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

an illustration of pople walking with brief cases from a UFO.

Echoing Serling’s To Serve Man, Edward Saltzberg reveals how modern authoritarianism uses language, fear, and media control to erode democracy from within.

To Serve Man—2025 Edition

In March 1962, Rod Serling introduced a Twilight Zone episode that feels prophetic today. "To Serve Man" begins with nine-foot aliens landing at the United Nations, promising to end war and famine. They offer boundless energy and peace. Unlike the menacing invaders of 1950s sci-fi, these Kanamits present themselves as benefactors with serene expressions and soothing words.

The promises appear real. Wars cease. Deserts bloom into gardens. Crop yields soar. People line up eagerly at the Kanamits' embassy to volunteer for trips to the aliens' paradise planet—a world without hunger, conflict, or want.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person in a military uniform holding a gavel.

As the Trump administration redefines “Warrior Ethos,” U.S. military leaders face a crucial test: defend democracy or follow unlawful orders.

Getty Images, Liudmila Chernetska

Warrior Ethos or Rule of Law? The Military’s Defining Moment

Does Secretary Hegseth’s extraordinary summoning of hundreds of U.S. command generals and admirals to a Sept. 30 meeting and the repugnant reinstatement of Medals of Honor to 20 participants in the infamous 1890 Wounded Knee Massacre—in which 300 Lakota Sioux men, women, and children were killed—foreshadow the imposition of a twisted approach to U.S. “Warrior Ethos”? Should military leaders accept an ethos that ignores the rule of law?

Active duty and retired officers must trumpet a resounding: NO, that is not acceptable. And, we civilians must realize the stakes and join them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Yes, They Are Trying To Kill Us
Provided

Yes, They Are Trying To Kill Us

In the rush to “dismantle the administrative state,” some insist that freeing people from “burdensome bureaucracy” will unleash thriving. Will it? Let’s look together.

A century ago, bureaucracy was minimal. The 1920s followed a worldwide pandemic that killed an estimated 17.4–50 million people. While the virus spread, the Great War raged; we can still picture the dehumanizing use of mustard gas and trench warfare. When the war ended, the Roaring Twenties erupted as an antidote to grief. Despite Prohibition, life was a party—until the crash of 1929. The 1930s opened with a global depression, record joblessness, homelessness, and hunger. Despair spread faster than the pandemic had.

Keep ReadingShow less