Screenshot of the Oregon House from Feb. 19.

In the ongoing debate over Oregon’s legislative walkouts, it’s essential to recognize that the issue isn’t as black and white as it may seem. While the prevailing argument emphasizes the need for stricter penalties and uniformity with other states, there are valid reasons to reconsider the current quorum requirements.

There is a very simple strategy to keep legislative Republicans in the State Capitol building: Democrats should stop trying to keep us out of the building. The concept is very simple: through multiple rounds of hyper-partisan gerrymandering, the Democratic Party of Oregon routinely guarantees its own legislative majorities. My colleagues on the left choose their voters, rather than the voters choosing their own lawmakers. Oregon is not a blue state, it is merely drawn that way. It should be telling Democratic lawmakers that nonaffiliated voters are the largest voting bloc in Oregon, reflecting an overall majority against their status quo. Drawing maps that capture communities of common interest rather than arbitrary groupings of the majority’s special interests is in the best interest of all Oregonians. Measure 113, approved by Oregon voters in 2022, aimed to curb legislative walkouts by imposing penalties on absentee lawmakers. However, the interpretation of its language has become a point of contention. The measure states that legislators with ten or more unexcused absences cannot hold office “for the term following the election after the member’s current term is completed.” While the intent was clear — to discourage walkouts — the wording leaves room for ambiguity.

Oregon’s current quorum requirement mandates that two-thirds of lawmakers must be present in a chamber for bills to pass. Advocates for change argue that adopting a simple majority, as most states do, would enhance efficiency. However, we must consider the delicate balance between democracy and functionality.

I commend Speaker Dan Rayfield for maintaining a collegial environment in the House since he was elected speaker. While we certainly disagree on many moral, legal, and ideological grounds, he has promoted an environment of collaboration that was forbidden when Gov. Kotek had the gavel. Sadly, politics remains at the core of the partisan political agenda. This session my wolf depredation compensation reform bill was killed because of many members being backed by campaign donations from the Oregon League of Conservation Voters, which has opposed my previous efforts to address this critical issue.

My constituents in our rural communities of House District 58 suffer tremendously from frequent wolf depredations. When a cow is hunted down by wolves, it causes strenuous damage to surviving cattle and leaves the rancher with a massive financial burden that reverberates economically in their local community. If personal political ambitions are sufficient reason to deny relief for northeast Oregon residents experiencing ecological damage to their financial and economic wellbeing, there is no reason for northeast Oregon’s representative to come to his aid for quorum requirements. Thankfully, many of my colleagues sponsored legislation this year that will benefit our region, and I do not foresee a need to walkout this session.

The argument for shifting to a simple majority quorum requirement overlooks the unique circumstances and historical context of Oregon’s governance. While many states may mandate a simple majority, Oregon’s current system has evolved over time to ensure adequate representation and consensus-building among diverse interests. Simply conforming to what other states do fails to consider the nuances and specific needs of Oregon’s political environment.

Moreover, characterizing the current quorum rules as an “underlying democratic indecency” distorts the issue and ignores the representative nature of being a state legislator. The existing requirements are designed to prevent hasty decision-making and ensure thorough deliberation on important matters.

The argument that Oregon should follow other states because “that’s what most states do” oversimplifies the issue. Oregon’s unique history, values, and political landscape deserve consideration. The founders didn’t envision a state blindly following the majority; they envisioned a dynamic democracy that adapts to its citizens’ needs. Rather than hastily adopting a majority-based quorum, let’s find a solution that respects our state’s unique context while ensuring an accountable and transparent government.

Do you have a point you’d like to make or an issue you feel strongly about? Submit a letter to the editor or a guest column.