This November, Oregon voters will decide the fate of four statewide ballot measures, including Measure 113. If passed, the measure would bar state lawmakers from holding office after their current term expires if they have 10 or more unexcused absences from legislative sessions in the House or Senate. The measure would restrict the ability of lawmakers to stage walkouts to delay or block the passage of bills they oppose since the state constitution requires two-thirds of a chamber’s lawmakers to be present to conduct business.
Joining us for a debate on Measure 113 are Oregon Representative Anna Scharf, a Republican lawmaker from House District 23 which covers parts of Benton, Polk, Marion and Yamhill Counties; and Hanna Love, a political consultant and strategist on the Yes on 113 campaign.
The following transcript was created by a computer and edited by a volunteer:
Dave Miller: From the Gert Boyle Studio at OPB. This is Think Out Loud, I’m Dave Miller. We turn now to a debate over Measure 113. The Ballot Measure is a direct response to a series of walkouts in recent years by Republican lawmakers; Republicans blocked the passage of a key Democratic priority, a bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, two years in a row. This measure would amend the Oregon Constitution; it would bar state lawmakers from holding office after their current term expires if they have 10 or more unexcused absences from legislative sessions, meaning if they walked out for say a week and a half, they couldn’t run again. We’re going to get two perspectives on this now. Anna Sharf is a Republican State Representative from House District 23, she opposes Measure 113. Hanna Love is a political consultant and a strategist on the ‘Yes on 113′ campaign. Welcome to you both.
Anna Scharf / Hanna Love: Thank you. Thanks.
Miller: I want to start with a couple of comments that we got on Facebook and Twitter. We asked what people thought about Audrey Tawdry wrote on Facebook,
‘Why do they get 10 unexcused absences? I’m sure I would be fired if I took more than one?’
I should say a lot of people took that basic point of view that that in general, people who are lawmakers shouldn’t be treated differently from people, say, students or people in other jobs. Eric Fruits on Twitter had a very different understanding. He said this:
‘This measure should offend anyone who cares about the exercise of freedom of expression and election integrity. A walkout is one of the clearest forms of expression, and should be protected under the state’s constitution. Perhaps more importantly, many constituents want their legislators to walk out if doing so serves those constituents. The legislators who walked out were serving their constituents effectively and rewarded by being reelected. Measure 113 doesn’t just punish legislators. It punishes the voters of their districts.’
Miller: Hanna Love, I want to turn to you first as somebody in favor of Measure 113. Why should Oregonians vote for it?
Hanna Love: Thanks Dave, and thanks for having this discussion today. So I think Measure 113 is a really simple and consensus measure that solves the big problem that you just stated, which is politicians violating their oath of office, walking away from their one stated constitutional duty, which is appearing on the floor and voting on bills, and ultimately condemning the legislature to dysfunction. You mentioned that in 2019 and 2020 walkouts killed meaningful climate legislation, which I think was one of the most high profile things that happened. But one thing I like to highlight, and I think it’s really important, is that in 2020, because of the minority party walking away from the capital, it wasn’t just that Bill that died, it was dozens or hundreds of Bills, many of which were bipartisan priorities that really would have addressed some of the biggest problems that were plaguing our state then and that have only gotten worse since then. We’re talking about millions of dollars in funding for emergency housing and shelters, and affordable housing, Bills that would have mitigated wildfire damage, investments in our criminal justice system. The list goes on and on. So, I think we’re not just talking about ‘big picture,’ you know, the high profile Bills that get a lot of attention. We’re talking about the simple functioning of our state government and the fact that Oregonians elect people with the expectation that they’re going to work to make things better.
Miller: Anna Scharf, I want to give you a chance to respond, but broadly, first, why are you opposed to Measure 113?
