Measure 88 election results in Multnomah County

OregonLive.com
Measure 88 election results in Multnomah County
By docfnc OregonLive.com on February 10, 2015 at 8:26 PM, updated February 10, 2015 at 8:27 PM

By David Olen Cross

The dramatic defeat of Ballot Measure 88 (formerly Senate Bill 833) in the November 4, 2014 Oregon General Election in 35 of the state’s 36 counties showed how disconnected from voters many members of the state legislature were in their effort to legitimize in some way the presence of foreign nationals illegally in the state (illegal immigrants).

A reminder, Measure 88 was legislation that would have required the Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to issue driver cards, a state issued photo identity, to illegal immigrants.

Statewide 983,576 Oregon voters (66 percent) rejected Measure 88.

Media sources reported Measure 88, a statewide referendum, was passed by voters in only Multnomah County.

In Multnomah County 162,565 voters (55.41 percent) were for and 130,823 voters (44.59 percent) were against Measure 88.

To the less informed, statewide referendums are not decided on a county by county vote; even in Oregon elections referenda are still decided by individual voters — one man / one woman — one vote.

Most media reporting lacked in any real detail on how voters in Multnomah County actually voted on Measure 88.

A historically reminder, it was members of the Oregon State Legislature who passed Senate Bill 833 in 2013, many of them senators or representatives whose legislative districts represented portions or parts of Multnomah County.

Getting to the point, Measure 88 didn’t pass in every senate or house district of legislators representing parts of portions of Multnomah County who supported this now resoundingly rejected legislation.

Let us dissect the elections results of Measure 88 (M88) in the senate districts (SD##) and house districts (HD##) directly connected to Multnomah County that voted for or against Senate Bill 833 (SB 833).

Here are the state senators (Sen.) currently elected to office who voted for SB 833 (Note: Sen. Betsy Johnson (SD-16) was excused from the vote on SB 833 in 2013):

1. Sen. Mark Hass (SD-14) — represents a small portion of Multnomah (Multnomah) and part of one other county. Hass voted for SB833. Of the 1,110 votes cast in the Multnomah part of SD-14 on M88, 618 voters (55.67 percent) were for and 492 voters (44.32 percent) were against the legislation.

2. Sen. Betsy Johnson (SD-16) — represents a small portion of Multnomah and parts or the entirety of five other counties. Johnson was excused from the vote on SB 833. Of the 2,762 votes cast in the Multnomah part of SD-16 on M88, 1,299 voters (47.03 percent) were for and 1,463 voters (52.97 percent) were against the legislation.

3. Sen. Elizabeth Steiner Hayward (SD-17) — represents a portion of Multnomah and part of one other county. Steiner Hayward voted for SB833. Of the 9,293 votes cast in the Multnomah part of SD-17 on M88, 5,823 voters (62.66 percent) were for and 3,470 voters (37.34 percent) were against the legislation.

4. Sen. Ginny Burdick (SD-18) — represents a portion of Multnomah and part of one other county. Burdick voted for SB833. Of the 33,811 votes cast in the Multnomah part of SD-18 on M88, 21,052 voters (62.26 percent) were for and 12,759 voters (37.74 percent) were against the legislation.

5. Sen. Richard Devlin (SD-19) — represents a portion of Multnomah and parts of two other counties. Devlin voted for SB833. Of the 14,894 votes cast in the Multnomah part of SD-19 on M88, 8,793 voters (59.04 percent) were for and 6,101 voters (40.96 percent) were against the legislation.

6. Sen. Diane Rosenbaum (SD-21) — represents a portion Multnomah and part of one other county. Rosenbaum voted for SB833. Of the 44,684 votes cast in the Multnomah part of SD-21 on M88, 32,036 voters (71.69 percent) were for and 12,648 voters (28.30 percent) were against the legislation.

