League of Women Voters of Klamath County
Empowering Voters in Klamath County!
Over 160 people attended the community celebration at the Ross Ragland Theater on February 9th, 2020. LWV members wore period costumes, served wonderful cake, put on an interesting and varied show, promoted the League and its 100th anniversary.
Take a look at some of our pictures below. You will see:
As an official “Intervenor” in the on-going legal fights over the construction of the Pembina LNG pipeline, also known as the “Jordan Cove” pipeline, the LWV Klamath County regularly participates in various legal actions. These include filings at the federal and state level, testimony, letters, protests, and support of various parties fighting the pipeline.
Would you like to see what it looks like to build a natural gas pipeline? Have a look.
Excerpted from recent LWVOR newsletter article. ‘Four Local Leagues of Women Voters from Coos Bay to Malin and LWVOR Call for State and Federal Agencies to Deny Permits to Jordan Cove Energy Project’, Shirley Weathers, LWVRV Climate Change Coordinator and Christine Moffitt, LWVCC Board.
“…the proposed Jordan Cove Energy Project (JCEP)…. consisting of a 530-acre liquefied natural gas storage and export facility known as the Jordan Cove LNG project on Coos Bay and a 230-mile 36” Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline…. Proponents see jobs (mostly temporary) and tax revenues as benefits…. Pembina spares no expense on high-dollar promotional efforts. Opponents, including the four local Leagues—Coos and Klamath Counties and Rogue and Umpqua Valley—and the LWVOR, see unacceptable negative impacts on the natural environment from air to water to aquatic and wildlife, as well as serious safety risks…. This joint action by the four local Leagues, taken in solidarity with other community members and organizations and Tribes, is a step in the long journey to stop this harmful project.…”
July 2019: Letter to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: a technical comment on Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) — OPPOSE
February 2019: Letter to Oregon Department of State Lands: Public Comment on Jordan Cove Energy Project Removal-Fill Permit–DSL Application Number 60697 NWP-201741 – Oppose
August 2019: Letter to Governor Brown and Attorney General Rosenbaum: Allegations of law enforcement entities engaged in surveillance of citizens and groups opposing the Jordan Cove Energy Project
Here is a comprehensive list of all Oregon agencies involved in this JCEP project.
As a refresher, while a significant number of key specifics about the JCEP project suggest FERC could issue Denials for the pipeline and terminal as in 2016, most observers expect approvals conditioned on receipt of certain other federal and state authorizations (please see the last issue for a summary). Such an Approval Order could include a number of other issues, making it impossible to predict all of the results and next steps. We expect a flurry of filings of Requests for Rehearing—from landowners who will then be subject to eminent domain proceedings for 90-foot easements across their properties, but also from hundreds of other individual and organizational “intervenors” on the two dockets. For example, the 4 local Leagues (Coos, Klamath, Umpqua Valley and Rogue Valley) that have been jointly opposing the project since 2017 are ready to start drafting.
It is also important to note that the State of Oregon is standing firmly against one very real possibility the FERC order may bring: one or more attempts to override state authority. Congress gave states and certain Tribes authority to protect their air, water, and coastal regions. The state permits designed to allow them to do that require input on other important matters, as well. Governor Brown has consistently maintained that all involved state agencies will exercise their permitting authority diligently and in accordance with the law. We have seen throughout this process that they have done so, despite intense pressure from project proponents and mountains of work. The Governor declared in no uncertain terms last week that Oregon will consider all available options to resist unlawful federal attempts to preempt state authority.
Here is the latest letter that LWV Klamath along with three other local leagues sent to Governor Brown.
Because the proposed Jordan Cove LNG and Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline project would directly affect the areas of the state covered by the League of Women Voters of Coos County, LWV of Umpqua Valley, LWV of Rogue Valley, and LWV of Klamath County, our Leagues oppose this project. As Intervenors in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the process and discussion in this letter states some of our concerns regarding information provided to FERC by Jordon Cove Energy Project’s attorney following Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development’s objection to JCEP’s Costal Zone Management Act (CMZM) consistency certification and FERC’s February 20, 2020 decision delay.
Here is a recent article that explains in clear language some of the issues surrounding the Jordan Cover pipeline.
People who live in Oregon could miss out on a lot if everyone is not counted in the Census. Oregon could lose out on the political representation it deserves. And people and communities could be denied money that they need for schools, community health care, jobs, and transportation.
In 2016, Oregon received more than $13 billion from federal spending programs guided by data derived from the 2010 Census. Oregon can’t afford to miss out!
● Census Bureau ad campaign goes live.
● Census Bureau begins enumeration in Remote Alaska in January 21.
● Stakeholders educate communities about the census and how they will be invited
to respond (educational events, town halls, census awareness promotional content
focusing on hard-to-count neighborhoods). Events will include a focus on
encouraging eligible households to respond during the self-response period.
● Stakeholders deploy and educate communities about their “Get out the Count” plan (e.g., where census kiosks will be, how you are supporting communities, and what they can expect from you).
● Stakeholder groups will have “census weeks of action” for specific communities.
● Census Bureau ad campaign drives a “respond-to-the-census” message.
● Census Bureau mails or hand-delivers census materials to almost all households,
which will have an opportunity to respond online, by telephone, or using a paper
questionnaire. (See the operations section of this toolkit for more information.)
● April 1, 2020 is Census Day—a reference date for the enumeration.
● Census Bureau enumerates group living facilities and transitory locations.
● Stakeholder groups may be going door-to-door in your community.
