Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The Fahey Q&A with Michael Calcagno of All Oregon Votes

The Fahey Q&A with Michael Calcagno of All Oregon Votes

Michael Calcagno (L) and Richard Carroll (R) of All Oregon Votes

Since organizing the Voters Not Politicians 2018 ballot initiative that put citizens in charge of drawing Michigan's legislative maps, Fahey has been the founding executive director of The People, which is forming statewide networks to promote government accountability. She regularly interviews colleagues in the world of democracy reform for our Opinion section.

Michael Calcagno is director of All Oregon Votes, a nonpartisan, statewide team of volunteers that is sponsoring a ballot initiative to enact a constitutional right that ensures all eligible voters and all qualified candidates may participate equally in all elections, both general and primaries.


Our conversation has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Fahey: Tell us about your background. What led you to get involved with All Oregon Votes?

Calcagno: I am an Oregonian with a background in journalism and reporting. In 2015 I was elected to serve on our local community college board. Initially my motivation was to address economic inequality, but after serving on the board I wanted to have a greater impact on broader issues, so I ran for state legislature as an Independent candidate. I realized that Independents are second-class citizens in the voting arena, and we need to do something about it.

Fahey: What, specifically, is All Oregon Votes advocating for?

Calcagno: It is a grassroots campaign designed to end closed primaries. The exclusion of Independent voters from public elections is abhorrent and erodes faith in our election system and government. Our measure will ensure that in every state election, Independent voters would have equal opportunities to vote.

Fahey: Briefly tell us about the current system of closed primaries in your state and how it impacts independent voters.

Calcagno: In Oregon we conduct a closed party primary that advances only one Republican and one Democrat. There are 3 million voters in Oregon, and 1.3 million (42% of the electorate) are not a member of either major party. The single largest voting block is restricted from voting rights.

Fahey: Would the proposed change impact all primaries in Oregon?

Calcagno: Our current language applies to Congressional and state legislature; it would not include presidential primaries.

Fahey: What is the plan for changing this law, and what step are you at in the process?

Calcagno: We determined that the best path forward is proposing a ballot initiative for a constitutional amendment that repeals the closed partisan primary. We feel this is best done through a public process to charge the state legislature with developing a new framework for primaries. Our constitutional amendment, titled IP-16, is a 5-sentence declaration of rights that states that all voters should have an equal opportunity to vote, with equal access to all candidates.

We gathered our first wave of signatures which triggered the Attorney General to write our ballot title, so in November 2024 voters will see a 15-word caption on their ballot. We think the current caption could be more clear and accurate, so we petitioned the state supreme court to allow a modified ballot title. The court dismissed our appeal and so we have filed a fresh initiative, IP-26, with a modified legal approach to achieve the same goal. We need to collect 161,000 valid signatures by July 2024.

Fahey: Does this initiative strengthen the ideals of democracy?

Calcagno: Absolutely! This amazing country we call home is a representative democracy. It is vitally important that every citizen has an equal right to vote, honoring the shared value of American democracy we all hold dear.

Fahey: What proportion of Oregonians support this reform?

Calcagno: In December 2022 a poll was conducted by the research group Oregon Values and Beliefs Center (OVBC). They found that just 23% of Oregon voters want to keep the primary closed with 59% believing the primary should be open. We still need to poll on our ballot caption title, to test the exact language with likely voters.

Fahey: Has this issue been addressed in the past and if so, how? How does your approach differ from previous efforts?

Calcagno: In 2008 and 2014 there were statewide ballot measures for statutory initiatives enacting a top-two primary, and both times they were defeated, as some believed this framework reinforces a two-party duopoly. This time we asked for a general statement of principle that is hard to oppose, rather than prescribing a detailed solution, and timing with voters is better.

Fahey: Since this bill would leave the specifics of how primaries would change to the legislature, are you hearing any concerns about how they would act?

Calcagno: Some concerns have been voiced that the legislature is a partisan body, and therefore may not act in good faith. The ability for constituents to provide input to their lawmakers is a fundamental part of our democracy, and I believe lawmakers will honor the will of the people.

Fahey: Who are the main opponents of your effort and what are their arguments against it? Calcagno: We have not seen any opposition, though it is early in the cycle. Fahey: What do you currently need the most help with and how can people get involved?

Calcagno: We will be scaling up soon, and need volunteer help in all areas: fundraising, research, messaging, signature gathering, social media/marketing and events. To learn more, access our website at All Oregon Votes; to volunteer send an email to info@AllOregonVotes.org.

Fahey: Could there be unintended consequences to allowing non-affiliated voters to participate in primary elections (ie. spoiler effect, non-party infiltration)?

Calcagno: I do not see how enfranchising voters could be a negative. When candidates appeal to a broader cross section of voters, there is more common sense policy making. The spoiler effect is a problem that needs a solution, but continuing to restrict voting rights is not a logical way to address vote-splitting.

We know that 75% of Oregonians are worried about their future, and feel our system of democracy is in peril, which is incredibly profound. In order to solve problems in a sustainable way, we need to go upstream and address the dysfunction in our governance structure.

Fahey: If you were speaking with a high school student or a new immigrant to our country, how would you describe what being an American means to you?

Calcagno: My grandfather was the child of Italian immigrants who came to America in search of a better life. Before they emigrated to America in the early 20th century, Oregon had approved the right of the citizen petition, so they came from a monarchy-based feudal system in Italy into a democratic system where citizens were empowered to directly enact their own laws. Free elections are among the reasons that immigrants continue to come here, and it is vital that we take action to ensure that they endure.

As President Dwight D. Eisehower famously stated, “Politics ought to be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage” and, “Politics is a profession; a serious, complicated and, in its true sense, a noble one.”


Read More

Man wearing Trump hat watches Trump on TV

Trump’s 10-to-1 rule aims to cut red tape, but fewer regulations can mean weaker food safety, Head Start services, and checks on presidential power.

Wu Xiaoling/Xinhua via Getty Images

Trump’s 10-to-1 Rule Gives the Presidency Too Much Power

We only think about the plumbing in our homes when something goes wrong. The same is true for government bureaucracy. Rules, procedures, and bureaucrats operate largely out of sight, making sure food is safe, Social Security checks arrive, workplaces are safe, and children with disabilities receive the services promised to them by law. Yes, there is plenty of red tape in government, just as an old house can accumulate pipes that no longer serve much purpose. But ripping out pipes simply because there are too many of them is not much of a plumbing strategy. Yet the Trump administration has made the number of federal regulations it eliminates a measure of success. That raises a more important question: When does cutting bureaucracy stop making government more efficient and start making it less capable?

1. The Case for Cutting Red Tape

Keep ReadingShow less
US Capitol building
white dome building near body of water during daytime
Photo by José Matute on Unsplash

We The People

On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln concluded the Gettysburg Address with a vision of democracy that has endured for more than a century:

“That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Keep ReadingShow less
The U.S. Capitol in autumn.

New surveys of nearly 20,000 battleground voters find bipartisan majorities say Congress ignores the public, and that more public influence would help.

Philip Yabut/Getty Images

Americans Say the People Can Lead Congress to Common Ground; It Appears They Are Right

New surveys in battleground states and districts across the country, as well as nationwide, find that Americans—both Republicans and Democrats—believe Congress does what most Americans would do less than half the time.

They also found that majorities agree that if Congress were to be more influenced by the people, it would be more likely to find common ground. In fact, surveys show that majorities of Republicans and Democrats agree on what to do about many issues that Congress is stuck on.

Keep ReadingShow less