Bill Meyer Show Podcast - Sponsored by Clouser Drilling www.ClouserDrilling.com - 11-07-25_FRIDAY_7AM

Episode Date: November 7, 2025

11-07-25_FRIDAY_7AM

The Bill Myers Show podcast is sponsored by Klausur drilling. They've been leading the way in southern Oregon well drilling for over 50 years. Find out more about them at Klausor drilling.com. Oregon Supreme Court ended up hearing Measure 114 yesterday. Wanted to talk more about that with Kevin Sterrett. He had mentioned this was coming, and we didn't know how they were going to talk. Sometimes you can read the tea leaves. Other times maybe the judges are just pretending to be objective.

I don't know. But Kevin Starritt from Oregon Firearms Federation, Oregon Firearms.org. Welcome to the show. And I wanted to first mention to you, Kevin, my observation of the way that our local paper, Rogue Valley Times, one of them reported here, that Measure 114 case in Oregon Supreme Court pits gun ownership tradition against public safety concerns. So it's kind of like we have a voting tradition and we have a free speech tradition. Did you notice how they took the right out of it? the actual constitutional rights out of it, but that's not unusual, is it? I think this is why outlets like that are disappearing, you know, that these cartel and

media are just evaporating with the rise of alternative media, which can be, in some cases, ridiculous, but at least it gives you an option to weed through stuff. It's kind of like, you know, the videos that are available on X now, which I don't recommend that people spend too much time there because it is so, it's really bad for your soul and so addictive, but the fact is it's the only way we'd ever know the truth. You know, you would never know the truth about what's going on on the Catam Avenue in Portland if you left it up to rags like the Oregonian and the local TV stations that are blatant, just absolute blatant liars. And yeah, are they still pretty much trying to make it look much happier? And then, you know, as you see Antifa switch to like inflatable fraud. outfits or something like that, you know, it's so, it's so agenda-based, you know? It's clowns like Ron Wyden, who will post, you know, a tweet, but there still tweets now that it's ex-tweet of himself with his pumpkin saying, everything's wonderful, while

simultaneously the very next post is, you know, people shining lasers in cop's eyes, and there, you know, people getting beat up and smacked around, and, you know, the street covered with supplies provided by communists to the rioters down there. But it's a little bit more transparent, the only way we actually get the truth, and you still have to kind of dig through it because everybody on both sides comes with their biases and their angles, but you get to see what you get to see. And it's not happy people in inflatable costumes. It is violent revolutionaries, something I've been telling Republicans in Oregon for about five years

now, violent Marxist revolutionaries. And now what we're seeing in places like Portland are. women who appear to be your average housewife ramming their cars into federal agents, you know, SUVs and stuff, it's pretty wild. But we wouldn't see that if we depended on KATU and KGW and all the other, you know, wholly owned subsidiaries of the same little media cartel. Yeah, interesting stuff. Kevin, let's get into what happened in the oral arguments yesterday in the Oregon Supreme Court.

were you able to well first off how long did they talk and were there any particular conclusions you might be able to draw or any interesting questions or perhaps questions that were not asked or were asked what say you well it's up a little a little over an hour and and there were interesting questions asked and there were a lot of interesting questions that aren't asked and that's always a disappointment just as it's always a disappointment what didn't get said but of course you know i i can't criticize anybody for not saying something when you're in a situation like that, you know, it's pretty rare that you don't go home and say, oh, God, I wish I brought that up or I wish I brought this up. So I would say that the attorney on gun owners

aside, Tony Aiello, did an excellent job, as he has done in the past. He really has extremely well prepared, had an excellent response for every question and challenge. I think he's done a marvelous job. One of the things that I have been curious about that has really never come up and was just referenced very obliquely yesterday was if you can legitimately say that we can reduce the amount that you can reduce ammunition magazines to 10 rounds or less. If that's a legitimate legal construct, can we reduce that to four rounds or one round? And while that was brought up just sort of towards the end very, very briefly by one of the judges who said, they're a floor to this. It didn't really get, it didn't get the attention I think it deserved,

but the response from the state's attorney was very interesting. Yeah, yeah. What would the attorney say about this? Well, okay, so this might be a little hard to follow, but he basically said that it was okay to reduce it to 10 rounds or less because so many firearms or ammunition magazine manufacturers have started producing those magazines, so they're readily available, but he also noted that the production of those magazines was done in response to laws around the country mandating it. Well, isn't that kind of sidestepping the question, though? No, it's completely turning it on its head, because if those magazines are available as a result

