The OR Attorney General's Race: Should You Care?

Activisto (is that a word?) Eric Miller is a far better voter than I, because he's all over the Attorney General's race - which the WW called "Gunfight at the OR Corral."  Embarrassingly, I have never paid much attention to it.  It's one of those choices that I rush through at 7:55 PM on the way to the library drop-box - just like the judges and often multitudinous other non-headline seats.  And ignorance being something that should be eradicated where possible, here's my chance!  And, since we're obsessed with family policy 'round here, Eric even tells us why this person matters to families.  He writes:

In the brief moments when my two boys are sleeping and I have some time for myself, I've been jumping on the computer and following some of the hot political races this primary.  One of the more interesting and arguably most important state races is for attorney general.  The attorney general runs the department of justice, and works with our police forces, district attorneys and the governor to prosecute state law offenders.  Generally, the AG is the top law enforcement officer in the state and his job is to protect the rights of all Oregonians: like you and me. 

So what's it to families? A lot.  Because the AG has broad authority to set the agenda in the enforcement of our laws, he affects a whole bunch of policy areas that touch families:

• Criminal justice:  The AG ensures that families are safe, upholding Oregon laws, from traffic violations, to theft, robbery, rape and murder. 

• Child support:  The AG makes sure that child support gets paid. 

• Drug enforcement:  The AG directs how the DOJ goes after drug offenders, who we arrest and throw in jail, who do we educate and treat?  Education and treatment efforts can help keep kids off of drugs, and drug treatment programs have been shown to keep people out of prison, improve family connections, improve child support payments and rates of child abuse, as well as reduce law enforcement and court costs, but do we treat everyone caught with a drug and which drugs?

• Environment:  The AG has the authority to prosecute anyone violating environmental crimes laws put on Oregon's books over 10 years ago.  My understanding is that these laws have been rarely enforced, if ever, and is one reason why Portland has been labeled by Business Week as the 3rd most toxic city in the US.  This is why we can't let our kids swim in the river and why we must be careful about how much fish we eat. 

Your Take? Any other areas you think the AG plays an important role in?  Does this race matter to your family?  Should it matter to me?

Check back for Eric's assessment of the dramatic differences between the two Democratic candidates (right, no Republicans running.  Isn't that weird?): John Kroger and Greg Macpherson.  One of these guys will be the top cop in Oregon.  Which would serve families better?

Comments

[Mongoose]

Your description of the duties of the AG are a little off.
Criminal Justice: Criminal prosecutions are done by the 36 independently elected District Attorneys. The DOJ offers assistance on complex appeals, and when asked by the DA's or the Governor. Criminal prosecution is one of the smallest aspects of the DOJ, and especially of the AG's job.
Child Support: Child support collection is the biggest division of the DOJ. However, we only have the authority to collect child support for parents who receive state assistance, not all parents who are owed child support.
Drug enforcement and treatment: Is not a job of the Attorney General. Drug prosecution is done by the DAs. Any treatment programs, or improvements to programs, must be enacted (and funded) by the legislature. The AG could present drug treatment as part of his legislative agenda.
Environmental enforcement: Is mostly done by the DA's, and departments, like the Department of Environmental Quality. Largely, lack of enforcement has been due to lack of resources. Again, it is the legislature that must appropriate funding.

So what does the AG and the DOJ do? In a nutshell, The department has a large consumer protection division, which investigates consumer fraud, internet scams, etc. Recently the legislature gave the DOJ authority to bring class action lawsuits. The AG and DOJ advise state agencies on legal matters, and the AG can present a legislative agenda. Perhaps most importantly, the DOJ and AG defend Oregonian's choices against incursions by the federal government. For example, Hardy Meyers successfully defended attempts by the feds to end our Death With Dignity law.

Although your job description was a little off, you were right on about how important this race is to Oregon families.

[LTF]

Thanks for pointing that out and expanding our understanding of the office. Eric?

