Why You Should Vote Yes on Measure 20-362

I brought an impartial redistricting plan to the county that takes the redistricting power away from the county commissioners and puts it in the hands of an impartial committee. It ensures that voters are selecting their politicians and politicians are not selecting the voters.

Let’s get politics out of redistricting. Join me in saying yes to measure 20-362. A yes on this measure is saying no to gerrymandering.

-Stan Long, Retired Attorney, Eugene, Worked under Republican and Democrat Governors’ Administrations

Almost everyone understands why friends and relatives of the parties facing a jury trial are not allowed to be jurors for that case. The full list of rules that prohibit  tainting a jury verdict with conflicts of interests is comprehensive. The rules are designed to ensure fairness for all parties  and promote public confidence in the justice system. The rules are strict,  an interest in just one of the questions to be decided by a jury requires a Judge to disqualify the ‘interested” person from serving on a jury.

By parity of purpose and parity of reasoning one would expect a local government committee created  to decide how we conduct county elections would be  free from conflicts of interest. .  That is not the case in Lane County. Today, the county sets the boundaries of election districts in a manner that is upside down and backwards from how Oregon goverment otherwise tries  to avoid conflicts of interest.

It may be hard to believe but  to set election district boundaries Lane  county uses an all comers committee with no disqualifications for conflicts of interest.  It should surprise no one that the committee created toxic district maps that  protect certain incumbents and afford certain candidates unfair advantages. 

Of course,  the committee is called the Independent Redistricting Committee.  In no respect is the committee independent of political interests. The committee simply provides political cover for gerrymandering .  The committee design is so subject to corrupt practices a paid political consultant for two Commissioners was a committee member and credited with being the principal author of the polluted  map  adopted by the commissioners in 2021. None of this distasteful  conduct is illegal under county laws, even though most people would regard it as wrong.

A county charter provision to address such corrupt redistricting practices is essential to having competitive and fair elections.  There is no clause in the Oregon Constitution that has been interpreted to prevent local government gerrymandering and the only state statute that does address gerrymandering has proved to be toothless in the courts. Do not confuse federal cases involving  the right to vote with anti gerrymandering cases that involve how we vote. The federal courts simply do not hear objections to incumbency protections and partisan advantages created by local governments. The only way to protect voters from the political manipulation of redistricting is through charter provisions beyond the reach of county politicians.

When I submitted measure 20-362 to the county for consideration I expected a robust debate over how to curb gerrymandering but instead all sorts of red herring and straw-man arguments against the measure immediately arose  from certain  people interested in local politics.  Arguing to continue gerrymandering  directly  is  apparently too much  even for the most partisan of activists but trying to prevent long overdue reform with duplicitous objections amounts to the same thing. Without 20-362 gerrymandering will continue to flourish in Lane county.

I certainly understand the desire of  politicians and their supporters to have the opportunity to exert undue influence over elections. To the victor goes the spoils is not a new idea but in the Oregon tradition of government it is immoral. 

Voters should pick their elected officials and schemes that allow politicians to chose who votes for them should not be tolerated for the same reasons we do not tolerate tainted juries. Saying  yes to measure 20-362 protects The right of voters to  decide who they elect to county offices. 

-Stan Long

Stanton F. Long was born in Oregon in 1941. He attended public schools and graduated from the U of O and Willamette University College of Law. Stan practiced law in Eugene and had many local government clients, including the City of Eugene. His legal work for Eugene was featured in front-page coverage of the Eugene Register-Guard, and he was appointed as the  Deputy Attorney General of Oregon and later served as Chairman of the Land Conservation and Development Commission, Director of the Dept of Commerce and President of SAIF Corporation. His innovative work at SAIF  became the subject of front-page coverage in the NYT and Stan was appointed President of AIG’s  Cost Containment Division, President of AIG Claims Services and VP of Domestic General Claims.  

After retiring from AIG, Stan served as Vice Chairman of Travelers Insurance and  Chairman of Marsh’s Workers Compensation Practice. 

When Stan returned to Eugene he, and a partner, developed a technology company in Atlanta Ga. to provide insurance-funded repairs and remediation of physical damages to homes and light commercial structures. Their company, Alacrity Services,   became the national leader in insurance-funded managed repair and was sold in 2015.