More stories

  • in

    Trump’s Team Prepares to File Challenges on Ballot Decisions Soon

    The cases in Colorado, Maine and other states are requiring former President Donald J. Trump to devote resources already spread thin across four criminal indictments.Former President Donald J. Trump’s advisers are preparing as soon as Tuesday to file challenges to decisions in Colorado and Maine to disqualify Mr. Trump from the Republican primary ballot because of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, according to a person familiar with the matter.In Maine, the challenge to the secretary of state’s decision to block Mr. Trump from the ballot will be filed in a state court. But the Colorado decision, which was made by that state’s highest court, will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is likely to face fresh pressure to weigh in on the issue.On Thursday, Maine became the second state to keep Mr. Trump off the primary ballot over challenges stemming from Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that any officer of the United States who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution cannot “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”“Every state is different,” Maine’s secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, told a local CBS affiliate on Friday morning. “I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. I fulfilled my duty.”Mr. Trump has privately told some people that he believes the Supreme Court will overwhelmingly rule against the Colorado and Maine decisions, according to a person familiar with what he has said. But he has also been critical of the Supreme Court, to which he appointed three conservative justices, creating a supermajority. The court has generally shown little appetite for Mr. Trump’s election-related cases.Mr. Trump has expressed concern that the conservative justices will worry about being perceived as “political” and may rule against him, according to a person with direct knowledge of his private comments.Unlike with the Colorado decision, which caught many on Mr. Trump’s team by surprise, the former president’s advisers had anticipated the Maine outcome for several days. They prepared a statement in advance of the decision and had the bulk of their appeal filing written after the consolidated hearing that Ms. Bellows held on Dec. 15, according to a person close to Mr. Trump.The people who have filed ballot challenges have generally argued that Mr. Trump incited an insurrection when he encouraged supporters to whom he insisted the election was stolen to march on the Capitol while the 2020 electoral vote was being certified. The former president has been indicted on charges related to the eventual attack on the Capitol, but he has not been criminally charged with “insurrection,” a point his allies have repeatedly made.On his social media site, Truth Social, Mr. Trump has highlighted commentary from Democrats who have suggested discomfort with the ballot decisions.In Maine, the move was made unilaterally by Ms. Bellows after challenges were filed. Trump allies have repeatedly highlighted Ms. Bellows’s Democratic Party affiliation and the fact that she is not an elected official, but an appointed one.The twin decisions have created an uncertain terrain in the Republican nominating contest with elections in the early states set to begin on Jan. 15, with Iowa’s caucuses. Additional ballot challenges may be filed in other states, although so far several have fizzled.This week, a Wisconsin complaint trying to remove Mr. Trump from the ballot there was dismissed, and the secretary of state in California said Mr. Trump would remain on the ballot in that state. According to the website Lawfare, 14 states have active lawsuits seeking to remove Mr. Trump, with more expected to be filed. A decision is expected soon in a case in Oregon.The Colorado and Maine decisions require an additional focus of resources and attention for a Trump team that is already spread thin across four criminal indictments in four different states.But two people close to Mr. Trump, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, described that reality as already baked in for a Trump team that has been focused on legal issues for most of the last two years. They argued that, in the short term, the former president would see political benefits along the lines of what he saw when he was indicted: a rallying effect among Republicans.Mr. Trump and his team have tried to collapse these cases into a single narrative that Democrats are engaged in a “witch hunt” against him, and they have used the election suits to suggest that Democrats are interfering in an election — an attempt to turn the tables given that Mr. Trump’s monthslong effort to undermine the 2020 election is at the heart of legal and political arguments against him.“Democrats in blue states are recklessly and un-Constitutionally suspending the civil rights of the American voters by attempting to summarily remove President Trump’s name from ballots,” Mr. Trump’s spokesman, Steven Cheung, said in a statement to The New York Times.The ballot rulings have become another focus for the mainstream and conservative news media, chewing up time and attention that Mr. Trump’s primary rivals, who trail him by wide margins in polls, need in hopes of catching up.Chris Christie, the former governor of New Jersey who is among those challenging Mr. Trump for the nomination, told CNN that the decision “makes him a martyr,” adding, “He’s very good at playing ‘Poor me, poor me.’ He’s always complaining.”Because of a number of factors, it is unclear how much of a practical effect the efforts to remove Mr. Trump from primary ballots will have for the Republican nominating contest. In the case of Colorado, where the state’s top court reversed a lower-court ruling and declared Mr. Trump ineligible for the primary, he remains on the ballot while he asks the Supreme Court to intervene. More