of legislation limiting magazine size, then three-round magazines would be available based on responding to new laws that say only three-round magazines are available. So if the magazines become available in response to laws restricting size, then you can restrict it to any size with the expectation that the manufacturers will do in the past what they did, which makes smaller magazines. But what he said was not even true because What he said was that, okay, these magazines are readily available, but Midway, which is a big distributor, now will not even send into Oregon seven-round magazines with welded base plates because their interpretation is that those will be illegal. And there's so much confusion about what is and is not legal. And, you know, you have to remind people that this whole magazine ban is way more extensive than just, you know, people with 30-round magazines for AR-15s.

this magazine ban will outlaw Grandpa Shadda, and this magazine ban will ban virtually any magazine that somebody somewhere determines can be converted. And the entire argument about magazine size is kind of, like, it's kind of a really strange thing. It's one of those things that's why I hate ever having to have fights in court, because you can't just have a rational argument. You can only, like, refer to previous cases and precedents that may have been wrong. Yeah, and you can only refer to evidence it's already in place, right? It's already been submitted. There's a million different rules that lift your ability to just have a rational conversation.

But one of the things that we've heard of me, we've heard this in our federal trial, we've heard this in arguments all over the place saying, well, wait a minute, you don't need 10 rounds because no defensive gunfights ever used more than 2.3 rounds. Really? First of all, that's an idiotic comment, because that's not something that's provable, and it dictates, you know, how much self-defense are allowed to have, and it makes assumptions that aren't true, but if that's a legitimate argument, then why not limit it to 2.5 rounds or two rounds, or if you really want to be, you know, magnanimous, three rounds. Well, I would say that, you know, especially, you know, judges should be limited to have guards. with only one round. It's like Barney Fife for their security. And let's see how they like it because you only need one. You only need one to be able to take the bad guy down. That's all takes. That would outlaw, you know, revolvers that are 100 years old. That was another question I think

Chris Garrett said, well, would it be legitimate to ban guns that didn't have certain safety, like a safety on them? Well, revolvers don't have safeties on them. And then another judge said, well, could we outlaw a gun that was constructed of materials that caused cancer? And what wasn't asked is, well, wouldn't you outlaw that material in the first place? So while I think anybody watching it would have come away with the impression that it was, for Oregon, a relatively reasonable conversation with good and insightful questions asked and answered, that, frankly, was the impression I came away with watching the appeals court. So this is better than, well, we don't know if it's better, but at least it was a less, you know,

in the tank for no kind of, for a bad decision kind of story. Is that your overall impression? No, no. I mean, what I'm saying, when I watched the appeals court, which oddly said Tuesday, which just even came up yesterday. Oh, okay. Are we talking about appeals court rather than. in Supreme Court or, you know.

Yeah, yeah. Okay. I watched the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court, it sounded, people were being fairly reasonable. The questions were insightful. There was some obvious bias, but it's not overwhelming. And you would come away from it thinking, oh, this might not be so bad, but that's exactly the impression I came away with at the appeals court level, where the question was asked

by a female judge. I don't remember who it was. Who said, wait a minute, magazines, they're not accessories. They're components of firearms, aren't they? and that was admitted, which, of course, makes perfect sense. But then the appeals court in its decision said, you know, magazines are absolutely protected. Therefore, you can regulate them out of existence. It was absurd.

And this is the problem with court, of course, is that judges have dictatorial powers frequently to make no sense. Look, I mean, Karen Emmergood in our federal case, who, you know, as you just mentioned, everywhere she goes, she's projected by armed federal marshals who have a lot more than 2.5 rounds. She works in a building as a fortress, and she's determined that defensive firearms use, you only need 2.5 rounds. And of course, it's on its face ridiculous to assume what a person is going to need in a confrontation. But there were a lot of things that came up. I mean, of course, the question always comes up, well, would you defend automatic weapons. And initially, Tony Aiello kind of said, no, because those who were just designed strictly

