SALEM — On Nov. 8, Oregonians will elect a new governor.

The race is capturing national interest because it’s a tight three-way contest. The University of Virginia Center for Politics, a nonpartisan forecaster of elections, recently reported it sees Oregon’s governor’s race as a “toss-up.”

The 2022 election is an unusual three-way race among a trio of women who until last year served in the state Legislature. All resigned to run for governor.

Former House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, won the Democratic primary in May.

Former House Minority Leader Christine Drazan, R-Canby, won the Republican primary.

Former Sen. Betsy Johnson, D-Scappoose, is running as an unaffiliated candidate. She qualified for the November ballot through a petition drive.

Republicans have not won the governorship since 1982, while an unaffiliated candidate has won just once in state history — in 1930.

The Capital Press, an agricultural news site and news partner of the East Oregonian, sat down with each of the candidates to talk about issues that matter to rural Oregonians. Each was asked the same set of questions.

In some cases, answers have been edited for clarity. Words in parenthesis are added by the Capital Press. Follow-up questions are in italics.

Capital Press: If you are elected, how do you plan to bridge the political divide between Oregon’s urban and rural communities?

Johnson: “Well, show up is the first one. We’ve just come back from a trip to Eastern Oregon. I think being there is important and understanding that whether you’re making silicon chips, or wood chips or potato chips out in Boardman, or fish and chips in Astoria, that we have throughout Oregon different micro-economies, and the governor needs to understand that.”

Drazan: “The opportunity to bring Oregonians together is a big part of why I’m running. When we have a Portland focus and hard, progressive Democrat agenda, you end up taking that agenda and you impose it on the rural parts of the state.

“Too often in the public policymaking process, you have folks drive six or eight hours to Salem and testify for two or three minutes. No one asks them questions and their proposals do not change outcomes because this single party control machine — they’ve got the votes.

Having a Republican governor ensures (lawmakers) have to compromise. They have to listen to the stakeholders, because if they don’t, they’ll get a veto in my administration.”

Kotek: “For me, it is about how you listen to people, making sure you’re out in local communities, engaging with local leaders.

“As speaker of the House, it was really important for me to represent the entire state. I made a point to encourage my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to visit each other’s districts.

“As governor, getting out of Salem more often — it’s important. You bring people together by listening. And focusing on issues that I don’t think are very partisan. Every part of this state has a housing problem. That’s not a partisan issue. I honestly think water’s not a partisan issue. We all need water.

“So, focusing on issues that aren’t highly politicized is a good place to start.”

CP: Oregon’s new Advanced Clean Trucks rule requires manufacturers sell a certain percentage of zero-emission vehicles, including heavy-duty trucks. The rules begin with the 2024 model year. Proponents say it’s a step to reducing vehicle pollution. Critics say it will raise vehicle prices and is being done before rural communities have electric vehicle charging stations.

Johnson: “Well, we gotta’ slow (the timeline) down. Where’s the infrastructure? I don’t think the technology has caught up with the reality of what exists on the ground. And at what cost?

“We cannot address Oregon’s minor contribution to global climate change on the backs of rural communities that were asked to unfairly bear the economic cost of implementation.”

Does Johnson support a move toward more electric vehicles?

“Sure, sure. But we’re going faster than it can be implemented on the ground right now,” she said.

Drazan: “I do not support an end position of a mandate around what equipment is used by Oregonians.

“This move towards electric vehicles right now doesn’t meet all the needs. There’s not adequate charging infrastructure. The grid can’t support it.

“You can’t put the cart before the horse. In some cases, these political agendas force people off of a bridge to nowhere.”

Does Drazan support transportation electrification?

“As we move to new technologies that are low-emissions, I would support (voluntary) incentive-based movement in that direction,” she said.

Kotek: “If we’re going to have new regulation(s), we have to put public money on the table to help people achieve conversion.

“What we all understand is, we have to transition to cleaner engines. How do you make that happen? I think we have to put more urgency behind our electrification plans as a state.

“The good thing is, with the federal infrastructure package, we have more resources coming down from the federal government than we’ve ever had.

“The thing I always ask in transition conversations is: Does the timeline work for folks? The goal is to have it happen, not to put something in place just to say we put it in place. If the timeline has to be reassessed, we have to reassess it, ‘cause the goal is to get people to cleaner vehicles.”

CP: Do you support Oregon’s existing water rights system? Current rules give priority to those with the oldest water rights, while more recent water users are the first to face cutbacks or shutoffs.

Johnson: “Our water rights system is very complicated. Before politicians change the system, they need to get everybody at the table.

“We need to convene the parties and have a conversation about: What does changing the water rights really mean?

“But I don’t want somebody to come away with the opinion that I’m for changing the water rights system.

“What I’m supportive of is, if there is a problem statement that people agree on, what’s the statement? Is it that the water rights system is too complicated? Is it that some are getting deprived of water? I would want to have some collective understanding of: What are we solving for?”

Drazan: “I support our existing water rights system.”

Would Drazan try to maintain the system if it was challenged?

