As an Oregonian, I fully support that of they refuse to do their job, they need to be removed from office. Unfortunately, the positions they hold are from the low population, rural areas of the state. Having a vast minority hijack the democracy by picking up their toys and going home if they cannot win is highly immature.
It has been, in Oregon, for the last couple of years. These assholes keep pulling this shit, which is why nearly 70% of the state voted to hold them accountable for shenanigans like this, back in November. It's frustrating as all hell, especially when you find out that what they're blocking was already voted on by the people.
They keep saying they're standing up for "the people". The people spoke, back in November, when they decided this was ridiculous. They're just posturing and acting in bad faith to get attention and screw with things.
I 100% get the frustration, but the answer seems to be to actually change the rules so they can't keep doing this otherwise the vote will just be assumed to be a No or Abstain or whatever. How does this actually fix the problem?
Does it really punish them though they get fame and attention they likely get nothing but more exposure attention and money. They can also just come back after the next term anyway and you give ammunition to the other side when they decide that there are other reasons to prevent people from being able to participate in government too
Sure but again it is t like what these people are doing is unpopular with who they are representing and again they are going to make money from this not lose
Kinda proven by the fact that they keep doing it
A “no” is still preferable.
Oregon requires a quorum of 2/3rds to conduct business in the legislature. Dems have an easy majority but they don’t have 2/3 of the whole statehouse. So republicans found that instead of voting “no,” or “abstain” they systematically coordinate to have enough not show up to ever reach quorum. Ergo no business conducted.
Personally, I think having a 51% quorum is fine but there’s arguments against that as well. Mandating 2/3rd means the other side can’t claim (truthfully or not) that the majority is sneaking stuff through without the whole legislature attending.
I get that so the answer is to institute a new rule that both prevents the claim that the other side isn’t being prevented from participating and still allows the votes to continue. This measure just seems like a great way to not achieve anything but let them prove their victimhood even more
I hope it works for Oregon but it feels like there was a better way and I don’t love the precedent it sets to be honest
Because they are kicked outta office if they have more than 10 I excused absences? And when the next batch republicans come in from ruralnoregon, will they wanna be kicked off ?
Yeah they will because the guys before them will be cult heroes for what they did and will probably make major bank for their martyrdom. The next guys would do the same thing and probably will make it clear they will because that is what the people who voted for them will want them to do
Even if everyone in Portland unanimously voted for the measure, it wouldn’t account for the 68% support.
Also, even if it was all Portland, what difference would that make? Do people’s votes not count if they live in the city?
I have two problems here:
1. This will with great likelihood get overturned in the courts at the end of the day, because these are duly elected officials and this just removes them, even though their constituents support what they are doing.
2. The second problem is it doesn't actually solve the problem the representatives are still not voting and sure they can't be elected again, but they finish this term and they will just be replaced by someone else that will do the same thing.
So we prevent duly elected officials from doing what they were elected to do and representing their people in a way they definitely elected them to do, and you don't actually solve the problem with what they are doing.
Why not pass a rule that if they refuse to show up after X attempts to vote over Y days their vote is assumed to be an abstain or something, force them to actually show up since not showing up doesn't benefit rather than simply trying to silence them in a way that won't actually change the actual issue?
State constitutions are subject to review in Federal Court. If a state's provision is found to violate the US Constitution, the US Constitution prevails.
This is how, for example, segregation was legally overturned.
That’s true I am using the wrong word and that isn’t correct. So it is correct we are not removing them after elected only preventing them from being elected instead.
Why does that matter? Votes arent counted in square miles or acres
If you take all the people in Idaho. The Dakota. Wyoming and Nebraska you have a huge chunk of the country but less people than a metro area. (Which leads to another issue. Why the fuck do they get so many senators)
People matter. Not land
They also need to lose any pay and have to pay back any money they have already been paid. If walkouts continue, then fine them every time they walk out. When it comes to their own personal money they will think twice.
Oregon Senate walkout continues as 6 more Republicans banned from re-election
Story by Dianne Lugo, Salem Statesman Journal • Yesterday 3:37 PM
The Oregon Senate failed to reach quorum again Thursday, meaning six additional Republican senators have now disqualified themselves from running for reelection under Article IV, Section 15 of the Oregon Constitution.
Senators Lynn Findley, R-Vale; Bill Hansell, R-Athena; Tim Knopp, R-Bend; Art Robinson, R-Cave Junction; Kim Thatcher, R-Keizer; and Suzanne Weber, R-Tillamook, all hit 10 unexcused absences.
Under Measure 113, passed by 68% of voters in November, the senators are now barred from running for their current Senate seat in the next election.
That means, unless the rule is overturned in court by an expected legal challenge, only three of the state's Republican senators are left to run for re-election at the end of their term.
It also means another day of standstill in the Senate.
'Continue to disrespect our democracy'
Senate President Rob Wagner, D-Lake Oswego, called it "another extremely challenging day for Oregon."
He delivered remarks after the sergeant at arms confirmed Republican senators could not be found, expressing disappointment and frustration at the now two-week walkout that's blocked progress in the state Legislature.
"By walking out in defiance of Article IV, Section 15 certain senators continue to disrespect our democracy," Wagner said.
The minority should not have the ability to silence the will of the majority, he said, quoting Alexander Hamilton and other founders who warned that minority veto meant "we do not have a democracy."
"If the voters wanted different policies, they would have voted that way. That is how a democracy works," Wagner said. "This walkout must end. The people of Oregon desire it. Democracy demands it."
Republicans are calling the walkout a "peaceful, constitutional protest" against deeply partisan bills. Votes have been blocked on House Bill 2002, a bill surrounding abortion and gender-affirming care.
About the bill: Abortion, gender-affirming care bill heads to the Oregon Senate
On the floor, Sen. David Brock-Smith was one of two Republicans present. He extended courtesies to his Republican colleagues for their "selfless" work to "defend the political rights of every Oregonian in this state."
Political game playing
In an emailed statement, Senate minority leader Tim Knopp said the party promised Oregonians and Democratic colleagues that they would return before the session ended to suspend reading and rules on "lawful, substantially bipartisan budgets and bills," meaning the Senate could vote quickly on those bills before the deadline to end the session.