  • in

    Republicans end longest walkout in Oregon legislature’s history

    Ending a walkout that held up key bills for six weeks, Republicans showed up for work in the Oregon senate on Thursday after wresting concessions from Democrats on measures covering abortion, transgender healthcare and gun rights.The lawmakers’ walkout – the longest in state history and the second-longest in the United States – came as several statehouses around the nation have become ideological battlegrounds, including in Montana and Tennessee.The Republican boycott, which prevented the state senate from reaching a two-thirds quorum needed to pass bills, was prompted by a sweeping measure on abortion and gender-affirming care that Republicans called too extreme. The measure would allow doctors to provide abortions regardless of a patient’s age, with medical providers not required to notify the parents of a minor in certain cases.As part of the deal to end the walkout, Democrats agreed to change language concerning parental notifications for abortion.Under the compromise, if an abortion provider believes notifying the parents of a patient under 15 years old would not be in that patient’s best interest, the physician would not have to notify the parents – but would need another provider to concur. However, no second opinion would be needed if involving a parent or guardian would lead to the abuse or neglect of the patient.Democrats said the measure will still ensure abortion access and protect caregivers from anti-abortion or gender-affirming care measures passed by other states. It will also require that health insurance covers medically necessary gender-affirming care.Democrats also agreed to drop several amendments on a bill that would punish the manufacturing or transferring of undetectable firearms. The now-removed clauses would have increased the purchasing age from 18 to 21 for semiautomatic rifles and placed more limits on concealed carry.Democrats immediately filed new versions of both measures reflecting the agreements, and the senate then passed them. Although the bills were approved earlier by the house, they now will go back to that chamber for a concurrence vote before going to the Democratic governor, Tina Kotek, for her signature.“I’m encouraged that we were able to come to an agreement that will allow us to finish the important work Oregonians sent us here to accomplish,” said the Democratic senate president, Rob Wagner, to reporters.Republicans, who are the minority party, considered it a victory.“Parental rights will not be ignored regarding minors seeking abortion and gender-affirming care,” said the Republican senator Lynn Findley. “Constitutional rights to own and bear arms will not be eviscerated, especially for citizens between 18 and 21 years old.”The senate Republican leader, Tim Knopp, had said the boycott that began on 3 May would end only on the session’s last day – 25 June – to pass “bipartisan” legislation and budget bills. But an optimistic mood settled over the Capitol this week as GOP and Democratic leaders met to negotiate compromises. On the senate floor on Thursday, Knopp said he looked forward to finishing the session in “an extraordinarily bipartisan way”.“We asked for lawful, we asked for constitutional, we asked for compromise, and I see that from your side,” Knopp said as he addressed Wagner following Thursday’s roll call. “We appreciate everyone who was involved.”The longest walkout in the Oregon legislature’s history happened despite voters passing a ballot measure in 2022 that disqualifies lawmakers with 10 or more unexcused absences from re-election.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“A whole bunch of legislators aren’t going to be able to come back to this building,” Wagner said.But Republican senators are likely to sue over the measure if they are not allowed to register as candidates, starting in September, for the 2024 election. Republicans also walked out in 2019, 2020 and 2021.On 1 June, senate Democrats voted to fine senators $325 every time their absence denied a quorum.On Wednesday, more than 40 Oregon Democratic house and senate members sponsored a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the state constitution to require a majority of each chamber in the legislature to be present to conduct business. If passed by the legislature, it would go before Oregon voters in a ballot measure in the 2024 election. However, Wagner said on Thursday the measure was unlikely to pass this year with hundreds of other bills pendingThe Republicans had initially said they were boycotting because bill summaries did not meet a long-forgotten state law that required them to be written at a level an eighth-grader could understand.The walkout is the second-longest of any US state, after Rhode Island, according to a list by Ballotpedia. More