● The Census Bureau’s ROAM map10 and the CUNY hard-to-count map11 will display
daily self-response rates by census tract.
● Stakeholders may provide devices or internet access to support people filling out
their census questionnaire.
● Census Bureau ad campaign drives “reminder, return your form” message
● Census Bureau enumerators going door to door.
● “Reminder” outreach to key hard-to-count neighborhoods.
● Census education about what enumerators look like and why they are going
door-to-door.
The 2020 Census will not include a citizenship question. However, people in immigrant
households and communities may have heard about the Trump administration’s attempts to include a question about citizenship and legal status on the 2020 Census at the last minute. That effort was opposed by members of the Census Counts coalition and other groups who believed that such a question, especially in a climate of hostility toward immigrants, could discourage participation.
In June 2019, the Supreme Court stopped the Secretary of Commerce (who oversees the Census Bureau) from moving forward with the citizenship question, finding that the administration’s justification for asking the question was not credible.
This was a major victory, but some advocates worry that the controversy has already harmed the credibility of the 2020 Census, particularly in Latino, Asian, and other immigrant communities. The NALEO Education Fund’s ¡Hágase Contar! (Make Yourself Count!) Campaign is operating a toll-free bilingual hotline 877-EL-CENSO (877-352-3676) as part of its national effort to overcome the effort to suppress the count of Latinos.
The 2020 Census is right around the corner. The information it collects will have substantial and lasting impacts on the nation’s governance and economy. In particular, data derived from the decennial census are used by the federal and state governments to guide where public funds are allocated. A lot of funds. Census-derived data are used to annually distribute approximately $900 billion to states, counties, cities, and households.
To ensure that each community receives its fair share of federal funds, an accurate 2020 Census is necessary. So that communities across the U.S. can better understand how an accurate census affects their receipt of federal assistance funds, this brief describes the geographic allocation of five census-guided federal programs important to local communities.
One of the main functions of the LWV is to promote voter participation. Voters should be educated about candidates and issues.
The LWV hosts hundreds of events and programs every year to educate voters about candidates in thousands of federal, state and local races, as well as distribute millions of educational materials about state and local elections.
The leaders we elect make decisions that affect our daily lives. Elections are our chance to stand up for what matters most to us and to have an impact on the issues that affect us, our communities, our families and our future.
The LWV hosts hundreds of candidate debates and forums across the country each year and provide straightforward information about candidates and ballot issues. Through print and online resources, including VOTE411.org, we equip voters with essential information about the election process in each state, including polling place hours and locations, ballot information, early or absentee voting rules, voter registration deadlines, ID requirements and more.
The League of Women Voters of Klamath County will hold a Candidates’ Night at the Klamath County Public Library on Tuesday, April 14 from 6 – 9 pm. It is co-sponsored by the Library. We would like all voters to participate, no matter your party affiliation.
Our organization is Non-Partisan. This is not a debate. It is an opportunity for Klamath County voters to hear all candidates who choose to participate, and allows them to answer written questions from you, our audience.
We will invite all 13 candidates, from all parties, for the Congressional seat in District 2, as well as local candidates in contested races (currently Sheriff and County Commissioners). We hope you will come to listen and ask questions.
Election rules differ state by state, and sometimes change from year to year. Using VOTE411.org, voters can confirm their polling location, check if ID is required, and see what their personal ballot will look like. Confirming this information before heading to the polls saves voters time and helps voters make more informed decisions.
We have long been a trusted source of objective and nonpartisan election information. Since 2006, VOTE411.org has served tens of millions of voters. By entering one’s home address on VOTE411.org, voters can see ballot questions they will be voting on, compare candidate responses to League questions and much more!
COMMUNITY LEADERS, ELECTED OFFICIALS AND ALL INTERESTED PERSONS ARE INVITED
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF KLAMATH COUNTY and Klamath Community College is sponsoring a PUBLIC SEMINAR based on HARVARD UNIVERSITY’S CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY
COME AND LEARN FROM SPECIALLY TRAINED TEACHERS
PRESIDENT MADISON, THE ‘FEDERAL NEGATIVE’ AND THE MAKING OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
HOSTED BY :
Klamath Union: Jonathan Chenjeri
Mazama High School: Kelly Patzke, Laura Estes
Lost River High School: Kjirsten Spark-Stahl
Paisley High School: Courtney Wertz
SATURDAY MAY 16, 2020, 2:00- 4:00 PM Klamath Community College, KLAMATH FALLS, OREGON
FREE OF CHARGE
MAXIMUM ATTENDANCE: 100
REGISTRATION DEADLINE: APRIL 1, 2020*
RSVP: admin@lwvklamath.org
*Note all participants must provide a valid email address to receive study materials one month before the seminar. Participants are expected to read the materials provided and be prepared to engage with fellow attendees under the direction of the teacher leaders, using Harvard’s case study method.
In August of 2019, the League of Women Voters of Oregon sent 13 Oregon high school history and government teachers to a three-day training course at Harvard University as part of a nation-wide curriculum development program. 5 of the Oregon teachers came from the Klamath Basin region: one from Klamath Union HS, two from Mazama HS, one from Lost River HS, and one from Paisley HS. These five teachers are currently using their new materials based on historical case studies in their classes and find it challenging and invigorating for their students. In May, 2020 these five teachers will offer a public forum using their new teaching methods so the community can experience the lessons of President Madison’ tenure as they apply to our country today.