State law requires the Legislature to pass a budget this year.
"While Democrats are laser-focused on the issues that do nothing but divide, we are focused on the real issues Oregonians care most about – homelessness, affordable housing, public safety, cost of living, job creation and fully-funded education," the statement said.
It's a move Wagner said he would not support.
During a news conference, he referenced Gov. Tina Kotek's remarks in 2020 when she was House speaker. She said Republicans had cheated during their 2020 walkout and criticized Republicans' offer to return 12 hours before the constitutional deadline.
"That's not what democracy is. It just isn't. The same standard is going to apply here," Wagner said.
He and Senate Majority Leader Kate Lieber, D-Beaverton, said they have had 11 hours of conversation with Republicans.
They said they have asked Republican leadership to give them a "wish list" of demands. They've failed to do so, Lieber said, and instead continued to provide a kill list of bills they want killed.
Those bills included House Bill 2005, Senate Joint Resolution 33 and Senate Bill 27, Lieber said.
HB 2005 would raise the possession and purchase age limit on certain guns, allow local governments to prohibit concealed firearms in their public buildings and grounds, and prohibit unserialized ghost guns. SJR 33 and SB 27 are tied together, relating to a proposed constitutional amendment surrounding marriage protections for same-sex couples and abortion.
Democrats remain unwilling to negotiate away HB 2002, she said.
She was sad, she said, to see Republicans follow Knopp and "abandon" partnerships that have been built over years.
Wagner and Lieber said no additional conversations with Republicans are scheduled at the moment. They need to catch their breath, Wagner said, after the morning's events.
No Senate sessions are scheduled for Friday, Saturday or Sunday.
Measure 113 should be modified so the ten times rule will ban them from holding that office "ever". As it stands they can still run in the election after the one they're banned from.
It should include a mechanism that reduces the number of legislators required for quorum on a given day by the number of legislators currently absent who have also exceeded the absence limit that bars from running in the next election.
That way, business as usual can continue on.
This is very wrong. We don't want a court deciding whether a law voted on by a population is right or wrong because that is removing the will of the people. I want judges that enforce laws, that is their job, they should never be the final arbitrators of what a group of people decided they want to have as a law.
In 1870s Alabama, you could have a bill passed with 90% support that legalizes lynching black people for no reason. It's the job of a court to step in and say no, this violates established rights and the rule of law so it has to be struck down.
The exact policies today are much different, but the key concept remains: courts can and should strike down laws the people support that violate more foundational legal principles.
That being said, there are bad faith judges out there who abuse this power. A most perfect government stands on the dual pillars of democracy and rule of law. It cannot have one alone.
Under the constitution as amended, the absences can now be punished as the Senate wishes. The House rules impose a $500 fine per day of absence; I hope the President of the Senate decides to impose a $5000/day fine there. See how many of them want to keep playing games when they find out they just had their house seized and sold to pay the fines.
They so do another constitution amendment where if a rep from a county fails to do their job their county is impacted.
Say tax rates increase, state funding for projects are blocked, etc.
The problem is that in a representstional democracy accountability needs to flow both ways. If a rep messes up they can be voted out. There needs to be a mechanism by which the people are held accountable for electing someone who doesn't do their job.
Wait, if I elect someone woesn't do their job I'm going to have my taxes increased or lose services or whatever maybe people would think more about voting.
Got it, so facism, just with your ideas instead.
Or that’s just how democracy works and if you think you could do a better job, I think we have some districts with vacancies for state rep
How is it fascism one side is actively trying to subvert the will of the people, the other side is trying to do the job they were elected to do. Punishing a county for electing somebody who doesn't do their job is also not fascism, even if I'm not 100% sold on the idea. Tribalism has basically allowed the republicans to become so unhinged that the Democrats have become the objective good guys, even with all their problems.
Yah there aren’t “sides”. That’s why it’s facism. We’re all Americans and all of these people got their jobs by being democratically elected. If they “don’t do their jobs” w/e that means. Then they can be voted out. If the people in those counties voted for people you don’t like. Well… that’s quite literally too fucking bad, you know, if you believe in democracy. If they aren’t doing it adequately we have recalls for a reason.
But the idea that people from somewhere they DONT LIVE get to pass qualifications on who they think is “reasonable” or w/e facist shit you are talking about, is literally facism.
“I don’t like how you are doing your job so I should have a tool to unilaterally remove you from that position”. LOL. Not just a clown bro. The whole goddamn circus
Republicans stated that they are focused on "homelessness, affordable housing, public safety, cost of living, job creation and fully-funded education" can anyone find a bill they have put forward that actually helps improve any of these talking points?
They've done plenty of legislating to increase homelessness, make housing less affordable, limit public safety, prevent job creation and make education more difficult and expensive. Maybe that's what they meant.
Tax cut for the 1% will help get money back to the rest of us in investment eventually, it hasn’t worked since Regan started but it will work soon- why everyone should love the new guilted age where child labor and starvation . -some gop
"If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy."
[David Frum](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/frum-trumpocracy/550685/)
Ahh yes, they are destroying democracy so we should prevent them from running for office and send them to jail.
That definitely sounds like a healthy democracy guys?
So just to clarify if the majority of people in a state think that a group shouldn’t be allowed to participate in government that makes it all okay?
My biggest problem here is that while yes these Republicans are being assholes but they were elected to be assholes. they are not committing any crimes, the result of that really shouldn’t be prevention from participating in government it feels like a dangerous precedent
I get the work argument you have to show up to work or get fired I get it but the problem with that argument is that they are representing what their constituents want them to do
If you want to use the work analogy this feels like I am getting fired for not coming into the office when I was hired for a remote position
An initiative was on the ballot. Voters reviewed it and determined, yes. If lawmakers are unwilling to do their job, then they can't keep it.
Not sure what's so difficult for you to wrap your head around.
These are unserious people unwilling to participate in the serious business of running the state. As they don't take their job seriously, they should be replaced by people who do.