Anna Scharf: Well, it’s interesting, first of all, thanks so much for bringing this to the forefront. I think that the voters are not really paying attention to this because there’s so many other controversial things going on. But first and foremost, I find it ironic that this Bill is being supported and pushed by major union organizations in the state of Oregon that had the ability to walk out on their job as well. When we walk out on our job if we choose to, which both Republicans and Democrats over history have both done, we have to answer to the people that put us there and those are our constituents, and if our constituents don’t agree with that, then they un-elect us. So we work for them. We don’t work for the speaker. We don’t work for the Governor. We work for the voters and I’d like to just dispel a little bit about the 2019- 2020 issues. 2020 was a short session, 35 days long. The voters of this state wanted 35 day, short sessions, to deal with minute changes to existing law and tweaks to budgetary much-needed items – not to do deep dives into extremely complex policy like cap and trade, which by the way, was done post-session under Executive Order 2003 or 2005 by the Governor. There weren’t big housing bills, there weren’t big wildfire bills. We hadn’t had the wildfires yet. So I think that’s a little bit misleading.
Miller: Anna Scharf, the context for this, the near-term context, as you know, Democrats did a walk out about 20 years ago, but it’s Republican walkouts in successive years that really led to this Ballot Measure. If this Bill were to pass, what options do you see a minority party having, to prevent the passage of bills that they opposed?
Anna Scharf: Well, the minority party won’t have any options left, will they? We already do have rules. We are self-governed. We don’t have unexcused absences. You are either excused or unexcused, you fill out a form and turn it in 48 hours in advance if you need to go to the doctor or the dentist or things like that. We don’t have paid sick time. We don’t have paid family, medical leave. We don’t have paid time for jury duty. We don’t get any of the other protections that all these union organizations get. And this is the one tool left in the toolbox that we actually have so that the majority, super-majority, will actually find value in having fruitful conversations inside the building.
Miller: Well, this does get to a kind of an important debate, maybe a philosophical debate and Hanna Love, I want to get your take on it in a second. But Anna Scharf first, how much power a party in the minority or perhaps in the super minority? How much power they should have? In other words, say if a third of the members of the legislature are from one particular party, should they be able to prevent legislation from passing?
Anna Scharf: Well, they haven’t been able to for multiple years. If you look at the legislation…
Miller: …But that’s but that’s exactly what we’re talking about in terms of this walkout. I mean…
Anna Scharf: …So the minority voices in the state of Oregon don’t matter, then, is that what you’re saying?
Miller: No, that’s…
Scharf: …that’s well…
Miller: I’m not… your answering, I’m putting the question forward, how much veto power you think, a power that is in the minority, should have?
Scharf: The minority should have the option to have their voices heard. If they can’t get their voices heard through introduction of bills, introductions of amendments to bills, requiring bills to come to the floor for a vote, when they can’t be heard in committee, all the tools that we currently have in the toolbox, what is there left? How do you suggest we get our voices heard?
Miller: Hanna Love, these are not questions for me. These are questions for you. How much power do you think a minority party should be able to wield?
Hanna Love: It’s a great question and I actually want to respond to something that the Representative just said also, in a thread in this conversation, which I want to point out; this Measure doesn’t do anything to silence minority voices or dissenting minority voices or stifle dissent among the minority. It doesn’t make walking out illegal. It doesn’t, you know, shut down that possibility. Our motive here is really to prevent the complete grinding to a halt of the state legislature, to the point where nothing –- even the 90% of bipartisan bills and the funding packages needed to fund essential services don’t get passed. Under Measure 113, a minority party can still make a stand. It has to just be over something important. There have to be real consequences, so that this tactic is only used in the most serious of circumstances, not in a way that is going to, you know, grind state government to a halt.
Miller: If the overall purpose here for your ‘Yes on 113′ side is to prevent the kinds of walkouts we saw in 2019 and 2020, why not just reduce the quorum requirement to being a simple majority? That’s a system in 45 states. This seems like a pretty roundabout way to achieve your goal?
Love: I think it’s just what we just said, which is, we’re not trying to stifle the minority’s ability to make a stand here. I also think that Oregonians want accountability, this is really important to them. I think it’s what some of your listeners said on Twitter and Facebook is, ‘Hey, I don’t have the option to walk off my job with zero consequences – why should politicians be held to different standards?’ And I think it’s something that really resonates and is going to be effective in helping make sure that the walkout is only a tool that’s used in dire circumstances and not with every minor grievance.
