From what I know of the situation, it's not a matter of the Secretary of State giving him a break, it would require, despite the fact that Duyck certainly didn't do anything wrong, a change in the law. The Secretary of State would probably not have been able to determine this before the advent of Google Maps or other such technology. While I understand that the Repubs are outraged, Bradbury is doing nothing more than simply following the law.

Folks--

Let's be clear. Redistricting lines are drawn by the Secretary, but registration is a COUNTY function. The Secretary's certification is that you got the most votes. The Secretary does NOT go on mapquest or the like, nor does he have to. His office certifies that, AS REGISTERED, you live in the District. The GOP is quick to smear Bill Bradbury simply because it fits with their idea that any redistricting that didn't help them stay in power was "overly partisan," as if Rick (the return of Ted Baxter) Dancer wouldn't do just that if elected, and more. The county election office may have made a screw up, but there's nothing partisan about what happened here at all and, as Republicans believe in personal responsiblity, shouldn't Dyuck have taken a close look at the map himself, determined it bisected his property, and ASKED? It's not the Secretary's doing folks!

As someone who follows Oregon House races to the "enth" degree, I think this is a pretty sucky situation for Jeff Duyck. Its certainly not fair to him--as he appears to have played by all the rules and did what he was supposed to do.

I do think that the folks over at Washington County Elections have some explaining to do...but it does seem like this kind of micro thing unreasonable for the SOS to be closely overseeing.

But..Duyck was also one of the GOP's top recruits. Its pretty amazing to me that there wasn't somebody in their caucus pouring over the map and triple/quadruple checking on the district boundaries. Somebody over there dropped the ball pretty badly, too.

It's a good point, Carla--if the Dems are evil partisans whose only goal is to foil hapless Republicans (and, man, are they hapless), then the GOP are the Keystone Cops of politics. Yet I don't see anyone at NW Republican owning that piece of the story.

One of the first things you should always do with a potential candidate is locate them on the district map. It's not so much to confirm that they're in district, but to see what part of the district they're in. As soon as you see that they're near the border, you should check to make sure everything is correct - especially if the line goes through the person's property.

Like I said on another thread, I wonder if this is going to somehow end up being an issue created by how the USPS assigned the address to his residence.

"he appears to have played by all the rules and did what he was supposed to do."

Well, I think ultimately the responsibility to determine one's own eligibility for office is the candidate's--but certainly as a practical matter, we can say that Duyck did what was reasonable to confirm his status. He literally did NOT play by the rules, since the rule is that he's not eligible, but he certainly did the amount of due diligence we would expect, confirming with the county that he was eligible.

That and a quarter buys you bubble gum, however. Neither the county nor the state files your papers for you; as a candidate you are responsibile for filing where you are eligible according to the rule--not according to what you're told by a clerk. Sucks to be him, I think he was definitely wronged by WashCo...but he can't represent HD29.

Elizabeth: I've got no idea where the district line is in relation to my house. Just like anyone else, I vote for the Democrat that shows up on my ballot and assume that person and I live in the same district.

One would imagine that he's been getting ballots over the years, and that his ballot should reflect the district he has been assigned. How does it become the voter's responsibility to verify whether the information provided to them by the State is correct? Whether the State creates the data or gets it from the county, does it not have some responsibility to verify the data is good?

It's not a voter's responsibility to verify information; however, when you run for office it is you responsibility to verify this information. You sign forms stating you are indeed eligible to run in this district.

If Rinowatch is correct about Duyck's residency being counted towards the total for HD29 then I'd say he's stand a reasonable chance of winning an appeal of his DQ. If true then the boundry line would essentially be a cartographic error.

kevin, the line is drawn correctly; it's simply an allocation error, apparently based on SOS trusting what it gets from the counties.

The bottom line is that he's bound by where the line and the house are--not what happens to be in any agency's database.

Something else just occurred to me: when I heard about it I was with Jeff Smith, and I said "looks like the Dems just picked up 29"...but I had forgotten about Terry Rilling, who apparently is running on the IP ticket.

Without Duyck, would the county/state GOP simply encourage Republicans to vote for Rilling? Wouldn't be hard, since he was their candidate for that seat in 2006.

