Oregon.
If
the bill was judged worthy enough to take before the House floor, there would
be a work session on the bill in which the committee members would work over
the details to make sure that nothing too objectionable to either side slipped
through. After that, then Rep. Williams would assign a committee member to help
carry the bill onto the floor. Although most of the bills were passed easily,
there would be an occasional bill that would find itself outnumbered on the
floor and defeated.
For
the staff of Rep. Williams, one of the biggest tasks was dealing with the
numerous letters that would come into the office because of Rep. Williams'
chairmanship on the Judiciary Committee. An example of this would be the
extremely voluminous mail and phone calls that were sent to the office
demanding that all bills relating to gun control be stopped dead in its tracks.
In the end, we received hundreds of prefabricated yellow postcards from angry
gun owners everywhere in the state. The office also received hundreds of
letters from angry women everywhere asking Rep. Williams to stop HB 3170, which
would increase the penalties for participating in pyramid schemes. There were
also numerous letters from inmates in Oregon State prisons begging Rep.
Williams to do away with Measure 11 statutes, ostensibly so that they could be
let out of jail early. There were also a few other issues in which there was a
concerted effort to sway a legislator's opinion, marked by prefabricated
letters that simply required the member of an organization to put it in an
envelope, stamp it, and mail it to their target. In general, these letters
simply did not sway most legislators' opinions because they were simply noticed
as nuisance mail and not a genuine letter from a constituent.
Measure 7
The
single biggest issue during the 71st Legislative Session was the
problems created by the passage of Measure 7. In fact, this measure is so
important to the state’s economic health that it may require a special session
in order to resolve all of the problems that have been caused by this measure’s
passage.
Measure 7, supported by Oregonians in Action, would amend the Oregon Constitution to require the state government and all local governments to pay private real property owners when a state or local government regulation restricts the use of real property and reduces its value. Currently, the Oregon Constitution prohibits taking private property for public use without just compensation. However, the Oregon Supreme Court has not required compensation when the property value was merely reduced. Measure 7 requires state and local governments to pay the landowner the amount of reduction in market value if a law or regulation reduces the property value. Measure 7 also requires compensation to the landowner if the owner must act to protect certain natural resources, cultural values or to provide low-income housing. The one exemption that Measure 7 makes is for historically recognized nuisance laws or if the owner sells alcohol, pornography, or operates a casino. The measure also applies if regulation adopted after owner acquires property.
Despite a strong campaign
against the bill, the voters in every county with the exception of Lane and
Benton counties passed Ballot Measure 7. Needless to say, this was only the
beginning of the story. Immediately afterwards, the League of Oregon Cities
filed a lawsuit against Measure 7, arguing that the measure, a constitutional
amendment, amounts to a package of multiple amendments, when by law initiatives
can only contain one. Next, Marion County judge Paul Lipscomb issued a
temporary injunction to prevent Measure 7 from taking effect. Despite the
injunction, the pro land-use group 1000 Friends of Oregon sued 23 cities for
adopting ordinances allowing them to waive zoning and land-use regulations that
might give rise to Measure 7 claims. In February, 2001, the same Marion County
judge issued a ruling stating that Measure 7 violates the Oregon Constitution's
"full text" and "separate votes" requirements for
constitutional amendments.
This is when the State Legislature got involved in the issue. A committee called the Land Use and Regulatory Fairness Committee was formed to study the issue of what to do with the infamous measure. The committee includes Rep. Williams as chairman; Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Canby; Rep. Chris Beck, D- Portland; Rep. Betsy Close, R-Albany; Rep. Kathy Lowe, D-Milwaukie; House Minority Leader Karen Minnis, R-Wood Village; and Rep. Susan Morgan, R-Myrtle Creek. After weeks of meetings on the issue and testimony from many different parties, including the governor himself, a bill was created to address the situation.
The entire committee
introduced House Bill 3998 in order to have a possible Legislative solution to
the numerous problems that the measure creates. It would create a system to
provide various types of compensation in specified instances when private real
property suffers loss in fair market value as result of land use regulation
that restricts use of property. Whether this bill is the solution to the
problem is anyone’s guess.
