Press "Enter" to skip to content
From competitive to safe

From competitive to safe

September 20, 2026

Just four years ago, after Oregon’s new congressional district map was set, the state was home to a group of strongly contested races for the U.S. House.

By any reasonable measure, the Oregon general election ballot of 2022 showed safe seats for three of the state’s six districts — northwest District 1 Democratic, eastern District 2 Republican and Portland-centered District 3 Democratic. This was no surprise; none of those areas had been seriously competitive for a few decades, and they are not today.

But in 2022, the other three were battlegrounds.

Such was the perception during the campaign, locally and nationally, and it was reflected in the 2022 election results. In southwest Oregon’s 4th Congressional District, Democrat Val Hoyle won with 50.5% of the vote, leading Republican Alex Skarlatos by 7.4 points — a modest win. In the 5th that stretches from Bend to Portland, Republican Lori Chavez-DeRemer won with 50.9%, with a margin of about 1.9% — very small. And in the 6th District in the Willamette Valley, Andrea Salinas prevailed with just 50.1%, a barely larger 2.4% margin.

This reads like the setup for a decade full of tight, competitive races.

It hasn’t played out that way.

In 2024, Hoyle’s winning margin grew to 7.8%, and Salinas’ expanded to 6.8%. The 5th District was the partial exception, since it flipped to Democrat Janelle Bynum, but with a still-narrow margin of 2.7% over Chavez-DeRemer.

So far this year, indicators suggest all three seats — not to mention the other three Oregon House seats as well — are all but locked down for the incumbents. To find serious U.S. House contests, in a year when House control is swinging in the balance, means crossing the border north to Washington’s 3rd District, where Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez is in another serious contest, or maybe south to northern Nevada’s 2nd District, where local observers split sharply on how competitive that open seat is.

Of course, we won’t know for sure if the Oregon incumbent advantages really have solidified until we see the election returns. But we do have indications.

This year, Hoyle faces Republican Monique DeSpain, who has been running an active campaign. Her fundraising is about half of Hoyle’s, however, and the main national race raters (Cook Political Report, Decision Desk, Inside Elections and Sabato’s Crystal Ball) all rate it as “safe Democratic,” meaning they don’t consider it genuinely competitive.

The story is about the same in the 6th District, where the national raters in recent months have considered the district “safe Democratic.” One element of that may relate to funding, where as of June 30 Salinas has raised more than $1.6 million and Republican David Russ, whose campaign has been low-key so far, reported raising $12,791. The contest so far appears as quiet.

The current 5th District 5 has been home to two close elections in a row, in each case flipping partisan control, so you might expect a big battleground there this time. But, while it does seem more competitive than the 4th or 6th districts, it doesn’t look as strongly competitive this time.

This year, Bynum is facing Republican Patti Adair of Deschutes County. This district, drawn with just a slightly Democratic advantage, should hold the most potential for an exciting contest, but three of the national raters (Cook, Decision and Inside) consider it a solid or safe Democratic seat, while Sabato rates it as likely Democratic.

Campaign money may here, too, be a consideration. By June 30, Bynum reported raising almost nine times as much money as Adair, and such a heavy disparity often indicates a level of confidence in election prospects. While this is the Oregon district with the closest match of Democrats (who represent a plurality of voters) against Republicans, the sides seem to have hardened enough that a Republican crossover like the 2022 contest seems increasingly less likely this year.

Some of this political shift, in the cases of Hoyle and Salinas, may reflect incumbents in their second terms becoming more entrenched. Normally, incumbents — as a broad rule — become harder to beat after their first re-election.

All of this seems a reflection of the nation generally. Democrats appear to be building toward a wave, and Democrats in blue states seem more shored up than usual.

But it also may reflect a hardening partisanship in Oregon.

This column first appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

An incoming agenda

An incoming agenda

September 18, 2026

Way back a half-century ago when I arrived at the University of Idaho, the cost of a higher education was not a big concern.

