Vance Day

Ballotpedia does not currently cover this office or maintain this page. Please contact us with any updates.

Vance Day

Prior offices

Oregon 3rd Judicial District Circuit Courts

---

Report an officeholder change

Elections and appointments

Last election

May 17, 2022

Education

Bachelor's

Warner Pacific University, 1984

Law

Willamette University School of Law, 1991

Personal

Birthplace

Portland, Ore.

Religion

Christian

Profession

Of counsel

Contact

Campaign website

Campaign Facebook

Campaign X

Campaign YouTube

Personal LinkedIn

Vance Day was a judge of the Oregon 3rd Judicial District Circuit Courts. He assumed office in 2011. He left office in 2018.

Day ran for election for the Position 3 judge of the Oregon Court of Appeals. He lost in the primary on May 17, 2022.

Day completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2022. Click here to read the survey answers.

Day was appointed to the 3rd Judicial District by Governor John Kitzhaber (D) in August 2011. In March 2018, the Oregon Supreme Court suspended Day without pay for three years following an ethics investigation. As a result of the suspension, Day did not serve out the remainder of his term and was barred from seeking re-election to the bench until his suspension expired.

Biography

Vance Day was born in Portland, Oregon. Day received a bachelor's degree in social science/education from Warner Pacific College in 1984 and a J.D. from the Willamette University College of Law in 1991. His career experience includes working as of counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech and an attorney in private practice. He served as the chairman of the Oregon Republican Party from 2005 to 2009. He has been affiliated with the Oregon State Bar, the Boy Scouts of America, and the Promise Keepers.

Elections

2022

See also: Oregon intermediate appellate court elections, 2022

Nonpartisan primary election

Nonpartisan primary for Oregon Court of Appeals Position 3

Incumbent Darleen Ortega won election outright against Vance Day in the primary for Oregon Court of Appeals Position 3 on May 17, 2022.

		Candidate	%	Votes
✔		Darleen Ortega (Nonpartisan)	62.2	547,660
		Vance Day (Nonpartisan)	37.5	330,454
		Other/Write-in votes	0.3	2,473

---

	Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source	Total votes: 880,587
= 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

To view Day's endorsements in the 2022 election, please click here.

2012

See also: Oregon judicial elections, 2012

Day was elected after running unopposed in November 2012.

Campaign themes

2022

Video for Ballotpedia

Video submitted to Ballotpedia Released April 29, 2022

Ballotpedia survey responses

See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection

Vance Day completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2022. The survey questions appear in bold and are followed by Day's responses. Candidates are asked three required questions for this survey, but they may answer additional optional questions as well.

Expand all | Collapse all

Who are you? Tell us about yourself.

I am a sixth-generation descendant of Oregon Trail pioneers, born and raised in the Willamette Valley. I graduated magna cum laude from Warner Pacific University and earned my Doctor of Jurisprudence degree from Willamette University College of Law in 1991. I am an accomplished trial lawyer who has tried over 300 bench and jury trials. In 2011, I was appointed to serve as a Marion County Circuit Court Judge and was elected in 2012 to a full six-year term. While serving on the bench, I worked with a team to start a veteran’s treatment court to address the challenges of homelessness, mental illness, and substance abuse that lead veterans into our criminal justice system to assist them toward recovery and a fresh start. Following my term as Judge, I served as President of the Christian men’s group, Promise Keepers, which ministers to hundreds of thousands of men globally. More recently, I have been traveling throughout Oregon, meeting with community groups on behalf of the James Madison Center for Free Speech, focusing on the importance of constitutional liberties and how to respond to government overreach. I have been married for over 35 years, have three children, and reside in Central Oregon.

Please list below 3 key messages of your campaign. What are the main points you want voters to remember about your goals for your time in office?