Of
all of the issues that faced the 71st Legislative Session of Oregon,
it was the issue of redistricting that promised to be the most contentious of
them all. Every ten years, after the U.S. Census Bureau has counted up all of
their numbers for Oregon, the State Legislature is put in charge of redrawing
the House and Senate districts in the state as well as the Congressional
Districts. In each State House District, the ideal number of people is
considered to be 57,023 whereas in each State Senate District, the ideal number
is 114,047. As for the Congressional Districts, the magic number is 684,280.
Within the State Legislature, the key committees that are in charge of the
redistricting procedure is the House Rules, Redistricting, and Public Affairs
Committee, headed by Rep. Carl Wilson, R-Grants Pass, and the Senate Rules and
Redistricting Committee, headed by Sen. Steve Harper, R-Klamath Falls.
Compared
to other states, there few regulations for the process of redistricting. The
guidelines that are necessary to the process of redistricting are found in ORS
188.010. One of the key guidelines, however, that is mandated by the Oregon
Constitution is that incumbents are not to be protected in any way shape or
form. In this particular session, it was decided that there would be two
different redistricting plans, one from each branch of the Legislature. The
guidelines state that if the Legislature is unable to pass a plan for state
legislative redistricting and congressional redistricting by July 1, then the
tasks would be take over by powers higher up in the political food-chain.
In the case of the state
legislative redistricting, the job would go to the Secretary of State, Democrat
Bill Bradbury. If that occurs, which it has several times in the past, then the
secretary of state would have until August 15 to complete his own plan. In this
case, the governor has veto power over any of the plans as well as the Oregon
State Supreme Court. In the case of the congressional redistricting, there is
no deadline. However, unlike the state legislative redistricting, if the House
and Senate fail to come up with a plan that does not get a gubernatorial veto
from Kitzhaber, the process would then be taken up in the federal court system.
Another unique aspect of the Oregon redistricting system is statewide public hearings are required. Following that procedure, hearings were held throughout the state in cities such as Newport, Bend, Hillsboro, Medford, and Portland. The public may propose plans of their own or present testimony. Also, public terminals are available in the "committee services" office at the capital for the public to use in drawing their own proposed maps. The legislature has tentative plans to make proposals available on the Internet as well.
In the Congressional
redistricting, there are huge circumstances that could change the congressional
makeup of Oregon. Currently, there are four Democrats and one Republican that
represents Oregon in the U.S. House of Representatives. However, two of the
Democratic seats, David Wu in District One, and Darlene Hooley in District
Five, are in danger potentially losing their seats. Both are currently in seats
that approximately equal in terms of the numbers of registered Democrats and
Republicans. In Wu’s case, the population in his district has increased so much
that he will have to lose some areas, especially to the slower growing, heavily
Democratic, third district of Portland, represented by Earl Blumenauer. The
most logical areas to lose, geographically speaking would be the area of
Northwest Portland, one of the strongest Democratic areas in Oregon. If Wu
loses that area, then his next election for the seat could be an uphill battle for
him with the high probability of losing the seat to a Republican. In the fifth
district, Darlene Hooley has also seen a slight increase in the number of
people in her district, although the heavily Democratic fourth district,
represented by Peter Defazio, will need to grab some voters away from the fifth
district in order for the population in each Congressional district to be
equal. Again, geographically speaking, the most logical step would be to take
Corvallis, a largely Democratic area, and give it to the fourth district. The
problem for Hooley, however, is that it would take away one of the most
reliable Democratic areas in the highly competitive fifth district, thus
endangering Hooley’s seat in the next election.