Harvard University’s Business School developed their case method project to bring this professional development opportunity to high school teachers across the U.S. Their aim is to deepen students’ understanding of American democracy. Based on the highly successful experience of Harvard Business School and other graduate and professional programs that use case-based teaching, they believe this method can be employed to strengthen high school education, ensuring a more exciting, relevant, and effective experience for students and teachers, especially for students in history and democracy classes. Harvard University believes it presents a unique opportunity to help reverse the broad decline in civic education – and civic engagement – in the United States. Each case study explores a key decision point in the history of American democracy.
This year for the first time, Oregon participated by sending 13 teachers from across the state. Now the public in the Klamath Basin will be able to benefit from the teachers’ new skills by sitting in a two-hour actual study session, where they prepare by reading the study materials and then sit with others to discuss it under the teachers’ direction, much like their students did in their classes this year. This will be a one-time unique opportunity for community education directly from Harvard University, sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Klamath County and Klamath Community College.
From 2017-2019 the League of Women Voters of Klamath County engaged in a study of local issues surrounding immigration and criminal justice in Klamath County. A number of sources were interviewed, and a complete report has now been prepared. Here is its introduction:
In January 2017, LWVKC Board discussed immigration issues, especially regarding DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) people, as a result of national news.
In September, 2017, they again addressed the question of DACA recipients in Klamath County, based on a meeting with the ROP (Rural Organizing Project), in which the question was raised about how to help local Latinx migrants. Attendees at that meeting
a) sought to find out about ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) work in Klamath County,
b) wanted to hold local law enforcement accountable for sanctuary state behavior, and
c) wanted to make sure that policies were in place that would respect the constitutional rights of all migrants.
The LWVKC Board took this issue as a study focus in May, 2018, because there were new concerns regarding the well being of the Klamath County Latinx. The study proceeded based on the LWV US position on immigration, which states “Immigration policies should promote reunification of immediate families; meet economic, business and employment needs; and be responsive to those facing political persecution or humanitarian crises”.
Over the next 15 months, various Board members interviewed eight members of the local law enforcement system and others involved in affairs of the Latinx community in Klamath County. As it became apparent that there was no local need for immediate help for DACA recipients, the focus of inquiry shifted from DACA recipients to a broader look at how the justice and immigration system for both adults and juveniles plays out in the Latinx community and the community at large in Klamath County.
Here is the conclusion:
General Conclusions
All informants discussed the difficulty in managing crime, punishment, drug abuse, and mental health issues and indicated that the Latinx population in particular is more difficult to manage based on lack of English skills. All parties stressed that immigration status in not a factor in the way agencies interact with the public or their charges, despite the fact that some in the Latinx community perceive otherwise.
Everyone pointed to a lack of adequate funding and manpower in their agencies, a common complaint. They sounded genuine in their desire to improve the justice system from their agency’s perspective. It is clear that these various agencies partner together very well to use available resources.
Read the complete report HERE.
Read the Herald and News summary article HERE.
The National Popular Vote (NPV) movement emerged in late 2006 and has slowly gained some steam since then.
NPV seeks to ensure that the presidential candidate who wins the most popular votes nationwide is elected president. When a state passes legislation to join the National Popular Vote Compact, it pledges that all of that state’s electoral votes will be given to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide, rather than the candidate who won the vote in just that state.
These bills will take effect only when states with a majority of the electoral votes have passed similar legislation and joined the compact. States with electoral votes totaling 270 of the 538 electoral votes would have to pass NPV bills before the compact kicks in and any state’s bill could take effect.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The Compact ensures that every vote, in every state, will matter in every presidential election. The Compact is a state-based approach that preserves the Electoral College, state control of elections, and the power of the states to control how the President is elected.
The National Popular Vote bill has been enacted by 16 jurisdictions possessing 196 electoral votes, including 4 small states (DE, HI, RI, VT), 8 medium-sized states (CO, CT, MD, MA, NJ, NM, OR, WA), 3 big states (CA, IL, NY), and the District of Columbia. The bill will take effect when enacted by states with 74 more electoral votes. The bill has passed at least one chamber in 8 additional states with 75 more electoral votes (AR, AZ, ME, MI, MN, NC, NV, OK). A total of 3,408 state legislators from all 50 states have endorsed it.
The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from “winner-take-all” laws that have been enacted by state legislatures in 48 states. These laws award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in each state.
Because of these state winner-take-all statutes, presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion. In 2012, as shown on the map, all of the 253 general-election campaign events were in just 12 states, and two-thirds were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa). Thirty-eight states were completely ignored.
Here’s a map of US with state sizes based on the number of campaign events in 2012. This is how the candidates view the relevant voters (and their issues). Notice that 38 states are missing altogether:
Similarly, in 2016, almost all campaign events (94%) were in the 12 states where Trump’s support was between 43% and 51%. Two-thirds of the events (273 of 399) were in just 6 states (OH, FL, VA, NC, PA, MI).
This is how the US map looks with state sizes based on the number of campaign events in 2016 (missing states received no campaign events):
State winner-take-all statutes adversely affect governance. “Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.
Also, because of state winner-take-all statutes, five of our 45 Presidents have come into office without having won the most popular votes nationwide. The 2000 and 2016 elections are the most recent examples of elections in which a second-place candidate won the White House. Near-misses are also common under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes. A shift of 59,393 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have elected John Kerry despite President Bush’s nationwide lead of over 3,000,000 votes.