7. Sen. Chip Shields (SD-22) — represents a portion Multnomah which exists entirely within boundaries the county. Shields, a sponsor of SB 833, voted for SB833. Of the 55,608 votes cast in the district on M88, 37,374 voters (67.21 percent) were for and 18,234 voters (32.79 percent) were against the legislation.

8. Sen. Michael Dembrow (SD-23) — represents a portion Multnomah which exists entirely within boundaries the county. Dembrow voted for SB833 when he was a state representative. Of the 54,838 votes cast in SD-23 on M88, 32,909 voters (60.01 percent) were for and 21,929 voters (39.99 percent) were against the legislation.

9. Sen. Rod Monroe (SD-24) — represents a portion Multnomah and part of one other county. Monroe voted for SB833. Of the 26,039 votes cast in the Multnomah part of SD-24 on M88, 9,319 voters (35.79 percent) were for and 16,720 voters (64.21 percent) were against the legislation.

10. Sen. Laurie Monnes Anderson (SD-25) — represents a portion Multnomah which exists entirely within boundaries the county. Monnes Anderson voted for SB833. Of the 36,288 votes cast in SD-25 on M88, 9,451 voters (26.04 percent) were for and 26,837 voters (73.95 percent) were against the legislation.

11. Sen. Chuck Thomsen (SD-26) — represents a portion Multnomah and parts or the entirety of two other counties. Thomsen, a sponsor of SB 833, voted for SB833. Of the 14,031 votes cast in the Multnomah part of SD-26 on M88, 3,891 voters (27.73 percent) were for and 10,140 voters (72.27 percent) were against the legislation.

In Multnomah County, Measure 88 was rejected by voters in four of the eleven state senate districts that represent parts or portions of the county in the state legislature.

Obviously three of the preceding Senators, Rod Monroe (SD-24), Laurie Monnes Anderson (SD-25) and Chuck Thomsen (SD-26), misrepresented their constituents in supporting and voting for SB 833.

Here are the state representatives (Rep.) currently elected to office who voted for SB 833 (Note: Five Rep. on this list Ann Lininger (HD-38), Kathleen Taylor (HD-41), Rob Nosse (HD-42), Barbara Smith Warner (HD-45) and Carla C. Piluso (HD-50) were not appointed or elected to office at the time SB 833 was voted on in the state legislature in 2013. These current representatives’ names were included on the following list to inform them and constituent voters of the election results on M88 in the legislators’ individual house districts. Their predecessors’ representing these same five house districts, former state representatives Chris Garrett (HD-38); Carolyn Tomei (HD-41), Jules Bailey (HD-42), Michael Dembrow (HD-45) and Greg Matthews (HD-50), all voted for SB 833):

1. Rep. Tobias Read (HD-27) — represents a small portion of Multnomah and part of one other county. Read voted for SB833. Of the 1,110 votes cast in the Multnomah part of HD-27 on M88, 618 voters (55.67 percent) were for and 492 voters (44.32 percent) were against the legislation.

2. Rep. Brad Witt (HD-31) — represents a portion Multnomah and two other counties. Witt voted for SB833. Of the 2,762 votes cast in the Multnomah part of HD-31on M88, 1,299 voters (47.03 percent) were for and 1,463 voters (52.97 percent) were against the legislation.

3. Rep. Mitch Greenlick (HD-33) — represents a portion Multnomah and part of one other county. Greenlick voted for SB833. Of the 9,293 votes cast in the Multnomah part of HD-35 on M88, 5,823 voters (62.66 percent) were for and 3,470 voters (37.34 percent) were against the legislation.

4. Rep. Rep. Margaret Doherty (HD-35) — represents a portion Multnomah and parts of two other counties. Doherty voted for SB833. Of the 4,361 votes cast in the Multnomah part of HD-35 on M88, 2,380 voters (54.57 percent) were for and 1,981 voters (45.42 percent) were against the legislation.