On the state level, the balance of the two branches of the state government are also at stake, although the chances of a major shift are less likely than in the Congressional districts. Despite the small likelihood that very little will change with the representation in the State Legislature, the process has been compared to that of a political blood sport because of not only the party’s interest in increasing the number seats that are possible to win, but the politicians have to keep an eye out for each other to make sure that they suddenly don’t end up in their neighbor’s district and thus putting one of them out of a job. Some of the key areas that are expected to be at the center of the redistricting firestorm are Bend, which has more than doubled their population; Salem, Woodburn, the entire Portland metropolitan area, and the area surrounding Eugene. There are also the coastal communities that are trying to retain some semblance of power even though their population is not growing. Another key debate is the possible creation of a Latino dominated district around the area of Woodburn and some areas of Washington County.
When the negotiations for the redistricting plans began, the first area that was discussed was Democratic stronghold Bend and the impasse has threatened to stall the entire process of the state legislative redistricting plan. In the past, Bend has been included in districts with heavily Republican areas in the rest of Deschutes County. Republicans say Bend, the state's ninth-largest city, should have two representatives to tend to its interests in Salem. They propose creating one House district west of the Deschutes River that would also include industrial Redmond and the resort town of Sisters. A second district east of the river would include the wealthy retirees of Sunriver and working class La Pine. The plan calls for four House members and three senators to represent portions of Deschutes County. Democrats counter that Bend's urban concerns are unique to the rest of largely rural Deschutes County, so it makes sense to keep the city within one district. Under their plan, Sunriver, Sisters and Redmond would comprise a second district surrounding the city with three House members and two senators representing Deschutes County.
The issue of redistricting is also a serious concern to Rep. Williams, whose District 9, has exploded in terms of population. In comparison to the magic number of 57,023, Rep. Williams’ district has a population of 72,173, a 15,150 differential. Although the subject of Tigard has not come up yet in the redistricting scheme, it is sure to be another contentious area.
One
of the topics that ended up being the biggest issues of the legislative session
was the topic of cockfighting. Originally, the issues at stake were loopholes
concerning Oregon’s anti-cockfighting statues. While cockfighting had been made
illegal in the state of Oregon since 1977 and is illegal in 46 other states
with the exception of Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Louisiana, it was still legal
to raise fighting birds and export them to other places where it was legal,
such as Mexico. There is also a current bill before the United States Senate, S
345, that is co-sponsored by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Portland, and Sen. Gordon Smith,
R-Pendleton. Despite the rather innocuous beginnings of this subject, it
quickly heated up into a war between those who wished to see the loopholes
closed and those who felt that the government was simply trying to stick their
noses into a another facet of their lives again.
The
first bill that was introduced to close these loopholes was Senate Bill 222,
introduced by Senator Ryan Deckert, D-Beaverton. This bill expanded the
definition of the crime of cockfighting, including the participation in a
cockfighting match and greatly expanded the penalties for being caught in the
act. These penalties included fines up to $100,000 and the potential to spend
as many as five years in prison. The bill also provided for the forfeiture of
fighting birds upon conviction of person for cockfighting or participation in
cockfighting also included cockfighting and participation in cockfighting in
list of predicate offenses for establishing racketeering activity. With the
support of the Humane Society, Deckert presented the bill before the Senate for
a first reading. After the first reading, the Senate President Gene Derfler
sent Senate Bill 222 to the Business, Labor, and Economic Development
Committee. This is where the issue took on a nasty edge and spurred on a fight
in the chambers of the Oregon Legislature.
The
Business, Labor, and Economic Development Committee in the Senate is chaired by
Roger Beyer, a Republican from Molalla. The critical factor in this situation
was that Beyer’s district is the home to one of the largest gamecock breeding
areas in Oregon and Molalla itself was once known for its open venue
cockfights. In fact, Molalla is still the home of a small shop that specializes
in the paraphernalia of cockfighting, such as gaffs, slashers and other lethal
implements that are strapped to fighting birds' legs. These sales would also
become illegal under the anti-cockfighting bills. Needless to say, Beyer, who
refused to allow a hearing on the bill, publicly left Senate Bill 222 to die in
committee. This, however, was only the beginning of the journey.
