The farce of ‘nonpartisan’ elections in a one-party town

by Ted M. Coopman

In 2024, then-Ward 1 City Councilor Emily Semple had decided to step down. While I had decades of experience as an activist, I never had any interest in electoral politics.

As a long-serving board member and chair of Jefferson Westside Neighbors, I certainly had mixed it up with the city on a variety of issues that impacted our neighborhood, including an appeal over land use. We had successfully influenced some policy and built good working relationships with several city councilors and a cross-section of city staff. I also had opined on various issues in the former Register-Guard and the Eugene Weekly.

Through this work I established a network of allies and supporters, many of whom encouraged me to run for Ward 1 city councilor. The late Dallas Boggs (who passed away unexpectedly March 5, 2024) also had expressed interest in running, so I thought I could avoid it, but then he decided against it.

Lacking confidence in the other options, I secured the support of Semple, former Ward 1 Councilors George Brown and Gary Rayor, as well as former long-serving Ward 2 Councilor Betty Taylor, and sitting Councilors Groves, Evans, and Clark.

I was feeling optimistic when reality struck. Since Semple’s election in 2016, the political terrain in Eugene had shifted significantly.

Back in 2016, city council races were staid low-budget affairs. Semple earned Brown’s endorsement and came from behind in a crowded field to beat the preferred Democratic Party of Lane County (DPLC) candidates.

Despite being a Democratic Party stalwart and Occupy vet, the DPLC never forgave Semple and waged an eight-year war against her, refusing to endorse her in 2020 and instead backing her opponent, current Ward 1 Councilor Eliza Kashinsky, who was aided by contributions from the new power in Eugene politics – Eugene Realtors.

Despite a serious head injury from a traffic accident that complicated her campaign, Semple’s supporters rallied, and she prevailed. What had changed by 2024?

Blue on blue

With Trump’s 2016 victory the DPLC’s progressive left activist base freaked out and engaged in a Red Guard-style national purge of the left. Voters clearly could not be trusted and, as typical for zealots, the answer to defeat was to double down.

A traumatized liberal left went into a defensive crouch and the fringe activists ran roughshod, beating dissenters into submission and canceling anyone who was noncompliant. The Oregon Democratic Party moved to enact party discipline and increase control at the local level via their affiliates, like the DPLC.

The liberals were cowed and the party moved to consolidate power by gutting home rule via evolving power normally held at the city level to the state and enforcing party discipline in supposed nonpartisan local offices. Even progressive communities were deemed to be “self-interested” and could not be trusted to do “the right thing.” The MAGA right currently is running the same playbook. Will the left follow suit?

The ruling party

Running for office is daunting for the uninitiated, even someone with a lot of policy experience. Forms must be submitted and campaign rules followed. You need a campaign manager who knows the ropes. However, everyone who knows the ropes is closely tied to the DPLC. The party decides whose “turn” it is and only party insiders need apply.

I was clearly the wrong sort of leftist, having consorted with undesirables like Emily Semple and Paul Conte. In addition, I had dared to challenge the revealed wisdom from Salem on home rule, land use, and other issues.

I was also part of the neighborhood association system, largely seen as an evil fifth column of (gasp) self-interested white middle-class homeowners who asked inconvenient questions (“So, exactly how is this supposed to work?”) and resisted being silenced by party activists.

I was radioactive to most local Democrats who might have helped me.

Luckily, a few (let’s say) not-Democrats took pity on me and despite some ideological differences, navigated me though the technical hurdles. It turns out there are still fans of small-d democracy across the political spectrum.

Not very Democratic and certainly no Party

Candidates get help and discounted access to voter databases if they are members “in good standing” (such as a registered Democrat). But if you want to be endorsed by the party you need to run the gauntlet of having the delegates (party activists) vote for you. The process is like speed dating and happens during a meeting where delegates ask you questions.

Having earned some enemies here, my questions were rather loaded. To give you an idea of how many folks decide who gets an endorsement for a supposedly nonpartisan election, I got 19 votes and needed 22 for an endorsement.

I did not know this was a lethal blow, delivered by three people. I soon found out that people who tend to vote in primaries only vote for those who are “endorsed.” That leads to the next structural hurdle – the primary.

Primary schooled

Eugene City Council elections are held in the May primary. Oregon does not have an open primary system, despite a majority of registered voters not having affiliations with either major party. Those nonaffiliated voters normally do not vote in primaries. This leaves the primary in control of DPLC stalwarts who are canvassed to vote for the favored candidate. Whoever gets 50%+1 vote is the only one on the November ballot – when most people vote.

Only 37% of Ward 1 voters participated in my spring primary election. That means that about 19% of voters were required to decide who would serve Ward 1.

Bored members

Another factor in who runs and who gets elected is the small cadre who dominate most aspects of the Eugene’s civil society. A look at the City Council-selected volunteer committees, boards, and commissions reveal they share a lot of the usual suspects.

The Budget Committee’s appointments, like all boards and commissions, are voted on by City Council. This allows a majority to gatekeep critical committees like Budget. Former Mayor Lucy Vinis blocked me when the City Council deadlocked 4-4 on my candidacy.

Eugene Chamber has tried for a decade to get representatives on that committee and has yet to get one—same story for anyone outside the core of the DPLC vortex. In seeking endorsements, I would notice the same people on different organization committees. For example, the chief lobbyist for the Eugene Realtors (who endorsed my opponent) was on the Chamber’s endorsement committee. Many of these folks also are in the DPLC pipeline for elected office and are loath to seriously challenge the party line.

