Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Jamil Ahmad
Jamil Ahmad (Democratic Party) ran for election to the U.S. House to represent Oregon's 1st Congressional District. Ahmad lost in the Democratic primary on May 21, 2024.
Elections
2024
See also: Oregon's 1st Congressional District election, 2024
Oregon's 1st Congressional District election, 2024 (May 21 Democratic primary)
Oregon's 1st Congressional District election, 2024 (May 21 Republican primary)
General election
General election for U.S. House Oregon District 1
Incumbent Suzanne Bonamici defeated Bob Todd and Joseph Christman in the general election for U.S. House Oregon District 1 on November 5, 2024.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ |  | Suzanne Bonamici (D) | 68.6 | 241,556 |
 | Bob Todd (R)  | 28.1 | 98,908 | |
 | Joseph Christman (L) | 3.1 | 10,840 | |
| Other/Write-in votes | 0.2 | 687 | ||
| Total votes: 351,991 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Democratic primary election
Democratic primary for U.S. House Oregon District 1
Incumbent Suzanne Bonamici defeated Jamil Ahmad and Courtney Casgraux in the Democratic primary for U.S. House Oregon District 1 on May 21, 2024.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Suzanne Bonamici | 90.5 | 75,577 |
 | Jamil Ahmad | 6.0 | 5,007 | |
 | Courtney Casgraux | 3.0 | 2,500 | |
| Other/Write-in votes | 0.5 | 383 | ||
| Total votes: 83,467 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Republican primary election
Republican primary for U.S. House Oregon District 1
Bob Todd advanced from the Republican primary for U.S. House Oregon District 1 on May 21, 2024.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Bob Todd | 97.6 | 23,993 |
| Other/Write-in votes | 2.4 | 579 | ||
| Total votes: 24,572 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Endorsements
Ballotpedia did not identify endorsements for Ahmad in this election.
Campaign themes
2024
Ballotpedia survey responses
See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection
Jamil Ahmad did not complete Ballotpedia's 2024 Candidate Connection survey.
Campaign website
Ahmad’s campaign website stated the following:
| “ |
Abortion Top priority: Revoke the Comstock Act Currently, Oregon women have more access to abortion than most other states. It is important to extend that access to other states. However, the top priority needs to be revoking the Comstock Act, which could be interpreted by a court as a nationwide ban on abortion. The Comstock Act is a federal law that was passed over 150 years ago. Some portions of the law have been revoked. However what has not been revoked is a section which bans the shipping of items which may be used for abortions. In 1973, the Comstock Act became irrelevant due to the Roe v. Wade decision. Unfortunately Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022. Currently, it takes just one court ruling (or one executive order) to cite the Comstock Act and ban abortion nationwide, in every state, without exception. The Democratic Party has had multiple opportunities to revoke the Comstock Act over the last 150 years, including opportunities while Suzanne Bonamici has been in office. Results matter. The Democratic Party has failed to revoke the Comstock Act, putting access to abortion in Oregon at risk. Additional agenda items:
Again, the Democratic Party missed multiple opportunities to pass such a law. U.S. Constitutional amendment protecting abortion The new abortion access law would supersede state laws that restrict access to abortion. However, federal law generally does not supersede state constitutions, including any future state constitutional amendment restricting abortion. It is important to start the process of amending the constitution to protect abortion rights. It is a long process, but it needs to start. Personal position: It goes without saying that a woman should always have access to abortion when her health is at risk. I want my position to be unambiguous: A woman should also have access to abortion until fetal viability. A pregnant woman is the best judge as to whether the conditions are right to raise a child. If a woman has determined that the conditions are not right, it is not the role of government to question her decision or delay an abortion. From a practical standpoint, enforcing restrictive abortion laws will result in cruel persecution of women. To go further, I have a very simple question to those who wish to ban abortion: Once you force a woman to carry a child for nine months and give birth, do you plan on forcing her to parent a child for 18 years? Education Education is the backbone of economic opportunity in our country. Unfortunately, the cost of higher education is rising above the rate of inflation. The costs are too high for lower income individuals to pay for the education needed to increase their income. It is a catch 22, which not only affects individuals, but society as a whole. Rather, barriers to higher education cause shortages of professionals such as K-12 teachers and medical providers. There are many issues that need to be addressed in order