for military use. Later on, he kind of defended fully automatic weapons, because how can you not defend the fully automatic weapon based on its being created for military use? While at the same time, recognizing that both the Oregon Constitution and the U.S. Constitution specifically reference either militia activity, which is military, or defense of the state, which would assume that you're fighting off something other than, you know, Bubba down the street. Yeah, and you're using fully automatic weapons to do so in many cases. You know, this is not something. And the Supreme Court, by the way, back in 1930s, wasn't that a decision in 1930s involving military

weapons and their protection? The case in the 30s was Miller, Miller versus U.S., that people always misunderstand. Miller was a bootlegger who'd been arrested. He was in possession of a sought-off shotgun, and so, I guess, with everything else, he was charged with possession of assault-off shotgun, and he argued against that on Second Amendment in France. Well, I shouldn't say he argued against it. He and his lawyer were not there, only the state argued their side. And as a result, the Supreme Court then reached a decision with no input from the defendant.

But their position was that sawed off shotguns were not protected because they were not military weapons. Now, obviously, that one has to conclude that what is protected are military weapons. Of course. And if you are a member of the militia, which we assumed to us to be, then you would be assumed to have or be allowed to have the weapons that would be commonly carried by an individual soldier. And that actually came up yesterday where Tony Aiello defended, like they were saying, well, would you defend somebody having a helicopter or a tank? And he said, no, I would defend anything that an individual soldier could carry, at which point they said, well, that would be an automatic weapon, right? And he said, yeah. But this is a point that's been argued, you know, has not been argued. Even during the Heller case in Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court, the attorney in that case, Gura, who won that case, which was considered a pivotal case, refused to defend machine guns. And I talked to him about it. I actually had a conversation with him. I think we're in Cincinnati at the time. And I said, why, you know, why did you refuse to defend fully automatic weapons? And it was 100% political. He was like, look, man, I was arguing a bunch

of judges in Washington, D.C. There's no way I'm going to try and defend machine guns. But, you know, I did come away from it feeling like, okay, we really don't know anything here. But the potential downside of the implementation of this measure is absolutely catastrophic. I wanted to ask you because supposedly, according to the reporting I'm seeing here, is that they were asking about the availability and the structure of the permitting process of Measure 114, if that ends up going through. Yeah, and that came up. There were a number of questions about that.

And one of the judges said, is there any other constitutional rights, you're required to take a class for. And the state's attorney kind of like, well, Hempden Hall and said, well, you know, a driver's license. And I guess, no, wait a minute, forget about that. That's not a constitutional right. Which also, you're not required to take a class. You're required to take a test, but it isn't a constitutional right.

But the other issue that he'd come up was, well, do you have to pay to take this class? And the state's attorney said, well, no, the Sheriff's Association has a class online. you don't have to pay to take it. Well, that's true. But you have to pay to get the certificate that you would need to apply for the permit. So in essence, you're having to pay for the right. Of course. I mean, and okay, I could take the class, but it's meaningless. So, and fortunately, you know, when Tony got up in rebuttal, he immediately brought that up. And this is kind of what we see from the state's attorneys all the time, that it's word games and the reliance on the part of the state's attorneys, they reliance on their belief that the judges don't know what's

going on. And in this case, that's largely true, you know. Do you feel or have a gut sensation that we might prevail on something like this, or would you be preparing for Measure 114 to be just rammed down good and hard on the people? Well, I, you know, I've always made no secret at my belief is that the courts are going to uphold this. And this is one of those things, you know, making predictions is terrible. I try to avoid doing it because that's what pundits do, right? They always explain what's going to happen, and then their next column is why they were wrong.

So I want to be wrong about this, but it's hard to believe in a state like Oregon that it won't be implemented. But as I've said before, if lightning strikes and it's not implemented, Gun owners and people in the business are not out of the woods because we still have a legislature that, as we saw last session, will do everything it can to eliminate the lawful commerce of firearms. You know, we saw a bill that didn't pass last session that basically imposed regulations on retail gun dealers that virtually none of them could comply with. It was one of the most hateful, cynical, vicious pieces of legislation I've ever seen. And the fact that it could not be complied with is irrelevant to the fact that they continue to do this? It's just harassment. This is the attitude on the part of legislators.