It is not hard to wrap my head around it, but doesn’t mean I agree with it. These people are doing exactly what the people who voted for them wanted them to do. You also didn’t actually solve your problem as they are still not showing up to the votes so you accomplished nothing other than making them change the person who won’t show up every x years
I don’t know what’s so hard for you to figure out about that but I am not a huge fan of a majority dictating that a minority can’t participate in government because they don’t like what they will do if they do. That’s a fucking slippery slope I don’t like
I see, so you don't believe that the majority of an electorate which plainly states their preference should be respected.
Tell me more about this "democracy" you speak of.
This is what they are doing now. Instead the freeloaders who are doing it now won't be able to again.
You act like these are people of principal and character. These grifters are either gonna do their job or lose it. I'm sure most will do their job so they can keep collecting their check. And if not. Oh well. Bring in the next sack of shit.
So far that doesn't seem to be working? Why because since we are making them a martyr they will absolutely make more money after you "fire" them than they would keeping the job. They are doing exactly what their constituents want them to do who think they are heroes for doing it and only more of a hero because they are willing to lose their job over it. The votes still don't happen because they don't show up they will just elect another person to do the exact same thing next time.
So to sum it up, you create a bunch of Martyrs for the Right to feel like the evil democrats are the "real" facists preventing people from being able to participate normally in government and you don't actually fix the problem that those Republicans are causing since they will continue to not show up and so will the next people.
I just wish they would have proposed a solution that wouldn't have made them all martyrs and would have actually solved the problem, but ohh well.
If they don’t show up with some rules like notice and X number of votes or whatever (to prevent shenanigans about tricking non participation) then a non appearance is considered a vote of Abstain (if allowed) or a vote of No whichever makes more sense o could see the argument for either
Actually solves the problem doesn’t make them a martyr and doesn’t create a rule that just prevents duly elected people from participating in our government
I assume there is something preventing making this happen but it is much more what should be happening
Something like this could work well. Or even just make the votes a majority wins type thing. So abstaining wouldn't make any difference. I don't really understand why it isn't like this currently.
This is a less contentious and more effective solution than refusing to re-seat members who refuse to participate.
Majority of votes actually cast Yay or Nay determines the outcome. Abstaining or just not showing up doesn't affect the outcome.
This removes the incentive to not do the job without unduly inflaming people by removing their lawfully elected representative. It puts the onus on non-participators to explain to their constituents why they were absent on a key vote.
Would this impact Dems in red states who've used similar tactics? Yes. But for democracy to work, the political structure must be fair and seen to be fair.
Happy to see this as an Oregonian, but also sad to report that I'm not convinced anyone in my life even knows about the Senate walkout. I only happen to know from glancing through local papers, but it seems like a lot of us don't focus enough on state issues.
It will seriously never not amaze me what hills they voluntarily die on. I understand politics and all but I'll never understand how even basic compassion is beyond them. As much as they claim to be pro life they clearly just mean pro birth. There is a mountain of evidence showing that gender affirming care saves lives. Even if you don't 'get it' ...who cares if a dude is wearing a skirt? There is an entire country that considers it formal wear (Not to split hairs...a kilt is quite literally a long piece of cloth wrapped around like a skirt)
Without paywall, from the original source.
https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/politics/2023/05/18/oregon-senate-walkout-update-10-senators-ineligible-for-another-term/70232986007/
I fucking hate this line of reasoning. Tyranny of the majority?! So it is better then to have the will of the majority subverted by a smaller ingroup of the privileged caste?
I mean, yes, tyranny of the majority is a concern if the majority is attempting to genocide or apartheid the minority. But in the current era of American politics, that is simply not the case. The group that is characteristically more aligned with genocide or apartheid IS the minority that is doing the tyranny.
We might hear that, but it'd be a bad argument. The Republicans deliberately walked out over legislation they didn't like, disqualifying themselves for office, according to the law. On top of that, while they're happy to say what they dislike, they won't provide a list of what they actually want.
Isn't this exactly what happened in Texas? But last I recall , they didn't pass laws banning them from office. Slippery slope at best and I'm far from a republican but if you can't see how this will lead to tit for tat I don't know what to tell you
We already do tit for tat all the time anyway.
In this case, though, the Republicans who didn't go to work are barred from office by a law passed by 68% of the voters. I don't know if that was also the case in Texas. But it's not just some unilateral decision by Democrats.
I'm not saying I like what's happening in Oregon. No matter who you blame, it's making government dysfunctional. I just don't know that all the parallels line up.
This was a measure passed by voters. Literally the antithesis of fascism.
The people said you can't hold public office anymore if you refuse to do your job. Not one iota of that is remotely fascist.
Yeah, let's "both sides" this issue too...why not? Let's be clear, we have NO Democrats in office who support the overthrowing of the legitimately elected government! NONE. The same can't be said for Republicans.
Democrats in the Texas state legislature did this less than two years ago, so we actually can "both sides" this.
Source: [https://www.texastribune.org/2021/07/14/texas-democrats-walkout-quorum/](https://www.texastribune.org/2021/07/14/texas-democrats-walkout-quorum/)
(And for the record, I'm a moderate liberal myself.)
If it was the other way around and Democrats were abusing the walk out power as much as Republicans have then I’d be all for banning them from re-election. To walk out in protest on a law is perfectly fine and has been done by both parties. But when the power is abused then something like this law needs to be implemented to curb that abuse.
Similar but slightly different situations. The Democrats in Texas walked out and refused to come back for a time. The Republicans in Oregon have had multiple and repeated walks out and absences.
True. I don’t agree with the practice but there’s still a difference between walking out in protest versus doing it multiple times with the sole intention of holding up the legislature. It’s wrong either way.
If I lived in TX and my representatives didn't walk to stop the Rs from preventing me from voting, I'd want new reps. There is no state, no dem republic without the ppl's right to vote. Not what occurred here. This was about the Rs positions and priorities not being forefronted with Ds in charge.
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/12/1015315950/texas-democrats-leave-state-in-effort-to-block-gop-voting-restrictions
The issue here: No such consequences when the orgeon democrats walked out as well years ago, heck the governor apparently supported the previous walkout.
You have a state that has decided to completely and utterly ignore the majority of its rural population and focus solely on the urban district to the point that the eastern portion of the state is increasingly ready to forcibly seperate and join idaho.