  • in

    Oregon Republican boycott threatens key bills on abortion and gun control

    Oregon Republicans boycotted the statehouse for a ninth day on Thursday, denying lawmakers the quorum necessary to pass legislation, in a protest that could derail hundreds of bills, including proposals on gun control and abortion rights.While Democrats control the capital in the Pacific north-west state, Republicans have leveraged rules requiring two-thirds of lawmakers be present to pass legislation, which means Democrats need a certain number of Republicans to be there too.Republicans walked out of the statehouse more than a week ago as the chambers prepared for a final vote on a bill that that would have expanded gender-affirming care and abortion protections, and have not returned. Their absence has thrown the capitol into disarray, and threatened Democrats’ legislative agenda.The boycotting lawmakers could face consequences for their protest. Lawmakers with 10 unexcused absences are not eligible for re-election under an initiative passed overwhelmingly last November by voters. Republican and Democratic leaders in the Oregon legislature met privately for a second day on Thursday to try to bridge the divide and agreed to cancel sessions planned for Friday through the weekend.Statehouses around the nation, including in Montana and Tennessee, have been ideological battlegrounds amid rising tensions over issues including gender-affirming care, abortion access and gun violence. Oregon – which pioneered marijuana decriminalization, recycling and protecting immigrants – is often viewed as one of America’s most liberal states. But it also has deeply conservative rural areas.That clash of ideologies has led to the senate being out of action since 2 May. Pending bills are stacked up and the state budget, which must be approved by both the house and senate by the end of June, is left undone.The office of Oregon’s Democratic governor, Tina Kotek, noted on Thursday night that there were many important bills at stake.“Oregonians are demanding that elected leaders deliver results on homelessness, behavioral health, education and other major issues right now,” Kotek’s spokesperson, Elisabeth Shepard, said.To give time for negotiations – and keep boycotters with nine unexcused absences from hitting that 10-day tripwire – Rob Wagner, the senate president, agreed to cancel senate sessions that were scheduled for the coming days. The statehouse is instead scheduled to reconvene on Monday.“I think people, at least people who observe politics, are going to have a pretty anxious weekend,” Priscilla Southwell, professor emerita of political science at the University of Oregon, said on Friday.About 100 people, including members of Moms Demand Action, a gun-safety group, protested against the walkout late on Thursday on the steps of the Oregon state capitol in Salem.“Get back to work,” they chanted.Republican lawmakers in Oregon have stymied several previous legislative sessions.This time, Republican senators insist their stayaway is mostly due to a 1979 law that requires bill summaries to be written at an eighth-grade level. Tim Knopp, the senate minority leader, said Republicans also want Democrats to set aside “their most extreme bills”.But to Democrats, it’s obvious the readability issue is just an excuse to prevent progress on Democratic-priority bills.“It is abundantly clear that there is a concerted effort to undermine the will of people and bring the legislature to a halt in violation of the constitution of the state of Oregon,” Wagner said as he gaveled closed the 5 May floor session because of the lack of quorum.A prolonged boycott by senate Republicans would throw into doubt not only the rest of the 2023 legislative session, which is supposed to end by 25 June, but could sow complications for next year’s primaries and general election.That’s because it is unclear how the boycotters would be disqualified from running again. The 2022 ballot measure is now part of the Oregon constitution, which disqualifies a lawmaker with 10 or more unexcused absences “from holding office” in the next term.An explanatory statement for Ballot Measure 113, signed by a former state supreme court justice and others, says a disqualified candidate “may run for office … and win, but cannot hold office”.But Ben Morris, spokesperson for the secretary of state’s office, said the secretary of state’s elections division would not put a disqualified lawmaker on the ballot.Disqualified Republicans are expected to file legal challenges. More

