OR-Sen: GOP goes fishing for votes in Jackson County
Carla Axtman
The election is almost a month in the rear view mirror, but the Oregon Senate Republicans are determined to push their elephant up the stairs.
Nigel Jaquiss, Willamette Week:
Oregon’s Senate Republicans announced today they will pay for a recount in the closely contested Senate District 3 (Ashland) race.
The most recent results posted by Secretary of State Kate Brown’s elections division show incumbent Sen. Alan Bates (D-Ashland) defeating challenger Dave Dotterrer by 275 votes out of 48,884 cast. Brown’s .56 percent margin over Dotterer is more than the .2 percent difference that would trigger an automatic recount. Bates’ apparent victory, which came late in the vote-count, allowed Democrats to claim a 16-14 margin and retain control of their chamber.
I spoke with someone in the Elections Division at the Secretary of States Office this afternoon. They said "several years ago" a county-wide recount in Jackson cost around $6200. Oregon Senate District 3 is the most populous of the 4 in Jackson County, according to the Secretary of State. I can't imagine this is going to cost the GOP more than a few thousand dollars. They can probably get a donor to cover the cost--and it's a pretty cheap ask if it means a tie in the Oregon Senate instead of a 2-seat Democratic majority.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
2:06 p.m.
Nov 30, '10
It would be a shame for the Oregon health policy debates in the next session if the GOP ends up defeating Senator Bates. I'm to the left of him on the issue but he's a smart guy who can make a difference on how much we end up on the better vs. worse side of the possibilities within the current track we're on.
2:27 p.m.
Nov 30, '10
Won't make any difference.
3:07 p.m.
Nov 30, '10
If it is less than $10,000 then it is probably worth it for the Republicans. Just think how much an election costs. Even if this is a 2% probablility of success it is cheap.
3:16 p.m.
Nov 30, '10
If it's legal (and I don't know if it is), Ted Ferrioli's own campaign coffers could easily cover it. He's got somewhere around $34k in there, last I checked.
7:20 a.m.
Dec 1, '10
Report is that the recount will cost between $15-25,000.
8:43 a.m.
Dec 1, '10
Not according to the Secretary of State's office. It should be much cheaper than that--unless there's something else going on.
As I mentioned in the post, a Jackson County-wide recount several years ago cost $6200. It seems highly unlikely that one Senate district would exceed that amount.
8:52 a.m.
Dec 1, '10
From this morning's Medford Mail Tribune:
"Senate Republicans will have to cover the $15,000 to $25,000 cost of a hand recount."
http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101201/NEWS/12010317
9:26 a.m.
Dec 1, '10
I'd like to know where they got that figure. I called and spoke with the SOS office about this myself.
1:13 p.m.
Dec 1, '10
I was just reporting what I read. I would think that the more money that Republicans "wasted" on a recount, the happier Democrats would be.
I'm more interested in the motivation behind paying for a recount. If the issue was confined to 300 or so missing ballots, one can't imagine how the result thus far would be changed. So one might guess that there is some greater doubt of ballot handling or the total count.
I'll be interested to see it play out.
3:24 p.m.
Nov 30, '10
Let's say, for conversation sake, the shoe was on the other foot. Do any of you believe it would be worth the democrats time/money to pay for a recount if Bates was down 275 votes?
I agree with Kari that it won't make a difference, but I'm just curious what ya'll think.
5:38 p.m.
Nov 30, '10
It's a relatively cheap financial investment--but in terms of time and effort, it doesn't seem worth it to me. And it kind of smacks of petty sore loser, imo. It'd be one thing if there was an automatic recount + the ballots that the GOP say weren't counted.
But that's a lot to overcome.
8:49 p.m.
Nov 30, '10
Sen. Schrader (D) is down by a very similar margin.... I haven't heard whether she'll seek a recount or not.
3:38 p.m.
Nov 30, '10
I agree with Kari. We'll keep Doc bates for another term. The recount will not make any difference. The real issue for the D's, if Bates runs again, is how the campaign was conducted. It was a sleaze campaign that nearly worked.
5:03 a.m.
Dec 1, '10
Doctor bates is a good man. The people of southern Oregon would be better served were he practicing full time in Central Point with Dr. Gilmour and his other partners rather than being part of the democrat majority in Salem. His campaign was poorly run and it is time for a change. With less than 1% of the vote being the difference it is a reasonable thing to do. as Kari said it probably will not make a difference 9unless republican Chris Walker has taken vote finding classes from King County, WA)
7:19 a.m.
Dec 1, '10
You thought his campaign was poorly run? I thought it was high-profile and high-class. I was surprised by how much campaigning he did, and money that was spent, until I saw the result.
I thought Dotterer ran an amazing campaign but it did go negative in the last couple or few weeks.
It's bothersome that the final vote totals are 300-some less than the ballots received. I worry way less (really not at all, in Oregon) about shenanigans than human error.
2:48 p.m.
Dec 3, '10
It's called undervote. There will always be fewer votes in a race than the total ballots.
7:24 p.m.
Nov 30, '10
Mr. Grasp -- meet The Straws.
7:55 a.m.
Dec 1, '10
Well said, Randy. IMO, they (R's) have a right to do it. But is it the right thing to do? We hear endless criticism of inefficiencies in gov't. I am sure the Sect'y of State and county staff have LOTS of other work they could be/should be doing. While the charge for a recount might include some recouping of costs (which I doubt it covers everything), the fact remains that there is other work to do. FIDO! (F**k it, drive on!)
9:13 p.m.
Dec 24, '10
After the recount was completed, the outcome didn't change. The Republicans ended up spending about $3000-4000 for every extra vote that Al Bates received ( total of 7). From my perspective, that was money well spent!