• Equality: It is my firm belief that our laws should be applied to all people in all places at all times equally. Novel legal theories to the contrary must not corrupt the fundamental promise of equal justice under the law. Our justice system must never become a political punishment and reward system used to increase the power and control of ruling political elites.
• Freedom: It is my heartfelt conviction that government in a civil society under our Constitutions exists to respect and preserve our freedoms, not to erode or cancel them in favor of short-term administrative convenience or corrupt political gain.
• Rule of Law: Every citizen has the right to expect that our Constitution and the laws that operate within it mean what they say and don’t mean what they don’t say in a concrete way and that these laws enacted by the People’s elected representatives prevail over the arbitrary and occasionally capricious whims of temporary elected officials. One look no further than our state’s largest city to see what it looks like when the Rule of Law is subverted by rising lawlessness while average citizens feel helpless rampant crime, anarchy, violence, destruction, and intimidation by politically favored groups.

What areas of public policy are you personally passionate about?

As a candidate for a judicial position in Oregon, the state judicial code of ethics does not permit me to comment on specific areas of public policy. In general terms, I am very passionate about the importance of our Federal and State Constitutions in protecting our most cherished individual rights, limiting the power of elected and appointed government officials, and ensuring these officials operate in a transparent and accountable manner to the public. I have a deep affinity for preserving the right to due process of criminal defendants, victims of governmental abuse of power, and crime victims alike. The Oregon Court of Appeals plays a crucial role in reviewing the rules and procedures enacted and followed by state government agencies. This role is needed more than ever in our state, and I take it very seriously.

Who do you look up to? Whose example would you like to follow, and why?

I greatly admire the work of Frederick Douglass and the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. Both understood the unique nature of a constitutional republic and the vision that “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” Though this ideal has seldom been achieved during our nation's existence, it is an ideal we must strive for and work daily to bring about.
Both Douglas and King understood that each human being was of ultimate value because the imago Dei is deep inside each of us. They regarded each human as unique and worthy to be treated with respect, dignity, and equality, regardless of their background, nationality, race, or sex. If we follow the example and the message of Douglas and King, we could revolutionize our culture and the legacy of liberty we leave to those who follow.

Is there a book, essay, film, or something else you would recommend to someone who wants to understand your political philosophy?

Yes, I think of the bestselling book, “Band of Brothers” by Stephen E. Ambrose. HBO adapted it into a miniseries that won six Emmys. For most Americans, the human cost of breaking the back of Nazism is known through the book’s portrayal of the G.I’s of “Easy Company,” one of whom was my friend and mentor, Judge Buck Compton. From them, I see three powerful lessons that apply to politics.

First, being an American is a privilege for which no sacrifice is too great. Thomas Paine said, “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must like men undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” The men of Easy Company set an example by defending the liberty on which our nation was founded. As Buck said, “I consider three years and a wound a small price to pay for the privilege of being born in America.”

Second, your “band of brothers” makes all the difference. Easy Company fought desperate battles against fearsome odds by drawing strength and encouragement from one another. Seemingly ordinary people can band together and summon each other to a level of success they never dreamed possible. More than ever, we need to band together in public service for our state.

Third, America is the land of limitless opportunity. In the miniseries, there is a scene on a large divided highway. On both sides, as far as the eye can see, American G.I.’s advance in a mechanized armada of vehicles the likes of which the world had never seen. In the center of the highway, as far as the eye can see, surrendered German soldiers walk in the opposite direction, some on horse-drawn carts. In exasperation, a G.I. yells at them, “Say hello to Ford and General F****** Motors! … You have horses! What were you thinking?” But the might of our country will only endure to the extent that we preserve equality, freedom, and the rule of law. Buck Compton put it this way: “You can have anything or be anything you want in this country if you put your mind to it. Don’t let anybody take that away from you."

What characteristics or principles are most important for an elected official?

These are the most important qualities for a judge:

- The ability to master the law, the facts of the case, and the implications of a decision. Undergirding this must be the humility to learn continually and listen conscientiously.
- The ability to work collegially, constructively, and respectfully with other judges, attorneys, plaintiffs and defendants, and staff.
- The ability to communicate clearly and unambiguously both orally and in writing.
- The ability to work hard and for the long haul.
- A deep respect and deference for the rights and freedoms of the individual to self-govern while adhering to the principles of individual accountability and personal responsibility under the law.
- A sincere desire to listen to and understand citizens' concerns regarding the preservation of their liberty under our Constitutions.

- Character, as defined by the words of renowned College Basketball Coach John Wooden, “Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are.”

What do you believe are the core responsibilities for someone elected to this office?