to make education more affordable for students. Below I describe two issues, which involve the federal student loan program. I also describe how I would approach each issue. Issue #1: Botched student loan application website In 2020 Congress passed the “FAFSA Simplification Act” (part of Public Law 116-260). Suzanne Bonamici voted for it. It required many changes, and gave a deadline for final implementation (which was later pushed to the 2024-2025 academic year). Unfortunately, the new system was not properly tested or piloted. This has inserted chaos into the student loan application process for the 2024-2025 academic year. As an engineer, I have never forced a rigid deadline for final implementation of a system before it was developed, let alone tested. A system must meet certain criteria (including quality checks) before proceeding with final implementation. While it is appropriate to set target dates and goals, it is bad policy to pass a law which requires implementation on a certain date, regardless of the consequences. This is the equivalent of passing a law which says that a bridge must open on a certain date, regardless of whether it has passed quality checks. I realize the desire to move away from the old system. However, the public would have been better served by remaining on the old system for the 2024-2025 academic year. Issue #2: Student loan default & forgiveness The Biden Administration claims to have forgiven at least $146 billion in federal student loans. When writing off $146 billion, it is a good idea to identify and address the underlying problem as well. The underlying problem is that the tuition for many degree programs costs too much relative to how much graduates will earn. Rather, students are not getting economic value for their degree. The easiest way to quantify this is to look at the student loan default rate for a particular school (with statistical adjustment for demographic factors). The default rate allows us to determine the economic value a school is providing its students. Schools with a high default rate should be removed from the federal student loan program (for new students only). Over time, we should continue to require even lower default rates from schools. This will incentivize schools to provide good economic value for their degrees. It is worth repeating: statistical adjustments are needed to avoid penalizing schools which serve disadvantaged individuals, such as low income students. If done properly, this will allow us to determine which schools serve disadvantaged individuals and which schools prey on disadvantaged individuals. Gun Violence Below are three ideas on how to reduce gun violence that should be enacted into Federal Law. All three ideas are focused on limiting private gun ownership, which I believe is the root cause of gun violence. While it is better to implement all three ideas, any one of them will help reduce the rate of private gun ownership as well as gun violence. Idea 1: Firearm licensing Inspiration: Massachusetts’ Gun Licensing Law. We should pass a law requiring all individuals purchasing or possessing a firearm to have a fire arm license from an accredited law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the individual’s residence. If the individual needs to transport or store a firearm outside the jurisdiction of the issuing agency, additional licenses will be needed, to cover the jurisdictions where the firearm is to be transported or stored. A fire arm license will also be required to purchase ammunition. The licenses must be renewed annually. At the federal level, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) will grant licenses on an extremely restrictive basis, along with a significant annual fee (inflation adjusted). States will be allowed to determine which state and local law enforcement agencies may issue firearm licenses. The licenses must itemize each firearm that the individual owns or plans on purchasing. Penalties for having a firearm without a firearm license should include a fine, jail time, and (most importantly) confiscation of the firearm. Idea 2: Firearm insurance Each firearm should have a minimum of one million dollars of liability insurance. The minimum insurance requirement should increase over time, until it reached ten million dollars (and will then be inflation adjusted thereafter). The objective is not to secure compensation to gun violence victims. Instead, the objective is to put a financial barrier to gun ownership, based on risk. A duck hunter who wants a shotgun which can only fire three rounds without reloading will have a low insurance rate. However, an individual who wants to buy a three AR-15s will have a higher insurance rate that they might not be able to afford. Penalties for having an uninsured firearm should include a fine, jail time and (most importantly) confiscation of the firearm. Idea 3: Birthdate Phase out Based on Oregon and federal law, the minimum age to possess a firearm is generally 18 (21 for handguns). This restriction should stay in place. No one under the age of 18 should be allowed to buy firearms. However, a new