Since
the path for Senate Bill 222 had run its course, anti-cockfighting supporters
on the House side decided to take a shot at it from their side. Henceforth, the
creation of House Bill 2930, which was a carbon copy of Senate Bill 222. The
two people who introduced the bill into the House were Rep. Mark Hass,
D-Portland and Rep. Jeff Kropf, R-Halsey. Kropf took a political risk by
supporting this bill, even though his district is also a center of gamecock
breeding in the state of Oregon. Unlike the Senate president Derfler, who sent
the anti-cockfighting bill to a certain death the first time, the House speaker
Mark Simmons sent the bill to the Judiciary Committee, headed by Representative
Williams. The bill was also supposed to be sent to Ways and Means, headed by
Rep. Carl Wilson, R-Grants Pass. In the House Judiciary Committee, both sides
submitted a flurry of testimony supporting their positions, but ultimately the
anti-cockfighting forces won the day. The hard work and the constant lobbying
that the Humane Society people did in support of their anti-cockfighting
initiative finally convinced a majority of the legislators in both sides of the
aisle in the House and the Senate to address the question and to create a
solution for the problem. The Judiciary Committee voted 10-1 to send House Bill
2930 on the floor without sending the bill to the Ways and Means committee. The
reason for this was because the chairman of the subcommittee on Transportation
and Economic Development within the Ways and Means Committee was Rep. Tom
Butler of Ontario, who was considered to against the bill and who was likely to
let the bill languish in his subcommittee without a hearing. A vote to send
House Bill 2930 to the Ways and Means committee would have guaranteed an early
death for the bill.
On
the House floor, the sponsors of House Bill 2930, Representatives Hass and
Kropf, both spoke in favor of the bill, as did Representative Williams. The
person chosen to carry the bill through the House floor, Rep. Cherryl Walker,
R-Murphy, also argued strongly in favor of the bill. Despite the hour-long
debate between the two opposing sides, the bill passed through the House 49-11.
The eleven representatives who voted against the bill were all from rural areas
whose districts had been known as cockfighting gathering points before
cockfighting was banned in Oregon.
Now
the bill was sent over to the Senate side and Senate President Derfler showed
his true colors by sending House Bill 2930 to the same Business, Labor, and
Economic Development Committee where the previous anti-cockfighting bill had
died. Predictably, Representative Beyer was not about to heed the words of his
House colleagues and a scathing Oregonian column that encouraged him to hear
the bill and he promptly slashed House Bill 2930 and buried it alongside Senate
Bill 222. Despite the dual defeats, the cockfighting issue was not over yet.
The
next move made in the cockfighting battle was more reminiscent of a chess game
rather than a political battle of wills. Representative Williams decided to
graft the remnants of House Bill 2930 onto another bill, Senate Bill 227, while
that bill was in the House Judiciary Committee. Senate Bill 227, sponsored by
Senator Peter Courtney, D-Keizer and Senator John Minnis, R-Wood Village, was
originally intended to create the crime of bestiality and map out the
punishments for such behavior. The beauty of the move was that since the Senate
had already passed the bill 28-0, there was nothing that the Senate President
Derfler or his colleague Senator Beyer could do to prevent the bill from coming
to the Senate floor. The most they could hope was that they could convince
fourteen of their colleagues in the Senate to oppose these changes, an
extremely doubtful prospect at best. After the amended version of Senate Bill
227 passed through the Judiciary Committee unanimously, Representative Williams
carried the bill onto the House floor.
This
time there was little debate, but there was a memorable speech made by
Representative Williams supporting the bill. In his floor speech,
Representative Williams encouraged his colleagues to “strike down the twin
pillars of barbarism in the state of Oregon, bestiality and cockfighting”
(Williams speech House Floor, May 23, 2001). Representative Williams also
responded to a letter that had passed to all of the members of the Legislature
arguing against the bill and offering to help legislators who voted against the
bill to explain their votes to their constituents. In his response,
Representative Williams stated, "I only hope that the arguments they offer
you in explaining this to your constituents are more substantive, better
reasoned and more factually justifiable than the mound of excrement they have
offered you in the May 20 letter." (Williams speech House Floor, May 23, 2001)
In the end, only Republican Representatives Tom Butler of Ontario and Betsy
Close of Albany will need that advice after they were the only two
representatives to vote against Senate Bill 227. Interestingly enough, three of
the people who voted against House Bill 2930 were mysteriously absent during
this vote, including Representative Wilson, the lone dissenter in the Judiciary
Committee. The bill will now move on to the Senate, where it is expected to
pass and be signed by the Governor.
