The Duyck Debacle
Yesterday, in what can only be regarded as bizarre, Republican House candidate Jeff Duyck learned that he lives 125 feet beyond the line to District 29, where he is the nominee.
Add to that strange list Hillsboro retired farmer and businessman Jeff Duyck,
who expects to be forced to drop his candidacy for House District 29 because it turns out elections officials have been mistakenly telling him for years that he lives in the district. Actually, the line runs through his 115-acre farm and Duyck's residence is on the wrong side of the boundary....
Instead, Duyck was told he was qualified to run, until the secretary of state received a letter of complaint last week and had the Washington County Elections Division check the district lines.
It is especially bizarre because the Secretary of State's office has already confirmed Duyck as the candidate, and they have confirmed his status as a resident of District 29 many times. It doesn't appear that he was the target of Dems (Mapes has the story of Theresa Carter, who filed the complaint), or that this was politically motivated. But it's also not clear that Duyck has any legal recourse.
Oregon law states that "if a person's property is split by a jurisdictional line, the person shall be registered where the residence is located."
The secretary of state's office expects to reach a final decision on Duyck's eligibility in two or three weeks, said Norma Buckno, a compliance specialist in the state Elections Division. Duyck will have until July 16 to present additional information, but he is considering whether to do so.
Expectedly, Republicans are outraged. Duyck and the state GOP have made strong statements about the "incompetence" of the Secretary of State's handling of the case. And the fact that the Secretary of State is a partisan Dem has caused partisan Republicans to level charges of conspiracy and abuse of power.
Look, I don't know if the SOS's office can do anything here. If there is wiggle room, though, it would behoove them to give Duyck the benefit of the doubt. He played by the rules, was duly nominated, and did nothing wrong. If the situation was reversed, and we had a Republican SOS ruling this way against a Democratic candidate, we'd be leveling our own charges. Disqualifying Duyck does the Dems no favors, and it means Kate Brown steps into an office that's viewed as overly partisan. Let's hope there's legal recourse for the Secretary of State to let Duyck run. And then let's hope Chuck Riley beats him in November.
|
July 3, 2008 |
Jeff Alworth | Comments (76 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Bill Eagle | Jul 3, 2008 11:24:00 AM
The law is very clear. The district that you live in, and the district you vote in is where you sleep. If his residence is not in the District, then he can not represent it.
The problem is with the Washington County Clerk's office, not the Secretary of States. The Secretary of State confirmed him based on voter information that was provided to them by Washington County.
Personally, I would not want someone in our legislature who does not have a clue as to what district they live in... Shame on Dyke for not knowing any better.
Posted by: Kristin | Jul 3, 2008 11:26:22 AM
From what I know of the situation, it's not a matter of the Secretary of State giving him a break, it would require, despite the fact that Duyck certainly didn't do anything wrong, a change in the law. The Secretary of State would probably not have been able to determine this before the advent of Google Maps or other such technology. While I understand that the Repubs are outraged, Bradbury is doing nothing more than simply following the law.
Posted by: Don | Jul 3, 2008 11:28:14 AM
It's a complaint based system. We assume people are telling the truth. If the Rs want a perfect system, they need to be willing to increase $ for the SOS to allow them to do so.
Posted by: Murphy | Jul 3, 2008 11:44:24 AM
“If the situation was reversed, and we had a Republican SOS ruling this way against a Democratic candidate, we'd be leveling our own charges.”
That’s probably true, but they’d be as bogus as the Republicans charges are now against the SOS. And of course if the situation were reversed, the Republican SOS would be cleaner than Caesar's wife.
“Disqualifying Duyck does the Dems no favors, and it means Kate Brown steps into an office that's viewed as overly partisan.”
Which is how they’d look at that office and Brown in any case. Since Republicans are incapable of winning statewide elections (apart from Gordo -- and we’re doing something about that too) and therefore have little political power, they’ve made this bed for themselves. I say kiss them goodnight, and let them sleep in it.
“Let's hope there's legal recourse for the Secretary of State to let Duyck run. And then let's hope Chuck Riley beats him in November.”
Amen -- wouldn’t that be delicious.
Posted by: Elizabeth | Jul 3, 2008 11:45:34 AM
Give the guy a little bit of a break... He's lived on that property longer than the district line has been there. The Secretary of State redrew district lines in 2001 and erroneously registered Duyck in the district 125 feet to the northeast of his home. On the "Find your Legislator" tool on the the Legislature's Web site, his address brings up Rep. Chuck Riley, they guy he wanted to challenge.