Being an out of state student, I did pay tuition, as in-staters then did not. That still wasn’t any serious obstacle; tuition and fees amounted to a few hundred dollars. There were residence and meal fees too, of course, but they were not especially onerous either.

I had saved some money from work during the prior year and to that added some help from my parents, some part-time work at Moscow, and a small loan, which post-college I easily paid off in a couple of years. No problem, really, and most students (at least at public colleges and universities, and many private institutions too)  of the time probably could say something similar.

That was then. This year, the state Board of Education “approved an increase of $425 for resident undergraduate students at Boise State, University of Idaho, and Idaho State University and $350 for students attending Lewis-Clark State College. The decision reflects a deliberate effort to balance student affordability with the long-term sustainability and competitiveness of Idaho’s higher education system.”

That increase for just this year was close to the semester tuition I paid back in the day.

For the academic year just starting, the University of Idaho website reports, cost (tuition and the rest) for attendance is estimated overall at $50,267 for non-residents and $30,791 for in-state students. And,of course, the UI still is a lot less expensive than many institutions.

That’s a whole different world than I experienced back when: Far more oppressive and life-bending. What was not a difficult proposition for many students a few decades ago has become one.

None of this is really news, of course, but there’s cause for mentioning it now: An upcoming change of the guard at UI. Scott Green, who has served a respectable seven years as president, said he will retire next summer, and the heavy machinery for hiring a replacement is kicking into gear.

A suggestion: Throughout the process, ask applicants for the position what they will do to help make the UI a more affordable education option, filling the needs of the many who need the help rather than just a few who can afford it, the way it once was.

It’s not that a university president can simply make such things happen on campus with the issuance of a proclamation. But a university president can be an influencer, can advance an agenda, can put ideas on the table, can reach the public.

No institutional strategist would advise a new UI president to launch and lead a visible campaign for decently funding higher education in Idaho (which isn’t now), one of the big causes of high costs for students. But that’s exactly what a university president should do.

Nor would the successful applicant get much advice to find ways to save money without weakening value to students, meaning pressuring both external accrediting organizations and internal administrative and support functions that have grown so much in the last couple of generations. But they should.

Add to that taking a more critical look at spending that doesn’t enhance education at the institution. (Yes, UI also conducts valuable research work, but much of that is underwritten by grants and other income.) In his recent book Crisis of the Common Good, Senator Chris Murphy - an advocate for the benefits of higher education - warned about “not more accessible education but visible monuments to institutional prestige - cathedrals built to a credential that grows more expensive and more exclusive with every groundbreaking.”

He also wrote about finding more flexible ways of awarding degrees and certifications, in some cases scaling back the standard four-year schedule for an undergraduate degree in cases where a more efficient selection of courses and instruction could be done in less time.

This should be a solvable problem, one that some states have begun to address more seriously.

Idaho did it once. Idaho can do it again. Here's an opportunity to make the mission of the next president moving toward getting us there.

 

Strong

September 17, 2026

I am an Idaho Democrat. I have tried to serve my community and serve my state.

That first sentence might have doomed me. That is depressing.

Many I have served with were Idaho Republicans, some Idaho Democrats. Some were not worth much, but many were. I tried to learn from them.

These labels are a problem.

They were for me in the Idaho Statehouse. Bert Brackett, an honorable Republican State Senator was afraid to talk to me in the hallway. But he would in a hidden corner. He taught me something there. He didn’t teach me to hide.

Maybe these labels should now be a worry for you in your home.

Amazon knows what you buy. And more.

Google knows what you search. And more.

Apple, heck, maybe everybody knows what you say around the dinner table.

They listen. They share the info. I could tell you stories.

Please don’t consider me a wacko.

I post this shit and have an iPhone in my pocket.

They, and you aren’t coming after me because I am so insignificant. Remember, Idaho Democrat.

We are so weak.

A good cat video consumes us.

And their ability to manipulate….