Another
topic that got a lot of media attention this session was the issue of whether
or not we should use lottery funds to fund the building of a new baseball
stadium to attract a Major League Baseball team to Portland. Currently there
are four teams (Montreal Expos, Oakland Athletics, Minnesota Twins, and the
Tampa Bay Devil Rays) that are rumored to be considering relocating to greener
pastures and the supporters of the baseball movement felt that now was the time
to get one of these teams to relocate to Portland. In order to do that,
however, Portland would need to construct a new stadium that would conform and
compete with those in the other cities in the United States. Henceforth, the
purpose for House Bill 2941.
House
Bill 2941 was supposed to authorize the issuance of $150 million in lottery
bonds to finance construction of major league baseball stadium in a city in
Oregon (presumably Portland) if major league franchise committed to locating in
state and if balance of cost of building stadium is secured within four years.
Senator Ryan Deckert, D-Beaverton, Representative Bill Witt, R-Cedar Mill,
Hillsboro Republican Reps. Jim Hill and Bruce Starr, and Rep. Williams
sponsored the bill. The bill was assigned to the Smart Growth and Commerce
Committee headed by Rep. Bill Witt. After a couple of months of intense work on
the bill and an engrossment, the bill passed the committee fairly easily.
However, there were still dedicated opponents such as first-time Beaverton
Democrat Charlie Ringo who opposed this bill from the very beginning, saying
that the money was better spent helping Oregon lower its unemployment rate. The
opponents also argued that there was no inherent demand for a baseball team in
Portland, with the evidence being that the minor league Portland Beavers moved
to Salt Lake City in 1994. With the strong opposition, the lobbyists for House
Bill 2941, such as Larry Campbell, worked tirelessly to ensure that they would
have the votes to pass the bill. After much suspense and debate, the bill
passed the House with a 31-27 margin. This particular vote was not based on
partisan lines, but on urban-rural lines. Most of the urban legislators from
Portland, Eugene, and Salem voted for the bill while the vast majority of the
rural lawmakers voted against the bill. One of the biggest surprises in that
vote, however, was the vote of Representative Williams. Despite signing on as a
sponsor of the bill, Representative Williams cast a vote against the bill. That
vote was the beginning of the bill’s woes.
After the bill was sent to
the Senate, the bill’s chances of passages was reduced when Ashland Republican
Senator and Joint Ways and Means Committee chairman Lenn Hannon stated that
House Bill 2941 wouldn’t receive so much as a hearing from his committee. Soon
afterwards, Governor John Kitzhaber also stated that he would not support the
bill should it reach his desk. With two of the most important people involved
in the budget-making process opposed to the bill, House Bill 2941 was
officially buried in its grave. Although House Bill 2941 is dead, the baseball
supporters have attempted to create a new way to get the state to pay the $150
million for their stadium. The latest plan calls for using income taxes that
would be generated by the salaries of the players, coaches, and other workers
associated with the stadium. If that does not cover the $150 million, then the
team’s owners would have to cover the difference. Although the baseball
supporters remain hopeful about the chances of bring a Major League Baseball
team to Portland with the state’s help, the chances that it will happen this
session are extremely slim.
Abortion
Another
topic that rather unexpectedly made an appearance in the 2001 Legislative
Session was the topic of abortion. The reason that the debate on abortion was
unexpected was because of a pre-session truce that was declared between the
Republicans and Democrats regarding social issues. It agreed that neither side
would attempt to push its social agenda in the session in return for working
together to solve the economic issues that faced Oregon. All had been
relatively peaceful on this front until the appearance of House Bill 3830.