And frankly, you know, I've seen this on the part of Republican legislators. You see this on the part of like people like Kevin Manix all the time when he institutes new laws to put people in jail. And when you say, well, wait a minute, you know, what if this person is attacked unfairly? Oh, well, that's their problem. They'll have their day in court. Of course, that is defense. But what I have seen, you know, in 30 years of watching the legislature in Salem, is that there's an attitude on the part of legislators when they impose regulations. And it's not just on gun dealers.

They do this on farmers. They do this on landlords. And when those people come back and say, well, wait a minute, I don't really know how I have the means or the ability to comply with this. Their response is always, that's your problem. You'll figure it out. It's like when they impose, you know, environmental regulations. that you can't produce, you can't have a plastic bag, or you can't produce this amount of carbon or whatever. And the businesses that they're destroying come back and say, well, you know, the technology isn't there for us to implement this.

Well, this is exactly what they did when they were banning cars, right? I mean, they came up with legislation that said, you can't have a diesel power truck anymore. And that became the law. And then over time, they started saying, well, look, we can't do this. And the legislature was like, we don't care. You figure it out. Well, electric trucks don't go as far. They don't, you know, it's just completely impractical.

So they've kind of dialed back on that a little bit. But it's you have a bunch of people. They're like children who live in a fantasy world who suddenly have, you know, the keys to the liquor cabinet. And they get to decide, you know, they're the much larger baby you with children who get to beat up the smaller children just because they can. Say, we don't like this. You will comply with us. and when the response is, well, it's not physically possible to comply with it. The legislature's positions, we don't care.

Well, maybe there's going to be more of whether they realize it or not of we don't care and we're not going to comply. I can almost see one of the most interesting business opportunities here in the state of Oregon being gun smuggling. But we'll see where that goes, Kevin. And I appreciate the call. And thanks so much for keeping us in the room here. Oregon Firearms.org. Wish it were a happier deal, but I'll gird my loins and I'm sure you are too and maybe everybody else, okay? Thanks so much.

Thank you. All right. Kevin Sterrett, Oregon Firearms Federation, Oregon Firearms.org. This is the Bill Myers Show. Make fall cleanup a breeze. Okay, a hurricane with echo blowers from Zoll's lawn and garden equipment. The Echo P.B9010 is one of the most powerful backpack blowers you can buy. Moving head and flight takes effect today with.

up to 6% cuts by next Tuesday and the full 10% by next Friday. Bill London, KMED. Kind of curious if State Representative Yonker, who will be flying back to Southern Oregon, if he's going through Portland or if he's going through some other hub, who knows? We're talking about that. He'll be coming home this weekend. You'd be good to talk with him. It's 19 before 8.

Price of gold still hovering just under 4,000. Silver taking a little hike today about 4823, one way or the other. the trading is hot and furious one way or other some people are stacking and when there are people stacking there are other people that are saying hey i'm going to sell at this price one way or the other if you're looking to either sell or buy talk with the recognized experts because they will help you out in fact it's so busy they're asking that uh over j austin j austin company gold and silver buyers in ashlin and grants pass 1632 ashland street at ashland sixth and g in downtown grants pass that you call for an appointment to make sure everything's kept uh safe and secure and most importantly of all the beauty of private uh of uh private transactions with precious metals is that it stays private nobody else needs to know all right 4 8237 15 the recognized experts one of my oldest sponsors and i hope that you will do business with him don't call the 800 lines for the people out of town that you hear the big national host doing there's no need deal with it local deal with supporting local talk radio the recognized experts

Jay Austen in Ashland and Grants Pass call 482715, Fortune Reserve.com. Butler Ford's got your truck, man, custom trucks or SUVs, man. No one deals like they can rolling out like old man. Put the keys in your hand. Butler Ford has your truck man. Duke Butler 425, F250, Super Duty diesel crew cab, 4x4 Lariat, take 5700 off MSRP. Yes, a Super Duty turbo diesel 4x4 Lariat under 75 grand. gone, they're gone. Imagine what you'll save on. Over 60 brand new Ford's super duty trucks in stock

and ready for immediate delivery. Butler has your truck man. Stuck in a loan or lease. Big Al, the trade man will get you released. When Butler Ford makes a deal, we'll pay off your current loan or lease in full. Butler Ford, where big is best. We have the selection, so forget the rest. Butler's got your truck man. Take the short drive to save big. Exit 19 at Ashland or will deliver Butler, Ford.com. On approved credit, now hall will qualify plus tax title license and 215, 27, Seventy-49-N-SRP 86-90. Subject to prior cells. See, Delivered Details.