The U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1) gives the states exclusive control over awarding their electoral votes: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….” The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is state law. It is not in the U.S. Constitution. The winner-take-all rule was used by only three states in 1789, and all three repealed it by 1800. It was not until the 11th presidential election (1828) that even half the states used winner-take-all laws.
The National Popular Vote interstate compact will go into effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). At that time, every voter in the country will acquire a direct vote for a group of at least 270 presidential electors supporting their choice for President. All of this group of 270+ presidential electors will be supporters of the candidate who received the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC—thus making that candidate President.
In contrast, under the current system, a voter has a direct voice in electing only the small number of presidential electors to which their state is entitled. Under NPV, every voter directly elects 270+ electors.
Click here for a detailed explanation of each sentence in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Bill.
Additional information is available in the book Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote and at www.NationalPopularVote.com.
Click on any of the topics below to learn more. You can also read about the numerous myths.
“On the subject of an election by a general ticket [winner-take-all], or by districts, … all agree that an election by districts would be best, if it could be general;but while 10 states choose either by their legislatures or by a general ticket [winner-take-all],it is folly and worse than follyfor the other 6 not to do it.”
now existing in 10 States was … not [the offspring] of any disposition to give fair play to the will of the people. It was adopted by the leading men of those states, to enable them to consolidate the vote of the State.”
“The constitution does not provide that the appointment of electors shall be by popular vote, nor that the electors shall be voted for upon a general ticket [i.e., the winner-take-all rule], nor that the majority of those who exercise the elective franchise can alone choose the electors. … In short, the appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States.”
Contrary to what some may think, the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes decreases the political clout of small states in presidential elections.
For more details, see this memo and read about the small state myths.
How would candidates campaign in a nationwide election for President in which every vote is equal and the winner is the candidate receiving the most popular votes throughout the entire United States?
Some people have speculated that a national popular vote for President would cause campaigns to concentrate disproportionately on heavily populated metropolitan areas and ignore rural areas.
However, there is no need to speculate about whether candidates would do this.
If there were any tendency for candidates to overemphasize big cities or ignore rural areas, we would see evidence of that tendency in the way campaigns are actually conducted today in the dozen or so closely divided “battleground” states where presidential campaigns take place.
Here are the facts as to how candidates actually campaigned for the votes of the 95 million people living inside the dozen closely divided battleground states:
In other words, real-world candidates hew closely to population when allocating campaign visits within battleground states—indeed they did so with almost surgical precision. Presidential candidates—advised by the nation’s most astute political strategists—campaign in this manner because every vote inside a battleground state is equal, and because the candidate receiving the most popular votes inside the state wins everything. There is no evidence that big metro areas exert any magnetic or intoxicating attraction causing candidates to concentrate disproportionately on heavily populated metropolitan areas or ignore rural areas.
For more details on how a nationwide presidential campaign would be run, see this memo.
Large cities will not dominate a national popular vote – they are simply not as large as some people think compared to the entire population of the country:
You can read more about the myths of big cities. As was discussed in the previous section, a close analogy for a national campaign is studying presidential campaigns in battleground states, where they do indeed campaign in cities, suburban and rural areas. While rural areas have lower population density, advertising and campaigning costs in those areas tend to be significantly lower than urban areas. The candidates need to win votes in all those areas to succeed overall.
Here are the number of general-election presidential campaign events (between the party convention and the general election) by state for the 2008, 2012 and 2016 elections:
| Electoral votes | State | 2008 events | 2012 events | 2016 events |
| 9 | Alabama | |||
| 3 | Alaska | |||
| 11 | Arizona | 10 | ||
| 6 | Arkansas | |||
| 55 | California | 1 | ||
| 9 | Colorado | 20 | 23 | 19 |
| 7 | Connecticut | 1 | ||
| 3 | D.C. | 1 | ||
| 3 | Delaware | |||
| 29 | Florida | 46 | 40 | 71 |
| 16 | Georgia | 3 | ||
| 4 | Hawaii | |||
| 4 | Idaho | |||
| 20 | Illinois | 1 | ||
| 11 | Indiana | 9 | 2 | |
| 6 | Iowa | 7 | 27 | 21 |
| 6 | Kansas | |||
| 8 | Kentucky | |||
| 8 | Louisiana | |||
| 4 | Maine | 2 | 3 | |
| 10 | Maryland | |||
| 11 | Massachusetts | |||
| 16 | Michigan | 10 | 1 | 22 |
| 10 | Minnesota | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| 6 | Mississippi | 1 | ||
| 10 | Missouri | 21 | 2 | |
| 3 | Montana | |||
| 5 | Nebraska | 2 | ||
| 6 | Nevada | 12 | 13 | 17 |
| 4 | New Hampshire | 12 | 13 | 21 |
| 14 | New Jersey | |||
| 5 | New Mexico | 8 | 3 | |
| 29 | New York | |||
| 15 | North Carolina | 15 | 3 | 55 |
| 3 | North Dakota | |||
| 18 | Ohio | 62 | 73 | 48 |
| 7 | Oklahoma | |||
| 7 | Oregon | |||
| 20 | Pennsylvania | 40 | 5 | 54 |
| 4 | Rhode Island | |||
| 9 | South Carolina | |||
| 3 | South Dakota | |||
| 11 | Tennessee | 1 | ||
| 38 | Texas | 1 | ||
| 6 | Utah | 1 | ||
| 3 | Vermont | |||
| 13 | Virginia | 23 | 36 | 23 |
| 12 | Washington | 1 | ||
| 5 | West Virginia | 1 | ||
| 10 | Wisconsin | 8 | 18 | 14 |
| 3 | Wyoming | |||
| 538 | Total | 300 | 253 | 399 |
Another way to look at why states are ignored in presidential elections is to see which states consistently vote for one party or the other. This table shows that 16 states voted Democratic and 22 states voted Republican in all five presidential elections from 2000–2016. Because of the winner-take-all approach that states use to assign their electoral votes, these states, plus some of the others, are almost certain to deliver all their electoral votes to one candidate or the other, and therefore are ignored by the candidates.