  • in

    Oregon, a hotbed of extremism, seeks to curb paramilitaries

    Oregon, a hotbed of extremism, seeks to curb paramilitariesAs incidents increase, state lawmakers seek to allow civil suits against paramilitaries – but critics say rights will be infringed on An armed takeover of a federal wildlife refuge. Over 100 straight days of racial justice protests that turned downtown Portland into a battleground. A violent breach of the state capitol. Clashes between gun-toting rightwingers and leftist militants.Over the past decade, Oregon experienced the sixth-highest number of extremist incidents in the nation, despite being 27th in population, according to an Oregon secretary of state report. Now, the state legislature is considering a bill that, experts say, would create the nation’s most comprehensive law against paramilitary activity.US officer fed details to far-right leader before Capitol attack, messages showRead moreIt would provide citizens and the state attorney general with civil remedies in court if armed members of a private paramilitary group interfere with, or intimidate, another person who is engaging in an activity they have a legal right to do, such as voting. A court could block paramilitary members from pursuing an activity if the state attorney general believed it would be illegal conduct.All 50 states prohibit private paramilitary organizations or paramilitary activity, but no other law creates civil remedies, said Mary McCord, an expert on terrorism and domestic extremism who helped craft the bill. The Oregon bill is also unique because it would allow people injured by private, unauthorized paramilitary activity to sue, she said.Opponents say the law would infringe on rights to freely associate and to bear arms.The bill’s sponsor, state representative Dacia Grayber, a Democrat from suburban Portland, said the proposed reforms “would make it harder for private paramilitaries to operate with impunity throughout Oregon, regardless of their ideology”.But dozens of conservative Oregonians, in written testimony, have expressed suspicion that the Democrat-controlled legislature aims to pass a bill restricting the right to assemble and that the legislation would target rightwing armed groups like the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer, but not black-clad anarchists who have vandalized downtown Portland and battled police.“This bill would clearly put restrictions on who could gather in a group and for what reasons they choose to,” wrote Matthew Holman, a resident of Coos Bay, a town on Oregon’s south-west coast.The pioneering measure raises a host of issues, which Oregon lawmakers tried to parse in a house judiciary committee hearing last week:If residents are afraid to go to a park with their children while an armed militia group is present, could they later sue the group? What constitutes a paramilitary group? What is defined as being armed?Oregon department of justice attorney Carson Whitehead said the proposed law would not sanction a person for openly carrying firearms, which is constitutionally permissible. But if members of a paramilitary group went to a park knowing their presence would be intimidating, anyone afraid of also going to the park could sue for damages, Whitehead said.“This particular bill is not directed at individuals open-carrying. This is directed at armed, coordinated paramilitary activity,” added McCord, who is the executive director of Georgetown University Law Center’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.On the other side of the country in Vermont, a bill making it a crime to operate a paramilitary training camp got final approval from the state senate on Friday. The measure, which senators earlier approved by a 29-1 vote, also allows prosecutors to seek an injunction to close such a facility.“This bill gives the state the authority it needs to protect Vermonters from fringe actors looking to create civil disorder,” said state senator Philip Baruth, a Democrat and Progressive from Burlington.Baruth introduced the measure in response to a firearms training facility built without permits in the town of Pawlet. Neighbors frequently complained about gunfire coming from the Slate Ridge facility, calling it a menace. Baruth’s bill now goes to the Vermont house.Under the proposed Oregon law, a paramilitary group could range from groups whose members wear uniforms and insignia, like the Three Percenters, to a handful of people who act in a coordinated way with a command structure to engage in violence, McCord added.State representative Rick Lewis, a Republican from Silverton, asked pointedly during the committee hearing whether rocks and frozen water bottles, which Portland police said had been thrown at them during demonstrations in 2021, would fall under the proposed law.A frozen water bottle and rocks could cause serious injury or death, so they would be considered dangerous weapons under Oregon law, responded Kimberly McCullough, attorney general Ellen Rosenblum’s legislative director.Multnomah county district attorney Mike Schmidt, whose jurisdiction encompasses Portland, testified in favor of the bill, expressing frustration that police often can’t single out violent actors lurking among peaceful protesters.“Our current inability to get upstream of this violence before it starts leaves us vulnerable to organized criminal elements who enter into a protest environment with the express intention of escalating the situation into an assault or arson or a riot,” Schmidt said.McCord, the terrorism expert, said the measure would mark a milestone in the US, where the FBI has warned of a rapidly growing threat of homegrown violent extremism.“This bill as amended would be the most comprehensive statute to address unauthorized paramilitary activity that threatens civil rights,” she said.The tactic of enabling private residents to file lawsuits against paramilitary groups may be a novel one, but it has been used in other arenas.Environmental groups, for example, can sue businesses accused of violating federal pollution permits. In Texas, a 2021 law authorizes lawsuits against anyone who performs or aids in an abortion. In Missouri, a law allows citizens to sue local law enforcement officers who enforce federal gun laws.But the Oregon bill differs from these laws because only people who are injured by unlawful paramilitary activity could sue, McCord said. The Oregon bill also opens a path for a government enforcement mechanism, since it allows the state attorney general to seek a court injunction to prevent a planned paramilitary activity, she said.Whether the bill will pass is unclear. It needs a simple majority in both the Oregon house and senate before it can be sent to the Democratic governor, Tina Kotek, for her approval or veto. Kotek’s spokesperson, Elisabeth Shepard, said the governor generally doesn’t comment on pending legislation.TopicsOregonThe far rightUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Why is Nike founder Phil Knight so desperate to prevent a Democratic win in Oregon?