(and of course, Dems already hold 29!)

Jeff,

If you were King for a day and a half. How would you resolve this issue?

If anyone else wants to chime in on this question, please feel free.

If I were king for a day (if you're asking me and not Jefferson Smith), I'd grandfather Duyck in, perhaps using the Rinowatch clause, and let him run. I'd let him know that he might not be able to represent D29 in '10 and let him make the call.

but miles, the law seems pretty clear on where responsibility lies. Even if SoS creates harm down the road by certifying his eligibility, it is still Duyck's responsibility to be eligible in point of fact. No amount of mistakes by anyone--candidate, county, SOS--changes the fact that if you run, you must be eligible. The best info now appears to show he's not. You can find recourse after the fact, but he can't change where he lives and where he line is, and those are the only two relevant data points for determining eligibility.

Can you, with a straight face say, based on Washington County's map whether Jeff lives in D29 ... or not? Yes, it's very close, but if the County repeatedly said you live in D29, you would accept that as fact. I like the idea of saying it was a cartographic error and moving the line to include Jeff's house in D29. Then, lets help Riley to beat Jeff in November!

Yeah--actually I think you can. Based on the very good maps that are provided in paper, its pretty clear where the line is: the lower third of Duyck's 110.67 acre property is bisected by Knighten's Creek, the southern boundary of HD 29. All of the property's structures (where Duyck himself actually dwells) are on the property outside of the HD 29 boundary.

Oregon law is pretty clear on this one: ORS 247.035: "If a person’s property is split by a jurisdictional line, the person shall be registered where the residence is located."

Like I said upthread, this really sucks for Duyck. He followed the rules as he knew them to be and legitimately believed himself to be in the district based on the past seven years of voting. So it really doesn't seem fair to penalize him, IMO.

However, it appears Duyck can appeal to the county office. If the county affirms the SOS decision, Duyck can file suit to stay on the ballot, I believe.

I spoke with an individual who I understand is in the know on the ORGOP bylaws. If Duyck ultimately fails to keep his name on the ballot, the Wa Co GOP may nominate a new person--and apparently they don't have to be a Republican. So they could in fact nominate Terry Rilling--who has already filed in the race as a Libertarian.

However--its my understanding from talking to locals in Cornelius and Forest Grove that Rilling is uber pissed off at the GOP. Apparently he was promised support if he chose to run for the seat and was blown off by Bruce Hanna in favor of Duyck. That's the scuttle as I've heard it, anyway.

Another possibility is Tom Cox--who ran in 2004 as a Libertarian. But I've heard Cox has said he won't run against Riley.

Stay tuned.

What does Duyck's voters registration card say? Mine has Precinct, State Rep Dist., State Sen Dist. and Congressional Dist..

So they could in fact nominate Terry Rilling--who has already filed in the race as a Libertarian.

Rilling is an Independent, not a Libertarian.

Other Independents running for the legislature include Keith Wangle and Pete Belcastro.

Also, my guess is that GOP rules require that a person actually be registered as a Republican in order to be nominated by the party. Not sure whether state law, which requires someone to be registered as a member of a major party for a certain period of time before the primary election would also come into play.

I believe the legislature could call a one-day special session, move the district line to include Duyck's entire property in District 29, and allow anyone effected by that change (i.e., Duyck) to run for the legislature in the new district.

Now that's a lot to go through for one seat in the legislature, and a lot to ask of the majority party to help a member of the minority party, but it would be the fair result.

Short of that, I agree that the SOS has no discretion in this case. The law about residency is clear. It's not clear why Duyck's property was divided in the orginal redistricting, however.

I don't agree with those who blame Duyck for this. If he has been voting in District 29 ever since 2002, it seems reasonable to assume he's a resident of the district. I wouldn't expect him to get the map out and confirm that he really lives there.

By the way, Jeff desires major kudos for the fairness of his post. I'm not sure I would expect similar fairness from some of the Republican/conservative blogs if the situation were reversed.

Rilling is an Independent, not a Libertarian

Thanks for that Sal. I thought otherwise so that clarification is great.

Also, my guess is that GOP rules require that a person actually be registered as a Republican in order to be nominated by the party.