I guess I’m asking you all to be strong. And that’s what this representative democracy was founded on.

The founders had no idea our data could be stored, mined, minced and manipulated. They thought maybe the white men in a certain state could elect somebody who might have some wisdom. And the body this elected Representative joined might listen to the shared wisdom and be persuaded.

They thought it was so simple. A few strong white men.

Though their design was complicated.

Most US citizens don’t know how our government works at either the Federal or State level. Most people just vote based on party or gender, or they don’t vote at all.

I am concluding here that our representative democracy experiment has failed. I am facing the reality that the big corps who own the data and the power to mine and manipulate that data with their federally supported AI engines control our elections with their money.

And we are weak.

I am weak.

I am an Idaho Democrat.

The strong prevail.

The bullies, the blowhards, the messianic preachers. They build their cults, their followers, and then we buy their sack of shit.

Until we don’t.

I watched the medical profession try to twist its way out of this. For I chose to be a doctor.

Doctors have long been charlatans, snake oil salesmen. Trust from the weak, the sick and ailing, gives us power. That power can be abused.

Maybe it still is. But I honor that my profession tried to right their sinking ship.

It comes down to your, and my weakness. And our values.

Can we be strong?

When we elect someone to represent us, can we pay enough attention?

I think of the Native American bands and how they watched their leaders and made choices. They were so much closer than the Google/Amazon/Apple CEOS who think they know us through the data we give them and they can mine and process with their AI that we pay for.

Yes, I am depressed.

I have my retreat planned.

But I want to go forward. I want the next generation to flourish.

I want this wretched experiment to work. I want the idea of representation and governance to bring us peace and safety.

But in my heart, I know it will basically just be up to us.

Are we, as a collective people strong enough to see the snake oil salesmen, the billionaire CEO’s, the cult charlatans, maybe even the people we have voted for as our elected representatives as false.

It’s very hard to admit a mistake.

I hope we are strong enough.

 

Free screening

September 16, 2026

Here’s something that you should not pass up.

The Kuna Lions (my club) is sponsoring health screening for vision, hearing and diabetes on Oct. 10, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. at Kuna’s community center. The vision and hearing screening will be conducted by Envision, and Terry Reilly Health Services will be doing the diabetes testing. People living in surrounding communities are cordially invited.

If there were a poster boy for diabetes screening, it would be me. This has been a summer of amputations – one toe on my right foot and two partial toe amputations on my left foot. I have not been able to do summer activities that I enjoy, such as daily walks around the neighborhood and golf.

Yes, these amputations were the result of diabetes. On the bright side, losing a couple of toes is a lot better than losing a foot or a leg.

But there’s more to my diabetes story. Twenty-two years ago, I had a five-way heart bypass surgery – which has given me more than two decades of quality living. But veins from that surgery don’t last forever, and some of mine have shown signs of wear. In football terms, I may be getting close to the two minute warning. But as fans know so well, a lot can happen in those last two minutes. I have a great life, and it isn’t done yet.

I might have been spared from some of these health challenges if I had diabetes screening 30 years ago. Instead, I ignored some of the obvious symptoms.

Recently, I had a chat with Dr. Stuart Black with Terry Reilly Health Services, and he knows all about the importance of the screening.

“Some studies show that 10 percent of the population, and as high as 13 percent have diabetes and maybe a fourth of the people with diabetes don’t know about it,” he said. “If screening shows an indication of prediabetes, people can get the care they need and prevent the complications that come with the disease, such as heart disease and kidney problems. Diabetes also is one of the leading causes for blindness.”

Dr. Black says that random glucose readings at a screening event may not paint the true picture. For instance, numbers may be on the high side for those who had something to eat before the screening. But high numbers are worth watching.

“The more information that a person has, the better,” he says. “I think there are people who are afraid to find out they have diabetes, because they think it’s a death sentence. But that’s not the case. There are great options to help control blood sugars if you have diabetes or prediabetes.”

