Editorials from around Oregon

Selected editorials from Oregon newspapers:

___

The Oregonian/OregonLive, Aug. 21, on Malheur County counsel calling for investigation into reporters’ actions:

Usually, when public officials don’t want to answer a reporter’s questions, they respond with “no comment.”

In Malheur County, however, they’re trying something a little more hardcore.

The Malheur County counsel has asked Sheriff Brian Wolfe to open a criminal investigation into the actions of Malheur Enterprise reporters. Their alleged crime? Sending emails to the personal accounts of county economic development employees outside of office hours which Greg Smith, director of the Malheur County Economic Development Department, has deemed “not appropriate.”

Let’s be clear. That isn’t a crime. That’s called reporting. Journalists frequently try to contact government officials and others through official and non-official channels as they pursue leads, develop sources, gather documents and build a story. They also try to make every attempt to reach them if they are writing a story relating to the officials or their work, so that the officials have the opportunity to refute conclusions, correct information or explain their side of a story. There’s nothing inappropriate and certainly nothing illegal about it.

In a call with The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board, Smith acknowledged that going to the sheriff’s office might not have been the right avenue. He added that journalists have every right to contact him and that he has tried to be open and responsive to public records requests and journalists’ inquiries. But he said his employees have felt intimidated by the frequency of emails from the Enterprise, the exhaustiveness of their information requests and the window of time given to them before publication. He added that they believe Enterprise journalists are not disclosing personal conflicts and biases and are using their position to settle scores.

The Enterprise, meantime, has said it has used “standard and professional methods.” To drive that point home, the newspaper published a column Sunday describing how the story was reported and sharing the full text of emails sent to Smith seeking responses or rebuttals.

If Smith had concerns, there are other avenues to resolve them, from writing op-eds to even filing civil lawsuits if the situation merits it. Seeking a criminal investigation is an inappropriate use of government resources and appears more of an attempt to dissuade or intimidate reporters. Especially considering that Smith, who is also the Republican representative for Heppner in the Oregon House, has been the subject of recent Malheur Enterprise stories raising questions about the work he has done in his position as the county’s economic development director.

As a legislator, Smith knows that media scrutiny is a critical component of keeping government accountable. He shouldn’t look to government to suppress that scrutiny.

___

Albany Democrat-Herald, Aug. 21, on death penalty legislation:

Nearly two months have passed since the 2019 Legislature wrapped up its work, but there’s still plenty of confusion surrounding one of the session’s most significant bills, the measure that limits how the death penalty can be applied in Oregon.

The key question is this: Is the bill retroactive - that is, does it apply to the 31 inmates who currently are on death row in Oregon?

One of the bill’s key backers, state Sen. Floyd Prozanski, a Eugene Democrat, has said a special legislative session is required to make it clear the law doesn’t apply to death penalty cases sent back for new sentencing hearings as well as new trials. But another backer, former House Majority Leader Jennifer Williamson, D-Portland, has said no additional work is needed on the bill and that it always was intended to cover situations such as new sentencing hearings in old cases and new trials.

A recent opinion by the state Department of Justice sided with Williamson’s interpretation, noting that the new law applies to death penalty convictions and sentences that have been overturned, in addition to pending cases.

The measure in question, Senate Bill 1013, narrows the definition of “aggravated murder,” the only crime in Oregon that can be punished by death. The death penalty in Oregon now can only be applied in four types of crimes: killings motivated by terrorism, murders of children 14 years or younger, killings by an incarcerated person who’s serving a previous aggravated murder sentence and premeditated killings of police or corrections officers.

Other crimes that used to be considered aggravated murder, such as slayings committed during a rape or robbery, no longer can be punished with the death penalty.

The bill was carefully constructed (perhaps too carefully) to ensure that it didn’t require a vote of the people; such a vote would be required of a measure that called for completely doing away with the death penalty in Oregon.

It’s probably fair to say that many, if not most, legislators believed that the bill was not meant to apply retroactively. In that light, the measure didn’t seem likely to make much difference for death-row inmates: It’s been more than two decades since Oregon executed a prisoner and Gov. Kate Brown is continuing a moratorium on the death penalty that was instituted by her predecessor, John Kitzhaber.

But the idea that the bill could be applied retroactively to some cases changes that calculation to some extent: As The Oregonian’s Noelle Crombie reported, it’s not at all unusual for aggravated-murder convictions or death penalty sentences to be overturned or remanded to a lower court. In fact, Crombie noted, seven cases have been reversed in the last two-and-a-half years, and not one of Oregon’s death row inmates has exhausted their legal challenges. It would be interesting to see if legislators approach the bill differently should it come up again in a special session or next year’s short session.

Regardless of what happens to Senate Bill 1013, legislators should stop sneaking around the issue of the death penalty and fully confront it by referring to voters a measure to abolish capital punishment in Oregon.

Oregonians have a long and tangled history with the death penalty. Capital punishment was outlawed by Oregon voters in 1914 and then reenacted in 1978. Three years later, the state Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional, a ruling that paved the way for a 1984 initiative in which voters reaffirmed capital punishment.

Since then, the topic rarely has been revisited in Oregon, and the gubernatorial moratoriums have had the effect of sweeping the debate about capital punishment under the rug. Meanwhile, the national conversation about the death penalty has taken fascinating turns.

It’s been almost four decades since state voters affirmed the death penalty. It’s long past time to bring this conversation to all of Oregon.

___

The Bulletin, Aug. 20, on ballot measure banning new marijuana businesses:

If Deschutes County voters ban new recreational marijuana grows and businesses, one thing the county may lose is tax money to enforce marijuana laws.

How much? As much as $400,000 a year.

A cut of $400,000 could mean the county loses two sheriff’s deputies who work on drug issues, a health educator at the county Health Department and money for county code enforcement. That’s how the county uses the money now, according to County Administrator Tom Anderson.

The county will still have to regulate existing marijuana production and businesses but will likely get less money to do it. It’s one reason why the opt out measure Deschutes County commissioners put on the ballot for 2020 may not be good for the county.

Just to be clear about an opt out vote, all voters in the county - including in the county’s cities - would be able to vote. If voters opt out, the decision would only put a halt to new grows or businesses in the county - outside the county’s cities.

The state has distributed more than $206 million in marijuana tax revenue since 2017, according to state documents. It is distributed according to a formula. The bulk goes to the common school fund, 40%. Twenty percent goes to mental health, alcoholism and drug services, 15% to state police, 10% to cities for enforcement, 10% to counties for enforcement and 5% to Oregon Health Authority for alcohol and drug abuse prevention.

But if a city or county doesn’t allow all types of marijuana licenses, a strict reading of the statute says they aren’t eligible for tax dollars from sales. It’s a similar case with cities or counties that don’t allow wholesalers, retailers or production. Zero eligibility.

County commissioners know that. Commissioner Patti Adair has said she doesn’t think it’s fair. And she’s right. Why if a county opted in and then later decided to opt out, would it suddenly get no revenue for existing pot operations? Commissioner Phil Henderson said if it comes to that point, the county will at least try to challenge that interpretation of the statute.

The November 2020 vote is a long way off. But the loss of the tax money is a worrisome wrinkle - no matter how you feel about an opt-out vote.