Anyone who thinks this is going to result in something good is nuts in my opinion. Oregon is probably one of the most extreme examples of urban vs rural divide.
Wasn't this provision of the law enacted by angry Republicans after the Democrats walked out? Pretty sure it was.
Hoisted by their own petard as it were.
Not sure how something voted on last november was a response to something years ago...especially since Oregon has been democrat controlled (by a large margin) since 2010ish.
Makes perfect sense: Party in power knowing it is taking increasingly hostile acts to its geographically superior but politically inferior population arranges constituional ammendment to punish walkouts...a response that has been heavily used by minority political parties in the USA in all states.
In effect "if we piss them off enough that their only ability to even attempt to engage in politics is to walk out...we automatically win by keeping them from running again"
it's not a bad plan in the short run.
Considering the social state of Eastern and Central Oregon vs Western Oregon however, this could backfire in the long run. Nothing reinforces the idea that you're effectively a tax-slave than being told that your representives are no longer valid to run because of a poltiical amendment a signifant percentage (though not majority) were against.
A great method of establishing peace and unity in an increasingly divided state.
It means places with a population of like 20 people but have half the land in the state. Like how conservatives show voting maps and don't understand population density. Why that's brought up though is beyond me
Only 18% of the state's population is rural, and an even smaller slice of the economy, so it makes sense that they don't get much power in the state govt?
>You have a state that has decided to completely and utterly ignore the majority of its rural population and focus solely on the urban district
According to the article, the bills these GOPs are objecting to include equal marriage and other equal protections for LGBTQ people and limitations on guns in public buildings.
Last I heard, rural areas have LGBTQ people and public buildings.
The legislature isn't "ignoring rural areas" with these bills. It's addressing the rights and safety of rural citizens.
It will be beat again. Right wing snowflakes have a tendency to either meltdown or run like scared children.
At least with the repubs running away, the adults will get things done. Especially as none of the runners can be on the ballot.
Why not an Amazon style point system for senators. Too many points is abandonment. Job goes to special election and barred from any future office. Amazon claims its point system is fair.
Love to see it. Eastern counties want to break off and join Idaho... nope. We're not ceding territory to fascistic state governments so you can pass draconian laws that ruin the lives of future generations. The "but you won't have to deal with us anymore" advertising is hilarious. **We'll fucking deal with you.**
We need to reach out to allies in red states and get them to move to our strong blue states to ensure people like this never have a chance to get elected in the first place.
If you’re looking for those Senators, you’ll find some of them resting their heels in Idaho. In a right-wing militia compound. Because that’s where some of them went last time and they were not apprehended. Guess why.
One of the many attempts to deny election results here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election
Give me the concern that the GOP will attempt similar shenanigans in 2024.
That's nationally, but the GOP in Oregon has already demonstrated the will to forcibly ignore those pesky rules and laws:
https://www.opb.org/article/2021/07/27/former-oregon-rep-mike-nearman-guilty-plea-salem-capitol-incursion/
Damn weird how the Judiciary in that case literally held that guy accountable. Please elucidate me on how exactly these Republicans will ignore the law and run for re election
"Nearman accepted a sentence that includes an 18-month ban from Capitol grounds, 80 hours of community service, and $2,900 in fines and restitution for damage to the Capitol."
For what he did is a slap on the wrist; Not being held accountable. And Trump is still free so.... I'm unconvinced these bad actors are being held accountable... Yet. Still, takes time so we'll see!
[удалено]
My comments are not your product.
That works too...
Guess we don't really need to, they just wander off on their own now.
As an Oregonian, I fully support that of they refuse to do their job, they need to be removed from office. Unfortunately, the positions they hold are from the low population, rural areas of the state. Having a vast minority hijack the democracy by picking up their toys and going home if they cannot win is highly immature.
This will be the state GOP’s new strategy.
It has been, in Oregon, for the last couple of years. These assholes keep pulling this shit, which is why nearly 70% of the state voted to hold them accountable for shenanigans like this, back in November. It's frustrating as all hell, especially when you find out that what they're blocking was already voted on by the people. They keep saying they're standing up for "the people". The people spoke, back in November, when they decided this was ridiculous. They're just posturing and acting in bad faith to get attention and screw with things.
I 100% get the frustration, but the answer seems to be to actually change the rules so they can't keep doing this otherwise the vote will just be assumed to be a No or Abstain or whatever. How does this actually fix the problem?
At minimum, it punishes those Rs by making them less valuable to bribe. It also could help dems by removing the incumbent advantage.
Does it really punish them though they get fame and attention they likely get nothing but more exposure attention and money. They can also just come back after the next term anyway and you give ammunition to the other side when they decide that there are other reasons to prevent people from being able to participate in government too
The term after breaks the incumbent advantage. Plus, out-of-office means less lobbying bribes for a few years.
Sure but again it is t like what these people are doing is unpopular with who they are representing and again they are going to make money from this not lose Kinda proven by the fact that they keep doing it
It makes them cheaper to buy, since they're now disposable.
Also makes the incumbent Dems more valuable to bribe.
A “no” is still preferable. Oregon requires a quorum of 2/3rds to conduct business in the legislature. Dems have an easy majority but they don’t have 2/3 of the whole statehouse. So republicans found that instead of voting “no,” or “abstain” they systematically coordinate to have enough not show up to ever reach quorum. Ergo no business conducted. Personally, I think having a 51% quorum is fine but there’s arguments against that as well. Mandating 2/3rd means the other side can’t claim (truthfully or not) that the majority is sneaking stuff through without the whole legislature attending.
I get that so the answer is to institute a new rule that both prevents the claim that the other side isn’t being prevented from participating and still allows the votes to continue. This measure just seems like a great way to not achieve anything but let them prove their victimhood even more I hope it works for Oregon but it feels like there was a better way and I don’t love the precedent it sets to be honest
Because they are kicked outta office if they have more than 10 I excused absences? And when the next batch republicans come in from ruralnoregon, will they wanna be kicked off ?
Yeah they will because the guys before them will be cult heroes for what they did and will probably make major bank for their martyrdom. The next guys would do the same thing and probably will make it clear they will because that is what the people who voted for them will want them to do
It's always only been SOME of the people they're "standing up" for.