Terry Reilly’s service doesn’t stop with the screening. It’s also a resource, and a relatively affordable one, for those who show signs of prediabetes or diabetes. Terry Reilly Health Services, based in Nampa, has other area clinics – including one in Melba.

“We have physicians and clinical pharmacists who are well versed in dealing with diabetes,” Dr. Black said. “Our doors are open to help anyone who is diagnosed, or at risk, for diabetes or prediabetes.”

Of course, he says, there are steps people can take without a doctor’s help.

“Getting 150 minutes of exercise in a week; eating a healthy diet that focuses more on fruits, vegetables and less on fast foods or processed foods; getting enough sleep; decreasing stress in your life,” he said. “All those things are basic lifestyle choices that people can take, with or without diabetes.”

I wish I had followed that advice 30 years ago.

Chuck Malloy, an Idaho native and long-time journalist and columnist, is a volunteer writer with the Idaho Community Foundation’s Nonprofit Center. He may be reached at ctmalloy@outlook.com

 

Dark money and Prop 1

September 14, 2026

Dark money has become the root of evil in political campaigns across the country. National interest groups seem to be lurking everywhere, seeing where they can weigh in, either in favor of or against a candidate or ballot measure, without disclosing their identity. Idaho’s Attorney General may now be inviting dark money interests into the campaign against Idaho’s Proposition One (Prop 1), the measure to repeal Idaho’s total abortion ban.

Attorney General Labrador has just issued an official opinion concluding that a “nonbusiness entity church” that spends more than $1,000 to oppose Prop 1 “as an exercise of that church’s religious beliefs” does not have to disclose the identity of its donors. That is, the church is exempt from the Sunshine Law’s reporting requirements because of some religious objection to abortion. The opinion does not provide any criteria for determining how central abortion might be to the church’s religious beliefs or even how to categorize Prop 1 as a religious issue rather than a secular issue. The opinion would allow out-of-state interest groups to funnel tons of money through those churches into the campaign against Prop 1, without voters learning of their identity.

The AG’s opinion runs counter to guidance provided last October by Idaho’s respected Secretary of State, Phil McGrane. There is no legitimate reason to provide a religious exemption from the clearcut reporting requirement of the Sunshine Law because of a church’s position on what is basically a secular matter–voting on a ballot measure regarding women’s health care. It is curious that the state can impose an abortion ban on the entire population, if such a ban is primarily a matter of religious beliefs.

The opinion is highly suspect, not only because it second guesses Idaho’s election expert, but because it is a sharp break from Labrador’s routine practice of refusing to comply with his statutory duty to provide written opinions to government officials. He has written only 7 opinions in four years, 3 of which have involved abortion, his signature political issue.

His well-publicized opposition to Prop 1 once again raises the specter of conflict of interest. Writing an opinion that could result in dark money from out of state being funneled into the campaign against Prop 1 by an entity calling itself a church certainly smacks of a conflicting interest. Labrador has been closely aligned with well-heeled Christian nationalist groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom, which has strongly opposed practically any form of abortion.

Labrador’s opinion hinges on Idaho’s Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act, which is intended to protect a person’s free exercise of religion. That right may not be “substantially” burdened unless the burden is “essential to further a compelling governmental interest” and is the least restrictive means for doing so. His claim that the reporting requirement for anti-abortion churches violates this Act is dead wrong.

The Sunshine Law requires all recipients of political donations to disclose the identity of their donors so as to prevent dark money contributors from corrupting Idaho elections. The reporting requirement applies to all entities that use donor money to influence the vote on political candidates or ballot measures. The requirement is neutral and universally applicable. It does not target religious groups. It does not substantially burden churches that choose to funnel money to political causes. It is the least restrictive means for identifying who is trying to influence elections.

Labrador’s opinion would subvert the very purpose of the Sunshine Act. If an out-of-state interest group wanted to influence elections in Idaho, but wished for any reason to hide their identity, they could either funnel their dark money contributions through an existing church or set up their own to do the job. That would frustrate Idaho’s long-standing policy of shining light upon political contributions and expenditures.