    Why is Nike founder Phil Knight so desperate to prevent a Democratic win in Oregon?Knight’s backing for Christine Drazan clashes with the company’s progressive image. Could it tip the governor’s race? If Republicans win the race for Oregon governor, it will be down to one man: Phil Knight.Knight, of course, is the 84-year-old co-founder and chair emeritus of Nike, the house that Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods built. And in this race to govern Oregon, a bastion of west coast liberalism, Knight has thrown full support behind the Republican Christine Drazan, an anti-abortion, tough-on-crime former lobbyist pushing “election integrity”. In a rare interview with the New York Times, Knight made his motive clear: Oregon’s next governor can be anyone but the Democratic nominee, Tina Kotek.Knight’s lavish support of the right would seem to betray Nike’s own pursuit of social equality and environmental protection. After all, this is the “Just Do It” brand that champions Serena Williams, that kneels with Colin Kaepernick, that featured Argentina’s first trans female soccer player in a recent advertisement.Over the years, the company has pledged millions to organizations dedicated to leveling the playing field in all spheres of life. But it has also come under fire for crafting a progressive PR image as cover while manufacturing products in Asian sweatshops with forced labor practices. A 2019 study by the Clean Clothes Campaign gave Nike its worst rating, stating: “The brand can show no evidence of a living wage being paid to any workers.” Worse, a 2020 Washington Post report sourced some Nike products to a Chinese factory “under conditions that strongly suggest forced labor” among Uyghurs, according to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute thinktank.Drazan, on the other hand, led a walkout of state GOP legislators before a critical cap-and-trade vote. Besides being fiercely pro-Trump, she is also against transgender athletes in competition. So it figures that Nike, which pledged to cover travel and lodging for employees without abortion access, donated $75,000 to Kotek – who, as speaker, raised the minimum wage, limited state power plant emissions and committed to solving Oregon’s homeless crisis.Kotek should have been a lock to become Oregon’s next governor when she launched her campaign earlier this year. A lifelong Democrat, Kotek is the state’s furthest-left nominee yet – a policy advocate for a children’s group and a food bank before she was the legislature’s longest-serving speaker.Why ‘eco-conscious’ fashion brands can continue to increase emissionsRead moreBut Kotek has struggled to push past Drazan, the former GOP house leader who’s only been in politics for three years. Republicans are rubbing their hands at the prospect of retaking the governorship for the first time since the Reagan administration. And it’s Knight who’s kept the door propped open for them.With more than 73,000 worldwide employees, about 10,000 of them based at their Beaverton headquarters, Nike isn’t just one of Oregon’s biggest employers; it’s made Knight one of the world’s richest men, with an estimated $38bn net worth – money that buys clout in a lot of circles. He has given away more than a billion dollars to his alma maters Stanford and the University of Oregon, where his name is etched all over campus and the Nike swoosh pervades the athletics program.Historically, Knight had been quite content doing business with Oregon’s Democratic governors – not least John Kitzhaber, a local legend elected to an unprecedented four terms before an ethics scandal forced him from office in 2015. That cleared the way for a fresh generation of Democrats to push progressive legislation that, among other things, would tax the rich and impose stricter regulations on big business – policies that Knight took personally. He clashed with Kitzhaber’s successor, Kate Brown, and gave $3.4m to her 2018 gubernatorial challenger Knute Buehler, who lost by seven points