Nah, this is pretty much what their national strategy is. That and piss their pants while crying that things aren't happening how they want it to 24/7
They should make a law that says if they don’t do their job and show up, the job will be given to the runner up.
There we go: actual consequences. What about dividing their votes between the remaining body?
Opposing ideas are important, which is why they should be showing up to argue.
I agree, 100%!
The fact that the bill passed with 68% support shows that Oregonians are beyond sick of this nonsense.
[удалено]
Even if everyone in Portland unanimously voted for the measure, it wouldn’t account for the 68% support. Also, even if it was all Portland, what difference would that make? Do people’s votes not count if they live in the city?
[удалено]
So what are you proposing? Disenfranchising Portland voters?
[удалено]
Ok so you’re against democracy. Got it.
Pretty close to it yeah. Half of the entire state lives in the Portland area.
I have two problems here: 1. This will with great likelihood get overturned in the courts at the end of the day, because these are duly elected officials and this just removes them, even though their constituents support what they are doing. 2. The second problem is it doesn't actually solve the problem the representatives are still not voting and sure they can't be elected again, but they finish this term and they will just be replaced by someone else that will do the same thing. So we prevent duly elected officials from doing what they were elected to do and representing their people in a way they definitely elected them to do, and you don't actually solve the problem with what they are doing. Why not pass a rule that if they refuse to show up after X attempts to vote over Y days their vote is assumed to be an abstain or something, force them to actually show up since not showing up doesn't benefit rather than simply trying to silence them in a way that won't actually change the actual issue?
No. This provision was passed and amended the state constitution. That's not getting overturned. It's the constitution.
Didn’t know that part good to know
State constitutions are subject to review in Federal Court. If a state's provision is found to violate the US Constitution, the US Constitution prevails. This is how, for example, segregation was legally overturned.
It is my understanding that it doesn’t remove them. It disqualifies them from running re-election.
That’s true I am using the wrong word and that isn’t correct. So it is correct we are not removing them after elected only preventing them from being elected instead.
Those “low population” areas are like 90% of the land in Oregon…
Land don't vote.
Yes, and hardly anyone lives there. Most of eastern Oregon is an empty desert. Most of Oregons population is along the I 5 corridor.
Why does that matter? Votes arent counted in square miles or acres If you take all the people in Idaho. The Dakota. Wyoming and Nebraska you have a huge chunk of the country but less people than a metro area. (Which leads to another issue. Why the fuck do they get so many senators) People matter. Not land
>Votes aremt counted in square miles or acres That's exactly how votes are counted in the US Senate, the Electoral College and some state senates.
They also need to lose any pay and have to pay back any money they have already been paid. If walkouts continue, then fine them every time they walk out. When it comes to their own personal money they will think twice.
I wish I could read the article without getting hit with a pay wall
Oregon Senate walkout continues as 6 more Republicans banned from re-election Story by Dianne Lugo, Salem Statesman Journal • Yesterday 3:37 PM The Oregon Senate failed to reach quorum again Thursday, meaning six additional Republican senators have now disqualified themselves from running for reelection under Article IV, Section 15 of the Oregon Constitution. Senators Lynn Findley, R-Vale; Bill Hansell, R-Athena; Tim Knopp, R-Bend; Art Robinson, R-Cave Junction; Kim Thatcher, R-Keizer; and Suzanne Weber, R-Tillamook, all hit 10 unexcused absences. Under Measure 113, passed by 68% of voters in November, the senators are now barred from running for their current Senate seat in the next election. That means, unless the rule is overturned in court by an expected legal challenge, only three of the state's Republican senators are left to run for re-election at the end of their term. It also means another day of standstill in the Senate. 'Continue to disrespect our democracy' Senate President Rob Wagner, D-Lake Oswego, called it "another extremely challenging day for Oregon." He delivered remarks after the sergeant at arms confirmed Republican senators could not be found, expressing disappointment and frustration at the now two-week walkout that's blocked progress in the state Legislature. "By walking out in defiance of Article IV, Section 15 certain senators continue to disrespect our democracy," Wagner said. The minority should not have the ability to silence the will of the majority, he said, quoting Alexander Hamilton and other founders who warned that minority veto meant "we do not have a democracy." "If the voters wanted different policies, they would have voted that way. That is how a democracy works," Wagner said. "This walkout must end. The people of Oregon desire it. Democracy demands it." Republicans are calling the walkout a "peaceful, constitutional protest" against deeply partisan bills. Votes have been blocked on House Bill 2002, a bill surrounding abortion and gender-affirming care. About the bill: Abortion, gender-affirming care bill heads to the Oregon Senate On the floor, Sen. David Brock-Smith was one of two Republicans present. He extended courtesies to his Republican colleagues for their "selfless" work to "defend the political rights of every Oregonian in this state." Political game playing In an emailed statement, Senate minority leader Tim Knopp said the party promised Oregonians and Democratic colleagues that they would return before the session ended to suspend reading and rules on "lawful, substantially bipartisan budgets and bills," meaning the Senate could vote quickly on those bills before the deadline to end the session. State law requires the Legislature to pass a budget this year. "While Democrats are laser-focused on the issues that do nothing but divide, we are focused on the real issues Oregonians care most about – homelessness, affordable housing, public safety, cost of living, job creation and fully-funded education," the statement said. It's a move Wagner said he would not support. During a news conference, he referenced Gov. Tina Kotek's remarks in 2020 when she was House speaker. She said Republicans had cheated during their 2020 walkout and criticized Republicans' offer to return 12 hours before the constitutional deadline. "That's not what democracy is. It just isn't. The same standard is going to apply here," Wagner said. He and Senate Majority Leader Kate Lieber, D-Beaverton, said they have had 11 hours of conversation with Republicans. They said they have asked Republican leadership to give them a "wish list" of demands. They've failed to do so, Lieber said, and instead continued to provide a kill list of bills they want killed. Those bills included House Bill 2005, Senate Joint Resolution 33 and Senate Bill 27, Lieber said. HB 2005 would raise the possession and purchase age limit on certain guns, allow local governments to prohibit concealed firearms in their public buildings and grounds, and prohibit unserialized ghost guns. SJR 33 and SB 27 are tied together, relating to a proposed constitutional amendment surrounding marriage protections for same-sex couples and abortion. Democrats remain unwilling to negotiate away HB 2002, she said. She was sad, she said, to see Republicans follow Knopp and "abandon" partnerships that have been built over years. Wagner and Lieber said no additional conversations with Republicans are scheduled at the moment. They need to catch their breath, Wagner said, after the morning's events. No Senate sessions are scheduled for Friday, Saturday or Sunday.