|
Dem 5/5 16 states |
Dem 4/5 5 states |
Dem 3/5 4 states |
Dem 2/5 2 states |
Dem 1/5 2 states |
Dem 0/5 22 states |
| CA (55) | MI (16) | VA (13) | FL (29) | IN (11) | AL (9) |
| CT (7) | NH (4) | CO (9) | OH (18) | NC (15) | AK (3) |
| DE (3) | NM (5) | NV (6) | AR (6) | ||
| DC (3) | PA (20) | IA (6) | AZ (11) | ||
| HI (4) | WI (10) | GA (16) | |||
| IL (20) | ID (4) | ||||
| MA (11) | KS (6) | ||||
| ME (4) | KY (8) | ||||
| MD (10) | LA (8) | ||||
| MN (10) | MO (10) | ||||
| NJ (14) | MS (6) | ||||
| NY (29) | MT (3) | ||||
| OR (7) | NE (5) | ||||
| RI (4) | ND (3) | ||||
| VT (3) | OK (7) | ||||
| WA (12) | SC (9) | ||||
| SD (3) | |||||
| TN (11) | |||||
| TX (38) | |||||
| UT (6) | |||||
| WY (3) | |||||
| WV (5) | |||||
| 196 EV | 55 EV | 34 EV | 47 EV | 26 EV | 180 EV |
Note: The number of electoral votes shown are for 2012, 2016, and 2020 elections. DC is counted as a state for purposes of this chart.
The states are listed below in order of Romney’s 2012 percentage—with the most Republican (red) states at the top. All of the 253 General-Election Campaign Events in 2012 occurred in states where Romney’s percentage of the two-party vote was between 45% and 51%.
The second column shows the total number of general-election campaign events for each state (out of a nationwide total of 253).
The only states that received any campaign events (second column) and any significant ad money (third column) were the 12 states (shown in black in the middle of the table) where the Romney received between 45% and 51% of the vote—that is, within 3 points of his nationwide percentage of 48%. Only 8 states received more than a handful of campaign events.
Only 1 of the 13 smallest states (with 3 or 4 electoral votes) received any of the 253 general-election campaign events, namely the closely divided battleground state of New Hampshire. All the other states in this group were ignored. Only 3 of the 25 smallest states (with 7 or fewer electoral votes) received any of the general-election campaign events. All the other small states were ignored. The 3 states that received attention were the closely divided battleground states of New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada.
The fourth column in the table shows donations from each state (scroll the table left to see all the columns).
| Romney Percent | Campaign events | TV ad spending | Donations | State | Romney (R) | Obama (D) | R-Margin | D-Margin | R-EV | D-EV | |
| 75% | 0 | $0 | $11,230,092 | Utah | 740,600 | 251,813 | 488,787 | 6 | |||
| 71% | 0 | $0 | $2,225,204 | Wyoming | 170,962 | 69,286 | 101,676 | 3 | |||
| 67% | 0 | $1,300 | $7,129,393 | Oklahoma | 891,325 | 443,547 | 447,778 | 7 | |||
| 66% | 0 | $290 | $3,586,883 | Idaho | 420,911 | 212,787 | 208,124 | 4 | |||
| 64% | 0 | $100 | $1,985,666 | WV | 417,584 | 238,230 | 179,354 | 5 | |||
| 62% | 0 | $0 | $3,296,533 | Arkansas | 647,744 | 394,409 | 253,335 | 6 | |||
| 62% | 0 | $400 | $6,079,673 | Kentucky | 1,087,190 | 679,370 | 407,820 | 8 | |||
| 61% | 0 | $80 | $6,736,196 | Alabama | 1,255,925 | 795,696 | 460,229 | 9 | |||
| 61% | 0 | $0 | $4,796,947 | Kansas | 692,634 | 440,726 | 251,908 | 6 | |||
| 61% | 0 | $0 | $3,128,691 | Nebraska | 475,064 | 302,081 | 172,983 | 5 | |||
| 60% | 0 | $346,490 | $844,129 | ND | 188,320 | 124,966 | 63,354 | 3 | |||
| 60% | 0 | $1,440 | $11,967,542 | Tennessee | 1,462,330 | 960,709 | 501,621 | 11 | |||
| 59% | 0 | $3,990 | $7,510,687 | Louisiana | 1,152,262 | 809,141 | 343,121 | 8 | |||
| 59% | 0 | $1,810 | $1,267,192 | SD | 210,610 | 145,039 | 65,571 | 3 | |||
