November 04, 2003
(Updated) PUD Measures Failing By Wide Margin
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
With turnout as of this hour at about 44%, election results show Measure #26-51 failing with 27% of the votes in favor and 74% against, and measure #26-52 failing with 25% of the votes in favor and 75% against.
The current Associated Press story everyone is carrying:
With about 60 percent of the ballots counted, early Multnomah County election returns showed Measure 26-51 losing by a roughly 3-to-1 margin.
Voter turnout was estimated at about 43 percent, dooming a companion tax levy, Measure 26-52, that required at least half of eligible voters to cast ballots under the so-called "double majority" law for money measures.
Operating on a shoestring budget, organizers of the grassroots effort to create the PUD went up against well-financed opponents who spent more than $2 million to defeat the measure.
"I supposed it's the best we could have expected when PGE and PacificPoower broke all records on campaign spending," said Dan Meek, an attorney for the Oregon Public Power Coalition.
Updates to follow as the evening progresses, although no one should expect the story to change. In the end, though, it will be tough to determine is the measures failed because voters didn't support them, or because they didn't understand what was and was not true in the lopsided debate. Or because there wasn't enough time to have an authentic debate that gave voters real room to consider both facts and misrepresentations.
Which is not to argue that the measures would have passed even with a long and authentic debate. Just that I'm not convinced anyone heard anything other than the distortions of the utility industry, its lawyers, and paid shills.
Update
Over on KATU's newscast, Brian Gard of the anti-PUD campaign argues that the 3-1 margin against the measure which would have formed a People's Utility District shows that voters made a specific policy decision, apart from any consideration of the second measure which would have funded a study.
This is certainly possible (and certainly Jack Bogdanski would agree), but it's also possible that there was so much lying about the nature of the funding measure (and of other aspects of the election), that voters simply tied the two together.
Point being: There really isn't a clear way at this particular moment to understand why the vote went the way it did, although unquestionably the sheer margin of the defeat should obviously prompt some serious pondering on the part of PUD supporters. Nonetheless, I still would like to see a poll of voters which asked them the reasons for their votes, so we'd have some sort of actual data.
Either way, PUD supporters are taking the fight to Washington and Clackamas counties, where PUD measures recently received enough signatures to be placed on the ballot, likely next May.
And of course there is the continuing consideration (pdf) of a buyout of PGW by the City of Portland, spearheaded by Commissioner Erik Sten. Unlike Jack Bogdanski in the previously-referenced post, I don't think we can necessarily equate opposition to forming a People's Utility District in Multnomah County with opposition to a City buyout of PGE.
Again, it's possible. But I'd prefer to actually see some data on that question either way. Actual factual data might be nice for a change, after the disastrous pseudo-debate we had over a People's Utility District.
Comments (4)
jack bog on 05 Nov 2003
It's the same problem with almost all the initiatives. Easy to get them on the ballot, but impossible to pass them without mega-funding that even Bill Sizemore couldn't come up with.
You can call it unfair, but with a 3-to-1 defeat, it's quite a stretch to say that these measures would have passed if the proponents had had a big war chest.
As for "no time to have a real debate," I disagree. It's more like "the proponents didn't do the leg work to get the debate started on time." They should have been sitting down with The Oregonian editorial board a year ago. Instead they busied themselves with lawsuits.
And the voters aren't as stupid as you make them out to be. I daresay most voters were able to see right through the PGE ads. But they took the devil they know over the devil they don't.
The One True b!X on 05 Nov 2003
I didn't say they would have passed with a more fairly matched campaign. I said it was possible, and then admitted that the margin needs to give PUD backers some pause.
Dave Lister on 05 Nov 2003
In my opinion, the voter rejection of the PUD was not so much an endorsement of PGE but rather a vote of no confidence in the government's ability to efficiently administer and manage a utility. Given the abysmal track record of most government operations, and specifically the City of Portland water utility, voters are unwilling to rely on a government entity to provide their electricity, let alone their electric bills. This should also be a wake up call to Vera Katz and Erik Sten that their efforts for the city to acquire PGE through either a purchase or a condemnation process will be fought tooth and nail. In the current political climate I think this measure would have been defeated regardless of the money spent on the campaign against it.
Dave Lister on 05 Nov 2003
One other quick thought. Isn't it ironic that Erik Sten, the city's point man for public power, is probably the single individual most responsible for the voters lack of confidence due to his multi million dollar screw up on the water utility billing system?