I've got no idea where the district line is in relation to my house. Just like anyone else, I vote for the Democrat that shows up on my ballot and assume that person and I live in the same district.
I don't think the SoS should change the laws for this guy, but the Republicans have a right to be upset, and the Washington County elections division owes him an apology.
Posted by: Marc Abrams | Jul 3, 2008 11:54:49 AM
Folks--
Let's be clear. Redistricting lines are drawn by the Secretary, but registration is a COUNTY function. The Secretary's certification is that you got the most votes. The Secretary does NOT go on mapquest or the like, nor does he have to. His office certifies that, AS REGISTERED, you live in the District. The GOP is quick to smear Bill Bradbury simply because it fits with their idea that any redistricting that didn't help them stay in power was "overly partisan," as if Rick (the return of Ted Baxter) Dancer wouldn't do just that if elected, and more. The county election office may have made a screw up, but there's nothing partisan about what happened here at all and, as Republicans believe in personal responsiblity, shouldn't Dyuck have taken a close look at the map himself, determined it bisected his property, and ASKED? It's not the Secretary's doing folks!
Posted by: AJ526 | Jul 3, 2008 12:12:14 PM
Thanks for your fair article. I think you make good points.
Posted by: carla axtman | Jul 3, 2008 1:30:07 PM
As someone who follows Oregon House races to the "enth" degree, I think this is a pretty sucky situation for Jeff Duyck. Its certainly not fair to him--as he appears to have played by all the rules and did what he was supposed to do.
I do think that the folks over at Washington County Elections have some explaining to do...but it does seem like this kind of micro thing unreasonable for the SOS to be closely overseeing.
But..Duyck was also one of the GOP's top recruits. Its pretty amazing to me that there wasn't somebody in their caucus pouring over the map and triple/quadruple checking on the district boundaries. Somebody over there dropped the ball pretty badly, too.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jul 3, 2008 1:46:35 PM
It's a good point, Carla--if the Dems are evil partisans whose only goal is to foil hapless Republicans (and, man, are they hapless), then the GOP are the Keystone Cops of politics. Yet I don't see anyone at NW Republican owning that piece of the story.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jul 3, 2008 1:59:51 PM
One of the first things you should always do with a potential candidate is locate them on the district map. It's not so much to confirm that they're in district, but to see what part of the district they're in. As soon as you see that they're near the border, you should check to make sure everything is correct - especially if the line goes through the person's property.
Like I said on another thread, I wonder if this is going to somehow end up being an issue created by how the USPS assigned the address to his residence.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jul 3, 2008 2:05:59 PM
"he appears to have played by all the rules and did what he was supposed to do."
Well, I think ultimately the responsibility to determine one's own eligibility for office is the candidate's--but certainly as a practical matter, we can say that Duyck did what was reasonable to confirm his status. He literally did NOT play by the rules, since the rule is that he's not eligible, but he certainly did the amount of due diligence we would expect, confirming with the county that he was eligible.
That and a quarter buys you bubble gum, however. Neither the county nor the state files your papers for you; as a candidate you are responsibile for filing where you are eligible according to the rule--not according to what you're told by a clerk. Sucks to be him, I think he was definitely wronged by WashCo...but he can't represent HD29.
Posted by: Jefffrane | Jul 3, 2008 2:13:46 PM
Elizabeth: I've got no idea where the district line is in relation to my house. Just like anyone else, I vote for the Democrat that shows up on my ballot and assume that person and I live in the same district.
One would imagine that he's been getting ballots over the years, and that his ballot should reflect the district he has been assigned. How does it become the voter's responsibility to verify whether the information provided to them by the State is correct? Whether the State creates the data or gets it from the county, does it not have some responsibility to verify the data is good?
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jul 3, 2008 2:20:03 PM
It's not a voter's responsibility to verify information; however, when you run for office it is you responsibility to verify this information. You sign forms stating you are indeed eligible to run in this district.
Posted by: rinowatch | Jul 3, 2008 2:35:33 PM
Each state senate & house district is apportioned with a set number of citizens in each. IE: @ 30K per HD. Duyck's home was part of the D29 count in the 2000 re-apportionment.