| 58% | 0 | $2,570 | $64,044,620 | Texas | 4,569,843 | 3,308,124 | 1,261,719 | 38 | |||
| 57% | 0 | $0 | $2,153,869 | Alaska | 164,676 | 122,640 | 42,036 | 3 | |||
| 57% | 0 | $0 | $2,295,005 | Montana | 267,928 | 201,839 | 66,089 | 3 | |||
| 56% | 0 | $0 | $3,525,145 | Mississippi | 710,746 | 562,949 | 147,797 | 6 | |||
| 55% | 0 | $40,350 | $14,631,204 | Arizona | 1,233,654 | 1,025,232 | 208,422 | 11 | |||
| 55% | 0 | $300 | $8,210,564 | Indiana | 1,420,543 | 1,152,887 | 267,656 | 11 | |||
| 55% | 0 | $127,560 | $11,512,255 | Missouri | 1,482,440 | 1,223,796 | 258,644 | 10 | |||
| 55% | 0 | $710 | $6,686,788 | SC | 1,071,645 | 865,941 | 205,704 | 9 | |||
| 54% | 0 | $6,020 | $21,906,923 | Georgia | 2,078,688 | 1,773,827 | 304,861 | 16 | |||
| 51% | 3 | $80,000,000 | $18,658,894 | NC | 2,270,395 | 2,178,391 | 92,004 | 15 | |||
| 50% | 40 | $175,776,780 | $56,863,167 | Florida | 4,162,341 | 4,235,965 | 73,624 | 29 | |||
| 48% | 73 | $148,000,000 | $20,654,423 | Ohio | 2,661,407 | 2,827,621 | 166,214 | 18 | |||
| 48% | 36 | $127,000,000 | $32,428,002 | Virginia | 1,822,522 | 1,971,820 | 149,298 | 13 | |||
| 47% | 23 | $71,000,000 | $20,695,557 | Colorado | 1,185,050 | 1,322,998 | 137,948 | 9 | |||
| 47% | 27 | $52,194,330 | $4,780,400 | Iowa | 730,617 | 822,544 | 91,927 | 6 | |||
| 47% | 13 | $55,000,000 | $6,717,552 | Nevada | 463,567 | 531,373 | 67,806 | 6 | |||
| 47% | 13 | $34,000,000 | $4,389,577 | NH | 329,918 | 369,561 | 39,643 | 4 | |||
| 47% | 5 | $31,000,000 | $27,661,702 | Pennsylvania | 2,680,434 | 2,990,274 | 309,840 | 20 | |||
| 47% | 18 | $40,000,000 | $10,011,235 | Wisconsin | 1,410,966 | 1,620,985 | 210,019 | 10 | |||
| 46% | 1 | $0 | $11,112,922 | Minnesota | 1,320,225 | 1,546,167 | 225,942 | 10 | |||
| 45% | 1 | $15,186,750 | $19,917,206 | Michigan | 2,115,256 | 2,564,569 | 449,313 | 16 | |||
| 45% | 0 | $1,162,000 | $5,770,738 | New Mexico | 335,788 | 415,335 | 79,547 | 5 | |||
| 44% | 0 | $460 | $10,463,528 | Oregon | 754,175 | 970,488 | 216,313 | 7 | |||
| 42% | 0 | $195,610 | $3,452,126 | Maine | 292,276 | 401,306 | 109,030 | 4 | |||
| 42% | 0 | $0 | $23,600,404 | Washington | 1,290,670 | 1,755,396 | 464,726 | 12 | |||
| 41% | 0 | $330 | $18,644,901 | Connecticut | 634,892 | 905,083 | 270,191 | 7 | |||
| 41% | 0 | $0 | $2,141,203 | Delaware | 165,484 | 242,584 | 77,100 | 3 | |||
| 41% | 0 | $270 | $107,928,359 | Illinois | 2,135,216 | 3,019,512 | 884,296 | 20 | |||
| 41% | 0 | $0 | $24,062,220 | New Jersey | 1,478,088 | 2,122,786 | 644,698 | 14 | |||
| 38% | 0 | $320 | $137,804,736 | California | 4,839,958 | 7,854,285 | 3,014,327 | 55 | |||
| 38% | 0 | $0 | $35,927,766 | Mass | 1,188,314 | 1,921,290 | 732,976 | 11 | |||
| 37% | 0 | $1,120 | $25,579,933 | Maryland | 971,869 | 1,677,844 | 705,975 | 10 | |||
| 36% | 0 | $55,600 | $76,743,682 | New York | 2,485,432 | 4,471,871 | 1,986,439 | 29 | |||
| 36% | 0 | $0 | $2,226,963 | Rhode Island | 157,204 | 279,677 | 122,473 | 4 | |||
| 32% | 0 | $0 | $2,732,572 | Vermont | 92,698 | 199,239 | 106,541 | 3 | |||
| 28% | 0 | $0 | $3,217,863 | Hawaii | 121,015 | 306,658 | 185,643 | 4 | |||
| 7% | 0 | $0 | $16,670,938 | DC | 21,381 | 267,070 | 245,689 | 3 | |||
| 48.0% | 253 | $831,106,980 | $937,609,770 | Total | 60,930,782 | 65,897,727 | 206 | 332 |
http://archive3.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/presidential-elections/2012chart
In 2016, there were 399 general-election campaign events. Almost all campaign events (94%) were in the 12 states where Trump’s support was between 47% and 55% of the two-party vote. Two-thirds of the events (273 of 399) were in just 6 states (OH, FL, VA, NC, PA, MI).
