Gov. Kate Brown’s chosen secretary of state serves who?

“Suffrage is often conceived in terms of elections for representatives. However, suffrage applies equally to referenda and initiatives. Suffrage describes not only the legal right to vote, but also the practical question of whether a question will be put to a vote. The utility of suffrage is reduced when important questions are decided unilaterally without extensive, conscientious, full disclosure and public review.” – Wikipedia

Oregonians should be mindful of challenges here at home as we watch the clash of politicians in Washington, DC. An unfolding conflict in Salem shows how leaders of both parties, steeped in a culture of private patronage, can steer government into a ditch.

When Governor Kate Brown appointed a new secretary of state, in the wake of the former secretary’s death, citizens were led to believe Brown fully vetted candidates and picked someone to serve the public without bias toward private interests.

Concerns were raised about Brown’s appointee, Beverly Clarno, soon after she was sworn into office. She hired a second-in-command (Richard Vial) who proceeded to augment his public salary ($172,000/year) by moonlighting for private clients on land-use cases that could compromise his integrity as a public servant. Secretary Clarno’s credibility was undercut further when she refused to conduct a timely and competent investigation of allegations regarding felonious campaign donations involving former state lawmakers.

These were troubling signs, but now it looks like Carno may be driving Oregon toward a constitutional crisis. Recently she rejected ballot initiatives that would enable citizens to vote on reforms aimed at protecting watersheds and improving oversight of forest practices. Voter access is sacred to Oregonians. It should have been an obvious factor in Brown’s appointment of a new secretary of state. Clarno’s actions suggest Brown may have used a different political equation.

Clarno’s press release explaining her rejection is telling. She refers to Oregon’s governing agency on forestry as the “Oregon Forest Council.” No public entity of that name exists, but it does sound like a certain industry group that gave her and Vial money when they were state legislators. In her statement Clarno seems to prioritize such private interests over Oregon’s judicial branch or the legitimacy of our court system. “While some courts have been lenient in determining whether a petition meets the single-subject rule, I have a responsibility to do everything possible to ensure that each ballot measure is clear and embraces only one subject,” states Clarno.

Due process in ballot access is critical. Historically, when the secretary of state rejects voter initiatives, they do so in consultation with Oregon’s attorney general. A rejection is usually accompanied by a written legal justification from the AG’s office. In this singular case, Clarno and Vial took it upon themselves to unilaterally deny a group of Oregonian’s access to the democratic process. Worse, their decision failed to hold water according to AG Ellen Rosenblum, who refused to defend it in court. In a statement released to The Oregonian, Rosenblum wrote that her office represents “both the Secretary of State and the Oregon Legislature,” and that the AG’s office “would not want to make arguments detrimental to our legislative branch client… in order to defend this executive branch action.”

“The Oregon Supreme Court has said that the ‘single subject’ requirement in the Oregon Constitution that governs the initiative process is to be given the same interpretation as the ‘single subject’ requirement that applies to the legislature. There is no question that, under current law, the legislature could pass a measure such as this one and it would be in full compliance with the ‘single subject’ requirement.”    

Clarno/Vial immediately turned to a private law firm to defend their public decision. At present we don’t know how much that outside hiring will cost taxpayers.* But what’s at stake may not just be due process for ballot initiatives. Many laws passed by the Oregon legislature are similarly structured, including some that Clarno/Vial authored, supported, and voted for when they were elected officials. Could existing or new laws be challenged if Clarno/Vial’s definition of ‘single subject’ is normalized?

To recap: 1) Governor Brown’s appointee to the position of secretary of state (and her appointee’s hired second-in-command) blocked voter access to the ballot in a way they admit departs from judicial precedent; 2) that decision has been deemed publically indefensible by the state’s attorney general; 3) the administrative branch then went outside public channels to defend this decision; and 4) these efforts could undermine or delegitimize other legislation (transportation, health care, school funding, etc.).

All of which begs the question — what was Governor Brown thinking? Did she purposely pick Clarno with this kind of obstruction in mind? Members of the political establishment often hit the brakes when citizens seek to reform a culture of moneyed patronage. While such resistance may serve private ambitions, it sidelines the hard work of voters who want civic improvements.

We the public need real progress, not more disregard for our trust, suffrage, and attention.

*UPDATE: The private law firm hired by our Secretary of State to oppose voter access to these ballot initiatives will cost taxpayers as much as $30,000, according to an article in The Oregonian. “The firm says on its website it is ‘involved’ with the Oregon Forest & Industries Council, one of the leading opponents to the ballot measures.”