5. Rep. Jennifer Williamson (HD-36) — represents a portion Multnomah which exists entirely within boundaries the county. Williamson voted for SB833. Of the 29,450 votes cast in HD-36 on M88, 18,672 voters (63.40 percent) were for and 10,778 voters (36.60 percent) were against the legislation.

6. Rep. Ann Lininger (HD-38) — represents a portion Multnomah and parts of two other counties. Lininger did not vote on SB 833. Of the 14,924 votes cast in the Multnomah part of HD-38 on M88, 8,793 voters (58.92 percent) were for and 6,131 voters (41.08 percent) were against the legislation.

7. Rep. Kathleen Taylor (HD-41) — represents a portion Multnomah and part of one other county. Taylor did not vote on SB 833. Of the 12,417 votes cast in the Multnomah part of HD-41 on M88, 7,975 voters (64.23 percent) were for and 4,442 voters (35.77 percent) were against the legislation.

8. Rep. Rob Nosse (HD-42) — represents a portion Multnomah which exists entirely within boundaries the county. Nosse did not vote on SB 833. Of the 32,285 votes cast in HD-42 on M88, 24,061 voters (74.53 percent) were for and 8,224 voters (25.47 percent) were against the legislation.

9. Rep. Lew Fredrick (HD-43) — represents a portion Multnomah which exists entirely within boundaries the county. Fredrick voted for SB833. Of the 30,892 votes cast in HD-43 on M88, 22,575 voters (73.08 percent) were for and 8,317 voters (26.92 percent) were against the legislation.

10. Rep. Tina Kotek (HD-44) — represents a portion Multnomah which exists entirely within boundaries the county. Kotek voted for SB833. Of the 24,716 votes cast in HD-44 on M88, 14,799 voters (59.88 percent) were for and 9,917 voters (40.12 percent) were against the legislation.

11. Rep. Barbara Smith Warner (HD-45) — represents a portion Multnomah which exists entirely within boundaries the county. Smith Warner did not vote on SB 833. Of the 28,704 votes cast in HD-45 on M88, 17,079 voters (59.50 percent) were for and 11,625 voters (40.50 percent) were against the legislation.

12. Rep. Alissa Keny-Guyer (HD-46) — represents a portion Multnomah which exists entirely within boundaries the county. Keny-Guyer voted for SB833. Of the 26,134 votes cast in HD-46 on M88, 15,830 voters (60.57 percent) were for and 10,304 voters (39.43 percent) were against the legislation.

13. Rep. Jessica Vega Pederson (HD-47) sponsor of SB 833 — represents a portion Multnomah which exists entirely within boundaries the county. Vega Pederson voted for SB833. Of the 17,664 votes cast in HD-47 on M88, 5,995 voters (33.94 percent) were for and 11,669 voters (66.06 percent) were against the legislation.

14. Rep. Jeff Reardon (HD-48) — represents a portion Multnomah and part of one other county. Reardon voted for SB833. Of the 8,375 votes cast in the Multnomah part of HD-48 on M88, 3,324 voters (39.69 percent) were for and 5,051 voters (60.31 percent) were against the legislation.

15. Rep. Chris Gorsek (HD-49) — represents a portion Multnomah which exists entirely within boundaries the county. Gorsek voted for SB833. Of the 17,465 votes cast in HD-49 on M88, 4,628 voters (26.50 percent) were for and 12,837 voters (73.50 percent) were against the legislation.

16. Rep. Carla C. Piluso (HD-50) — represents a portion Multnomah which exists entirely within boundaries the county. Piluso did not vote on SB 833. Of the 18,823 votes cast in HD-50 on M88, 4,823 voters (25.62 percent) were for and 14,000 voters (74.38 percent) were against the legislation.

17. Rep. Shemia Fagan (HD-51) — represents a portion Multnomah and part of one other county. Fagan voted for SB833. Of the 8,599 votes cast in the Multnomah part of HD-51 on M88, 2,516 voters (29.26 percent) were for and 6,083 voters (70.74 percent) were against the legislation.