The framers of the Idaho Constitution were cognizant of the danger of intermingling church and state. They sought to separate the two in Article I, section four. That section guarantees the “exercise and enjoyment of religious faith” but prohibits any preference being “given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.” Labrador failed to consider whether his opinion grants a prohibited preference to some churches by excusing them from the Sunshine Law’s reporting requirement.

The timing of Labrador’s opinion is also suspect. Secretary of State McGrane released his guidance on October 16, 2025. Labrador released his contrary opinion 10 months later, just as the election is heating up. We are now faced with the prospect of having a dark money group anonymously dump a ton of money into the coffers of some sort of church and use it to publicly hammer the Prop 1 initiative. I’d urge McGrane to stick with his guidance.

 

What the abortion initiative does

What the abortion initiative does

September 10, 2026

State supreme court decisions about acceptable language used to define ballot initiatives - an issue not just in Idaho but elsewhere too - may seem like deep inside baseball stuff.

But because it directly influences how people vote, at the moment of voting, these descriptions should catch our attention. The abortion initiative on the ballot this fall will pass or fail in large part based on what Idahoans think they’re voting on. Last weekend, the Idaho Supreme Court decided that question. Sort of.

The initiative from Idahoans United for Women and Families (the concise text is online) has been approved to appear on the November ballot. A key question is, how will people perceive what they’re voting on? Will it open the doors to completely unconstrained and unregulated abortions, or will it scale back cruel and draconian extreme restrictions on human rights? Both concepts are being pushed.

When an initiative appears on an Idaho ballot, it comes with a short description provided by the state. Here is what the state first proposed as the impact of a yes vote:

“A YES vote would create reproductive rights, including a right to abortion before a fetus’s ability to survive and after a fetus’s ability to survive in cases of a medical emergency, and provide liability protections for healthcare providers.”

Idahoans United asked the Supreme Court to throw out that description. It did, but shortly after a majority of the justices approved this one:

“A YES vote would support creating a right to abortion before fetal viability—defined as a fetus’ ability to survive without extraordinary medical measures—and after fetal viability in cases of medical emergency; providing protections against professional discipline and civil and criminal liability for healthcare providers; and codifying a statutory reproductive right to freedom and privacy.”

This is a little more detailed, but not drastically different. Here’s the same exercise with the effect of a “no” vote.

First, the initial state submission:”A NO vote would make no change to Idaho’s current law, which protects the life of the unborn while allowing abortion in reported cases of rape or incest, or when necessary to protect the life of the mother.”

Then the court-approved version: “A NO vote would support making no change to Idaho’s current law, which preserves the life of preborn children by prohibiting abortion, except when necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman, and during the first trimester in documented cases of rape or incest reported to law enforcement.”

Those subtle differences were apparently enough for the majority to conclude, “ the revised statements are consistent with the views expressed in our prior opinion dated September 4, 2026, and that they also substantially comply with the requirements of Idaho Code section 34-1810(1)(b). Accordingly, Idahoans United’s objection is overruled.”

There was a dissent from Justice Colleen Zahn. She said the majority was correct on the “yes” portion but not on the “no” description “because it introduces new terminology not found in the Idaho statutes at issue or in the ballot materials for the Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act and because the revised No Statement only restates one aspect of current Idaho law, thus failing to substantially comply with the statutory requirement that the statement clearly convey the effect of a ‘no’ vote.”

She also pointed out that “the revised No Statement fails to clearly convey the effect of a ‘no’ vote because it uses different language than current Idaho law regulating abortion” and “the revised No Statement fails to substantially comply because it does not clearly advise the voter of current Idaho law concerning licensing, civil, and criminal liability for healthcare providers.”