House
Bill 3830 would require informed consent of a pregnant woman 24 hours prior to
an abortion procedure. It would have specified what type of information, such
as the stage of the fetus’ development and the potential medical risks
associated with abortion, a physician must provide to obtain informed consent
and would have ordered that physician to report to the Health Division when
that information was delivered. House Bill 3830 also would have required the
Department of Human Services to provide other information about fetal
development and viability. The bill would have also required the Health
Division to impose civil penalties on persons who willfully failed to comply
with act and recommends remedies available for failure to comply with the act.
The main sponsor of the bill, Betsy Close, R-Albany, is an ultra-conservative
who is a regular supporter of bills like these. There were several other
Republicans, including the House Speaker Mark Simmons, R-Elgin, and a Democrat,
Rep. Bill Morrisette of Springfield, who also signed on to the bill. Supporters
of the bill argue that this is simply a bill that would let women know what
they are getting into before they have the procedure. However, this bill has
drawn sharp criticism from several fronts, including opposition from within the
Republican ranks. Rep. Cherryl Walker R-Murphy, a staunch anti-abortion
advocate, has argued that the bill is unnecessary because there is already such
measures within the Oregon Constitution. Other opponents have also argued that
the 24-hour waiting period would be a hardship on women traveling long
distances to find an abortion provider. Some people are also suspicious that
the bill is merely a payback to the Oregon Right to Life, which has been a key
financial contributor to Republican legislative campaigns, contributing over
$300,000 to Republican candidates in the 2000 Legislative Elections.
After the bill was read for
the first time, it was sent by the Speaker’s Office to the House Judiciary
Committee, chaired by Rep. Williams, another staunch anti-abortionist.
Expecting an easy passage through the Judiciary Committee, Speaker Simmons and
Rep. Close instead found House Bill 3830 languishing in the committee with no
future in sight because chairman evidently had no intention of hearing the
bill. Finally Speaker Simmons and Rep. Karen Minnis, R-Wood Village, the House
Majority Leader, requested that the bill be moved into the House Rules,
Redistricting and Public Affairs Committee, headed by Rep. Carl Wilson,
R-Grants Pass. Despite the intense debate, it was passed out of the Judiciary
Committee on a six to five vote.
Once in the Rules,
Redistricting and Public Affairs Committee, House Bill 3830 duly received the
hearing that it never got in the Judiciary Committee. Despite fierce debate on
both sides of the issue as well as Rep. Cherryl Walker's strong opposition to
the bill, House Bill 3830 was passed out of the committee and onto the House
Floor where its turn to be voted on.
That vote would have a
strong impact on the way that the 71st legislative session would be
remembered for. Not only did the vote, or lack thereof, make an impact on the
session, it also saw the final breaking point for a freshman Republican
legislator from Clackamas. Jan Lee, a moderate Republican, decided to break
away from the GOP after the House decided to scuttle House Bill 3830 as well as
Senate Bill 608, a bill that Lee had strongly supported. She felt that the
right-wing element of the Republican Party had taken over and wanted to shove
through their agenda against her constituents' wishes. The House Republican
leadership, realizing that they didn’t have the votes to pass House Bill 3830,
decided to placate abortion opponents by also stonewalling Senate Bill 608.
Senate Bill 608, among other things, would have required health insurance
policies that provide prescription drug benefit to include coverage for
prescription contraceptives. The bill had widespread support on both sides of
the aisle as well as in both branches of the legislature. With the vote to send
these two bills back to certain death, it helped conclude a slow dissolution to
the truce that both parties had hoped to maintain throughout the entire
session.
One
of the biggest issues on the University of Oregon campus is the subject of
OSPIRG (Oregon State Public Interests Research Group). Annually, there is
always a debate about how OSPIRG spends their money and whether or not the
student body should sponsor them or not. Every year, with the notable exception
of one, the students on the University of Oregon campus have voted to fund
OSPIRG.