in a repeat of Republicans’ 2014 margin of defeat. “Knight didn’t move the needle at all,” says Jim Moore, an associate professor and director of political outreach at Pacific University.This time around, Knight has found his efforts boosted by a shift in political winds. In the wake of Black Lives Matter protests, Portland has been politicized on the right as a decaying refuge for homelessness and drugs abuse. All the while there has been a movement among the state’s eastern conservative-leaning counties, smarting from statewide Covid lockdowns, to break from their liberal neighbors and reconstitute within Idaho, although the actual population share of secessionists is modest.To help his cause, Knight endorsed Betsy Johnson, an independent candidate who promised a direct line to her chief benefactor; the lifer in the state legislature holds common cause with abortion rights advocates and the NRA. “She and Phil Knight would fit very well in politics 30 or 40 years ago as moderate Republicans,” says Moore. “Social liberals and fiscal conservatives.” But Johnson’s campaign was damaged by her aggressively pro-gun response to the Uvalde school shooting (the 71-year-old, who favors stronger background checks, is not only a proud machine gun owner, but a robust gun collector) and her reluctance to condemn Confederate flag-waving supporters.Knight has spent more than $7m on the governor’s race. Nearly half that money went toward boosting Johnson, a former Democrat who has split left-leaning voters. But when her numbers didn’t budge, Knight switched tactics and threw $1.5 million at Drazan. Stumping for Kotek in Portland last month Bernie Sanders called out Knight as a corrupting influence. “Democracy is not billionaires, Phil Knight or anyone else, buying elections,” he crowed. Overall, Oregon’s gubernatorial race has smashed records with more than $60m in donations; $13m came Drazan’s way via the Republican Governors Association (although Kotek still holds a $5m overall fundraising edge). And yet if Drazan pulls out the victory, it’ll be Knight who gets the credit – which, in this state, would be a major first for him. “A huge number of Oregonians look at him as just a rich guy who’s in it for whatever makes sense for him personally,” says Moore. “He just never moved voters to come along with him.”Knight says he is far more conservative than Nike and that his views don’t represent the company’s. So far it appears that’s held true. “I can’t imagine there are any brand managers at Nike who are losing too much sleep,” says Matt Baker, chief strategist at the brand management firm Deutsch NY. “Of the enormous consumer base that Nike have, a fraction of a fraction would relate Phil Knight back to the brand or even be able to pick him out of a lineup.“Could it impact at a local level? If it was going to happen, it would’ve happened already. He’s been pretty vocal about Kate Brown’s failures and the need to wrestle the governorship away from the Democratic party for a little while. And I don’t think we’ve seen a lot of blowback on Nike the brand, the corporate favorite child of Oregon.”Even in Beaverton, Oregon’s seventh-largest city, Knight has struggled for political sway. “Niketown used to be on the outskirts of Beaverton, and then the outskirts surrounded it,” explains Moore. Over the years, Knight has contributed record amounts to the city’s council races, pumping tens of thousands into campaigns that generally run four figures. “And his candidates all lost,” Moore says. “So that gave me the first hint that Phil Knight doesn’t carry the political weight he thinks he does.”What’s more, Knight, a middle-distance runner in his youth, still has one major hurdle in his way: registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by almost a quarter million. But if Drazan can somehow clear that obstacle, the sneaker king will finally achieve the status he’s long coveted in Oregon: political Bigfoot.TopicsNikeOregonUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