Like abortion law itself, this kind of descriptive language is hell on precision when it comes to actual practical effects, what can and may or must not be done in actual medical offices, by people facing imminent and critical decisions. Statute books tend not to translate well to those environments.

What’s a voter to do? The best option is to read the initiative text for yourself. It’s in plain English and won’t take long.

Beyond that, try this:

If you like what the Idaho legislature has done about abortion in the last five years or so, or think they haven’t gone far enough, vote no.

If you dislike what the legislature has done, or think it’s gone too far, vote yes.

Easy. But that probably wouldn’t clear the Supreme Court.

(image)

 

A break for the guides

September 9, 2026

Considering Kami Bakken’s line of work, it’s difficult to imagine mental health being a major issue in her life.

It’s more difficult to think there is a need for the Redside Foundation, an Idaho-based nonprofit that also provides mental health and other services to river, hunting and wilderness guides in Wyoming, Montana and Colorado.

“We have this romantic ideal about these rugged individuals from the west, and guides are perfect examples of that,” says Shannon Walton, executive director of Redside. “There’s a lot going on underneath that – the loneliness, depression, thoughts of suicide and high levels of substance abuse. In the regions we serve, we have the highest rates of suicide in the lower 48, among the highest rate of substance abuse in the lower 48 and the highest access to firearms in the lower 48. It’s a perfect storm regarding the need for support.”

Bakken, a river guide who lives in Jackson Hole and has a seasonal home in McCall, received the professional help she needed – after experiencing significant low points along the way.

The guiding itself is a pleasure. Her routine consists of spending a week, sometimes longer, guiding a group of 24 people downriver alongside a small team of guides.

“These trips are truly one-of-a-kind experiences, especially with the Middle Fork being a crown jewel of rivers in the United States,” she says. “The Salmon River is also one of the longest free-flowing rivers in the lower 48, and the river is constantly changing. So while the trips are somewhat innately life-changing, we also offer an experience that allows people to connect with this landscape and with each other.”

Bakken relishes every aspect of her job – educating folks about the history and the importance of the Salmon, the games played and even the cooking. She especially enjoys the close relationships with people who take the trips.

“From a guide’s perspective, you are on 24/7 and it’s that way non-stop for three months, or longer for guides that work year around.” she says. “And you are developing connections with people who are guiding with you, and they become your family. That sense of community and having people you can lean on is incredibly important to me.”

It’s an emotional let-down when the river runs end for the season and the wonderful people she met along the way are gone. It magnifies the stress of living in these pictures of paradise, financial and otherwise.

“There were times that I didn’t want to see the sun shine the next day,” she says.

Bakken is not alone, as Walton has seen as the Redside director. One immediate outlet is a helpline for those facing depression, or suicidal thoughts.

According to the foundation’s website, “Redside” is named for an infamous rapid on the Middle Fork of the Salmon River that “conjures up images of the majestic native sockeye salmon on its life-fulfilling journey to the heart of Central Idaho.” The foundation was formed in 2010 after the death of a popular Idaho guide, Telly Evans (1974-2010).

As stated on the website, “Sadly, behind his generous smile and unyielding passion, Telly hid a pain that would eventually steal him from the river and friendships he loved.”

With his death came the inspiration to provide a wide range of services for the guides – including health care access, financial planning and housing assistance. One of the toughest challenges for the guides, as Bakken will attest, is asking for help.

“There is no shame with seeking help,” she says. “Today, I’m good and I feel blessed. I don’t know if I would be here without Redside.”

Chuck Malloy, an Idaho native and long-time journalist and columnist, is a volunteer writer with the Idaho Community Foundation’s Nonprofit Center. He may be reached at ctmalloy@outlook.com

 

Another conflict of interest lawsuit

September 7, 2026

Attorney General Labrador is embroiled once more in a conflict-of-interest lawsuit. He is now accused of using his position to bias voters against Proposition One, the initiative designed to strike Idaho’s total abortion ban. The proponents of the initiative took him to court last year, claiming he had written deceptive ballot titles for the initiative. The Idaho Supreme Court ruled that the short title was improper and ordered Labrador to revise it. He is now accused of misleading voters with confusing language about the effect of their vote.