The
supporters of OSPIRG have claimed that the money is used to help with community
projects as well as lobbying legislators for positions that they feel would
benefit students. Meanwhile, the opponents of OSPIRG argue that the money is
not being spent properly and demand to know the financial records of OSPIRG to
see where the money is going. Furthermore, they argue that OSPIRG should follow
the same rules as any other student organization on campus instead of getting
the special treatment that they fell OSPIRG has received. Although this paper
is not the forum for such discussions, it is noteworthy to note that the only
lobbying that OSPIRG did towards Representative Williams’ office was leaving a
few brochures in the mailbox stating their positions on certain bills. They did
not schedule a single meeting with Representative Williams the entire session
and they did not actively lobby any of the other Republicans to my knowledge as
well. This would not be noteworthy except that since the Republicans are in the
majority, it would seem to make sense that if OSPIRG wished to get anything
done this session, they would need to lobby some of the Republicans as well as
Democrats in order to get the bills they wished to see pass through the two
chambers.
Oregon Survivor Website
One
of the more humorous situations in the 2001 Legislative Session was the
appearance of the Oregon Survivor website at www.oregonsurvivor.com. Modeled
after the infamous television show, the website invited people to vote out
their least favorite legislators every week. It was first brought to the
attention of the public by an article in the Register-Guard. Although some of
the people working at the state legislature knew about this website before the
article, the popularity of the website drastically increased after the article.
Every week, on-line voters would get the chance to vote off two senators and
four representatives every week until only one of each remains.
For
the first couple of weeks, there were several thousand votes casted in each of
the races, but after the first couple weeks, the number of votes started to
dwindle. As of week twelve, there were only a couple hundred votes casted.
Another interesting development that occurred was that despite being in the
majority in both houses, the Republicans were completely voted out of the House
and the Senate by week ten, which indicate that a majority of the people who
voted on-line, especially in the latter stages of the voting, were Democrats.
As
to the actual results of the voting compared to the reputations of the Senators
and Representatives, it was eerily similar, especially in the first couple of
weeks. For example, Reps. Vicki Walker, D-Eugene, Betsy Close, R-Albany, Jo Ann
Bowman, D-Portland, and Jim Hill, R-Hillsboro were the first members of the
House to be voted off. All four of the Representatives have mediocre
reputations among the insiders in Salem for various reasons. In the Senate, it
was the Senate President Gene Derfler, R-Salem, and Sen. Roger Beyer,
R-Mollala, who were the first to be sent packing. These two gentlemen have also
had mediocre reputations within the corridors of the State Capitol.
If
future elections are held, one could learn from the lessons of the website and
apply them to their voting system. One lesson that might be extremely helpful
to utilize would be the necessity of good anti-stuffing software and
technology. During the third week, there were some very rabid voters who
managed to stuff thousands of votes against certain Republicans, including the
Speaker of the House. The totals had to be recounted after they installed new
anti-stuffing measures and asked everyone to recast their votes.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the internship process was an extremely interesting lesson in the vagaries of state and local government. One could see how the idea of bill, such as the effort to close anti-cockfighting loopholes, transformed itself into a bill that was presented before the Senate or the House. There was often a of give and take within the committees that received the bill and certain compromises would be reached. Spectators could note the debate on the bill being fierce on occasion, but more often than not, the committees usually removed any controversial elements that were in the bill. This process was repeated hundreds, if not thousands of times during the six months that I was at the state legislature. Some bills made it through all the way to the Governor's office to be signed while others fell by the wayside on the road. The anti-cockfighting initiative was an example of a bill, in this case three separate bills, that despite numerous obstacles, survived the obstacle course and looks to be well on its way to passage. Other bills, such as the baseball stadium bill and the 24-hour waiting period for an abortion bill fell to the opposition of some of the legislators. In either case, the bill creation process was one fraught with hard work, danger, and ultimately, if it survived, the reward of turning into a law. As a small part of the 71st Legislative Session, I also got to see the process of redistricting play itself out to the logical conclusion. I saw the fates of legislators being put in jeopardy as their fellow colleagues drew up the political boundaries that would shape their political futures. With the actions and the tactics of the parties during the 71st legislative session, I received an education that cannot be replicated in a classroom.