| Trump % | Events | State | Trump | Clinton | R-Margin | D-Margin | R-EV | D-EV | Population |
| 55% | 21 | Iowa | 800,983 | 653,669 | 147,314 | 6 | 3,053,787 | ||
| 54% | 48 | Ohio | 2,841,006 | 2,394,169 | 446,837 | 18 | 11,568,495 | ||
| 52% | 55 | North Carolina | 2,362,631 | 2,189,316 | 173,315 | 15 | 9,565,781 | ||
| 52% | 10 | Arizona | 1,252,401 | 1,161,167 | 91,234 | 11 | 6,412,700 | ||
| 51% | 71 | Florida | 4,617,886 | 4,504,975 | 112,911 | 29 | 18,900,773 | ||
| 50% | 14 | Wisconsin | 1,405,284 | 1,382,536 | 22,748 | 10 | 5,698,230 | ||
| 50% | 54 | Pennsylvania | 2,970,733 | 2,926,441 | 44,292 | 20 | 12,734,905 | ||
| 50% | 22 | Michigan | 2,279,543 | 2,268,839 | 10,704 | 16 | 9,911,626 | ||
| 49.8% | 21 | New Hampshire | 345,790 | 348,526 | 2,736 | 4 | 1,321,445 | ||
| 49% | 17 | Nevada | 512,058 | 539,260 | 27,202 | 6 | 2,709,432 | ||
| 47% | 19 | Colorado | 1,202,484 | 1,338,870 | 136,386 | 9 | 5,044,930 | ||
| 47% | 23 | Virginia | 1,769,443 | 1,981,473 | 212,030 | 13 | 8,037,736 | ||
| 51% | 375 | 22,360,242 | 21,689,241 | 125 | 32 | 94,959,840 |
Notes: (1) Trump percentage is of the two-party vote (2) Population is from 2010 census.
Only 2 of the 13 smallest states (with 3 or 4 electoral votes) received any of the 399 general-election campaign events. New Hampshire received 21 because it was a closely divided battleground state. Maine (which awards electoral votes by congressional district) received 3 campaign events because its 2nd congressional district was closely divided (and, indeed, Trump carried it). All the other states in this group were ignored.
Only 9 of the 25 smallest states (with 7 or fewer electoral votes) received any general-election campaign events. New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada received attention because they were closely divided battleground states. Maine and Nebraska (which award electoral votes by congressional district) received some attention since just one of their congressional districts was closely divided. New Mexico received some attention (from the Republican campaign only) because former New Mexico Governor Johnson was running for President and it appeared his strong home-state support might make the state competitive. Utah received some attention from Republicans because the McMullin candidacy might have made the state competitive. Connecticut and Mississippi also received one campaign event. All the other small states in this group were ignored.
| Trump % | Events | State | Trump | Clinton | R-Margin | D-Margin | R-EV | D-EV | Population |
| 76% | 0 | Wyoming | 174,419 | 55,973 | 118,446 | 3 | 568,300 | ||
| 72% | 0 | West Virginia | 489,371 | 188,794 | 300,577 | 5 | 1,859,815 | ||
| 70% | 0 | North Dakota | 216,794 | 93,758 | 123,036 | 3 | 675,905 | ||
| 69% | 0 | Oklahoma | 949,136 | 420,375 | 528,761 | 7 | 3,764,882 | ||
| 68% | 0 | Idaho | 409,055 | 189,765 | 219,290 | 4 | 1,573,499 | ||
| 66% | 0 | South Dakota | 227,721 | 117,458 | 110,263 | 3 | 819,761 | ||
| 66% | 0 | Kentucky | 1,202,971 | 628,854 | 574,117 | 8 | 4,350,606 | ||
| 64% | 0 | Alabama | 1,318,255 | 729,547 | 588,708 | 9 | 4,802,982 | ||
| 64% | 0 | Arkansas | 684,872 | 380,494 | 304,378 | 6 | 2,926,229 | ||
| 64% | 0 | Tennessee | 1,522,925 | 870,695 | 652,230 | 11 | 6,375,431 | ||
| 64% | 2 | Nebraska | 495,961 | 284,494 | 211,467 | 5 | 1,831,825 | ||
| 62% | 1 | Utah | 515,231 | 310,676 | 204,555 | 6 | 2,770,765 | ||
| 61% | 0 | Kansas | 671,018 | 427,005 | 244,013 | 6 | 2,863,813 | ||
| 61% | 0 | Montana | 279,240 | 177,709 | 101,531 | 3 | 994,416 | ||
| 60% | 0 | Louisiana | 1,178,638 | 780,154 | 398,484 | 8 | 4,553,962 | ||
| 60% | 2 | Indiana | 1,557,286 | 1,033,126 | 524,160 | 11 | 6,501,582 | ||
| 60% | 2 | Missouri | 1,594,511 | 1,071,068 | 523,443 | 10 | 6,011,478 | ||
| 59% | 1 | Mississippi | 700,714 | 485,131 | 215,583 | 6 | 2,978,240 | ||
| 58% | 0 | Alaska | 163,387 | 116,454 | 46,933 | 3 | 721,523 | ||
| 57% | 0 | South Carolina | 1,155,389 | 855,373 | 300,016 | 9 | 4,645,975 | ||
| 55% | 1 | Texas | 4,685,047 | 3,877,868 | 807,179 | 38 | 25,268,418 | ||
| 53% | 3 | Georgia | 2,089,104 | 1,877,963 | 211,141 | 16 | 9,727,566 | ||
| 49% | 2 | Minnesota | 1,323,232 | 1,367,825 | 44,593 | 10 | 5,314,879 | ||
| 48% | 3 | Maine | 335,593 | 357,735 | 22,142 | 1 | 3 | 1,333,074 | |
| 45% | 3 | New Mexico | 319,667 | 385,234 | 65,567 | 5 | 2,067,273 | ||
| 44% | 0 | Delaware | 185,127 | 235,603 | 50,476 | 3 | 900,877 | ||
| 44% | 0 | Oregon | 782,403 | 1,002,106 | 219,703 | 7 | 3,848,606 | ||
| 43% | 1 | Connecticut | 673,215 | 897,572 | 224,357 | 7 | 3,581,628 | ||
| 43% | 0 | New Jersey | 1,601,933 | 2,148,278 | 546,345 | 14 | 8,807,501 | ||
| 42% | 0 | Rhode Island | 180,543 | 252,525 | 71,982 | 4 | 1,055,247 | ||
| 41% | 1 | Washington | 1,221,747 | 1,742,718 | 520,971 | 12 | 6,753,369 | ||
| 41% | 1 | Illinois | 2,146,015 | 3,090,729 | 944,714 | 20 | 12,864,380 | ||
| 38% | 0 | New York | 2,819,557 | 4,556,142 | 1,736,585 | 29 | 19,421,055 | ||
| 36% | 0 | Maryland | 943,169 | 1,677,928 | 734,759 | 10 | 5,789,929 | ||