federal law should be passed with an additional birthdate restriction. This will lead to a slow phase-out of private firearm ownership. For example, January 1, 2010 can be selected as the cut-off birth date. Individuals born on or after January 1, 2010 will never be allowed to buy or own firearms. For about four years, the new law will not be relevant, as individuals born after January 1, 2010 are younger than 18. However, starting January 1, 2028, individuals who turn 18 will not gain the right to buy firearms. Regarding the 2nd amendment Implementing these ideas needs to be done carefully, to avoid violating the 2nd amendment. In particular, the legislation should point out that the guns which exist today could not have been envisioned by the authors of the 2nd amendment. When the constitution was written, firearms generally had to be reloaded after each round. The law could exempt any fire arm which requires reloading after each round. In that way, the law does not infringe on the right to bear arms, as “Arms” was defined when the 2nd amendment was written. This argument should be solid. To argue otherwise would mean that the 2nd amendment allows individuals to bear machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, singer missiles, chemical weapons, and biological weapons. If needed: Constitutional amendment While I believe my argument regarding the 2nd amendment is solid, it may be rejected by the court system. In that scenario, we need to amend the constitution. Israel Summary During her tenure in Congress, Suzanne Bonamici has voted to provide over $52 billion in military aid to Israel, a self-declared religious state. I believe this is in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s separation of church and state. As your representative, I will vote against military aid to any religious state. Suzanne Bonamici asserts that she wants a two-state solution for peace. The two-state solution has been pursued for thirty years, to no avail. There is no Palestinian State, there is no peace, and both the Israeli Government as well as the US Government have rejected the creation of a Palestinian State. It is bad policy to keep doing the same thing which has failed for 30 years, hoping for a different result. As your representative, I will be ready with new ideas and different approaches to bring peace to the region. However, a necessary condition for peace is Israel must treat all individuals under its control with equality, regardless of religion. Israel is a self-declared religious state Israel is a self-declared religious state. For example, Israel’s common law of 2018 states: The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people. Suzanne Bonamici’s acknowledges Israel is a religious state Suzanne Bonamici acknowledged that Israel is a religious state by voting for four bills describing Israel as a “Jewish State”. The Constitution requires separation of church and state The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires separation of church and state: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion I interpret this to mean that Congress cannot pass bills which provide military aid to religious states, such as Israel. Suzanne Bonamici funded Israel’s military Despite acknowledging Israel is a religious state, Suzanne Bonamici has voted for thirteen bills providing Israel with over $52 billion in military aid. In 2024 alone, she voted for two of those bills, containing over $17 billion in military aid for Israel. The table below shows the bills for which Suzanne Bonamici voted, that provided military aid to Israel. The final column includes both direct military aid and indirect military aid. The faulted two-state solution In theory: It is faulted The premise of the two-state solution for peace is: There will be a separate state for Jews and a separate state for Arabs. The Jewish state will favor Jews (A Jewish homeland) The Arab state will favor Arabs (A Palestinian homeland) Under this plan, there will be a border between a state that favors Jews and a state that favors Arabs. The risk is that these non-diverse states will slide into extremism. There will be two extremist populations opposite one another. Inevitably, those populations will go to war with each other. In a sense, that was the de facto situation on October 6, 2023. It led to a war. In practice: It has failed It has been more than 30 years since the Oslo 1 accord. There is no Palestinian State. There is no peace. Currently, there is a war, where the majority of those who are dying were born after the Oslo 1 accord was signed in 1993. The Israeli government has rejected a Palestinian State. On April 18, the U.S. Government rejected a Palestinian State by vetoing a UN Security Council Resolution, which would have led to recognition of a Palestinian State. It is clear that the two-state solution has failed. Equality is the solution There are millions of Jews and Arabs who live in the United States. They are living together more peacefully than Jews and Arabs in the Middle East. As a nation, we strive to treat each person with equality, regardless of