That being the case, even though the map line shows his home 125 ft into D26, and his barn is actually in D26, the SOS counted the residents in the home as part of D29. The barn is uninhabited as a residence and plays no part in D26 apportionment numbers.
It would seem like a map line means absolutely nothing when it comes to the numbers used to "apportion" house and senate districts.....
Posted by: Kevin | Jul 3, 2008 2:53:56 PM
If Rinowatch is correct about Duyck's residency being counted towards the total for HD29 then I'd say he's stand a reasonable chance of winning an appeal of his DQ. If true then the boundry line would essentially be a cartographic error.
Posted by: Ms Mel Harmon | Jul 3, 2008 2:59:25 PM
I realize that this situation (a person running for office lives in property divided by the district line) is rare, but I still have to wonder how many candidates and campaign managers ran to double-check their own addresses on the district maps when they heard about this? The situation is lousy and I wish there was a way he could still run, given the circumstances of how this unfolded. But I know that's not going to happen....it does make for a cautionary tale for all candidates/managers/parties, however.
Posted by: Kate | Jul 3, 2008 3:15:26 PM
Man, what a bummer for Duyck! I suppose it could be worse, they could have not found out until November. But still, unfortunate, and I don't see any one person that the blame can be fully laid upon.
Posted by: Jefferson Smith | Jul 3, 2008 3:33:34 PM
Is there a theory of reliance that could give Duyck recourse?
Good post...we shouldn't root for mistakes, even if those mistakes seem to offer some short term advantage for one party over another.
Posted by: Anon | Jul 3, 2008 3:57:32 PM
Marc is right: the fault here lies with Washington County mistakenly assigning the Duyck family to HD 29 (rather than HD 26) seven years ago after the last redistricting.
So let's focus our anger on Washington County! Who can we really channel our frustration toward? Which idiot county commissioner represents that part of Washington County? Who can we blame....
WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMISSIONER ANDY DUYCK!
:)
Posted by: torridjoe | Jul 3, 2008 3:59:11 PM
kevin, the line is drawn correctly; it's simply an allocation error, apparently based on SOS trusting what it gets from the counties.
The bottom line is that he's bound by where the line and the house are--not what happens to be in any agency's database.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jul 3, 2008 4:10:31 PM
Something else just occurred to me: when I heard about it I was with Jeff Smith, and I said "looks like the Dems just picked up 29"...but I had forgotten about Terry Rilling, who apparently is running on the IP ticket.
Without Duyck, would the county/state GOP simply encourage Republicans to vote for Rilling? Wouldn't be hard, since he was their candidate for that seat in 2006.
Posted by: Linley | Jul 3, 2008 4:11:33 PM
Go to the D29 map published by Washington County at: http://www.co.washington.or.us/deptmts/at/election/precinct/maps/repdist29.pdf
Now, find the site of Jeff's house on the map along SW Richey Rd. at the SW edge of the district. There are no addresses or other references on the map to exactly place where Jeff lives. Now compare the map with the Google Earth photo published above with this item and see if the line on the map is fairly represented on the photo.
Can you, with a straight face say, based on Washington County's map whether Jeff lives in D29 ... or not? Yes, it's very close, but if the County repeatedly said you live in D29, you would accept that as fact. I like the idea of saying it was a cartographic error and moving the line to include Jeff's house in D29. Then, lets help Riley to beat Jeff in November!
Posted by: Fred Stewart | Jul 3, 2008 4:20:38 PM
Jeff,
If you were King for a day and a half. How would you resolve this issue?
If anyone else wants to chime in on this question, please feel free.
Posted by: Miles | Jul 3, 2008 4:28:54 PM
however, when you run for office it is your responsibility to verify this information. You sign forms stating you are indeed eligible to run in this district.
And when you file to run, the SOS certifies you as an eligible candidate. How can so many of you insist that Duyck should have done his own research on the boundary lines, while at the same time giving Bradbury's office a free pass? If Duyck should have checked his own status, then certaintly the SOS should have checked his status too before certifying him. Does the certification process involve nothing more than staff saying "Looks good to me!"
You can't say Bradbury shouldn't be blamed because he relied on Washington County's information, yet blame Duyck for doing the same thing. That's rapid partisanship at its worst.