- Provide diligent oversight of the state government administrative departments and rulemaking process with strict constructionist adherence to the OR and US constitutions. This is a core function of the court of appeals.

- Uphold the rule of law and separation of powers as intended by our Founders.
- Promote equality before the law for all.
- Respect individual freedom.
- Ensure our system of justice is not weaponized for political purposes either against victims of crime, law-abiding citizens, or criminal defendants,

- Efficiently hear and adjudicate cases in a timely manner since justice delayed is justice denied.

What is the first historical event that happened in your lifetime that you remember? How old were you at the time?

I have very clear memories of the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. I recall seeing the evening news with my parents when I was seven years old. The lead prosecutor who convicted Sirhan Sirhan, Lynn D. “Buck” Compton, later became one of my best friends in later life and was the one who encouraged me to become a Circuit Judge in Oregon.

What was your very first job? How long did you have it?

I worked for Gelati Roberto (Bob’s Ice Cream) during high school and worked there for about a year before taking a job as a janitor at Grandma’s Cookies.

What was the last song that got stuck in your head?

“I Can’t Wait” Nu Shooz (1986 - Atlantic Records)

What is something that has been a struggle in your life?

In May 2014, I quietly asked my staff to refer same-sex wedding requests to other judges. In Oregon, judges may perform weddings, but they are not required to do so. I recused myself because I am a Christian whose firmly held religious beliefs include defining marriage as only between a woman and a man.

This simple exercise of constitutionally protected freedom of conscience in no way prevented same-sex couples from being married. However, political activists within our legal and governmental system unleashed a firestorm of false charges against me which centered around my Veterans’ Treatment Court and a Navy SEAL who participated in our program. His multiple DUI convictions made him a felon.

The SEAL briefly handled an unloaded gun while I was in the same room attempting to repair his pellet stove. I self-reported the unloaded gun incident. When the Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability came down to investigate, a colleague falsely reported to the commission that I discriminated against gays and lesbians.

The commission took action. I knew I had done nothing wrong, so I decided to fight back, which resulted in nearly four years of litigation and over $1 million dollars in legal fees. The political power structures then launched a vicious but unsuccessful attack to drive me from the bench, cancel my law license, strip me of his possessions, ruin my reputation and even have me convicted for crimes that never occurred.
In Oct. 2018, the State’s criminal case was dismissed, and the house of cards constructed against me collapsed from the weight of its own preposterousness.

With nine months remaining in my tenure, the Supreme Court of Oregon, in what several have characterized as a cultural compromise, decided to suspend me as a judge for three years. It was a curious decision. The Oregon Supreme Court had the power to remove me at any time but didn’t. If I was such a bad judge, why didn’t they remove me? The facts speak for themselves.

Are there any little-known powers or responsibilities held by this office that you believe more people should be aware of?

In Oregon, there are three levels of courts.

The first level is the circuit court. It's the trial court. It does everything from death penalty to divorce, constitutional to contracts, everything in between. Trial judges are like the referees on the football field, they'll throw flags and call penalties. They manage the trial process.

But the two courts above the circuit court are the most important courts in this state. The Court of Appeals has “mandatory jurisdiction,” meaning every single appeal that happens, whether civil or criminal (with the exception of a few little categories), must go to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals has to consider every single case. If you knock on the Court of Appeals door, and they have to open it and make a ruling.

The court above that, the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon, is a discretionary court, meaning they can pick and choose the cases they consider. They focus on cases where there’s confusion in the law.

Because the Oregon Supreme Court hears so few cases, the majority of precedents in the law are actually set by the Court of Appeal.

How would you describe your legal philosophy?

I am committed to faithfully applying the Constitution and statutes by relying on their original public meaning. This is vital because observing the original intent of the Constitution and our laws means that “We the People” make the laws through our elected officials—as opposed to judges making it up as they go. This strict constructionist viewpoint or “Antonin-Scalia” viewpoint means being faithful to the law as written and applying it.

I am committed to being fair and impartial, putting facts ahead of my personal opinions. This is vital because America is a nation of laws—not personal preferences. The law must be applied to all people, in all places, at all times, in the same manner. In other words, the rule of law does not mean “rules for thee, but not for me.” Those who swear an oath to the Constitution and then use their office to diminish, distort, or even discard the Constitution violate their oath and harm the people the Constitution is designed to protect.