The GOP bylaws don't appear to stipulate that their nominee in this circumstance be a Republican (Article XXII, section C).

Randy: I don't fault Duyck at all. He's been signed up and voting in the district for seven years. Its reasonable to assume under those circumstances that he's eligible. That sort of vetting is generally done by the caucus..and I'm really surprised that given how much they valued Duyck as a recruit, the GOP caucus didn't do that due diligence.

I'm not finished doing research on the races, especially the ones in Washington County, so I don't know what other "glitches" there might be.

Hmmm.... this is all very interesting. Reading the post and the comments, I've gone back and forth.

But two comments really struck me:

John Mulvey: In a bigger sense, the issue here is not equity for Mr. Duyck. There is no right to hold public office, certainly not one that trumps the legislative districts that have been established by law.

Randy2: One would think that when he contemplated running, he might have done more than rely on his precinct card from Washington County. Like perhaps looked at a map to see just where his future constituents lived? And maybe noticed the District line running right through (or at least close to) his property?

... and I was reminded of the recent primary election for Multnomah County Commission. You see, I live on the east side of Southeast 39th Avenue. And that street is the dividing line between two county commission districts -- the one that will soon be represented by Deborah Kafoury and the one that had a four-way primary (and in November, a runoff between Judy Shiprack and Mike Delman). It took me about a half-day to realize that I was on the border line and to figure out which district I was in.

It seems to me that once Duyck realized that he was close to the border, the obvious question to ask is -- which district am I in? And it seems that he asked around. But the maps are pretty clear. His house isn't in the district.

It seems that he's gotten screwed. His campaign committee may even have a reasonable case to sue the county or state to recover the funds they spend between the affirmative ruling and the negative ruling... but it seems to me that he's not on the ballot.

The rule is clear: you have to live in the district 12 months before the general election. If only he had started sleeping in a trailer parked at the other end of the property back last October.

Now he'll have to resign the nomination, and the GOP can replace him on the ballot.

Which is exactly how his cousin, Andy Duyck, got on the ballot without going through the primary. Gain one, lose one.

Kari:

Exactly. I did that when we were moving and I wanted to ensure that I was within Gresham's city limits - a number of people have Gresham addresses but are actually not within the limits. I did quite a bit of research since I knew the place we liked the most was right near the border.

It's not that hard to go down to county elections and ask to look at the better maps - the ones that show much more detail than the ones online.

Most county elections databases work based on your address. If the USPS gave him an address based on the section of his land that is in the district, then that could be what is causing the problem. This all could indeed be just a problem based on a simple mistake by the USPS. I saw it a few times back in Texas where people had large pieces of land that were bisected by precinct/district lines. It happens sometimes when you have something like a creek, river, road, etc. running through part of your land. They can't possibly look through and ensure they never bisect someone's land - especially since they tend to cut precincts based on roads and geographic features.

If you'll notice on the SOS maps for the Dyuk property and elsewhere that the line is not a defined, precisely 1/16" line or less. Also on the maps being provided, the lines are many times meandering lines with curves like the lines to the immediate west of the Dyuk property. They are not following a legally defined survey lines with legal description, but are arbritary.

No, that's just flatly not true. The maps are merely useful representations of legal, written descriptions.

For District 29, ORS 188.275 states quite clearly:

(29) Twenty-ninth District: That portion of Washington County lying within census tract 32403; blocks 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 3000, 3001, 3002, 3003, 3004, 3005, 3006, 4004, 4005, 4006, 4007, 4008, 4009, 4010, 4016, 4017, 4018 and 4019 of census tract 32404; blocks 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033, 2034, 2035, 2036, 2037, 2038, 3000, 3001, 3002, 3003, 3004, 3005, 3006, 3007, 3008, 3009, 3013, 3014, 3015, 3016, 3017, 3020, 3021, 3022, 3023, 3024, 3025, 3026, 3027, 3028, 3029, 3030, 3031, 3032, 3033, 3034, 3035, 3036, 3037, 3038, 4000, 4001, 4002, 4003, 4004, 4005, 4006, 4007, 4008, 4009, 4010, 5000, 5001, 5002, 5003, 5004, 5005, 5006, 5008, 5009, 5010 and 5012 of census tract 32500; block 3003 of census tract 32603; blocks 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 3000, 3001, 3002, 3003, 3004, 3005, 3006, 3007, 3008, 3009, 3010, 3011, 3012, 3013, 3014, 3015, 3016, 3017, 3018, 3019, 3020, 4000, 4001, 4002, 4003, 4004, 4005, 4006, 4007, 4008, 4009, 4010, 4011, 4012, 4013, 4014, 4015, 4016, 4017, 4018, 4019, 4020, 4021, 4022, 4023, 4024, 4025, 4026, 4027, 5007, 5010, 5012, 5013, 5014, 5015, 5016, 5019, 5020, 5021, 5022, 5023, 5024, 5025 and 5026 of census tract 32604; blocks 1038, 1039, 1041, 2000, 2001 and 3037 of census tract 32605; blocks 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 4000, 4001, 4002, 4003, 4004, 4005, 4006, 4007, 4008, 4009, 4010, 4011, 4012, 4013, 5000, 5001, 5002, 5003, 5004, 5005, 5006, 5007, 5008 and 5009 of census tract 32606; blocks 1004, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1041, 1042, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1046, 1047, 1048, 1049, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1054, 1999, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030, 2031, 2032 and 2034 of census tract 32901; blocks 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1041, 1042, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1047, 1048, 1049, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1060, 1061, 1062, 1063, 1064, 1065, 1066, 1067, 1068, 1069, 1070, 1071, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033, 2034, 2035, 2036, 2038, 2039, 2040, 2041, 2042, 2043, 2044, 2045, 2046, 2047, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2051 and 2052 of census tract 32902; blocks 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1041, 1042, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1046, 1047, 1048, 1049, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1060, 1061, 1062, 1063, 1064, 1065, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033, 2034, 2035, 2036, 2037, 3001, 3003, 3004, 3005, 3006, 3007, 3008, 3011, 3012, 3013, 3014, 3022, 3023, 3024, 3025, 3026 and 3027 of census tract 33100; blocks 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1041, 1042, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1046, 1047, 1048, 1049, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058 and 1999 of census tract 33200; blocks 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1041, 1042, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1046, 1047, 1048, 1049, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1060, 1061, 1062, 1063, 1064, 1065, 1066, 1067, 1068, 1069, 1070, 1071, 1072, 1073, 1074, 1075, 1076, 1077, 1078, 1079, 1080, 1081, 1082, 1083, 1086, 1087, 1088, 1089, 1090, 1091, 1092, 1093, 1094, 1095, 1096 and 1098 of census tract 33300; block 2048 of census tract 33600.

Can I go meta for a second? This thread is a perfect example of delivering on the promise of blogs. It's been a very rich discussion, hitting on all the elements of the situation--legal, ethical, strategic, partisan. Before blogs existed, we couldn't have had the discussion in this manner.

Like Kari and others, I've been going back and forth on this thing. It seems like we keep coming back to the same, uncomfortable place: Duyck's going to end up screwed, but there's not a lot to do about it. The question of fairness has ramifications in every direction.

Watching the last exchanges, I'm reminded that the issue is complicated in the case of rural residences, where district lines pretty much have to cut through property and where addresses aren't nearly as precise in indicating location of residences. I hope one outcome of this is that counties tighten up their confirmation process and parties double check where their candidates live.

I also think it's possible that this issue could be taken out of the context of a partisan issue, despite Bradbury's party registration. This thread demonstrates how the issue can be examined and discussed without ever putting on a partisan lens.

I'm still mulling over the idea of putting a trailer out on the back forty and calling that his residence. I think, based on what we'll call Marilyn's Rule, that it would be perfectly legal.

Yeah, stupid but legal. Unfortunately for Jeff Duyck, he would have had to do that by last November at the latest. Oregon requires one year residency prior to the general election.

Is anyone aware that the Duyck family practically runs all of Washington County?

There are a hell of a lot of Duycks, Dykes and Van Dykes in Washington County and most of them are related - particularly in western Washington County.