“I would,” she said. “And just to be clear, I don’t think any system is perfect. I do believe in the ability to be flexible. I think that needs to be a stronger, more dominant characteristic of our state government in particular, that we’re responsive to local needs, but as a principle, and as a construct under which we all operate, I support the existing system.”

Kotek: “It is the fundamental starting place for how water is utilized in the state. It is the law. It is the starting point, yes.”

However, Kotek said she is open to conversations about potentially changing other laws. For example, under Oregon water law, if a water rights holder does not use the full water right for five consecutive years, that user could forfeit the right. Kotek expressed concern over this.

“Some people say, ‘If I don’t use my water, I will lose my rights.’ When I listen to that, I’m like, ‘OK, does that make sense when the third person down the line also needs water? Right?” said Kotek.

“So, how do you have thoughtful conversations about assessing that? The starting point is where we are today, but with the understanding that we have to consider perhaps some new ideas.”

CP: Do you think agriculture has too large a claim on Oregon’s water supply?

Johnson: “I do not. Oregon’s economy rests on the back of agriculture. Farmers, fishing interests, ranchers, other producers are part of the backbone of our economic past and certainly our economic future.”

Drazan: “I don’t. Oregon agriculture has always been a critical partner in Oregon’s economy, to Oregon culture, to Oregon families. And we cannot overlook the need for access to local food production.”

Kotek: “I don’t know if I can comment on that. What I do know is Oregonians like the fact that we grow things, that we are a leader in export products in the ag sector, and it’s kind of in the DNA of Oregon to grow things. So, I think ag is really important.”

CP: What does good forest and public lands management look like to you? For example, do you support prescribed burning, grazing, thinning and logging?

Johnson: “Yes, yes, yes, yes.”

Although Johnson supports all four practices, she described nuances.

Johnson said she supports prescribed fire but has “questioned the competency of the Forest Service not to let some of those prescribed burns get away.”

Johnson said there are “subtleties” on grazing: “Do you keep the critters out of the streams?”

On thinning, she said, “We have got to thin.”

Johnson said she also backs post-fire salvage logging.

Drazan: “There’s a place for all of that, to be clear. We need to have active management of our working lands, and that has got to include forests.

”Technology exists for us to be able to identify, say, when lightning strikes occur, which may result in a fire start. We also have the Good Neighbor Authority program; we should continue to invest in that. (The program allows states, counties or tribes to do forest, rangeland and watershed restoration projects on federal lands.)

”I think we should make more of our forestlands available for logging. We’re either gonna manage (our forests) or we’re gonna watch (them) burn.”

Kotek: “My baseline is: Talk to the experts. OSU (Oregon State University) is a huge resource for us, understanding what the experts at OSU think we should be doing.

”I believe we do need some level of prescribed burning, and it has to be done safely.

”In terms of overall forest practices, the Private Forest Accord is a template of how we can improve forest practices.” (The accord was a deal that timber and conservation groups reached last fall.)

Where does Kotek stand on logging and grazing?

”I don’t have a particular agenda on either of those issues because I’m not an expert,” she said.

Kotek says solving Oregon’s housing crisis is a top priority. Does she support using timber harvested from Oregon’s forests to build houses?

”We’re gonna have to build 36,000 housing units per year for the next decade to actually meet our gap and get ahead of it,” she said. “I love the cycle of using Oregon-based mass timber to construct homes. Mass timber is a very viable product that we have to promote.”

CP: Many family farmers say the farmworker overtime pay rule, which passed during the 2022 legislative session, will hurt their businesses. Do you have plans to amend the law?

Johnson: “Let’s start from the premise of: Increasing the safety and wages and working conditions of low-income workers is a laudable goal. OK. This bill, I think, was an overly simple solution to a really complicated issue.

“My concern is that good intentions can’t mandate good jobs. I think we’re gonna have all sorts of work-around schemes, (employers) capping (employees’) hours, or it will create a highly transient workforce. I’m just not sure that it was thought out as carefully as it should have been for a policy change of this magnitude.”

Does she plan to change the law?

Johnson did not name specific plans but said amendments might relate to “highly perishable crops” such as grapes.

Drazan: “Yeah, absolutely. I look forward to the opportunity to find a more balanced approach to that issue. With single-party control, the needs of all stakeholders were not taken into consideration with the passage of that legislation. It does need to be reworked and amended.”

Does Drazan have specific amendments planned?

Drazan did not outline a plan, but said: “I look forward to having the conversation and proposing a more responsive piece of legislation that allows Oregon ag to continue to be Oregon ag.”

Kotek: “Before I left the Legislature, we were gearing up for this conversation in last year’s session. I had dairy farmers calling me up saying, ‘This isn’t working for us.’ I listened hard. Before I left the Legislature, I said, ‘Look, we have to transition this in a way that helps farmers to do their business.’

“It was very important to me to have a reasonable transition (timeframe) plus resources to support farmers — the tax (credit). I am definitely open to maintaining the (tax credit). (The law includes temporary tax credits for employers to cushion costs.) But it would be nice if the federal government solved this. From a competitive standpoint, it would be good if every state was doing this. It’s the right thing to do.”

For the complete version of the Q&A, visit www.eastoregonian.com.