18. Rep. Mark Johnson (HD-52) — represents a portion Multnomah and parts of two other counties. Johnson, a sponsor of SB 833, voted for SB833. Of the 5,432 votes cast in the Multnomah part of HD-52 on M88, 1,375 voters (25.31 percent) were for and 4,057 voters (74.69 percent) were against the legislation.

In Multnomah County Measure 88 was rejected in seven of the eighteen state house districts that represent parts or portions of the county in the state legislature.

Clearly six of the preceding Representatives, Brad Witt (HD-31), Jessica Vega Pederson (HD-47), Jeff Reardon (HD-48), Chris Gorsek (HD-49), Shemia Fagan (HD-51) and Mark Johnson (HD-52), misrepresented their constituents in supporting and voting for SB 833.

Oregon voters living in Multnomah County who rejected Measure 88 during the 2014 General Election, the idea that illegal immigrants should be granted diver cards that would legitimize in some way their presence in the state, should contact their state senator and representative and tell them in the future to oppose any legislation that would require the DMV to grant a state issued identity in the form of a driver card to illegal immigrants.

Here is how Oregon voters can look up and contact their legislators who represent them in the state legislature (See links): Find who represents me:

http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/FindYourLegislator/leg-search.html

State senators: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/senate/

State representatives: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/house/

•

David Olen Cross of Salem writes on immigration issues and foreign national crime. He can be reached at docfnc@yahoo.com

http://blog.oregonlive.com/myoregon/2015/02/measure_88_election_results_in.html

Criminal Aliens in the Oregon Department of Corrections Prison System

Criminal Aliens in the Oregon Department of Corrections Prison System

January 30, 2014

According to the Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC) Inmate Population Profile dated December 1, 2014 DOC indicated there were 14,588 prisoners incarcerated in the DOC’s 14 prisons.

Not included in the DOC’s December 1st Inmate Population Profile was DOC data indicating there were 1,057 foreign nationals (criminal aliens) incarcerated in its prison system.

All 1,057 criminal aliens incarcerated on December 1st by the DOC had United States (U.S.) Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), detainers. The U.S. DHS–ICE is responsible for identifying whether a DOC inmate is a criminal alien or a domestic inmate. If an inmate is identified as being a criminal alien, at U.S. DHS–ICE’s request, the DOC places an “ICE detainer” on the inmate that directs DOC officials to transfer custody to ICE following completion of the inmate’s state sanction.

Criminal aliens made up approximately 7.24% of the DOC December 1st prison population, more than one in fourteen prisoners were criminal aliens (See table).

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Month/Day/Year	DOC Total Inmates	DOC Domestic Inmates	DOC Inmates W/ICE detainers	DOC % Inmates W/ICE detainers
December 1, 2007	13,488	12,478	1,010	7.49%
December 1, 2008	13,650	12,525	1,125	8.24%
December 1, 2009	13,798	12,586	1,212	8.78%
December 1, 2010	13,872	12,620	1,252	9.03%
December 1, 2011	13,943	12,752	1,191	8.54%
December 1, 2012	14,240	13,004	1,236	8.68%
December 1, 2013	14,700	13,535	1,165	9.93%
December 1, 2014	14,588	13,531	1,057	7.24%

Source: Research and Evaluation DOC Unit-ICE inmates lists 01 DECEMBER 07rtf – 01 DECEMBER 14.rtf and Inmate Population Profile 01 DECEMBER 07 – 01 DECEMBER 14.

Comparing the DOC criminal alien incarceration numbers from December 1, 2007 (1,010 criminal aliens) and December 1, 2014 (1,057 criminal aliens), the DOC prison system incarcerated 47 criminal aliens more than it did on December 1, 2007, a 4.65% increase (See table).

