Avakian's primary win shows price of leaders' silence: Editorial

MM1avakian.JPG

Democratic candidate for Oregon's Secretary of State Brad Avakian poses with supporter Linda Campbell at a gathering at the Waypost on Tuesday, May 17, 2016, in Portland.

(The Associated Press)

Many Oregonians may be feeling heartburn over Brad Avakian's win in Tuesday's Democratic primary for secretary of state, with good reason. But while a crowded field of candidates, negative advertising and an effective appeal to uninformed voters helped propel him to his win, political and civic leaders should consider the part their own silence played as well.

As Avakian campaigned on promises of using the position to avenge the environment, unmask corporate evildoers and ensure pay equality for all, too few of those leaders spoke up to tell voters just how badly Avakian's metastasizing vision fit the responsibilities of the position.

Some may be regretting their silence now that Avakian handily dispatched his two well-qualified challengers, Val Hoyle and Richard Devlin. Both campaigned on more disciplined platforms that focused on carrying out the job's election and public-sector auditing responsibilities with the objectivity and temperance they require. Now Democrats are faced with the prospect of backing in the general election a candidate who uses his power and position to advance his personal interests, with little attention to boundaries, laws or Oregonians' best interests.

Is this what Democrats stand for?

Oregonian editorials

reflect the collective opinion of The Oregonian/OregonLive editorial board, which operates independently of the newsroom.

are Helen Jung, Erik Lukens, Steve Moss and Len Reed.

To respond to this editorial:

Post your comment below, submit a

,

or write a

.

If you have questions about

the opinion section,

contact Erik Lukens, editorial and commentary editor,

at

or 503-221-8142.

Avakian's past includes a number of instances that reveal his borderless view of the world. For example, in 2005, during his waning days as a legislator, he emailed lobbyists his resume, asking for help finding work. An Oregonian story from 2011 established just how much time the labor commissioner was spending on the campaign trail in his unsuccessful congressional bid rather than in his office.

But the clearest example of his disregard for law and fairness came in his decision last year in the Sweet Cakes by Melissa discrimination case brought by the Bureau of Labor and Industries, which he heads. The primary focus of that dispute has been the bakery's refusal to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple because, the owners said, doing so would violate their religious beliefs. Avakian rightly found that the owners, Aaron and Melissa Klein, violated a state law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

But what many overlook is Avakian's baffling decision that the Kleins also violated a separate provision that prohibits advertising an intent to discriminate. How? In interviews with reporters explaining what happened and in a sign posted on their shuttered business declaring their opinion that the state is wrong.

Consider one of the offending passages, which was taken from a February 2014 radio interview. The reporter asks Klein what happened during the January 2013 cake refusal. Klein responds: "Well, as far as how it unfolded, it was just, you know, business as usual. We had a bride come in. She wanted to try some wedding cake. Return customer. Came in, sat down. I simply asked the bride and groom's first name and date of the wedding. She kind of giggled and informed me it was two brides. At that point, I apologized. I said, 'I'm very sorry, I feel like you may have wasted your time. You know, we don't do same-sex marriage, same-sex wedding cakes.' And she got upset, noticeably, and I understand that. Got up, walked out and you know, that was, I figured the end of it."

Most people would see that passage and understand that for what it was: Aaron Klein was giving a verbatim account of what happened on the day he refused the wedding cake order. In fact, the administrative law judge who first considered the allegation agreed, finding that the comments did not amount to publication of a future intent to discriminate.

"These statements described what happened on January 17, 2013, and thoughts and discussions the Kleins had before January 2013, not what the Kleins intended to do in the future," the judge wrote, adding that finding a violation "requires drawing an inference of future intent from the Kleins' statements of religious belief that the forum is not willing to draw."

Avakian, however, argued that the comments along with other statements, such as the Kleins' sign that vowed the couple would "continue to stay strong," did show a discriminatory intent going forward.

You can find the Kleins' refusal to serve a lesbian couple abhorrent and illegal and still object to Avakian's overreach. You don't have to be a lawyer to recognize this parsing and cherrypicking as a troubling assault by the government on free speech. Avakian has said, in effect, that the law prohibits people in the Kleins' position even from recounting the past and promising to fight for their values.

Oregonians who value free speech should be appalled, and this portion of Avakian's order should have sparked swift condemnation from political leaders and civil liberties advocates alike.

Apparently, that's not how we do things in Oregon. Not only was there no outcry from political leaders over Avakian's overreach, but the ACLU of Oregon -- which is supposed to defend the liberties of even unpopular people -- actually defended Avakian's bizarre finding.

Avakian's comments in the campaign however, did prompt several newspapers in addition to The Oregonian/OregonLive to warn voters against selecting him. The (Salem) Statesman Journal advised voters to "scratch him off your list," while The (Bend) Bulletin noted that Avakian's push for audits of private companies caused it "real concern" over such a "tremendously intrusive" proposal. And Willamette Week said it is "crucial that voters rally behind anybody but Avakian," criticizing him for "pledging to be all things to all people in a cynical attempt to seduce uninformed voters."

But from Oregon's political class, especially prominent Democrats who are familiar with the requirements of the secretary of state's office, the strengths of Avakian's opponents and the problems with Avakian's candidacy?

Practically crickets.

It's better, apparently, to elevate an unsuitable candidate to the state's second highest office than speak up and make waves.

What ultimately will be the price of silence? We may soon find out.

- The Oregonian/OregonLive editorial board

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.