Read all about it: The Democratic lawmaker on accountability, being perfect and ‘solutions in search of problems.’
The office of Oregon secretary of state has as much to do with ensuring public trust in government as anyone, as Tobias Read, six months on the job, knows well. His predecessor, Shemia Fagan, a once-rising political star, was undone by revelations of unethical professional behavior.
Read grew up in Idaho and came to Oregon to attend Willamette University. He’s worked stints for Nike and the U.S. Department of the Treasury and served in the Oregon Legislature from 2007 to 2017, when he took over as state treasurer from a term-limited Ted Wheeler. In 2022, Read ran unsuccessfully for governor, losing to Tina Kotek in the Democratic primary.
As treasurer, he helped develop a plan to preserve the Elliott State Research Forest and increased the amount of money returned to Oregonians through the state’s Unclaimed Property Program by relocating it from the Department of State Lands to the Treasury. He regrets that in eight years as treasurer, he couldn’t do more to increase public access to financial tools.
As secretary of state, Read heads a staff of around 250 with a budget of around $130 million. The secretary of state is Oregon’s top elections official, the overseer of the state auditor’s office and the chief public records administrator.
Read has committed to meet face-to-face with each of the state’s 36 county clerks (he’s at 21 so far). And this month, he testified at the Legislature in favor of House Bill 4024, a campaign finance law approved during last year’s session but which is back for revisions.
Read sat for an interview this month at Oregon Business’ Tigard office, where he talked about ensuring accountability, elections that are ‘high turnout and low drama,’ when government runs best like a business, and when it does not.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
‘Election integrity’ is a buzzword, especially on the right. How serious should we take concerns about election security in Oregon? What have you done to improve public trust in elections?
So I need to be really clear: we run good elections in Oregon. They are secure. They are safe. They are accurate. We have to earn people’s trust and retain that trust. So we try to make it very clear what happens in elections.
One of the things that we had some success with leading up to the May election was ballot ride-alongs we did with the media — so that people can see exactly what happens with their ballot after they turn it in or mail it in — all the protocols, the controls and the checks that are in place.
And we’re working hard to make sure that our county election officials — all 36 county clerks around the state — have the resources they need to continue to uphold our high standards and do the work that they need to do. We want to make sure people have certainty, whatever wild idea comes out of Washington or whatever wildfire we’re dealing with in Oregon.
In recent years, data-entry errors at ODOT have led to hundreds of people wrongly being registered to vote. I know they represent a small portion of the overall electorate, but has this problem been fixed to your satisfaction?
There are a number of things that are important there. First off, I appreciate you pointing out the numbers — you’re accurate on that. The reason this matters goes again to that question of confidence: We want to earn people’s trust.
It’s also important to note that what happened there was a result of a government error. This is not something that individual people did. It was bad execution of a good policy.
So we’ve made a number of changes to the way that process works, and it’s tricky because the (Department of Motor Vehicles) doesn’t report to the Secretary of State’s office. But we’ve told them, “These are the things we want to see happen.” We have a control file now that comes as a check. We have a system of random sampling where we send files back to the DMV for double-checking. And we have a system where people from our office — both on the election side and the audit side, along with county clerks — will visit the DMV to make sure that the changes they’ve made on their own, continue. And we think all this represents a floor not a ceiling.
We’re going to continue to look for ways to add rigor and additional checks to this process. But ultimately, when (Oregon’s voter registration system) is well-executed, I think it’s a good thing. Because when more eligible people are voting, that makes for a stronger state.
Oregon has two novel laws intended to increase voter participation, Motor Voter and vote-by-mail. Are these policies under threat?
I think some people would say so. But what we intend to do is to make sure that people understand the benefits. Because fundamentally, it’s better when people are participating, when they feel like they have a stake in the outcomes, when they’re making their voices heard, when they’re holding politicians accountable.
There’s a fundamental right to vote, and we should be about making it easier for eligible people to do. We live in a big, rural state. So why should someone have to drive a long way to vote? We’re past that — this is the 21st Century. Why should someone have to take time off from work to exercise their fundamental right?