The county election office may have made a screw up, but there's nothing partisan about what happened here at all
It would be a lot easier to make that claim if the Secretary of State was actually a nonpartisan office.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jul 3, 2008 4:38:39 PM
If I were king for a day (if you're asking me and not Jefferson Smith), I'd grandfather Duyck in, perhaps using the Rinowatch clause, and let him run. I'd let him know that he might not be able to represent D29 in '10 and let him make the call.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jul 3, 2008 4:56:27 PM
but miles, the law seems pretty clear on where responsibility lies. Even if SoS creates harm down the road by certifying his eligibility, it is still Duyck's responsibility to be eligible in point of fact. No amount of mistakes by anyone--candidate, county, SOS--changes the fact that if you run, you must be eligible. The best info now appears to show he's not. You can find recourse after the fact, but he can't change where he lives and where he line is, and those are the only two relevant data points for determining eligibility.
Posted by: carla axtman | Jul 3, 2008 5:41:47 PM
Can you, with a straight face say, based on Washington County's map whether Jeff lives in D29 ... or not? Yes, it's very close, but if the County repeatedly said you live in D29, you would accept that as fact. I like the idea of saying it was a cartographic error and moving the line to include Jeff's house in D29. Then, lets help Riley to beat Jeff in November!
Yeah--actually I think you can. Based on the very good maps that are provided in paper, its pretty clear where the line is: the lower third of Duyck's 110.67 acre property is bisected by Knighten's Creek, the southern boundary of HD 29. All of the property's structures (where Duyck himself actually dwells) are on the property outside of the HD 29 boundary.
Oregon law is pretty clear on this one: ORS 247.035: "If a person’s property is split by a jurisdictional line, the person shall be registered where the residence is located."
Like I said upthread, this really sucks for Duyck. He followed the rules as he knew them to be and legitimately believed himself to be in the district based on the past seven years of voting. So it really doesn't seem fair to penalize him, IMO.
However, it appears Duyck can appeal to the county office. If the county affirms the SOS decision, Duyck can file suit to stay on the ballot, I believe.
I spoke with an individual who I understand is in the know on the ORGOP bylaws. If Duyck ultimately fails to keep his name on the ballot, the Wa Co GOP may nominate a new person--and apparently they don't have to be a Republican. So they could in fact nominate Terry Rilling--who has already filed in the race as a Libertarian.
However--its my understanding from talking to locals in Cornelius and Forest Grove that Rilling is uber pissed off at the GOP. Apparently he was promised support if he chose to run for the seat and was blown off by Bruce Hanna in favor of Duyck. That's the scuttle as I've heard it, anyway.
Another possibility is Tom Cox--who ran in 2004 as a Libertarian. But I've heard Cox has said he won't run against Riley.
Stay tuned.
Posted by: John Mulvey | Jul 3, 2008 5:55:41 PM
Folks asking for fairness or equitable relief for Duyck are off-base here.
However much Mr. Duyck may have been screwed by the system, any judge looking at this case would and should order him off the ballot. (Just ask, e.g., Multco Judge Youlee Yim You)
In a bigger sense, the issue here is not equity for Mr. Duyck. There is no right to hold public office, certainly not one that trumps the legislative districts that have been established by law.
If there's a fairness issue here, it's the fairness of allowing the people of this district to be represented by someone who doesn't live there.
Does it matter? Perhaps that's a reasonable issue for debate. Lisa Naito hasn't had the slightest concern for whether she lives in the district she's been representing. It's hard to say whether her constituents care... I'm one, and I sure do. The difference is, I suppose, that the rules are different for legislative seats.
Perhaps Mr. Duyck should have sought advice on those rules from an expert: former Senator Marilyn Shannon, who could have suggested that he sleep on a someone's couch inside the district. That works...
John
Posted by: Phil Philiben | Jul 3, 2008 6:25:43 PM
What does Duyck's voters registration card say?
Mine has Precinct, State Rep Dist., State Sen Dist. and Congressional Dist..
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Jul 3, 2008 6:36:37 PM
So they could in fact nominate Terry Rilling--who has already filed in the race as a Libertarian.
Rilling is an Independent, not a Libertarian.
Other Independents running for the legislature include Keith Wangle and Pete Belcastro.
Posted by: Dosplaced Oregano | Jul 3, 2008 6:44:51 PM
"sleep on a someone's couch inside the district. That works"
Indeed, it used to work for Wes Cooley over by Prineville; he 'rented' a small trailer in another district to qualify to run, as I recall, for County Commissioner. This was long before his well-deserved downfall from US Congress.
Is it too late for Mr. Duyck to put an old camper on the other side of the creek and forward his mail?