religion or ethnicity. Our government is constitutionally forbidden from favoring a religion or ethnic group. Our system works, and I am proud of it. For 57 years, Israel has ruled over Israel proper, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank (including East Jerusalem). These are areas of long-term Israeli control. The question is simple: Does every person born in areas of long-term Israeli control have equal rights under Israeli law, regardless of their religion? As long as the answer is no, Palestinians and Israelis will continue to become more extreme, and there will be no peace. Once the answer is yes, Hamas will lose its claimed purpose for existence and there will eventually be peace. Rather, Hamas will lose its ability to recruit people willing die fighting Israel. As your representative, I will vote against any bill that provides Military Aid to Israel, until the answer to the question is yes. Israel deserves a grace period to implement equality. They have had 57 years. Time is up. Opioid Epidemic Opioids Currently, government is not focused enough on preventing opioid addictions. Most opioid addictions can be traced back to a prescription from a doctor. While it is good to provide mitigations such as Naloxone and addiction treatment programs, we need more focus on preventing addictions in the first place. Based on the latest data from the CDC, our current policies are simply not working: (source: https://www.cdc.gov/opioids/basics/epidemic.html) The plot above represents over half a million deaths, with the most significant increase occurring since Suzanne Bonamici assumed office in 2012. Results matter. Our current leadership has failed, and we need new ideas. Below are two ideas to help reduce the rate of opioid addictions and deaths. Idea #1: Require best practices for treatment of pain The Unites States prescribes opioids at a higher rate than any other country, and it follows that we have the highest rates of addictions and deaths. Part of the problem is that we have less regulation of opioid prescriptions than other developed countries. In 2022 the CDC created a Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain. The guideline states when it is better to use non-pharmaceutical therapies or non-opioid drugs to treat pain. Notably, the recommendations are voluntary to “provide flexibility”. I question whether providing “flexibility” to prescribe opioids is a good policy, given that we have the highest rates of opioid prescriptions, addictions and death within the developed world. It is my opinion that it is time for the guideline (or a revision thereof) to be made mandatory. It is within the scope of the federal government to regulate when a drug can be legally prescribed. It is time to use that regulatory power to reduce the number of opioid addictions, and deaths. Idea #2: Develop new therapies While use of the guideline will prevent opioid prescriptions for many cases, there are still “Severe Pain” cases where opioids are the best option for pain management. Rather, even when using the guideline, some people will still be prescribed opioids and will be at risk of addiction. It is my opinion that we need to develop less addictive alternatives for those “Severe Pain” scenarios. It is within the scope of the federal government to invest in research to develop such alternatives. Note that this effort should not be limited to “find a less addictive pill”. Instead, all options need to be explored. For example we need to improve our ability to diagnose and treat the root cause of pain. Tobacco Currently, Oregon and federal law ban the sale of tobacco to individuals under the age of 21. This restriction should stay in place. No one under the age of 21 should ever be allowed to buy tobacco. However, a new federal law should be passed with an additional birthdate restriction. This will lead to a slow phase-out of tobacco usage in this country. For example, January 1, 2010 can be selected as the cut-off birth date. Individuals born on or after January 1, 2010 will never be allowed to buy tobacco products. For about seven years, the new law will not be relevant, as individuals born after January 1, 2010 are younger than 21. However, starting January 1, 2031, individuals who turn 21 will not gain the right to buy tobacco products.[1] |
” |
| —Jamil Ahmad’s campaign website (2024)[2] | ||
Campaign finance summary
Note: The finance data shown here comes from the disclosures required of candidates and parties. Depending on the election or state, this may represent only a portion of all the funds spent on their behalf. Satellite spending groups may or may not have expended funds related to the candidate or politician on whose page you are reading this disclaimer. Campaign finance data from elections may be incomplete. For elections to federal offices, complete data can be found at the FEC website. Click here for more on federal campaign finance law and here for more on state campaign finance law.
See also
2024 Elections
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Jamil Ahmad’s campaign website, “Issues,” accessed April 24, 2024