I believe that a judge’s role is limited. This is vital because one of the purposes of the judiciary is to be a check against the excesses of the other two branches of government — the Executive and the Legislative — not a substitute for them.

I believe judges should never make up the law. This is vital to prevent “outcome-oriented decisions” coming from judges who have first decided what the ruling should be and then twist and manipulate the law to justify their opinion. Original constructionists like myself approach the law entirely differently: the law must justify the decision—never vice versa.

Each of these is vital to ensure that our freedoms are protected and that the rule of law is enforced equally. And they represent the bedrock principles of my judicial philosophy.

Is there a particular judge, past or present, whom you admire?

I immediately think of my friend and mentor, former California Court of Appeals Judge Buck Compton, who taught me courage under fire. Buck parachuted into France on D-Day, and his exploits as a member of “Easy Company” were told in the bestselling book and HBO miniseries, “Band of Brothers.”

Buck’s D-Day began early on the morning of June 6, 1944. As the green light glowed, a young second lieutenant shuffled up to the door of the C-47 and leaped out into the darkness. By day’s end, Lt. Compton and his company would engage dug-in German paratroopers, superior in number and equipment, defeat them and assist in destroying four 105 mm cannons hammering American infantry on Utah beach. For his bravery and leadership under fire, he was awarded the Silver Star, the third-highest personal decoration for valor in combat.

Buck’s heroism didn’t end when he returned to his hometown of Los Angeles. After the war, Buck went on to finish his degree at UCLA. While working as a detective for the LAPD, he completed law school and passed the California Bar. Even though Buck had a law degree, he stayed on the police force.

Eventually, Buck was recruited as a prosecutor for Los Angeles County and worked his way up to chief deputy prosecutor. In 1969, he convicted Sirhan Sirhan for the assassination of Senator Robert Kennedy. In 1970, Governor Ronald Reagan appointed him to the California Court of Appeals, where he served until his retirement in 1990.

I met Buck back in 2000 as a result of producing a documentary on that battle, and we developed a friendship that lasted until his death in 2012. We traveled together for ten years all through North America and Europe, even lecturing on leadership and history at the White House and before Members of Congress.

It was Buck who encouraged me to place my name into consideration for a Circuit Court Judge appointment. He was thrilled when the Governor appointed me to the bench and traveled to Oregon to speak at my investiture.

Do you believe that empathy is an important quality for a judge?

Yes. Empathy is “the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner.” True empathy as a judge emanates from two things:

First, empathy comes from the crucible of life. I have worked as a tradesman, a journalist, a businessman, a trial attorney, a professor, the head of an NGO, and a Veterans’ Court judge. I also know what it’s like to have the boot of the government on my neck as a criminal defendant.

From these experiences, I understand:
- The need for all sides to be fully heard.
- The need for the process to be transparent and understandable.
- The need for justice to prevail—and the devastation when it doesn’t.
- The need for rapid outcomes. For all too many, justice delayed is justice denied.
- The anger that can occur when a system that is supposed to result in justice instead sides the party with the deepest pockets and the most time to grind down the other side.
- The decisions made as an appellate judge not only impact the case before me but multitudes of other cases.

Second, empathy comes from understanding how the law is used and misused. When the law is applied as intended, the result is justice. When the law isn’t applied as intended, the result is retribution. I know what it’s like to have the legal system weaponized against me by those so opposed to firmly held beliefs that they sought to end my career, take away my license to practice law, strip me of his possessions, ruin my reputation, and even have me imprisoned. And even when the charges collapsed from the weight of their own ridiculousness, I was still left with legal fees of over $1 million. The best watchdog to ensure that rights are respected and due process followed is a judge who has been subjected to abuse of such rights.

Have you ever been rated by a Bar Association? If so, what was the rating?

I believe I was during my appointment process to the bench in 2011. My memory is that it was a high rating due to my expertise and experience, but I do not have a specific memory of the rating.

Why are you running for this particular court seat?

It allows me to serve all of Oregon.