Media matters

The role of the Eugene Weekly and its editor and now-owner Camilla Mortensen as enforcer and propaganda platform for the DPLC and a certain element of so-called progressive activists cannot be understated, especially with the functional demise of the Register-Guard.

Instead of “boldly question(ing) prevailing wisdom and authority,” the Weekly unfailingly supports aligned city leadership. Who gets covered in the Weekly, when, and how have a large impact on political races. The progressive base reads the Weekly.

If Camilla decides to light you up, as she did me, you are in trouble. Slant is a product of (in my experience) general meanness and thin skin and adds to the toxic political environment in Eugene.

Her behavior in the last election cycle, combined with her paper’s financial oversight fail (for which she takes zero responsibility), has seriously damaged her influence. Quite a few former Weekly fans have told me they were appalled by her coverage of me.

A full accounting of my experience of her editorial malpractice is forthcoming.

Welcome to the machine

The DPLC showed its contempt for home rule and public sentiment by loudly supporting the state’s foray into local land use, touting the supposed overwhelming support for its land use crusade. The truth is, within the Democratic party supermajority and the City Council majority, support was razor-thin to start with.

HB 2001 passed the legislature, in overtime, with one vote (you know who you are and why you did it). Former Mayor Lucy Vinis likes to publicize the unanimous vote to approve Eugene’s whack-a-doodle middle housing ordinance, which was remanded twice on appeal, escaping a third loss only due to a clerical error.

In reality, the initial middle housing ordinance deadlocked 4-4 with Vinis providing the deciding vote to approve. The unanimous vote only came on amending the ordinance to soften some of the worst aspects. So, the four dissenters (Semple, Groves, Clark, and Evans) supported a revised ordinance because it was the best outcome they could expect of an ill-conceived policy.

When you can barely pass legislation when you have a supermajority, is that really legislation you should be pushing? Similarly, if your overwhelming Democratic Party-aligned council (seven of eight) deadlocks on the most massive change to local housing code since the invention of housing code, should you really decide in favor instead of going back to get an actual majority? There were specific reasons why there were four ‘No’ votes. Was democracy served? Technically, sure. But the public interest? Not so much.

This is the sort of blue-on-blue zero-sum intraparty ideological warfare where the faction in leadership pushes through policy as if dissenters are the political opposition. And really, they are, or the closest thing under single-party rule. The difference is the party elites have the tools, temperament, a screamy activist fringe, and the Eugene Weekly to discipline anyone who steps out of line – just ask Doyle Canning.

Remember, absent some huge specific advantage (like loads of cash or being a popular former fire chief), to be viable you need the support of a political party just to run a campaign. And no one depending on their affiliation with the DPLC for their careers and social standing will help anyone who is not toeing the party line or otherwise anointed to run.

Even independent groups are loath to cross the machine, especially if they depend on the good graces of government or even their jobs. My lack of a DLPC endorsement and record of pushing back on city management was enough to dissuade support from some of those who shared my critique of the system (as I was apologetically told).

When one party dominates, the party decides who runs and who wins.

Eugene blues

As an activist with 30 years’ experience, an academic, a union member who went up against two employers, and a neighborhood leader, I am no fading wallflower. I have been through some crazy and intense experiences. But my experience running for office in Eugene was by far the most horrific of my life.

It was great meeting and having conversations with people. But the rest of it was a toxic hell ride as I faced extremists, zealots, and just some mean people who were willing to do or say anything to win, or like MAGA, make sure I lost.

I was expecting a debate over policy and the direction of Eugene, but that is not what I got. I spent $30K from contributors who believed in me. They probably could have better used that money for other things.

My experience made clear to me (and others) why our political system is so screwed up and why good people, people who could really contribute, run the other way instead of running for office. People expressed their admiration for my running, while questioning my judgment and sanity. One friend said, “If you are crazy enough to run, I am crazy enough to give you money.”

Wah!

My purpose here is not sour grapes at having lost. I did get back four years of my life, avoided countless meetings, including those involving people standing up every week at City Council telling me why I suck. I never really wanted it and maybe that is why I lost. The loss is my responsibility and mine alone.

While my team and I ran a great campaign, I could not prevail against the system. My message of needed change and overturning the status quo did not resonate with a majority of the few voters who turned out—people who were happy with the status quo. Ultimately, low voter turnout is the issue that cuts to core of the problem – people don’t vote, many because they simply have given up on city government ever working for them. I lost, that’s it. I gave it my best shot.

DOA

Until we can mobilize to reform the structure of how we elect our leaders and how those leaders manage city management, we will just get more of the same. Maybe we could start with voting?

---

Western Exposure is a semi-regular column that looks at issues and challenges from a West Eugene perspective – a perspective that is often ignored or trivialized by city leadership and influential groups and individuals largely based in south and east Eugene. 

Western Exposure rejects the fauxgressive party line, performative politics, and “unicorn ranching” policy in favor of pragmatism focused on the daily experiences of residents and small businesses in Eugene—and West Eugene in particular.

Ted M. Coopman has been involved in neighborhood issues since 2016 as an elected board member, and now chair, of Jefferson Westside Neighbors and has 30+ years experience as an activist and community organizer. He earned a Ph.D. in Communication (University of Washington) and served on the faculty at San Jose State University from 2007 to 2020.

Ted’s research on social movements, activist use of technology, media law and policy, and online pedagogy has been published and presented internationally and he taught classes ranging from research methodology to global media systems. He and his spouse live in Jefferson Westside with an energetic coltriever and some very demanding and prolific fruit trees.