[Eric Miller]

You are undoubtedly right about the statutory authority of the AG's office and its current operation. However, the AG's office has the potential to do much more. Through an innovative and aggressive agenda, collaboration with the DAs, legislature and the governor, and publicly advocating for change, the AG can have much more of an impact on the critical issues in our community than has historically been so.

There is a vast difference between the two candidates running for this office. Macpherson perceives the office through his legislative experience and his approach to it is comparatively status quo. Kroger views the office through his public service and courtroom experience. He will almost certainly bring a broader, more innovative approach to the AG's office and effect greater justice in Oregon.

[Joe]

While Kroger seems like a tough enforcer of the laws and brings his gun-slingling from the east coast, I think he does not have a grasp on current issues in Oregon. One of the most notable examples is his understanding of Measure 11. Measure 11 was/ is the most costly, hairbrained idea conceived. Suckers perceive this as curbing crime, but in reality it creates an unequal system. It punishes those that the "prosecutor" chooses to "go measure 11," leaving NO discretion for judges to impose the right sentence that would curb crime by addressing society's and the offender's needs). Most of all, it targets juveniles without considering their brain development and who, as we all know, make immature decisions. Most of all, it sucks money out of education and social services with the idea that we need to build more prisons -- encouraging a prison complex. It does not curb crime. Kroger wants to encourage this (supporting/ keeping Measure 11) -- he cannot think out of the politician's box that getting tough on crime makes you a good politician. I find it disengenuous. At least Macpherson listens to both sides and will consider ideas about reforming Measure 11.

Frankly, I wonder if Kroger would actually uphold Oregon's death with dignity act. If he was still a federal prosecutor, he would have been opposing it.

[Eric Miller]

Joe, your post distorts Kroger's stated positions. Below is an interview with Loaded Orygun on Feb 13, 2008 on measure 11. Original article is here :http://www.loadedorygun.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=832)

"If you want to tackle crime in Oregon--and I do--the way is not to throw a first property crime defendant in jail for three years, which is incredibly expensive and in most cases counterproductive. When you're talking about a third offense, OK--prison time is appropriate. But when you've got someone on a first offense, almost all of those people are committing crimes because of substance abuse problems. You want to get them on probation and get them into drug treatment. And that's how you reduce the crime rate. I just know that, factually. And that's why I think this measure is just incredibly reckless.I'd love to see it disappear....

"... On Measure 11, the parts that I support--and strongly support--are mandatory minimums for murder and rape, and for other violent crimes like armed robbery. I believe that's appropriate for several reasons. First, serious crimes deserve serious punishments. And before we had mandatory minimums, particularly rape was way underpunished. You'd have a rape case that might get a six month sentence. Our sentence now is 8 years, which is still well below the national average, and I think that's appropriate. When I talk to audiences, even liberal Democratic crowds, and ask them what they think an appropriate sentence for rape is, no one says eight years, they say 20 or 25.

"It also makes sure that all defendants receive equivalent sentences for equivalent crimes. One of the problems with purely discretionary sentencing is that race and class wind up being factors that correlate with the size of the sentence, and that troubles me. Mandatory minimums help even that out.

"The parts of Measure 11 that I worry about: one of them is how we handle juvenile cases, because it's a very serious thing to charge a juvenile with a mandatory minimum crime, and I've just never seen a comprehensive set of statistics county by county of what juveniles are charged with Measure 11 offenses, what ones aren't. and I would like us to collect those statistics and do a really comprehensive study and look for ways to make sure that that the law is being applied in a sensible way--and if it's not, fix it of change it. But that has to start with fact collection, and I've never been confident that we have that fact set put together. That's an area that is really really important, and we need to get that right.

"Outside of that I'm very willing to explore changes to the law. I do think generally, though it's controversial with progressives I think generally Measure 11 is a reasonable approach. People disagree with that, and I respect that, I understand why people disagree with it, a lot of people really believe in judicial discretion very much.