It allows me to apply the law to consequential issues with enduring impact. As my mentor, the late judge Buck Compton of Band of Brothers fame, observed, “The Courts of Appeal issues written opinions, which are published in law books and serve as precedents in future cases. Because the Supreme Court only takes a limited number of cases, the Courts of Appeal has the last word in 90% of all cases.”

My legal philosophy is not represented on the court. Democracy is rooted in the belief that in a free marketplace of ideas, the best ideas win. Right now, there is a remarkable lack of diversity of judicial philosophy in the Court of Appeals. If elected, I will be the only “strict constructionist” on the Court of Appeals. My perspective will strengthen the Court of Appeals.

Oregonians are asking, ‘What happened to Portland?’ When you step away from the rule of law and move into a paradigm of rule by “who deserves what,” the binary choice of oppressor or oppressed supplants the rule of law with the rule of people. America is a free constitutional republic because it is a nation of laws. And laws should be applied equally to all people in all places at all times in the same manner. When a government like Portland stopped applying the law equally and allowed 110 days of riots to occur, they aided and abetted lawlessness. Our state is looking for a judge who believes that the law should be applied equally to all people, in all situations, no matter what.

As a former circuit court judge, I know how to work within the judiciary to bring about consensus.

Do you believe that it's beneficial for a judge to have previous experience in government or politics?

Yes–but for different reasons.

It can be helpful for a judge to have previous experience in government because it can give them a better understanding of how government actually works, which in turn can help them be effective in applying the laws to government.

It can be helpful for a judge to have previous experience in politics because it can give them a greater understanding of the aspirations of the people and their hopes and fears for their judiciary system.

What is your primary concern about today's legal system in your state?

Our government was intentionally divided into executive, legislative, and judicial branches to prevent government overreach from eroding personal freedom. The legislative branch enacts laws. The executive branch carries out those laws. And the judicial branch interprets the law.

The reality in today’s Oregon is vastly different. We have governors who issue orders, gridlocked legislators who can’t make laws, and a judiciary who, unconcerned with the original intent of laws, uses the law as a pretext to impose their own vision of America.

What does that look like? Go to the boarded-up Justice Center in downtown Portland over by the tents and see for yourself. It’s the building with the quote from George Washington enshrined at the entrance: “The due administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government.”

Oregon is experiencing what happens when “the due administration of justice” is set aside:

- One set of laws for the elite and the entitled while average, hardworking Oregonians are held to a different, harsher standard.
- The erosion of the liberty to think and speak and live and worship according to your conscience.
- Justice centers boarded up, tents going up, and statues coming down.

- Backlogs and logjams delaying and all-too-often denying justice.

What do you consider the greatest opportunity for the legal system in your state?

The greatest opportunity for the legal system in our state is to enforce the rule of law with diligence. America was designed to be a nation of laws. In a constitutional republic, we do not allow governmental elites to rule over every aspect of our lives. The cornerstone of our republic is self-government. The power of the political class is limited by the Constitution. As noted above, the law should be applied to all people, in all places, at all times, in the same manner. In other words, the rule of law does not mean “rules for thee, but not for me.” Unfortunately, our history reveals some in government use their power inappropriately and tell the average citizen how to live, work, and play. “We the People” instituted civil government to serve the public – not to force the public to serve the government. As such, the judiciary has a constitutional role in providing a check against the excesses of the other two branches of government: The Executive and the Legislative. That is what the Constitution demands, and every judge in Oregon is required to “solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Oregon.”

Those who swear an oath to the Constitution and then use their office to distort the Constitution or use it as a document they can easily manipulate, violate their oath and do harm to the people which the Constitution is designed to protect.

Our legal system must also be diligent. The Oregon Court of Appeals was created in 1969 to essentially be an “adjudicative” court. It was designed to adjudicate and give the people a timely decision. Currently, the backlog of cases and the time it takes to issue an opinion is harmful to the litigants and the public.

Why do some cases take 24 to 28 months from argument to produce an opinion? This must be addressed because “justice delayed, is justice denied.” The public deserves a timely answer.

Would you be interested in serving on a higher court in the future? If so, which court appeals to you?