Expirs 114.25. Great to see you. Come on in. Hi. Thanks for letting me stay in your guest room. Our pleasure. Right through here. The door sticks a bit.

Just turn, lift up a little, and give it a good shove. Okay. Thanks. Oh, and if it gets a bit warm in here, crack the window. It just needs a little elbow grease, too, sometimes. Stubborn doors or windows? Call Malay construction for a no pressure, thorough inspection. of your home's foundation, and a no-obligation estimate.

Visit milletconstruction.com. Hi, I'm Corey with Patriot Electric, and I'm on KMEB. 744. Glad you are here. Friday, the 7th of November. I'm going to dry out this weekend. I'm okay with that. Michael Krebs joins me in studio. Michael called the show yesterday, and I thought, hey, we bring them on for a little bit longer

of a hashout, and I'm nicknaming you, Citizen Michael Krebs. Citizen Michael Krebs is here. And we're talking about the vote. Now, we had conversation yesterday, Michael. First off, welcome. Thank you. And let me... Okay.

Now, hang on just a second. We can't have this because the Facebook live stream has stopped. That's okay. I'm not okay with that. We will... No, we're going to have this. See, we start talking then about voting firearms rights and all of a sudden, you know, the Facebook live stops.

Imagine that. banks matter is kidding but um anyways kevin kevin is saying is that uh obviously elections have consequences yeah and they've had pretty bad consequences when it comes to actual constitutional rights around here well there's that's what we're talking about today is the history of voting and why voting is so important all right and this all started because of uh what happened with 15-238 i think that uh having a money measure on a on an election which is a special election it's designed, you know, it's designed for people who have dogs in the fight to be able to push an agenda. That's just the way it goes.

It's just like when teachers' unions want to make sure that, well, let's have it in the spring election when nobody cares about it, you know, that sort of thing and that everything goes through. Same sort of thing. That's when all the money measures will go through. They almost never do them in general elections. Well, I think they should be in general elections. I'm sure that you've already spoken to the last time that the rate was increased was in May of 2020, and that was a, not a general election, but in the primaries. Yeah.

In the primary election, this is when voters passed the transient lodging tax hike in order to give us, well, remember, this was all about getting the tourists to pay for the community aquatic center. Yeah, Rogue X. And, of course, I reminded folks that was trying to let them know. It's like they're trying to let you think that this is only being paid for by the tourists, but they also refinanced your ball field U.S. cellular. Park bond in order to make this happen. So you're going to pay 60, 70 bucks a year for the next 20 years or so. It's deja vu all over again. Yeah. Well, that's what we get concerned about. There's

not a lot of trust for the Medford City Council, but nevertheless, they ended up getting people to pass it this week. And I'm pretty sure it's... 28% of the vote. Yeah, 28% of the vote, and the city is claiming that the city has spoken, the people has spoken. Right. And the Jackson County websites, excellent source for this kind of data. There's 66,000 votes and only 16,000 people voted. So 16,000 people voted for this tax increase. What does it mean? Actually, it's like 8,000 people voted. Right. But it shows it's 16,000. But in any event, 28%. Is that a real clear representation of the people that live in the city? No, of course not. So what is de-incentivizing the voter to not vote. What's causing that? And I'm sure that you've heard all the excuses

and the number of excuses that people give like, you know, my dog ate my ballot, but, you know, I didn't get a ballot, whatnot. The history of voting in Oregon, the vote by mail, started way back in the 80s. And it came to fruition in the election of the general election in 2000. Now, the voter turnout hasn't changed all that much. The percentage of voter turnout in the state of Oregon hasn't changed because of vote by mail, but it has made it a lot easier for people to vote. So why are we still not getting the voter turnout? Because there's no incentive.

There's no incentive for either the low information voter or the well-informed non-voter. Was it any better, though, let's say, let's go back 50 years, way before vote by mail? Nobody would have ever thought about that. Was there a better or similar turnout? In 1992, the general election, that was the year that Bill Clinton was elected, in Oregon, 84.28%. 84% turned out. And the primary in that year was 49.15%. So in 1996, it was 71.3%.