"One of the things I set out to do in this campaign is to be a different kind of politician. When I was thinking about running, I just looked at what's going on in American politics, and there are tons of candidates who say one thing to one audience and say another thing to a different audience, or they fudge, or they don't answer questions, or they lie about what they really believe. I just decided that it wasn't worth it to me personally, to sacrifice my integrity.

"But more than that I thought people would respond really favorably, if you just said "Look, I know a lot of you disagree with this, but this is what I think." On Measure 11 I've done that, and I think a lot of people at least credit my sincerity, and that I've thought a lot about these issues, and I have a position they may not agree with. But at least they credit me with saying what I believe, and saying it clearly."

[Eric Miller]

John's position on the Death with Dignity law and further statements about upholding laws passed by Oregonians(from the same article:

"...On Death With Dignity we've got to push back as hard as we can. The Oregon voters clearly want a Death with Dignity Act, I think it's constitutional--we've got to prevent them from derailing it.

Medical marijuana, same thing. I personally--[pause]--I personally am a little bit skeptical about the medical marijuana program. But you know what, it's not my judgement call. There are people, particularly cancer and glaucoma patients, who believe in it passionately. I'm not in their shoes, and we have to respect that. And the reality is the voters have approved this. I think it's important that we draw some lines and that we send a very strong message that "that's our law, and if you don't want to respect it and you've got the supremacy clause behind you that's your business--but we're not going to help." And I believe that profoundly."

[-]

I feel hesitant saying this but what swayed my vote was the fact that it appears to me that Kroger is only here (in Oregon) to get his political chops so that he can run for something bigger later.

I think it's important to vote for people that have a true understanding and love of Oregon if they are going to represent Oregonians. If Kroger (or anyone else from the East Coast comes here, stays for a few years and then runs for office) ends up in Washington representing us, how exactly is he really going to represent us when he's really and East Coaster?

Ron Wyden is married to a NYer. Sure, his children were born here but they all scooted back to NY as soon as possible immediately after. Ron comes to stump for causes & politicians periodically but his life is very much on the East Coast. I like Wyden and think he's done a good job for Oregon but he also spent a fair amount of time here. He didn't move here, run for office and leave.

The AG position is based here but what's next? Senate and back to the East Coast? How exactly is he going to represent Oregon if the majority of his life and where he lives is on the East Coast? From what I understand, Kroger is on the Presidency track. I'm not interested in making Oregon a stepping stone. I want an Oregonian representing Oregon, not someone who comes here to get elected office experience and move back to where he came from so he can move up the chain a little faster than he might if he did it in his own state.

[FTW]

Having a native Oregonian in office is much less important than a candidate's experience and having priorities that match the needs of the constituency.

Macpherson's priorities for running the DOJ are largely status quo, offering no changes to what priorities DOJ attorneys are assigned to. There are a lot of things that have changed in our society over the past 12 years that need DOJ attention, one particular being predatory lenders offering Oregonians refinancing deals with fraudulent claims. Not one DOJ attorney is currently working this issue, and only 1 from any other government agency. This is one example of something that needs attention in the DOJ and Macpherson has said he would not make such a change.

Kroger has a much more detailed and specific plan that targets the problems that exist here in Oregon. The lending fraud example is one, he wants to put an appropriate number of DOJ attorneys on this to protect these vulnerable Oregonians. Kroger's first priority appears to be the meth crisis, with particular attention to treatment of addicts. Since something greater than 80% of theft in our state is done by people hooked on drugs, and the grand majority of those we incarcerate are drug users, this seems to be fully appropriate to the needs of Oregon. Environmentally, Kroger wants to be aggressive to hold polluters accountable because Oregon's Env crimes laws haven't ever been really enforced--this is why Portland was rated by Business Week last fall as the 3rd most toxic city in the US. Again, Kroger's plan is fully appropriate to the needs of Oregon to protect Oregonians.

An experienced outsider with a plan for what Oregon needs is much more preferable than an insider with a much less substantive plan who runs an almost exclusively negative attack-ad campaign. Basing your vote on what you think someone wants to do after leaving office is extremely short sighted compared with these factors.