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Month/Day/Year	DOC Total Inmates W/ICE detainers	DOC Inmates W/ICE detainers # Increase or (Decrease) from Previous Year	DOC Inmates W/ICE detainers % Increase or (Decrease) from Previous Year
December 1, 2007	1,010	————	————
December 1, 2008	1,125	115	11.39%
December 1, 2009	1,212	87	7.73%
December 1, 2010	1,252	40	3.30%
December 1, 2011	1,191	(61)	(4.87%)
December 1, 2012	1,236	45	3.78%
December 1, 2013	1,165	(71)	(5.74%)
December 1, 2014	1,057	(108)	(9.27%)
Total		47	4.65%

Source: Research and Evaluation DOC Unit-ICE inmates lists 01 DECEMBER 07rtf – 01 DECEMBER 14.rtf and Inmate Population Profile 01 DECEMBER 07 – 01 DECEMBER 14.

When comparing the DOC domestic criminal incarceration numbers from December 1, 2007 (12,478 domestic criminals) and December 1, 2014 (13,531 domestic criminals), the DOC prison system incarcerated 1,053 domestic criminals more than it did on December 1, 2007, an 8.44% increase (See table).

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Month/Day/Year	DOC Total Domestic Inmates	DOC Domestic Inmates # Increase or (Decrease) from Previous Year	DOC Domestic Inmates % Increase or (Decrease) from Previous Year
December 1, 2007	12,478	————	————
December 1, 2008	12,525	47	0.38%
December 1, 2009	12,586	61	0.49%
December 1, 2010	12,620	34	0.27%
December 1, 2011	12,752	132	1.04%
December 1, 2012	13,004	252	1.98%
December 1, 2013	13,535	531	4.08%
December 1, 2014	13,531	(4)	(0.02%)
Total		1,053	8.44%

Source: Research and Evaluation DOC Unit-ICE inmates lists 01 DECEMBER 07rtf – 01 DECEMBER 14.rtf and Inmate Population Profile 01 DECEMBER 07 – 01 DECEMBER 14.

Bringing the preceding numbers together, from December 1st 2007 – 2014, seven years, the DOC prison population grew by 1,100 domestic and criminal alien prisoners; 4.27% of the overall growth was in criminal alien prisoners.

A review of the 1,057 criminal aliens in DOC prisons by number per county and percentage (%) per county equated to the following: 255-Marion (24.12%); 244-Multnomah (23.08%); 182-Washington (17.22%); 78-Clackamas (7.38%); 55-Lane (5.20%); 46-Jackson (4.35%); 27-Yamhill (2.55%); 26-Linn (2.46%); 20-Umatilla (1.89%); 16-Polk (1.51%); 15-Deschutes (1.42%); 14-Benton (1.32%); 12-Malheur (1.13%); 10-Klamath (0.95%); 10-Lincoln (0.95%); 9-Jefferson (0.85%); 6-Douglas (0.57%); 5-Josephine (0.47%); 4-Coos (0.38%); 4-Hood River (0.38%); 4-Morrow (0.38%); 3-Tillamook (0.28%); 3-Wasco (0.28%); 2-Clatsop (0.19%); 2-Crook (0.19%); 2-Union (0.19%); 1-Columbia (0.09%); 1-Gilliam (0.09%); 1-OOS (0.09%); 0-Baker (0.00%); 0-Curry (0.00%); 0-Grant (0.00%); 0-Harney (0.00%); 0-Lake (0.00); 0-Sherman (0.00%); 0-Wallowa (0.00%); and 0-Wheeler (0.00%).

No member of the Oregon State Legislature should forget the uncounted crime victims and their families, no matter what their immigration status, all victims of the 1,057 criminal aliens incarcerated in DOC prisons.