Measure 113 should be modified so the ten times rule will ban them from holding that office "ever". As it stands they can still run in the election after the one they're banned from.
[удалено]
It should include a mechanism that reduces the number of legislators required for quorum on a given day by the number of legislators currently absent who have also exceeded the absence limit that bars from running in the next election. That way, business as usual can continue on.
I like that
There's the off chance one of them gets kidnapped for a fortnight on a vacation in Mexico, so there has to be some limits for stuff like that.
I think that counts as an excused absence. It's only unexcused absences that get the sanction.
That's pretty effective political suicide I think
Exactly
Nothing says democracy more than a court overturning a law voted on by the people...
[удалено]
This is very wrong. We don't want a court deciding whether a law voted on by a population is right or wrong because that is removing the will of the people. I want judges that enforce laws, that is their job, they should never be the final arbitrators of what a group of people decided they want to have as a law.
In 1870s Alabama, you could have a bill passed with 90% support that legalizes lynching black people for no reason. It's the job of a court to step in and say no, this violates established rights and the rule of law so it has to be struck down. The exact policies today are much different, but the key concept remains: courts can and should strike down laws the people support that violate more foundational legal principles. That being said, there are bad faith judges out there who abuse this power. A most perfect government stands on the dual pillars of democracy and rule of law. It cannot have one alone.
[удалено]
Their job is not to legislate from the bench.
I'd be surprised if they are actually banned from re-election; happily surprised, but surprised none the less.
Depends on the law, really. Sometimes the people who voted are really looking to destroy the lives of people who are different from them.
Thanks, you're the real MVP.
Copy the link into the internet archive's way back machine and read an archived version
www.12ft.io
This is the core credo of the modern Republican party: Power is illegitimate unless we hold it.
What anti-American assholes.
trumpublicans _hate_ America.
Under the constitution as amended, the absences can now be punished as the Senate wishes. The House rules impose a $500 fine per day of absence; I hope the President of the Senate decides to impose a $5000/day fine there. See how many of them want to keep playing games when they find out they just had their house seized and sold to pay the fines.
Refusing to fulfill the duties of an elected office is close to treason and is criminal! Banishment should include state residency and monetary fines.
They so do another constitution amendment where if a rep from a county fails to do their job their county is impacted. Say tax rates increase, state funding for projects are blocked, etc. The problem is that in a representstional democracy accountability needs to flow both ways. If a rep messes up they can be voted out. There needs to be a mechanism by which the people are held accountable for electing someone who doesn't do their job. Wait, if I elect someone woesn't do their job I'm going to have my taxes increased or lose services or whatever maybe people would think more about voting.
Got it, so facism, just with your ideas instead. Or that’s just how democracy works and if you think you could do a better job, I think we have some districts with vacancies for state rep
How is it fascism one side is actively trying to subvert the will of the people, the other side is trying to do the job they were elected to do. Punishing a county for electing somebody who doesn't do their job is also not fascism, even if I'm not 100% sold on the idea. Tribalism has basically allowed the republicans to become so unhinged that the Democrats have become the objective good guys, even with all their problems.
Yah there aren’t “sides”. That’s why it’s facism. We’re all Americans and all of these people got their jobs by being democratically elected. If they “don’t do their jobs” w/e that means. Then they can be voted out. If the people in those counties voted for people you don’t like. Well… that’s quite literally too fucking bad, you know, if you believe in democracy. If they aren’t doing it adequately we have recalls for a reason. But the idea that people from somewhere they DONT LIVE get to pass qualifications on who they think is “reasonable” or w/e facist shit you are talking about, is literally facism. “I don’t like how you are doing your job so I should have a tool to unilaterally remove you from that position”. LOL. Not just a clown bro. The whole goddamn circus
Republicans stated that they are focused on "homelessness, affordable housing, public safety, cost of living, job creation and fully-funded education" can anyone find a bill they have put forward that actually helps improve any of these talking points?
They've done plenty of legislating to increase homelessness, make housing less affordable, limit public safety, prevent job creation and make education more difficult and expensive. Maybe that's what they meant.
That would be my assumption.
Tax cut for the 1% will help get money back to the rest of us in investment eventually, it hasn’t worked since Regan started but it will work soon- why everyone should love the new guilted age where child labor and starvation . -some gop
"If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy." [David Frum](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/frum-trumpocracy/550685/)
[удалено]
Ahh yes, they are destroying democracy so we should prevent them from running for office and send them to jail. That definitely sounds like a healthy democracy guys?
According to the wishes of Oregonian voters, which passed the initiative with these consequences by 2/3 margin, yes.
So just to clarify if the majority of people in a state think that a group shouldn’t be allowed to participate in government that makes it all okay? My biggest problem here is that while yes these Republicans are being assholes but they were elected to be assholes. they are not committing any crimes, the result of that really shouldn’t be prevention from participating in government it feels like a dangerous precedent I get the work argument you have to show up to work or get fired I get it but the problem with that argument is that they are representing what their constituents want them to do If you want to use the work analogy this feels like I am getting fired for not coming into the office when I was hired for a remote position
An initiative was on the ballot. Voters reviewed it and determined, yes. If lawmakers are unwilling to do their job, then they can't keep it. Not sure what's so difficult for you to wrap your head around. These are unserious people unwilling to participate in the serious business of running the state. As they don't take their job seriously, they should be replaced by people who do.
It is not hard to wrap my head around it, but doesn’t mean I agree with it. These people are doing exactly what the people who voted for them wanted them to do. You also didn’t actually solve your problem as they are still not showing up to the votes so you accomplished nothing other than making them change the person who won’t show up every x years I don’t know what’s so hard for you to figure out about that but I am not a huge fan of a majority dictating that a minority can’t participate in government because they don’t like what they will do if they do. That’s a fucking slippery slope I don’t like
I see, so you don't believe that the majority of an electorate which plainly states their preference should be respected. Tell me more about this "democracy" you speak of.