Yes, but with an important distinction. It is not unusual for Court of Appeals judges to step down before the end of their term to bypass the electorate and allow the governor to appoint their successor. This hands a considerable electoral advantage to the appointee, who is now considered the incumbent even though they never stood for election. Here’s why: judicial races are “down-ballot,” meaning they come toward the end of a long list of other races, initiatives, and propositions. Furthermore, because the race is nonpartisan, the only thing (other than their name) that distinguishes one candidate from another on the ballot is whether they are an “incumbent.” This allows the political machine to at once follow the law requiring judges to be elected while at the same making the election of their appointed candidate virtually inevitable.

Since my opponent was appointed many years ago by the governor and yet has presented herself in each election as the “incumbent,” I have pledged to serve out my term and not resign before serving my entire 6-year term.

That said, if a position became available on the Oregon Supreme Court or a different area of government where I felt I would do more good for the citizens of Oregon, I would strongly consider it.

Do you believe that Bar Association ratings are an accurate reflection of a judge’s ability?

Too often, in my view, bar association ratings have missed the mark under the influence of internal politics and ideological group think instead of being a fair and sober assessment of legal qualifications and experience. Being an insider in the bar association and currying favor is completely unrelated to performance on the bench and should not be a deciding factor in these ratings.

Note: Ballotpedia reserves the right to edit Candidate Connection survey responses. Any edits made by Ballotpedia will be clearly marked with [brackets] for the public. If the candidate disagrees with an edit, he or she may request the full removal of the survey response from Ballotpedia.org. Ballotpedia does not edit or correct typographical errors unless the candidate's campaign requests it.

Noteworthy events

Allegations of ethics violations (2015)

On September 8, 2015, the Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability announced several ethics violation charges against Judge Vance Day. The charges included permitting a veteran convicted of a felony to handle firearms, screening or having his staff screen wedding applicants for whether they were same-sex applicants, and hanging a picture of Adolph Hitler in the Marion County Courthouse.

In his 44-page response to the allegations, Day denied any wrongdoing and said the commission was targeting him for his "firmly held religious beliefs rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition that defines marriage as between a female and a male." The judge stated he had forgotten about the veteran's felon status when allowing him to handle family firearms. He confirmed he had asked his staff to redirect same-sex marriage applicants to other judges because it conflicted with his religious beliefs, which was in accordance with Oregon state law. Day explained that the painting of Hitler was one of three paintings he had hung to emphasize how a liberal democracy overcame fascism.

Read Judge Day's response to all of the allegations against him in full here.

The Oregon Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability conducted a hearing from November 9, 2015, through November 20, 2015. On January 25, 2016, the commission announced its recommendation that Day be removed from office.

Read the Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability's full recommendation here.

Day appealed the commission's findings before the Oregon Supreme Court. The case was argued before the court on June 14, 2017. The court issued its ruling in March 2018, suspending Day without pay for three years.

Indictments (2016)

In November 2016, a grand jury indicted Day of two counts of illegal possession of a firearm by a felon and two counts of first-degree official misconduct in relation to the two incidents where he allowed the man with a felony conviction to handle a gun.

See also

2022 Elections

What's on the ballot? U.S. Congress U.S. Congress special elections State executives State legislatures State courts Ballot measures Municipal government School boards Election analysis hub

Government

Who represents me? U.S. Congress State executives State legislators State courts Ballot measures Municipal government School boards

Newsletters

The Heart of the Primaries The Daily Brew The Weekly Brew The Ballot Bulletin Checks and Balances Economy and Society Hall Pass Number of the Day Robe & Gavel Union Station

External links

Search Google News for this topic

Candidate

Oregon Court of Appeals Position 3

Website

Facebook

X

YouTube

Personal

LinkedIn

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Victoria Edwards • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox

Oregon courts

---

Federal courts:

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals • U.S. District Court: District of Oregon • U.S. Bankruptcy Court: District of Oregon

State courts:

Oregon Supreme Court • Oregon Court of Appeals • Oregon Circuit Courts • Oregon Tax Court • Oregon County Courts • Oregon Justice Courts • Oregon Municipal Courts

State resources:

Courts in Oregon • Oregon judicial elections • Judicial selection in Oregon