In 2000, it was 79.8. 86% in 2004, the second Bush administration. So there is the possibility for Oregon to actually come out and vote in the general election because everybody's really concerned about who the president is. Yeah. But they're not really concerned about the midterms. Midterm elections, 1994 was 68, 59%, 59%, 2009%, 2002, 44%, 44%. So, no, midterm election, you're not getting even half.

Presidential elections, you're getting 70 to 80%. Why is that? Do people actually believe that they have something to say about voting for a president? Well, I also think it's also because the growth of executive power, too, in which everybody knows. I mean, this is the way it is. We are no longer in a limited government constitutionally limited republicate. It's kind of the shell. We have that by name.

Well, the big buzzword is democracy. Yeah, yeah. But what really occupies what used to be a republic is essentially a half a sleep ineffective Congress. You have the administrative state, which ends up practically running everything, and then a president that writes executive orders, one way or another, and doing things like this. And so you then see presidential elections as, oh, my gosh, you have to dive and grab the tiller because this is the thing that's doing everything. look at what drives the news cycle these days. But again, when you ask people who are the biggest grippers, did you vote? A lot of them say no. Yeah.

Well, I said, just shut up then. You have no say. You have no right to gripe about what you did not participate in. But I think that they believe the system is illegitimate. I think that's another aspect of it. Absolutely. They believe the system is illegitimate. So why?

And that to vote and that to vote and give it its vote is almost like assenting to its legitimacy. Of course, but I propose a solution. Okay. And what would that be, citizen Michael Krebs? Okay. For the last hundred years, one of the 21 countries in the world that mandate or compulsory voting, otherwise there's a tax that's assigned to it. Australia is a key example.

They've been doing compulsory voting since 1924. Now, how does compulsory voting work? is they drag you into the polling? They do not. What do they do is they impose a tax. A tax if you don't vote, we're going to tax you $50 or $100 or whatever the dollar amount is to help pay for the election. Oh.

So let's say, for instance, in Australia, they have 92 to 96% voter turnout. Now, how you vote, I don't think it really matters. But it is much more representative of the people. that they did vote this way the voter turnout is so high that this is what the people want now when you have voter turnout that's less than 50% how do you know this is what the people want

well the city of Medford claims 28% and really when it comes right down to it given that we're talking a little more than half of that the city of Medford is claiming for 15-238 that essentially 15% of the voting public is a mandate to move forward they can say that if they want to it's not true

but the problem is is that what happened to the other 72% why didn't they vote what was their excuse what's their reason that oh well you know this this tax is just going to tax

the tourists and the visitors okay well I also have to say there's another aspect of this too is that it was a very much a hurry up thing and if you are not if you are not a big consumer of news and a lot of people are not they may be in the first time they heard about something like your argument is valid your argument is valid obviously special elections should not have tax increases involved in them in fact but i think that the uh the tax increase was scheduled for a special

election specifically for that reason kind of sneaky right yeah because you know that all your good old boys and people who have dogs in the fight they're going to get into it tell their friends go ahead and vote and uh and and they'll put their 400 in from the pack and whatever it is to say, here's why. And then the no side of it or the other side of it doesn't even get their pants on before the election comes. Well, the advertising for the yes on 15-238 was very effective. And I heard that ad way more than I heard anything about the no side. How could there be a downside to the citizens or the residents of Medford to say,

oh, it doesn't bother me, it doesn't affect me, it only affects the tourists. Well, it's deja vu all over again, Bill. This happened in 2020. They did the exact same thing. They increased the transient tax from 9 to 11%. Here we go again. It goes from 11 to 13. Guess what happened right after the transient tax was raised the first time.

We all know what happened. So here we go again. Are they actually going to try and do the same thing with Creekside Commons as they did with Rogue X? Well, they claim no, that they're not going to do that. That remains to be seen. Okay. But anyway, the compulsory voting idea is not new, especially with Australia. If you get a 92 to 96% voter turnout, it is representative of the people.