| 35% | 0 | Massachusetts | 1,090,893 | 1,995,196 | 904,303 | 11 | 6,559,644 | ||
| 35% | 0 | Vermont | 95,369 | 178,573 | 83,204 | 3 | 630,337 | ||
| 34% | 1 | California | 4,483,814 | 8,753,792 | 4,269,978 | 55 | 37,341,989 | ||
| 33% | 0 | Hawaii | 128,847 | 266,891 | 138,044 | 4 | 1,366,862 | ||
| 4% | 0 | D.C. | 12,723 | 282,830 | 270,107 | 3 | 601,723 | ||
| 48% | 24 | 40,624,892 | 44,164,411 | 181 | 200 | 214,825,346 |
Notes: (1) Trump percentage is of the two-party vote (2) Population is from 2010 census.
On Saturday December 14, over a dozen members and friends of LWV Klamath County gathered at the home of Diane Shockey (at right in the apron) at Running Y for a festive holiday potluck luncheon. We enjoyed snacks, main dishes and desserts, all delicious, and shared news and stories.
The weather outside may have been cold, but everyone was warm and happy indoors.
Everyone enjoyed the fun gift exchange and the LWV KC made over $200 during this fundraiser.
Diane’s home was a lovely backdrop for our gathering, and it provided a good way for members and family to reinforce our group spirit as we move forward in 2020 with many plans to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment and the women’s right to vote.
The LWV Klamath County will hold a special event on Sunday February 9, 2020 at 2 PM at the historic Ross Ragland Theater in downtown Klamath Falls, to further commemorate the 100th anniversary of the LWV and the women’s right to vote. The program will include:
– The Suffragists, Oregon Public Broadcasting, Oregon Experience, Season 7, Episode 702 AND Suppressed; The Fight to Vote, Brave New Films
The event is free to the public with a suggested donation of $10/ticket. Ticket donations can be made at the door to LWV members. Local high school students will also be invited to attend for free.
“Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves and the only way they could do this is by not voting.” –Franklin Roosevelt
In 2020 there will be two major elections at the national level: the primary, and the General Election. One of the key platforms of the League of Women Voters is voting: access to the ballot, fair and transparent elections, voter participation at the highest level.
Voting Rights are important in every election, especially a presidential election. The LWV doesn’t endorse any candidate or political party. Instead, the LWV seeks to promote voting as a civil, political, and democratic right for everyone.
As the LWV states, “Voting is a fundamental right and all eligible voters should have the equal opportunity to exercise that right. We are dedicated to ensuring that our elections remain free, fair and accessible.”
Here in Oregon, voting is done completely by mail. See our pages for further information on the voting process. You should also visit the Oregon Secretary of State’s web page to check your registration status.
Did you know?
Registering to vote in Oregon is quick and simple. Oregonians can register:
Online using My Vote.
By mail using a voter registration form (PDF). This form also is available en Español.
In person at the county elections office.
The deadline to register is 21 days before Election Day.
To register to vote in Oregon, you must be a U.S. citizen, an Oregon resident and at least 16 years old. Online registration requires a current Oregon drivers license or state ID card.
Oregon has the most convenient voting system in the country. Since adopting vote-by-mail, Oregon consistently ranks as a national leader in voter turnout.
Registered voters receive a ballot two to three weeks before an election, giving time to research issues or candidates.
Voters also receive an official ballot to complete and insert into the security envelope which is placed in the ballot return envelope and signed by the voter. The ballot return envelope can be stamped and mailed or dropped off at any official drop box across the state. If a voter casts their ballot after the Wednesday before an election, the ballot should be left at a drop box site to ensure it’s counted.
Ballots must be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day.
You should update your registration if you move, change your name or mailing address, or want to select or change a political party.
You can update your voter registration information, until 8 p.m. on Election Day and still cast a ballot. However, if your registration is updated close to an election, your ballot might have to be issued at the county elections office.
Students attending an out-of-state college or voters traveling during an election can still receive a ballot.
Oregon has a proud tradition of open, accessible and fair elections. Voter fraud is rare but taken seriously.
If you believe someone has violated Oregon elections law, contact the Elections Division. Every complaint will be investigated, and violations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Oregon supports unparalleled transparency. Contact your county elections office to observe the election process.