Miller: I just want to make sure I understand your position here, Hanna Love that, you’re saying that what’s the argument for why Oregon should be a real outlier in terms of states, one of only five states in the country that requires a two thirds quorum to actually have votes to begin with.
Love: Our measure doesn’t address quorum and I think that’s a long, long history in Oregon that it’s in our Constitution. I think what we’re really focused on is not changing the ‘Robert’s Rules of Order’ here, complicated parliamentary procedure. It’s about accountability, and Oregonians getting what they want and what they deserve from the people who they elect to represent them. And I think…
[Voices overlap]
Miller: Is it because it’s easier to make the argument to voters about people showing up for their jobs, because many people have jobs, as opposed to making an argument about the word ‘quorum?’ I mean, is it a political decision that this is a more effective way to make an argument?
Love: No, I think I want to respond to the question you asked about, how much power over the agenda should the minority party have, because I think that’s an important question that’s related to what you’re asking here. Back in March 2020, right, at the end of that failed 2020 session, there was an editorial from the Oregonian editorial board about this very topic and they said, I’m going to read from it here:
‘Republicans’ main gripes are with the Democrats’ Legislative priorities, not with process; attacking Democratic lawmakers for pursuing the policies that voters endorsed by choosing them is nothing more than an attempt to overturn the election.’
I think that says a lot about the situation that we’re in today, and why this is so important that we need to have rules that lead to accountability and the functioning of our system so that voters are getting what they want when they cast their ballots.
Miller: Anna Scharf, I’m gonna give you 30 seconds to respond before we have to say goodbye.
Scharf: We could do a whole two hour segment on this. But you know, I heard Oregonians want accountability of lawmakers. So who is going to be the person that determines what is an excused absence? What is a legitimate excuse? It’s going to become a political tool with the party in charge.
Miller: It’s the leaders of the two chambers, right? The Speaker, the Speaker and the President. We have the answer to that.
Scharf: Right. So if you don’t like the party that’s asking for the excused absence, you’ll be able to say, ‘That’s not an excuse, that’s not a good enough reason.’ If this was an employer’s situation, you would have recourse, you could file a complaint with BOLI [Bureau of Labor and Industries] and you could say, ‘My employer won’t let me have the day off because I need to go to a doctor’s appointment.’ You have recourse, we won’t have recourse. This is a political maneuver by a supermajority to maintain supermajority power and I think they need to be very careful with the way they’re wielding that power. 2020 polling showed that the vast majority of Oregonians didn’t like cap and trade. They wanted the legislature to stop, they wanted us to walk out. We listened and we did. I was not in office at the time, but they did. This is taking a tool away that is used by both parties, and just as a closing comment, we don’t use ‘Robert’s Rules of Order’. We use ‘Mason’s Rules of Order’.
Miller: Just briefly, Hanna Love, what would prevent the Speaker of the House, say, from abusing this power to get somebody that they don’t like to not be able to run again?
Scharf: Yeah.
Love: I think it’s important to note that what Representative Scharf is referring to is true. There’s no definition for an excused or unexcused absence in the Constitution and I actually think that’s a good thing. I don’t think we want that type of minutiae in our Constitution. I think what’s good about the system we have now is that the legislature gets to vote on the rules that govern excused and unexcused absences at the beginning of every session and they can change it whenever they want. They can hold a vote to change it. So if those rules aren’t working, they’re a lot more flexible and can take the opportunity to either define absences in rule or change the process for getting one approved really at any time. There’s a lot of flexibility there.
Miller: Hanna Love and Anna Scharf, thanks for joining us.
Love / Scharf: Thank you, so much.
Miller: Hanna Love is a Political Strategist for the ‘Yes on 113′ campaign and Anna Scharf is a Republican State Representative from Oregon’s House district 23.
If you’d like to comment on any of the topics in this show, or suggest a topic of your own, please get in touch with us on Facebook or Twitter, send an email to thinkoutloud@opb.org, or you can leave a voicemail for us at 503-293-1983. The call-in phone number during the noon hour is 888-665-5865.
Copyright 2022 Oregon Public Broadcasting. To see more, visit Oregon Public Broadcasting. 9(MDAyMTQyNzY5MDEyNzEzNTYyNDliZTBiOA004))