Posted by: John Mulvey | Jul 3, 2008 7:00:45 PM
Is it too late for Mr. Duyck to put an old camper on the other side of the creek and forward his mail?
This is the sort of common-sense solution that makes me proud to be a Hootervillian... er, I mean Oregonian.
John
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Jul 3, 2008 7:05:41 PM
Also, my guess is that GOP rules require that a person actually be registered as a Republican in order to be nominated by the party. Not sure whether state law, which requires someone to be registered as a member of a major party for a certain period of time before the primary election would also come into play.
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Jul 3, 2008 7:28:43 PM
I believe the legislature could call a one-day special session, move the district line to include Duyck's entire property in District 29, and allow anyone effected by that change (i.e., Duyck) to run for the legislature in the new district.
Now that's a lot to go through for one seat in the legislature, and a lot to ask of the majority party to help a member of the minority party, but it would be the fair result.
Short of that, I agree that the SOS has no discretion in this case. The law about residency is clear. It's not clear why Duyck's property was divided in the orginal redistricting, however.
I don't agree with those who blame Duyck for this. If he has been voting in District 29 ever since 2002, it seems reasonable to assume he's a resident of the district. I wouldn't expect him to get the map out and confirm that he really lives there.
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Jul 3, 2008 7:31:51 PM
By the way, Jeff desires major kudos for the fairness of his post. I'm not sure I would expect similar fairness from some of the Republican/conservative blogs if the situation were reversed.
Posted by: Randy2 | Jul 3, 2008 7:51:50 PM
Carla:
Its certainly not fair to him--as he appears to have played by all the rules and did what he was supposed to do.
***Ask any prosecutor: ignorance of the law is no excuse.
***One would think that when he contemplated running, he might have done more than rely on his precinct card from Washington County. Like perhaps looked at a map to see just where his future constituents lived? And maybe noticed the District line running right through (or at least close to) his property? And then might have read the law on residency determining where you vote and for whom?
*** Just curious Carla since you're following another Washington County candidate. How many of the Washington County candidates who were vetted by the county party have now had "glitches"?
Randy2
Posted by: BlueStater | Jul 3, 2008 7:59:06 PM
The theory that redistricting counted on having exact district sizes and therefore it would somehow nullify the maps if Duyck was counted in the wrong district is moot as during redistricting the SOS or Legislature (whomever is doing the maps) is allowed to have the districts be unequal in number by a certain +/- range. I forget the exact numbers in house districts but I think its between 300-500 residents.
Posted by: carla axtman | Jul 3, 2008 8:08:14 PM
Rilling is an Independent, not a Libertarian
Thanks for that Sal. I thought otherwise so that clarification is great.
Also, my guess is that GOP rules require that a person actually be registered as a Republican in order to be nominated by the party.
The GOP bylaws don't appear to stipulate that their nominee in this circumstance be a Republican (Article XXII, section C).
Randy: I don't fault Duyck at all. He's been signed up and voting in the district for seven years. Its reasonable to assume under those circumstances that he's eligible. That sort of vetting is generally done by the caucus..and I'm really surprised that given how much they valued Duyck as a recruit, the GOP caucus didn't do that due diligence.
I'm not finished doing research on the races, especially the ones in Washington County, so I don't know what other "glitches" there might be.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 3, 2008 8:17:49 PM
Hmmm.... this is all very interesting. Reading the post and the comments, I've gone back and forth.
But two comments really struck me:
John Mulvey: In a bigger sense, the issue here is not equity for Mr. Duyck. There is no right to hold public office, certainly not one that trumps the legislative districts that have been established by law.
Randy2: One would think that when he contemplated running, he might have done more than rely on his precinct card from Washington County. Like perhaps looked at a map to see just where his future constituents lived? And maybe noticed the District line running right through (or at least close to) his property?
... and I was reminded of the recent primary election for Multnomah County Commission. You see, I live on the east side of Southeast 39th Avenue. And that street is the dividing line between two county commission districts -- the one that will soon be represented by Deborah Kafoury and the one that had a four-way primary (and in November, a runoff between Judy Shiprack and Mike Delman). It took me about a half-day to realize that I was on the border line and to figure out which district I was in.
It seems to me that once Duyck realized that he was close to the border, the obvious question to ask is -- which district am I in? And it seems that he asked around. But the maps are pretty clear. His house isn't in the district.
