Oregon Versus the Feds

Jeff Alworth

By my accounting, the Feds have challenged the state of Oregon four times, and every time come up empty. The most recent setback was by a plan backed by power and agricultural industry and approved by the Army Corps of Engineers that would have reduced spill from four Columbia and Snake River dams. The effort was intended to save ratepayers money, but a federal judge in Portland rejected the argument, saying that "the long-term environmental health of the region outweighed the short-term economic benefits of increased hydroelectricity production this summer."

(The other three setbacks came after John Ashcroft over-reached by trying to enforce his own interpretation of the law. He tried to shut down assisted suicide, medical marijuana, and then ran into trouble trying to prosecute the innocent Brandon Mayfield.)

So then, is it any surprise that in a recently-released report, OSPIRG found that the feds have a habit of meddling in states' affairs?

In the findings of the report (joined by Oregon AG Hardy Myers, Oregon's Deputy Insurance Administrator Joel Ario and Floyd Lanter, Administrator of Oregon's Division of Finance and Corporate Securities) OSPIRG observed:

As the stories and anecdotes from state legislators and regulators included in this paper show, federal preemption has often tied the hands of state legislators and regulators eager to solve problems facing their constituents. But this preemption hurts more than the residents within one state’s borders. Federal preemption suppresses the creativity of state problem solvers and shrinks the marketplace of ideas--leaving us with “lowest common denominator” solutions.

Federal activism is particularly damaging to a state like Oregon--as our battles over the past four years demonstrate--because we have long been at the forefront of innovative public policy. The irony is that until four years ago, conservatives argued for very strict interpretations of the US Consitution. They decried "judicial activism" (never mind that most federal judges were appointed by Republicans). But once Bush v. Gore went their way, they forgot about all that restraint. All of a sudden, those pesky states rights enumerated in the tenth and eleventh amendments seemed bothersome.

All Oregonians should be alarmed by OSPIRG's. The "states' rights" crowd is usually identified as conservative. But it's clear that in the case of Oregon, it's not so much a matter of conservative versus liberal, but one of control. I'd prefer to keep as much of it as we can in Salem, not Washington.

[Correction: As Kari pointed out, I inadvertantly omitted the information that the judge ruling on the spills case was a federal judge (first paragraph). The text has been corrected.]

By Jeff Alworth Aug. 02, 2004