Regardless of how the Court rules, the crux of the problem is Labrador’s glaring conflict of interest. His primary objective in office has been to rack up political points by trying to stamp out abortion in every form. He fought against a federal law requiring emergency care for pregnant women in crisis. He fought to criminalize doctors who refer women out of state to obtain abortion care. That did not end well because after two years of litigation, he agreed he was wrong. The State had to pay $400,000 in attorney fees for his obstinance. He teamed up with a Christian Nationalist group, Alliance Defending Freedom, in a Texas lawsuit to ban Mifepristone and Misoprostol, two drugs used for early termination of a pregnancy. That suit was dismissed for being filed in the wrong state, so he joined a similar suit in Missouri to limit Mifepristone.

And that is just a taste of Labrador’s bias. He has fully embraced the 2026 Platform of the Idaho Republican Party. Article14 of the Platform says: “human personhood begins at the moment of fertilization…the act of abortion is murder…We support the criminalization of all murders by abortion within the state’s jurisdiction.” That includes “persons conceived in rape and incest.” That’s about as far-reaching as you could get. No wonder the proponents of Prop One are skeptical of the ballot language. Idaho’s abortion laws are among the strictest in the country. But Labrador’s over-the-top enforcement of them has endangered women and caused about 35% of Idaho’s doctors who practice obstetrics to leave the state or quit practicing.

With that track record it should have been clear to him that he had a clearcut conflict of interest in characterizing the effect of a vote either way on Prop One. Every lawyer in the state, including government lawyers, must avoid conflicts of interest. Yet, Mr. Labrador has a solid track record of engaging in that prohibited conduct. He famously took legal action against two of his own client agencies–the Department of Health and Welfare and the Idaho Board of Education– and was removed from both cases by two different judges for his obvious conflicts of interest.

Another lawsuit brought against Labrador by proponents of the Open Primaries Initiative claimed that he wrote biased ballot titles for that measure. The Supreme Court agreed that the titles were misleading and ordered him to rewrite them. The situation could have been avoided if Labrador had recognized his evident conflict of interest. He came out publicly against that initiative beforehand and had no business drafting the titles.

During my eight years as Idaho Attorney General, conflicts occasionally arose. It was not only unethical to ignore a conflict but easily addressed by obtaining unbiased counsel to handle the matter. For instance, in 1986 state Sen. Jim Risch insisted on running an initiative to establish a state lottery after I told him it required a constitutional amendment instead of a mere initiative. His initiative was approved by the voters but challenged in court. I concluded it would be a conflict to defend the lawsuit. Instead of ignoring the conflict, I deputized a reputable Boise law firm, Hawley Troxell, to defend the suit on a pro bono basis. Labrador should have recused himself from writing the Prop One description because of his obvious conflict. Idaho’s respected Secretary of State could have done an unbiased job on his own.

Violating conflicts of interest rules can result in substantial embarrassment to the violator, as Mr. Labrador learned last year. Ever since Idaho obtained statehood in 1890, the Attorney General has served as a member of the State Land Board, but also as legal advisor for the Board. Last year, for the first time in Idaho history, the Board voted to obtain independent counsel. Ouch! That had to hurt. Labrador found himself on the short end of a 4-1 vote.

Labrador claimed the Board did not want to be told “no” on various issues. The dramatic change was more a matter of trust. Those closest to us usually know us best. If a client cannot trust its lawyer, or the lawyer engages in unethical conduct, the client has the right to go elsewhere for legal representation.

 

Shades of Trump in Oregon

Shades of Trump in Oregon

September 6, 2026

Oregon voters as a whole have not approved of Donald Trump any time he’s been on the general election ballot, handing him losses in 2016 (39.1%), in 2020 (40.4%) and 2024 (41%).