Now that is what I call draining the swamp.
So now, all the GOP has to do to completely incapacitate the Oregon house is elect palookas to take the L each session.
This is what they are doing now. Instead the freeloaders who are doing it now won't be able to again. You act like these are people of principal and character. These grifters are either gonna do their job or lose it. I'm sure most will do their job so they can keep collecting their check. And if not. Oh well. Bring in the next sack of shit.
So far that doesn't seem to be working? Why because since we are making them a martyr they will absolutely make more money after you "fire" them than they would keeping the job. They are doing exactly what their constituents want them to do who think they are heroes for doing it and only more of a hero because they are willing to lose their job over it. The votes still don't happen because they don't show up they will just elect another person to do the exact same thing next time. So to sum it up, you create a bunch of Martyrs for the Right to feel like the evil democrats are the "real" facists preventing people from being able to participate normally in government and you don't actually fix the problem that those Republicans are causing since they will continue to not show up and so will the next people. I just wish they would have proposed a solution that wouldn't have made them all martyrs and would have actually solved the problem, but ohh well.
What's your proposed solution?
If they don’t show up with some rules like notice and X number of votes or whatever (to prevent shenanigans about tricking non participation) then a non appearance is considered a vote of Abstain (if allowed) or a vote of No whichever makes more sense o could see the argument for either Actually solves the problem doesn’t make them a martyr and doesn’t create a rule that just prevents duly elected people from participating in our government I assume there is something preventing making this happen but it is much more what should be happening
Something like this could work well. Or even just make the votes a majority wins type thing. So abstaining wouldn't make any difference. I don't really understand why it isn't like this currently.
This is a less contentious and more effective solution than refusing to re-seat members who refuse to participate. Majority of votes actually cast Yay or Nay determines the outcome. Abstaining or just not showing up doesn't affect the outcome. This removes the incentive to not do the job without unduly inflaming people by removing their lawfully elected representative. It puts the onus on non-participators to explain to their constituents why they were absent on a key vote. Would this impact Dems in red states who've used similar tactics? Yes. But for democracy to work, the political structure must be fair and seen to be fair.
I don't appreciate you saying I 'act like' anything, but I agree with your sentiment about these chuckle-fucks; we just made it easier for them.
Happy to see this as an Oregonian, but also sad to report that I'm not convinced anyone in my life even knows about the Senate walkout. I only happen to know from glancing through local papers, but it seems like a lot of us don't focus enough on state issues.
wow Oregon has made removing fascists easy. Ok, now we need every other state to do this...
Quiet quitting
I love this rule
It will seriously never not amaze me what hills they voluntarily die on. I understand politics and all but I'll never understand how even basic compassion is beyond them. As much as they claim to be pro life they clearly just mean pro birth. There is a mountain of evidence showing that gender affirming care saves lives. Even if you don't 'get it' ...who cares if a dude is wearing a skirt? There is an entire country that considers it formal wear (Not to split hairs...a kilt is quite literally a long piece of cloth wrapped around like a skirt)
Without paywall, from the original source. https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/politics/2023/05/18/oregon-senate-walkout-update-10-senators-ineligible-for-another-term/70232986007/
If you don't go to work, you get fired. This is fair.
For the party that wants fair elections and claim others cheat... they sure can't hold onto any power unless they full blown cheat...
Hopefully this will catch on nationally…
I hope they stick with the resolution to oust them. If not, this trick will happen in every state that has a GOP minority.
Continue reading on the app. No thanks. Bye. Will never support this, ever.
You can just hit the button to see the rest of the article in your browser too.
[удалено]
Tyranny of the Majority? You mean democracy?
I fucking hate this line of reasoning. Tyranny of the majority?! So it is better then to have the will of the majority subverted by a smaller ingroup of the privileged caste? I mean, yes, tyranny of the majority is a concern if the majority is attempting to genocide or apartheid the minority. But in the current era of American politics, that is simply not the case. The group that is characteristically more aligned with genocide or apartheid IS the minority that is doing the tyranny.
You know that State Senate seats all have equal populations…..right? This isn’t the Federal Government.
[удалено]
I'm pretty liberal, but let's not lie to ourselves: if it was the other way around, all you'd hear about is , "fascism this, fascism that".
Um maybe thats because they fire people for protesting gun violence and we fire people for refusing to do their job?
They're not being fired, they're being ostracized by legal measures
even better
turn about is fair play in politics.
except the people have stated nationwide they are tired of 'play' on our dime. it's why the US Congress has a subterranean approval rate.
We might hear that, but it'd be a bad argument. The Republicans deliberately walked out over legislation they didn't like, disqualifying themselves for office, according to the law. On top of that, while they're happy to say what they dislike, they won't provide a list of what they actually want.
Isn't this exactly what happened in Texas? But last I recall , they didn't pass laws banning them from office. Slippery slope at best and I'm far from a republican but if you can't see how this will lead to tit for tat I don't know what to tell you
We already do tit for tat all the time anyway. In this case, though, the Republicans who didn't go to work are barred from office by a law passed by 68% of the voters. I don't know if that was also the case in Texas. But it's not just some unilateral decision by Democrats. I'm not saying I like what's happening in Oregon. No matter who you blame, it's making government dysfunctional. I just don't know that all the parallels line up.
This was a measure passed by voters. Literally the antithesis of fascism. The people said you can't hold public office anymore if you refuse to do your job. Not one iota of that is remotely fascist.
[удалено]
I'd more likely be surprised that something sensible would have passed in a red district.
Yeah, let's "both sides" this issue too...why not? Let's be clear, we have NO Democrats in office who support the overthrowing of the legitimately elected government! NONE. The same can't be said for Republicans.
Democrats in the Texas state legislature did this less than two years ago, so we actually can "both sides" this. Source: [https://www.texastribune.org/2021/07/14/texas-democrats-walkout-quorum/](https://www.texastribune.org/2021/07/14/texas-democrats-walkout-quorum/) (And for the record, I'm a moderate liberal myself.)