I've got two friends from that clan who are cousins. One is a Duyck and the other is a Van Dyke.

It's very clear that Duyck knew that his property straddled two legislative districts. That means he knew enough to be on notice to exercise due diligence and thus make the necessary inquiries. The Republican Party should and probably does have a compliance officer whose duty is to make sure which district the party's candidates are entitled to represent. There was failure all along the due diligence chain.

The price to be paid is a two-year delay for Duyck. He now has two choices: (1) to move his residence into District 29 or (2) to get the line re-drawn by the Legislature as Jack Roberts suggests. In any case, we in HD 26 accept the burden of having yet another Duyck in our midst. Just one more constituent for Jessica Adamson to solicit for a vote.

I guess strictly speaking it won't be an uncontested election but in addition to the unfairness one of the reasons this sucks is that it's bad for democracy. Just as I wish the DPO would put more resources into fighting for CD 2.

Jerry, I think the curvy lines have been identified as natural features, most likely streams. It seems from Kari's post that they are used by the Census Bureau as well.

This does not actually seem to be a classic case of gerrymandering, at least, I haven't seen anyone suggest that it is.

Stepping back from the apparently unintended unfairness and suckiness for Mr. Duyck, I wonder what this might suggest for reforms? At the most general level, on defining districts, I'd like to see a non-partisan electoral commission, possibly composed of professional mediators or something of the sort.

But I'm also intrigued by the way that the complainant discovered the issue, using Google Maps, apparently.

Is there a way that a relatively small appropriation from the legislature could enable the county offices responsible to use that tool and partially automated databases of properties bisected by district lines to be more accurate in identifying borderline district attributions of residences. And/or, could the increasing size of computer memories and processor speeds rendering very high resolution digital maps possible, plus increasingly sophisticated mapping software, including open-source GIS, could be brought to bear in making accurate information available online? This might be even more possible if districts are defined by census tracts and blocks, as the Census Bureau has pretty detailed maps I believe.

Possibly it would require state subsidies to low population & tax base counties so they could contract out mapping work to other agencies that already have invested in GIS software and skilled personnel.

Or maybe I'm making it too complicated: if the hard copy maps are good, maybe it's just a matter of investing in high-resolution scanning with adequate supervisory quality control, and the software investment would only need to be in adequate map display software allowing drilling down to sufficiently local levels.

Or are the hard copy maps themselves either digitally generated, or digitized already for the printing process?

Possibly access to better online maps could be centralized through the SOS office, not requiring multiple copies of display software, even if the original maps and district determination remained at the county level.

But possibly this isn't a big enough problem to justify the expense.

Isaac -- one presumes that "inhabitant" means "resident", right? i.e. The place where you rest your head at night, rather than just any place that one visits from time to time throughout the day.

Does it make sense that you could be a resident in one district (and registered to vote there) while an inhabitant of another district (and running for office there)? Do you have to be a registered voter in the district in which you run?

But Kari, Duyck was registered to vote in D 29.

This actually is a very interesting argument, though it turns on what the relationship is between eligibility to run for office and voter registration, which appears to be the subject of the sections cited.

But Kari, Duyck was registered to vote in D 29.

That's my whole point! Isaac is suggesting that it might be possible for Duyck to be a resident registered in HD29, while an inhabitant and candidate in HD26.

Which strikes me as patently absurd.

Maybe I'm confusing my twenty-something districts here.

My point is that Duyck was registered and voted in the district for which he was nominated. It not only was possible, it happened. And it seems to me that Isaac is raising some intriguing possibilities that the fact it did matters.

I'm not able to evaluate the strength of Isaac's arguments, and suppose that in the end only a court could do so meaningfully. But his arguments mean I'm now in doubt about whether it's true that "the law's the law, so too bad."

Maybe I'm confusing my twenty-something districts here.

My point is that Duyck was registered and voted in the district for which he was nominated. It not only was possible, it happened. And it seems to me that Isaac is raising some intriguing possibilities that the fact it did matters.

I'm not able to evaluate the strength of Isaac's arguments, and suppose that in the end only a court could do so meaningfully. But his arguments mean I'm now in doubt about whether it's true that "the law's the law, so too bad."

<hr/>