I actually try not to say “Vote by Mail” as much as I say “Vote at Home.” We tend to use mail to distribute ballots but you don’t have to use the mail to return them. I’ve talked to a number of clerks who say that people often tell them they want to vote in person. And I’m like, go right ahead! We even have some booths in clerk’s offices if you want to do it right there. That’s fine Wherever you want, with whatever resources you want. That’s a good thing.
Could Trump’s executive order on elections destabilize election security in Oregon?
Well, again, the first thing to remember is we’re already running good elections. I think what we need to think about is the impact that the executive order would have on Oregonians.
Imagine someone who lives in a rural spot — they have to drive a long distance to an elections office. Think about somebody who’s changed their name as a result of getting married — they have an additional burden to meet, to produce identification that matches their birth certificate, like a passport. Now that’s a cost.
All of these are solutions in search of problems. They do not need to happen because we run good elections in Oregon. I also think this executive order is illegal. We are making that case with the Attorney General and the state of Washington. It’s already been the subject of some injunctions in other cases. So we’re going to continue to run these good elections. We’re prepared for whatever disruption happens. It’s that simple.
Trump has also cut funding and programs for election security. How will that impact our state? And can you talk about the distinction there?
The connection between those two is what’s particularly galling. The language in the executive order is about protecting elections, and the irony is that they are threatening the very laws and dollars that address the real problems.
There’s a story I think about frequently. We visited a particular county clerk who was, in one breath, sort of celebrating the fact that she had successfully installed bulletproof glass in her office. I mean, that alone is a scary thing. And in the next breath, she sort of laments the fact that there was still a gap between the top of the bulletproof glass and the ceiling where somebody could throw an incendiary over. And that’s crazy too.
And yet this executive order threatens the dollars and the grants that provide for that kind of thing — for bulletproof glass, for the security, for security cameras. If they really were serious about trying to improve election security, they’d be supporting those grants and those dollars.
Cuts to USPS have slowed mail service, in rural parts of the state, especially. How might this impact elections in Oregon?
We got to recognize that the Postal Service is not just a delivery service. It’s a connection to the world. And it’s not just paper being delivered. The Postal Service delivers all kinds of other things. And it can mean life and death. I mean, how many people in rural areas get their prescriptions by mail?
I think there’s a temptation sometimes to say that government should run like a business. But this is an example where that’s not the case. Because the postal service goes everywhere, not just the places that are profitable. This is why our founders made it a federal agency. So we have to be really clear about the impacts of cuts, because the postal service is a lifeline for communities.
We’re working hard with our congressional delegation to make sure that case is being made. Obviously, we have a direct stake in this when it comes to elections, but it’s much, much bigger than that.
Your office provides various services for businesses. How can cuts to the postal service impact businesses?
Well, I think if you’re a business in a rural area, your connection to your customers, to the government — to everything — is affected. And that matters particularly to rural Oregon, where a business might want to be if they have that kind of reliable connection, and where they might not be able to be if they don’t have that connection.
So we interact with every business and nonprofit in Oregon. They register with our Corporations Division. And we can see those trends as people start new businesses and renew their licenses and those kinds of things. So it’s essential that the post office continue to serve every part of the state.
I know you want to strengthen the Office of Small Business Assistance, which helps small business owners navigate the government. Is the government too complicated for small business owners to navigate?
I think you can make the case that our government can be too complex for everybody. In certain cases, the Small Business Assistance Office is really important because I’ve never met a business owner who says ‘I want to spend less time running my business and more time interacting with government.’
We can’t guarantee that we’re going to remove all of those frustrations. But (the office) exists to try to help businesses navigate those twists and turns — that bureaucracy — and to learn from those experiences. So we can be an advocate with other agencies to say this, this process doesn’t make sense. We can make this more convenient, more responsive, more nimble, and they’re doing good work.
We want people to be interacting with them, both for their own benefit, and as we can discover more of those trends and try to improve the overall operations of government.
Click here to subscribe to Oregon Business.
