Hot seat volunteer

LaVonne Griffin-Valade, the former Portland city auditor and a favorite local politician of mine, sure has her hands full as interim Oregon Secretary of State, a post she assumed over the summer and will hold until the end of 2024. Now she'd being hauled into court for her ruling that Donald Trump is not barred as an insurrectionist from running in the May Republican primary under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

An organization calling itself Free Speech for People is asking the state Supreme Court to force LGV to reverse that decision and block Orange Caligula from the primary ballot in Oregon, just as her Colorado counterpart has done with the blessing of a slim majority of that state's Supreme Court. LGV and her Oregon state attorneys say that they have to let Trump run in the primary, but that they still may ban him from the general election in November.

The last thing in the world I want to see is Donnie returned to the White House. But trying to keep him off the ballot is not the best way to do that. It makes him a martyr in the eyes of many, and it's a bad look for American democracy. I'd much rather see him run and lose. God forgive me, I'd even be fine if he keeled over and was physically incapable of running.

The easy way out for the Oregon court is to side with Griffin-Valade for now, and hope that the U.S. Supreme Court has the question of Trump's eligibility settled long before the results of the May primary are known. The relief that the lawyers for the petitioners are seeking is an extraordinary type of order called mandamus, and it's easy for the justices to say that the situation isn't so dire that such drastic measures are called for here.

Sadly, one thing the Oregon justices are probably thinking about is the personal safety of themselves and those around them. They constantly worry about security, but if they rule against our tin pot dictator wannabe, they'll probably be worrying a lot more. And who's going patrol around their houses, the Portland police? Good luck with that.

Meanwhile, that same court's now heard the oral arguments in another of LGV's cases, concerning when the disqualification from office takes effect for several state senators who staged a walkout from the most recent session of the legislature. The state's voters, in Ballot Measure 113, said that these rebels should be barred from running for re-electon as punishment for not showing up. The literature supporting that ballot measure, and the language that appeared on the ballot, indicated that the disqualification affects the 2024 elections. But the language that was actually added to the state constitution doesn't disqualify them until the next election after that.

LGV ruled that they can't run in 2024, effectively saying that all the side documents from the election override the language that was actually added to the constitution. To uphold what she did, the Oregon Supremes would have to rule that you can't trust the plain language of the constitution, and that you have to look at all the history of a ballot measure in order to know if the constitution doesn't mean what it plainly says. As a judge, I could never support such a decision, but of course, it's not up to me.

On this one, the best thing for the court to do would be to overrule LGV and stand behind the plain language. For one thing, it would show the judges' independence from the political party that appointed every single one of them to their current seat on the bench. And besides, such a ruling might force a rethinking of how the election system presents ballot measures to the voters. That this question even arises shows that the process has some serious flaws.

So there are Justice Bojack's votes: Leave Trump on the primary ballot pending further clarification from the feds, and rule in favor of the Republican state senators. One vote for LGV, one vote against her. The new year will reveal what the actual justices think.