But what you have to do is you have to give them the incentive to vote. Well, the incentive is not to get charged 50 bucks. That's the incentive. And that you can do your civic duty. There's all kinds of reasons to vote. Does that give you any more? more of an informed electorate, though. That's the point, is that if you're trying to avoid the fine, or not the fine, sorry,

it's a tax, if you're trying to avoid it, you're actually going to open up the voter's pamphlet, and you're going to say, hmm, does this person reflect my values? Now, you know, that's a very nice thing. That's a great story, Citizen Michael Krebs, all right? But I could see people that are saying, oh, okay, so if I don't vote, then they're going to charge me 50 bucks, let's say, all right. fine check check check check boom i voted right that's right and that's the low information voter and i you know god bless his heart uh rush lumbull he used to talk about the low information voter

and uh he would always say on the air you know who you are and i'm saying the same thing you low information voters out there you know who you are you're well-informed voter you know who you are Yeah. So here we are talking about what voting really means, and that elections have consequences. Now, you can have an effect on that. It takes you maybe two or three minutes to vote, but you do vote. But there's a second element to compulsory voting, not just saying, we're going to charge you $50 tax. But the other part of it is that if you're going to have elections for individuals, The one thing that you must have on the ballot is a section for none of the above. Now, there's an incentive. That's the incentive. I have to tell you to have a none of the above and mandated voting or compulsory voting, you know, with otherwise you have to pay a higher tax rate.

Then everybody has a voice. Okay. And that includes even if you, you know, I don't like either of these clowns. All right. Boom. Right. Okay. So then you have to come up with contingency.

these, what happens if none of the above wins? Now, there's a movie that came out back in the 80s called Brewster's Millions. I recommend it. It's actually kind of funny with Richard Pryor and John Candy, where he actually funded a campaign under none of the above, and they won. So then they go, okay, so what do the candidates do? What does the state do? What does the county do when none of the above actually went? I don't see that happening. I don't see that the majority of the people that, you know, the 50% plus one of none of the above, I don't see that happening, but at least it gives those people a voice. And it also is kind of a gauge of how are you really doing instead of the city of Medford claiming, hey, 14, 15% of the people who are

eligible to vote have given us this mandate for the half billion dollar project. And by the way, this could be a great project. I don't know at this point. I hope it is, given that there's a lot of money riding on this, okay? But be that as it may, that would be interesting. That's almost like a, that's almost like what is your legitimate quotient? What's your LQ? Your government legitimacy. How is that looking? If you end up seeing rising levels of none of the above, that's indicating that, nah, we're not really liking what you're selling, even if you end up winning the election anyway. This really plays, excuse me, this really plays into the primaries. So if you have a primary and you're a Republican or Democrat or independent and you get a ballot for the primary and

there's, you know, 10 names on there. If none of the above wins, you've got a real problem. A real problem with the candidates that are actually coming forward because they're not really either hearing the people or they're not really presenting themselves as good, viable candidates. So you're thinking compulsory voting and none of the above, this would take quite a big change in the state of Oregon, as you well know. Right? Well, for instance, since 19, excuse me, since 2018, how many different, their ballot titles, how many have been voted on just in Jackson County alone? I don't know.

62. 62. Okay. So you have 62 different measures that have been voted on at less than 50% of the vote. Okay. So we have all of these different measures, different, different, cities, countywide, these measures that are getting voted on. But do the people actually know what the measures say? Do they actually understand the verbiage of the measures are to kind of push you in a certain direction? Oh, I can assure you that Measure 113 as an example, the one which removed the ability to walk out of the legislature to protect minority rights here. I can't tell you how many people called and said, well, I thought that, well. I thought, right. And

then there was the, well, you know, if I don't do my job, I don't get paid as if they were looking, you know, representing the minority means that you have to be there so that the other side can just run roughshot on you. Right. You know, that, but that's an example. Classic example. So those are statewide measures. Yes. I'm talking about countywide, just the, the measures of, you know, 15, 238. So since 19, or since, sorry, 2018, it started with measure 15175 and now we're up to measure 238. Okay. So how many of those measures are actually people remember what they voted for? Can't say. Can't say because the voter turnout was so low in every one of those cases, except for the presidential ones. The presidential ones, yeah, you had higher voter turnout because, and a

lot of people probably voted down ballot, but were they informed? And this is where the whole idea of an informed voter has power. So if you don't want to be an informed voter, you know, I can't help you. But it is our right. It is our duty to be informed of who we vote for and how we vote for, clearly. And, you know, the county has 62 measures in the last six years. So people People are just checking the boxes, right? And a lot of ignorance going in there. A citizen, Michael Krebs? A citizen.