A review of the 1,057 criminal aliens in the DOC prison population by numbers per crime and percentage (%) per crime equated to the following: 201-sex abuses (19.02%); 171-rapes (16.18%); 145-drugs (13.72%); 144-homicides (13.62%); 98-sodomies (9.27%); 91-assaults (8.61%); 63-robberies (5.96%); 41-kidnappings (3.88%); 19-burglaries (1.80%); 15-thefts (1.42%); 10-driving offenses (0.95%); 4-vehicle thefts (0.38%); 1-arson (0.09%); 1-forgery (0.09%); and 53 other types of crime or a combination of the preceding crimes (5.01%).

Oregon State Legislators should not overlook the source of the preceding crimes, the country of origin of the 1,057 criminal aliens in DOC prisons.

The self-declared counties of origin of the 1,057 criminal aliens in the DOC prison population by numbers and percentage (%) per country equated to the following: 845-Mexico (79.94%); 32-Guatemala (3.03%); 19-Vietnam (1.80%); 16-El Salvador (1.51%); 13-Cuba (1.23%); 11-Honduras (1.04%); 11-Ukraine (1.04%); 10-Russia (0.95%); 7-Federated States of Micronesia (0.66%); 6-Laos (0.57%); 6-Philippines (0.57%); and 81 from other counties (7.66%).

Beyond the DOC criminal alien incarceration numbers and incarceration percentages, per county and per crime type, or even country of origin, criminal aliens pose high economic cost on Oregonians.

An individual prisoner incarcerated in the DOC prison system costs the state approximately ($87.08) per day (See link).

http://www.oregon.gov/doc/GECO/docs/pdf/IB_53_Quick_Facts_06_14.pdf

The DOC’s incarceration cost for its 1,057 criminal alien prison population is approximately ($92,043.56) per day, ($644,304.92) per week, and ($33,595,899.40) per year.

Even taking into account fiscal year 2013 United States Federal Government State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) award of $2,146,935.00, if the State of Oregon receives the same amount of SCAAP funding for fiscal year 2014, the cost to incarcerate 1,057 criminal aliens to the DOC will be at least ($31,448,964.40) (See link).

https://www.bja.gov/Funding/13SCAAPawards.pdf

None of preceding cost estimates for the DOC to incarcerate the 1,057 criminal aliens include the dollar amount for legal services (indigent defense), court costs, nor cost estimates to cover victim assistance.

An unfortunate fact, the State of Oregon is not fully cooperating with the U.S. DHS–ICE to fight crime committed by criminal aliens who reside in Oregon. In year 2007, a United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) report titled “Cooperation of SCAAP (State Criminal Alien Assistance Program) Recipients in the Removal of Criminal Aliens from the United States, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General Audit Division, Audit Report 07-07, December 2007, Redacted-Public Version” identified the State of Oregon as having an official “state sanctuary statute,” ORS 181.850 Enforcement of federal immigration laws (See link).

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/OJP/a0707/final.pdf

The USDOJ, the federal governments top law enforcement agency, identified Oregon as a “sanctuary” for criminal aliens.

An Oregon law, Oregon Revised Statue 181.850 (ORS 181.850), Section (1), prohibits Oregon law enforcement (Oregon State Police (OSP), county sheriffs, city police departments) from asking immigration status of anyone residing in the State of Oregon “for the purpose of detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is that they are persons of foreign citizenship present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.” Under ORS 181.850, Section (2), Oregon law enforcement December exchange information with U.S. DHS–ICE . . . “in order to: Subsection (a), “Verify the immigration status of a person if the person is arrested for any criminal offense;” or, Subsection (b), “Request criminal investigation information with reference to persons named in records of the” U.S. DHS–ICE . . . (See link).

http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/2013ors181.html

The State of Oregon should no longer be classified by U.S. federal government law enforcement as having an official “state sanctuary statute” for criminal aliens, nor should Oregon be a sanctuary for criminal aliens to kill, rape, maim or abuse Oregonians.

Oregonians should contact their Oregon State Senator and Representative and ask them to reintroduce, support and pass legislation like HB 2803 (legislation offered during the 2011 session) during the 2015 legislative session that would empower law enforcement to fight foreign national crime in the state.

docfnc