It seems that he's gotten screwed. His campaign committee may even have a reasonable case to sue the county or state to recover the funds they spend between the affirmative ruling and the negative ruling... but it seems to me that he's not on the ballot.
The rule is clear: you have to live in the district 12 months before the general election. If only he had started sleeping in a trailer parked at the other end of the property back last October.
Now he'll have to resign the nomination, and the GOP can replace him on the ballot.
Which is exactly how his cousin, Andy Duyck, got on the ballot without going through the primary. Gain one, lose one.
Posted by: Steve | Jul 3, 2008 9:36:52 PM
Out of curiousity, how many democrat seats has a Bradbury decision changed? Since Ds outnumber Rs at least 2:1, it shoudl be 2x the Rs, right?
Posted by: Steve | Jul 3, 2008 9:38:26 PM
"Also, my guess is that GOP rules require that a person actually be registered as a Republican in order to be nominated by the party."
How about the R candidate for AG - John Kroger?
Posted by: LT | Jul 3, 2008 10:15:49 PM
Steve, if Bradbury had really changed all those "democrat seats" why did it take until 2006 for Oregon House Democrats to win a majority?
In the 2001 session, the House Republicans were very private about their redistricting plans--how dare an ordinary citizen ask where they proposed to draw legislative district lines!
Had there been an open public debate on those lines (as there has been in some previous redistricting) could it possibly be that the legislature could have drawn the maps and the job then would not have fallen to the Sec. of State? But then, the ORGOP would have been deprived of a favorite "whipping boy" scapegoat.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jul 3, 2008 10:39:42 PM
Kari:
Exactly. I did that when we were moving and I wanted to ensure that I was within Gresham's city limits - a number of people have Gresham addresses but are actually not within the limits. I did quite a bit of research since I knew the place we liked the most was right near the border.
It's not that hard to go down to county elections and ask to look at the better maps - the ones that show much more detail than the ones online.
Most county elections databases work based on your address. If the USPS gave him an address based on the section of his land that is in the district, then that could be what is causing the problem. This all could indeed be just a problem based on a simple mistake by the USPS. I saw it a few times back in Texas where people had large pieces of land that were bisected by precinct/district lines. It happens sometimes when you have something like a creek, river, road, etc. running through part of your land. They can't possibly look through and ensure they never bisect someone's land - especially since they tend to cut precincts based on roads and geographic features.
Posted by: Jerry | Jul 3, 2008 10:51:58 PM
Lines on a map are an interesting, variable phenomenon as applied by government.
In the early 90's when Portland decided that we should have environmental zones, planners merely took old aerial photos and began to apply lines where they saw trees. One couldn't build within those nebulous boundaries except some exeptions within 25 ft of the inside of the lines. When an applicant asked planning staff where the boundaries were exactly, staff couldn't finitely tell since when the maps were enlarged, the lines became over 25 ft wide. Some staff "interpreted" that the exact boundary was the middle of the wide line, while others picked the outside or the inside.
It was a political game. There were no city statutes, ordinances that defined the boundary, it was intrepretive.
If you'll notice on the SOS maps for the Dyuk property and elsewhere that the line is not a defined, precisely 1/16" line or less. Also on the maps being provided, the lines are many times meandering lines with curves like the lines to the immediate west of the Dyuk property. They are not following a legally defined survey lines with legal description, but are arbritary.
This is being nit-picky, but that is what the Dyuk story leads to and SOS has an obligation to be fair, especially since Dyuk asked for clarification several times from SOS and Washington Co.
Posted by: George Seldes | Jul 3, 2008 11:05:04 PM
Another great reason to make SoS a non-partisan office.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 3, 2008 11:09:41 PM
If you'll notice on the SOS maps for the Dyuk property and elsewhere that the line is not a defined, precisely 1/16" line or less. Also on the maps being provided, the lines are many times meandering lines with curves like the lines to the immediate west of the Dyuk property. They are not following a legally defined survey lines with legal description, but are arbritary.
No, that's just flatly not true. The maps are merely useful representations of legal, written descriptions.