So 15187, for instance, 43% in 2020. 15187. Which one was that? That was the one the last time that we actually increased the, this is just an example. Yeah, this is the one so that we got Rogue X because the tourists would pay for it. 43.75%. And in reality, Medford residents are paying for it. Eventually, yes, it is.

Yeah. Okay. So, I mean, deja vu. So you're thinking this is potentially another bait and switch, and it all happens with low voter turnout and low information. They're counting on low voter turnout. So this is the way to fight back. Right. Compulsory voting and none of the above.

That's correct. All right. What would that actually take here? Could we actually... In the state of Oregon? Could we do something like that on a local basis for local elections? You probably couldn't do it for state-wide. Because you can't, well, you can't really enforce it.

You'd have to change the Constitution state. statewide. Well, that's the irony. So would you get enough voters to actually turn out to change the state constitution for compulsory voting? Yeah. Could you do that? I don't know. Maybe what you start with, start small, start with none of the above. How about that? All right? That helps. Maybe that's an easy, and you could, maybe we could do that for our local and county elections, none of the above. Start with that and then see how that works and then work and. And watch the voters. turnout skyrocket. Citizen Michael Krebs, I appreciate you coming in. Absolutely. Thank you. Get the conversation going, okay? Let's talk. All righty. A couple minutes after eight, this is KMED, KMED, HD1, Eagle Point, Medford, KBXG

Grants Pass. Two dogs fabricating is your way. Good morning. This is News Talk 1063, KMED, and you're waking up with the Bill Myers show. Yeah, we'll see if anybody wants to talk about that mandatory voting and none of the above. citizen Michael Krebs has been talking about hi good morning who's this welcome this is logan bill i think that's an excellent idea but uh you know we have lots of things that are excellent ideas i just think it's kind of a pipe dream but i think it would be a great idea as far as the measure

goes the water's under the bridge we just have to go forward there's got to be some way we can get a bill on and ballot for next year to repeal this um the legal minds out there i don't know what we're doing down at the Jackson County Republican Party, but other than a Lincoln Day dinner every year, maybe a poker tournament, we need to get something, we need somebody down there that can do this and get this together to get it on the ballot so we can repeal this. I think that needs to be brought up. All right. Appreciate the call, Logan. 7705-633. We'll grab another one. Then we'll move along. Probably pick it up on Monday. Okay. Hi, who's this? Good morning. Hello. This is Kathy. Hello, Kathy. How are you?

I agree I have an idea Okay Are you on speakerphone Kathy are you on speakerphone right now Kathy, hold on Hold on Yeah

No I don't want you on speaker phone No I don't want you on speakerphone Just sound you're very thin I'm trying to get your voice up Okay Well okay I wasn't close because It comes into my heroin

Oh I'm sorry Okay I get that But anyway go ahead and continue on then okay can you hear me now yes okay i think that it should be required that you have at least 50% turnout in order to pass any money bill any increase or like that what do you think oh i love that in fact didn't they try something like that a few years ago uh michael they wanted two-thirds for money measures or property several states already do that the several states already it just depends on the state themselves whether or not they do a threshold voting and

it has to be passed by the legislature or by the people but we don't I don't think we have that in Oregon yeah I think they tried to do that and it did not I think they did this a few years ago when the Democrats have a super majority in the House and Senate and the governorship they actually like it when people don't vote yeah yeah as long as well if they are going to vote they vote for them you know that kind of thing it's like anybody else super majority but I like the idea Kathy. I really do, and I appreciate the call. Michael, always good talking with you. We'll have you back, I'm sure. Thank you.

Yeah, Mr. Citizen. Mr. Citizen, Mr. Citizen, Michael Krebs. I was just thinking, the K, you know, Citizen Kane, but we're going to go with Krebs instead. It is KMED, KMED, HD1, Eagle Point, Metford, KBXG, Grants Pass. We're going to be talking about just an amazing story. Tom Clavin is going to

join me here in about eight, nine minutes, and it's just in time, really, for For Veterans Day, you know, coming up, and it has to do with the deadliest sub of World War II. And it hasn't gotten a whole lot of play, but it's a really fascinating story. And a book is called Running Deep that he's written about it. And he's just a great storyteller, and he'll tell us a story or two coming up. Stephen Westfall Roofing is growing, now proudly serving Brookings, Gold Beach, and the entire Southern Oregon.