  • in

    If Oregon Turns Red, Whose Fault Will That Be?

    PORTLAND, Ore. — An ad for one of the candidates for governor of Oregon begins with shots of trash and the tarp-covered tent encampments that line many of Portland’s streets. “Nobody in Oregon would say, ‘Let’s keep doing exactly what we’ve been doing,’” says the candidate. She continues, “I called for a homelessness state of emergency nearly three years ago, while Kate Brown” — the current Democratic governor — “did nothing.”It’s not a surprising message in a campaign in which homelessness and crime are central issues. What’s surprising is the messenger: Tina Kotek, the former Democratic speaker of the Oregon House, running to succeed Brown.Tina Kotek, the Democratic nominee for governor of Oregon. Amanda Lucier for The New York TimesKotek’s ad is a sign of the indefensibility of the status quo in one of the country’s most progressive cities, and of the unexpected political peril Oregon Democrats face as a result. Most polls show that her opponent, Christine Drazan, the former Republican minority leader in Oregon’s House, has a slight lead in the race. If Drazan wins, it will be a sign that no place is immune to the right’s message on public disorder, whose resonance is also making Gov. Kathy Hochul’s race to keep her post in New York uncomfortably close.A Republican hasn’t won the Oregon governor’s race in 40 years. And while progressive states electing G.O.P. governors is nothing new, Drazan — like New York’s Republican gubernatorial nominee, Lee Zeldin — is far more conservative than the Rockefeller-style Republicans who lead Massachusetts and Vermont. She has an A rating from the N.R.A. and an endorsement from Oregon Right to Life, meaning that just months after the end of Roe v. Wade, Oregon could end up with an abortion opponent in charge.Some Oregon Democrats argue that Drazan’s competitiveness is a fluke, a product of the well-funded spoiler campaign being run by Betsy Johnson, a centrist ex-Democrat who has received $3.75 million from the Nike co-founder Phil Knight. But that doesn’t explain why so many Democrats are willing to defect to Johnson in the first place. (FiveThirtyEight’s polling average has her getting 13.8 percent of the vote.) Nor does it explain why Democrats are struggling in congressional districts neighboring Portland. The Cook Political Report rates Oregon’s Sixth District, which went for Joe Biden by 13 points, a tossup, even though the Republican nominee is, like Georgia’s Herschel Walker, an abortion opponent who reportedly paid for the abortion of a woman he dated.Christine Drazan, the Republican nominee.Mathieu Lewis-Rolland/Getty ImagesBetsy Johnson, an independent candidate with a deep-pocketed backer.Sara Cline/Associated Press“Four of our six House seats could end up in red territory,” Senator Jeff Merkley told me after a rally here with Kotek and Bernie Sanders. The fact that Sanders was in Oregon in the first place — Biden and Elizabeth Warren have also come through — is a sign of how shaky things are for Democrats in the formerly safely blue state.Part of the story here is about the national political environment, but it’s also about the catastrophe of homelessness in Portland, which, as in other West Coast cities, looks very different than on the East Coast. New York has a higher rate of homelessness than Oregon, but a larger percentage of people sleeping in shelters than on the streets. By contrast, in Multnomah County, which includes much of Portland, most people experiencing homelessness sleep either in tents or vehicles. The tents line streets and fill parking lots; they are a constant reminder that we’re living through a time of widespread social collapse.There is no reason to believe that Drazan has a viable plan to fix a hellishly complex problem. Most of her proposals, aside from repealing Measure 110, the drug decriminalization ballot initiative Portland passed in 2020, are vague. But the manifest failure of Democrats to make things better has created a runway for her and others like her. “Instead of enabling homelessness, we must balance our approach with a mind-set of both compassion and accountability,” Drazan told Oregon Public Broadcasting. It’s not surprising that this message is resonating.Homeless encampments