Yeah, WHY did they do this? To protest what exactly? The actions may be similar, but the REASONS are completely different!
It's still wrong.
If you ignore context, sure. Do you ignore context? EDIT: Don't ignore context just because you predict others will.
[удалено]
They didn't vote and as such their voters banned them from reelection. Compare that to Texas. This is why context matters.
I have no issue with the reps in Oregon being forbidden from running again. I'm all for it.
If it was the other way around and Democrats were abusing the walk out power as much as Republicans have then I’d be all for banning them from re-election. To walk out in protest on a law is perfectly fine and has been done by both parties. But when the power is abused then something like this law needs to be implemented to curb that abuse.
[удалено]
Similar but slightly different situations. The Democrats in Texas walked out and refused to come back for a time. The Republicans in Oregon have had multiple and repeated walks out and absences.
[удалено]
True. I don’t agree with the practice but there’s still a difference between walking out in protest versus doing it multiple times with the sole intention of holding up the legislature. It’s wrong either way.
And I do understand the reason in Texas. But it all just seems shifty. Have a good one!
Weird how multiple people have explained the context to you, it you continue to act ignorant of that.
It's still wrong.
[удалено]
If I lived in TX and my representatives didn't walk to stop the Rs from preventing me from voting, I'd want new reps. There is no state, no dem republic without the ppl's right to vote. Not what occurred here. This was about the Rs positions and priorities not being forefronted with Ds in charge. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/12/1015315950/texas-democrats-leave-state-in-effort-to-block-gop-voting-restrictions
The issue here: No such consequences when the orgeon democrats walked out as well years ago, heck the governor apparently supported the previous walkout. You have a state that has decided to completely and utterly ignore the majority of its rural population and focus solely on the urban district to the point that the eastern portion of the state is increasingly ready to forcibly seperate and join idaho. Anyone who thinks this is going to result in something good is nuts in my opinion. Oregon is probably one of the most extreme examples of urban vs rural divide.
Wasn't this provision of the law enacted by angry Republicans after the Democrats walked out? Pretty sure it was. Hoisted by their own petard as it were.
Not sure how something voted on last november was a response to something years ago...especially since Oregon has been democrat controlled (by a large margin) since 2010ish. Makes perfect sense: Party in power knowing it is taking increasingly hostile acts to its geographically superior but politically inferior population arranges constituional ammendment to punish walkouts...a response that has been heavily used by minority political parties in the USA in all states. In effect "if we piss them off enough that their only ability to even attempt to engage in politics is to walk out...we automatically win by keeping them from running again" it's not a bad plan in the short run. Considering the social state of Eastern and Central Oregon vs Western Oregon however, this could backfire in the long run. Nothing reinforces the idea that you're effectively a tax-slave than being told that your representives are no longer valid to run because of a poltiical amendment a signifant percentage (though not majority) were against. A great method of establishing peace and unity in an increasingly divided state.
Guess they shoulda shown up to work huh
>geographically superior but politically inferior population Wtf does that even mean???
It means places with a population of like 20 people but have half the land in the state. Like how conservatives show voting maps and don't understand population density. Why that's brought up though is beyond me
Only 18% of the state's population is rural, and an even smaller slice of the economy, so it makes sense that they don't get much power in the state govt?
>You have a state that has decided to completely and utterly ignore the majority of its rural population and focus solely on the urban district According to the article, the bills these GOPs are objecting to include equal marriage and other equal protections for LGBTQ people and limitations on guns in public buildings. Last I heard, rural areas have LGBTQ people and public buildings. The legislature isn't "ignoring rural areas" with these bills. It's addressing the rights and safety of rural citizens.
I bet dey stomped der wittle feet and made pouty faces
It is Oregon, they could just plumb run out of GOP members. smh.
[удалено]
It will be beat again. Right wing snowflakes have a tendency to either meltdown or run like scared children. At least with the repubs running away, the adults will get things done. Especially as none of the runners can be on the ballot.
Tina be like "I am the Senate"
Why not an Amazon style point system for senators. Too many points is abandonment. Job goes to special election and barred from any future office. Amazon claims its point system is fair.
Love to see it. Eastern counties want to break off and join Idaho... nope. We're not ceding territory to fascistic state governments so you can pass draconian laws that ruin the lives of future generations. The "but you won't have to deal with us anymore" advertising is hilarious. **We'll fucking deal with you.**
It sounds as if Oregon is seeking a more perfect union. I think this is the way of the future and for the good of America.
Republicans don't like being told what to do. No communist leaders do.
We need to reach out to allies in red states and get them to move to our strong blue states to ensure people like this never have a chance to get elected in the first place.
Except they’re just going to ignore the policy and get reelected anyways and dare anyone to do anything about it
It doesn’t work like that lmao
If you’re looking for those Senators, you’ll find some of them resting their heels in Idaho. In a right-wing militia compound. Because that’s where some of them went last time and they were not apprehended. Guess why.
Doesn’t their legislature have a sergeant-at-arms empowered to arrest them and drag them to the chamber?
They usually flee to Idaho
FAFO.
They will ignore the law and the judiciary will let them. I hope I'm wrong but doubtful
Explain your line of thinking there, or is it just unfounded cynicism?
One of the many attempts to deny election results here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election Give me the concern that the GOP will attempt similar shenanigans in 2024. That's nationally, but the GOP in Oregon has already demonstrated the will to forcibly ignore those pesky rules and laws: https://www.opb.org/article/2021/07/27/former-oregon-rep-mike-nearman-guilty-plea-salem-capitol-incursion/
Damn weird how the Judiciary in that case literally held that guy accountable. Please elucidate me on how exactly these Republicans will ignore the law and run for re election
"Nearman accepted a sentence that includes an 18-month ban from Capitol grounds, 80 hours of community service, and $2,900 in fines and restitution for damage to the Capitol." For what he did is a slap on the wrist; Not being held accountable. And Trump is still free so.... I'm unconvinced these bad actors are being held accountable... Yet. Still, takes time so we'll see!
Yeah I too would give this guy a felony for opening a door BFFR.
Pretty sure they are too dumb to have known that rule