Issuu

FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2025

GRANTSPASSTRIBUNE.COM | $0.00

Recall Fever in Oregon: Local and State Movements Test Political Fault Lines By John Oliver Across Oregon, the word “recall” is being used more often and with greater intensity than in years past. From Salem to Grants Pass, campaigns are underway to remove elected officials before their terms end, testing both the legal mechanics of recall and the political will of voters. While the term may be applied broadly, the recalls now in motion differ dramatically in scale, stakes, and potential consequences. The growing frequency of these campaigns raises a fundamental question: will these recalls truly reshape leadership in Oregon, or simply expose deeper political divides? The most high-profile effort is the campaign to recall Governor Tina Kotek. Spearheaded by Oregon for the People and Chief Petitioner Bill Minnix, the movement has grown rapidly since its launch earlier this year. Organizers describe what they call “unprecedented momentum,” with volunteers stationed at parks, businesses, and community events across both urban and rural communities. They report growing voter participation, including a notable increase in activity on vote.gov as some residents update their party registrations to support the campaign. Dissatisfaction with state leadership has emerged from multiple fronts. Critics point to Oregon’s tax structure, sanctuary policies, homelessness, crime, and what many describe as a lack of responsiveness from the governor’s office. Governor Kotek, who took office in January 2023, has faced contentious debates over

spending priorities and education funding. Her administration argues that its policies address long-standing systemic problems, while opponents contend that state government remains out of touch with residents’ daily realities. The legal hurdles for a gubernatorial recall are significant. Petitioners must collect signatures from at least 15 percent of those who voted in the most recent governor’s race. Those signatures are then verified by the Secretary of State’s office. If the number is sufficient, a statewide recall election is triggered, giving voters the option to remove the governor before the end of her term. Minnix has already retained legal counsel to challenge what organizers describe as unclear wording on the petition cover sheet and signature validation

instructions. They argue that vague standards could result in legitimate signatures being thrown out, potentially stalling the campaign before voters ever see a ballot. While that legal battle plays out at the state level, another recall movement is underway in Josephine County targeting Commissioners Chris Barnett and Andreas Blech. On August 26th, 2025, Jim Goodwin and the Restore Josephine County recall committee filed the necessary paperwork to launch the effort, with Eve Arce overseeing the financial reporting. Organizers must gather more than 7,500 valid signatures for each commissioner to place the recalls on the ballot. Petition tables began appearing almost immediately outside key public locations like the Grants Pass Post

Office, signaling an aggressive timeline. The local recall petitions are built on months of controversy surrounding county leadership. Barnett and Blech, both elected in early 2025, have faced sharp criticism over transparency, governance, and financial decision-making. Barnett’s actions have drawn particular scrutiny. Petitioners cite his support for a measure that temporarily shifted authority to a single unelected commissioner, triggering lawsuits, layoffs, and sudden departmental changes. They also highlight his role in a voluntary resignation program that cost the county more than $700,000 in severance payments, which opponents describe as mismanaged. Compounding those issues is Barnett’s business history. Earlier this year, the Oregon Supreme Court upheld a now $4.8 million judgment against him, his wife, and his company in a case involving elder financial abuse and breach of contract tied to a resort property sale. While unrelated to his county role, petitioners argue the judgment raises serious questions about his fitness for public office. He is also accused of canceling the Grants Pass Library District lease agreement, promoting material hostile to the library’s interests, and threatening citizens and members of the press. Blech’s petition focuses on management style, alleged disrespect toward constituents, and a lack of transparency. Opponents point to the commissioners’ move to centralize control

•

see RECALL, page 3

Trump Administration Says Furloughed Federal Workers May Not Automatically Receive Back Pay After Shutdown By Ellen Ward In a significant policy clarification during the ongoing federal government shutdown, the Trump administration has stated that furloughed federal employees will not be automatically entitled to back pay once the shutdown concludes. The position, outlined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), raises questions about how hundreds of thousands of federal workers will recover financially after weeks without pay. The announcement marks a shift from what has become an expectation in recent history. In previous shutdowns, Congress has typically voted to approve retroactive pay for affected federal employees. However, the administration’s budget office emphasized that back pay is not guaranteed by law and depends entirely on congressional action after the government reopens. This means that the decision to compensate workers for missed pay periods will ultimately rest with lawmakers, not the executive branch. The issue affects a broad spectrum of federal employees, including civilian staff at various agencies, administrative personnel, law enforcement officers, park rangers,

and others whose positions are considered non-essential during a funding lapse. While some employees are required to continue working without pay due to their roles being classified as essential, many others have been furloughed entirely, receiving no compensation during the shutdown period. The uncertainty surrounding back pay adds to the financial strain already experienced by federal workers. Many employees live paycheck to paycheck, and previous shutdowns have shown that even short delays in pay can have lasting impacts on personal finances, including difficulties covering mort-

gages, rent, utilities, and other essential expenses. If Congress decides against authorizing back pay this time, it would mark a major departure from precedent and could deepen the economic effects of the shutdown on families and communities across the country. The OMB’s stance also carries broader implications for future shutdowns. Automatic back pay has often been seen as a mitigating factor, softening the blow for affected workers and reducing political pressure during funding stalemates. Removing that expectation introduces a new element of

uncertainty and raises the stakes for both employees and lawmakers during budget negotiations. As the shutdown continues, pressure is mounting on Congress to pass funding legislation to reopen the government and decide whether back pay will be issued. Federal employee unions and advocacy groups are closely monitoring the situation, preparing to lobby for retroactive pay measures once legislative discussions resume. For now, furloughed workers are left waiting for a resolution, unsure whether the pay they missed during the shutdown will ever be recovered. The Trump administration’s clarification underscores that this outcome is a political decision, not an automatic guarantee.