are scattered throughout Portland.Amanda Lucier for The New York TimesKotek is thus in a tricky position: She has to convince voters that the crisis in Portland represents a technocratic rather than an ideological failure by Brown. “The two biggest issues right now are housing and homelessness, and mental health and addiction,” Kotek told me. “And I’ll be honest, she’s been absent on that topic. It’s not been a priority for her. And when you don’t make something a priority, agencies kind of flounder, money doesn’t move fast enough.”This might sound like a deflection, but administrative sclerosis has clearly contributed to Portland’s problems. Scott Kerman, executive director of Blanchet House, an organization that provides food, shelter and medical care to poor and homeless people in Portland’s Old Town neighborhood, scoffs at the idea that widespread street homelessness is “something that liberal hippie Portland has done to itself.” Certainly, street homelessness has always been a problem in Portland. But Kerman blames a confluence of disasters, including steeply rising housing costs, a lack of services to help addicts (one survey ranked Oregon last in the nation for access to drug treatment) and — perhaps most significantly — the pandemic for turning parts of downtown into what he called an “open-air psych ward.”“What we’re dealing with now,” said Kerman, is the byproduct of “inattention and inaction that occurred in the first six months to a year of the Covid crisis.”When the pandemic hit, Kerman said, many shelters and other services in the city closed. Blanchet House, which offers three free meals a day to anyone who wants them, stayed open, providing food to go. “And we very quickly went from 1,000 meals a day to 2,000 meals a day, because most locations around the city had shut down, especially on the East Side,” he said. “So everybody migrated here to Old Town. And for a good six months, it was deplorable. Outside, it reminded me of news footage of Sudanese refugee camps.”As Kerman points out, people without housing still have routines — they may spend their days in libraries, or social service organizations, or Starbucks. Suddenly, they had to be outside all the time. He described bureaucratic hurdles that made it impossible to get portable toilets and hand-washing stations, leading to “dehumanizing, almost ‘Mad Max’-like conditions.”Richard Winkowitsch, right, and Destiny Johnson waiting for a hot meal at Blanchet House in Portland.Amanda Lucier for The New York TimesThe trauma of such conditions accelerated people’s mental illnesses. Many sought relief in hard drugs. There’s a perception that people end up homeless because they’re addicts, but Kerman says that for many of those Blanchet House serves, it’s the other way around. “We’ve had sort of a vacuum of services, and what has filled that vacuum has been crime and violence and drug and sex trafficking,” he said.It’s likely that no leader could have entirely staved off this calamity, but Brown’s hands-off approach seems to have made it worse. Take, for instance, Measure 110, the drug decriminalization initiative. One reason Kotek argues against repealing it is that it funds $300 million in drug and alcohol treatment, including housing services, every two years. But bureaucratic delays meant that most of the funding didn’t go out until late September, and Kotek said service providers aren’t getting clarity from the state about whether they can count on funding in the future. “If you’re trying to hire up, you need certainty,” she said. “And the lack of operationalizing this from the state agency has been deplorable.”There are reasons to think that Kotek, who has a reputation as an indefatigable legislator, can do better. In an otherwise tentative endorsement, The Oregonian singled out the specificity of her housing plan, and her ability to execute it: “Her exacting standards bode well for oversight of state agencies that have failed repeatedly and inexcusably under Gov. Kate Brown.”The question is whether frustrated voters will be satisfied with the promise of better management rather than radical change. “We certainly don’t need a red state takeover to clean up the damn trash,” Kotek says in her ad. Let’s hope not.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More