But parts of Oregon then and now have expressed different attitudes, as an election map of the state would show. Slicing the data in a different way, we now have a new report breaking the state’s current polling data into 35 geographic units, similar in number to the state’s 36 counties, but in this case each with similar populations.

This recasting shows up in a new national report in the polling analysis site Strength in Numbers, led by G. Elliot Morris (whose Substack is well worth a review), and drawing on an unusually large and detailed data set.

Nationally, it gives Trump an overall polling average of 38.2%, which if anything is a bit higher than some other polling aggregators conclude. Oregon, being a little bluer than the nation overall, gives Trump a job approval of 32.8%

Rather than using county maps, where enormous spaces may contain few people, and vice versa, distorting the voter picture, the report relies on Census Public Use Microdata Areas, or PUMAs. Each of the 35 in Oregon contains roughly 100,000 adults.

There are no massive surprises here. But we can see some sharp patterns.

First, the three — and there were only three — PUMAs where Trump polling approval topped 50%: the Klamath, Malheur, Lake and Harney four-county area (55.6%); the Union, Baker, Wallowa and southeastern Umatilla counties region (54.8%), and Douglas County (53.3%). That these areas support Trump is not surprising at all, though two years ago Trump scored 70% or more in nearly all these places.

Then there are the batch of PUMAs where Trump’s favorables have dropped below 50%, but still clearly above the national average: the Josephine, Coos and Curry counties area (49.1%); Deschutes (leaving out the city of Bend), Crook and Jefferson counties 47.7%); most of Linn County including Albany (46%), Marion County except Salem and Keizer (44.7%); the Columbia River counties from northwest Umatilla to Hood River County (44%); the cities of Medford and Central Point (43.9%); and southeastern Clackamas County (43.6%). Up to this point, the PUMAs have been essentially rural, with a few mid-sized cities thrown in (Medford, Albany, Grants Pass).

The Oregon PUMAs roughly matching Trump’s support nationwide include Jackson County minus Medford and Central Point (40.5%); Lane County except Eugene and Springfield (39.1%); Yamhill County (39%); Columbia, Clatsop, and Tillamook counties (38.2%); Northern Salem city and Keizer 37.4%; Polk and Lincoln counties (36.8%). These areas may hit close to the national average but still are more pro-Trump than Oregon overall.

Now, as the Trump numbers decline sharply, we move into urban and suburban areas, nearly all in the Willamette Valley (the big exception being the city of Bend, which is also in this group). These PUMAs include northwest Clackamas County including Oregon City (32.9%); central and southern Salem city (31.7%); the Milwaukee and Happy Valley areas in Clackamas County 31.3%; Springfield and northeast Eugene cities (29.7%); the Gresham, Troutdale and Gorge areas in Multnomah County (29.5%); Bend city (27.6%); Hillsboro area in Washington County (25.6%); Benton County and southwest Linn County (25.3%); the Wilsonville and Lake Oswego area in Clackamas County (25.9%), Forest Grove and western Washington County area (27.5%); the Tigard, Tualatin and Sherwood area in Washington County (25.5%); eastern Portland city (23.7%); and the Beaverton area (23.1%).

Finally, we get to the areas where you have to go on an intense search to find evidence of Trump support, though some does exist if you look for it. These places include central and western Eugene (20.7%); eastern Beaverton (19%); southeast Portland (13%); west Portland (11.6%); north-central Portland (10.9%); and east-central Portland (10.4%). For the record, Trump received 17.1%% of the Multnomah County vote in 2024, which still represented higher support than current polling indicates.

Viewed as a whole, the usual patterns — more Republican and Trump support in the more rural areas, and farther from large metro areas — seems to continue in force.

But those numbers are significant. They do seem to represent, both in red and blue areas, across the board decline in support for the president. If that has an effect on votes cast for other Republicans in the state, it could have a big impact on Oregon elections in another couple of months.

This column first appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

(image)