Ocean's List (Oregon Edition)

This is my list of endorsements for the 2018 Elections in the State of Oregon. My endorsements are specifically for the gubernatorial race, Oregon's 2nd Congressional District, and the statewide ballot measures. The races in Oregon's other Congressional Districts aren't competitive, so I'm declining to endorse in those races.

Governor: Governor Kate Brown. First, I respect that Knute Buehler is running as a pro-choice Republican. That takes a lot of nerve in this day and age. However, I can't vote for him. Buehler supports Measure 105, which would repeal Oregon's sanctuary law. That alone for me is a non-starter, as law enforcement resources are limited as it is and the potential for racial discrimination is high if police have to start looking for illegal immigrants. Also, I question Buehler's pro-choice record, as he voted against HB 3391, which ensures that abortion will remain legal in Oregon if Roe v. Wade (1973) were to be repealed.

Gov. Brown on the other hand has a record of accomplishment. She got the minimum wage increased, and she did it pragmatically, staggering the wage increases by location (with Portland metro getting the highest raise; with medium size towns getting a moderate raise; and rural areas getting a slight raise). She helped ensure that low-income women can get abortions if they can't afford them. She also made it easier for women to get birth control without a prescription.

Granted, there are many problems in our state and I think Gov. Brown could do a better job trying to fix our housing crisis and shoring up PERS. But given how little time she has been in office, I think Gov. Brown has done a good job. She has my vote. Vote for Gov. Kate Brown for reelection.

Oregon's 2nd Congressional District: Jamie McLeod-Skinner. Oregon's 2nd Congressional District deserves accountability from their current Representative, Greg Walden, who was one of the main architects behind the attempted repeal of the Affordable Care Act. His constituents, who have seen a 12% decrease in their uninsured rate, would have suffered if Rep. Walden had his way. In fact, it was estimated that 64,000 people living in OR-2 would have lost their insurance had the repeal passed. Aren't representatives supposed to look out for the best interests of their constituents?

On healthcare alone, I support Jamie McLeod-Skinner. But I also support her because she is pragmatic and understanding of her district. One thing she said that resonates with me (and I imagine her possible constituents) is that "Government needs to know when to help out, and when to get out of the way." That tells me right there that she sees the importance of that balance in rural Oregon. It's time to have someone like that again representing the good folks of rural Oregon. If you live in OR-2, vote for Jamie McLeod-Skinner.

Measure 102: YES. Our state is in dire need of affordable housing. Oregon is currently the number one state in America to relocate to. Supply is not keeping up with demand, which along with price gouging landlords is causing rents to skyrocket beyond what many working families can afford. A Yes vote on 102 would give the municipalities some power to raise funds to build more housing, which will help mitigate our housing crisis. Vote Yes.

Measure 103: NO. The language of the amendment is confusing, potentially allowing for loopholes in our tax system that big corporations could take advantage of. Furthermore, the state should not put limits on what they can and can't tax. Doing that would be short-sighted and fiscally irresponsible, especially if the state were to fall on hard times. California's Prop. 13 is a warning for all as it capped property tax at 1% of cash value. This really hurt funding for schools, which rely on property tax revenue. Also, when the Great Recession occurred, California was hindered by Prop. 13, forcing the state to take severe austerity measures and raise income taxes in order to prevent itself from going bankrupt. We're Oregon. Let's not follow California's lead. Vote No.

Measure 104: HESITANT NO. Originally, I was a Yes because I thought this would require our state to raise revenue based on a 3/5 supermajority vote, but we apparently have that as a requirement. What a Yes vote for 104 actually does is extend that 3/5 supermajority vote to changes in tax exemptions, credits, and deductions; making it difficult to either get rid of or implement these changes, which are different from the tax itself. I want to vote yes, but I also want to make sure that big corporations aren't getting off the hook by hiding behind a 3/5 supermajority vote that won't close loopholes. Vote No.

Measure 105: HELL NO. It is the federal government's job to enforce immigration laws, not local law enforcement. A No vote ensures that Oregon, which became a sanctuary state in 1987 with near unanimous and bipartisan support, will not have to spend precious tax dollars doing the federal government's job instead of protecting and promoting the safety of Oregonians. Furthermore, the repeal of the sanctuary law allows law enforcement to not only waste tax dollars doing a job that's not theirs, but it also encourages them to racially profile people in order to determine their immigration status. After all, how can one tell if someone is here illegally? Vote No.

Measure 106: NO. If you're pro-life, I'm not gonna try and convince you to become pro-choice. Rather, I ask that if you are pro-choice, but are iffy about the state funding abortions, consider voting No on 106 from a financial perspective. Taxpayer funded abortions for low income women saves the taxpayer a lot of money, considering that if these women carried their babies to term, then they would probably rely on state assistance, since the state is offering to pay for abortions specifically for those who can't afford them. Vote No.