For District 29, ORS 188.275 states quite clearly:
(29) Twenty-ninth District: That portion of Washington County lying within census tract 32403; blocks 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 3000, 3001, 3002, 3003, 3004, 3005, 3006, 4004, 4005, 4006, 4007, 4008, 4009, 4010, 4016, 4017, 4018 and 4019 of census tract 32404; blocks 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033, 2034, 2035, 2036, 2037, 2038, 3000, 3001, 3002, 3003, 3004, 3005, 3006, 3007, 3008, 3009, 3013, 3014, 3015, 3016, 3017, 3020, 3021, 3022, 3023, 3024, 3025, 3026, 3027, 3028, 3029, 3030, 3031, 3032, 3033, 3034, 3035, 3036, 3037, 3038, 4000, 4001, 4002, 4003, 4004, 4005, 4006, 4007, 4008, 4009, 4010, 5000, 5001, 5002, 5003, 5004, 5005, 5006, 5008, 5009, 5010 and 5012 of census tract 32500; block 3003 of census tract 32603; blocks 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 3000, 3001, 3002, 3003, 3004, 3005, 3006, 3007, 3008, 3009, 3010, 3011, 3012, 3013, 3014, 3015, 3016, 3017, 3018, 3019, 3020, 4000, 4001, 4002, 4003, 4004, 4005, 4006, 4007, 4008, 4009, 4010, 4011, 4012, 4013, 4014, 4015, 4016, 4017, 4018, 4019, 4020, 4021, 4022, 4023, 4024, 4025, 4026, 4027, 5007, 5010, 5012, 5013, 5014, 5015, 5016, 5019, 5020, 5021, 5022, 5023, 5024, 5025 and 5026 of census tract 32604; blocks 1038, 1039, 1041, 2000, 2001 and 3037 of census tract 32605; blocks 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 4000, 4001, 4002, 4003, 4004, 4005, 4006, 4007, 4008, 4009, 4010, 4011, 4012, 4013, 5000, 5001, 5002, 5003, 5004, 5005, 5006, 5007, 5008 and 5009 of census tract 32606; blocks 1004, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1041, 1042, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1046, 1047, 1048, 1049, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1054, 1999, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030, 2031, 2032 and 2034 of census tract 32901; blocks 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1041, 1042, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1047, 1048, 1049, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1060, 1061, 1062, 1063, 1064, 1065, 1066, 1067, 1068, 1069, 1070, 1071, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033, 2034, 2035, 2036, 2038, 2039, 2040, 2041, 2042, 2043, 2044, 2045, 2046, 2047, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2051 and 2052 of census tract 32902; blocks 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1041, 1042, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1046, 1047, 1048, 1049, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1060, 1061, 1062, 1063, 1064, 1065, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033, 2034, 2035, 2036, 2037, 3001, 3003, 3004, 3005, 3006, 3007, 3008, 3011, 3012, 3013, 3014, 3022, 3023, 3024, 3025, 3026 and 3027 of census tract 33100; blocks 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1041, 1042, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1046, 1047, 1048, 1049, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058 and 1999 of census tract 33200; blocks 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1041, 1042, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1046, 1047, 1048, 1049, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1060, 1061, 1062, 1063, 1064, 1065, 1066, 1067, 1068, 1069, 1070, 1071, 1072, 1073, 1074, 1075, 1076, 1077, 1078, 1079, 1080, 1081, 1082, 1083, 1086, 1087, 1088, 1089, 1090, 1091, 1092, 1093, 1094, 1095, 1096 and 1098 of census tract 33300; block 2048 of census tract 33600.
Posted by: Steve | Jul 4, 2008 7:33:46 AM
"Steve, if Bradbury had really changed all those "democrat seats" why did it take until 2006 for Oregon House Democrats to win a majority?"
Nice oblique statement, but you didn't answer the question, how many democrat seats has a BRadbury decision changed?
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Jul 4, 2008 8:18:16 AM
The guy got screwed. Legally the decision is correct. Morally it sucks. This really isn't a dem or rep thing, more of a rural thing. If he appeals I hope that he wins so that the voters can make a choice.
As to political redistricting it has been called "gerrymandering" for a long. long time for a purpose. Those in power get to make the rules in order to stack the deck and stay in power. Both sides have done it.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Bill Eagle | Jul 3, 2008 11:22:27 AM
The law is very clear. The district that you live in, and the district you vote in is where you sleep. If his residence is not in the District, then he can not represent it.
The problem is with the Washington County Clerk's office, not the Secretary of States. The Secretary of State confirmed him based on voter information that was provided to them by Washington County.
Personally, I would not want someone in our legislature who does not have a clue as to what district they live in... Shame on Dyke for not knowing any better.