Election complaint filed againts House candidate Brent Barton


[Press Release by Tyler Smith pertaining to House #51 candidate Brent Barton vs. Linda Flores]

Attorney Files Formal Complaint with Secretary of State against Brent Barton for Lying in his Voters’ Pamphlet A formal election law complaint is being filed with the Secretary of State against Brent Barton for violating one or more Oregon election laws. Canby attorney Tyler Smith states in the complaint that Mr. Barton has either violated election law by seriously misleading Clackamas county voters by padding his resume or has violated election laws by failing to include his alleged employment as a “criminal prosecutor” in violation of both ORS 251.085 and ORS 260.532.

The complaint states that Mr. Barton has, in five separate occasions while campaigning, stated he was a “criminal prosecutor” or had a “background as a criminal prosecutor.” Mr. Barton claims he was a criminal prosecutor while in law school.

If Mr. Barton was a real prosecutor, he should have listed this employment in the voters’ pamphlet statement next to prior governmental experience. If Mr. Barton was not a prosecutor he has lied to pad his resume.

The complaint requests that the Secretary of State investigate this matter immediately and if warranted prosecute Mr. Barton immediately.

###

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 12:41 | Posted in Measure 37 | 7 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Anonymous

    Well then I guess Ms. Flores needs to add in her voters pamphlet statement that she apparently is very fiscally irresponsible. At least Mr. Baron has not had a car repossesed!

  • DeVietro

    Linda is one of the last good elected officials we have left in Oregon, if she looses this one it will be a sad day for Oregon. If she looses it because her opponent lied it will be a sad day in many more ways. The unfortunate thing is that many ballots have already been cast so the SOS may be even more hands off then normal with this case.

    • Tim Zimmerman

      Here is a copy of the statute allegedly violated: ORS 251.085 Format of candidate’s statement. The candidate’s statement shall begin with a summary of the following: Occupation, educational and occupational background, and prior governmental experience. [Formerly 255.027]
      Nothing there says each and every job must be listed. Also, ORS 260.532 states the sole remedy is for an aggrieved candidate or political committee can file suit in Circuit Court. I suspect even Ms. Flores knows such a suit would be frivolous, as is the complaint, in my humble opinion. Interestingly, Mr. Smith shows he cc’d his “client” but has failed to disclose on the letter who is the client. Ms. Flores listed her occupation as “Homemaker/Volunteer.” She did not include “State Representative.” Does that mean she violated ORS 251.085? I doubt it. Following Mr. Smith’s logic, omission of this information from her voter’s pamphlet would be obviously misleading and is very likely to confuse voters into thinking she is not the current legislator and may mislead voters into thinking a vote for her is a vote for change. Of course such arguments are ridiculous. It is quite telling, I think, of the character of those involved ithat this complaint was even filed.

  • Bugs

    This is the most frivolous election complaint that I have ever seen filed in Oregon. There is absolutely no requirement to list ALL former occupations in the Voters Pamphlet. There simply wouldn’t be room on the page for many older candidates.

    And I thought that Flores was opposed to frivolous lawsuits…..hmmmm….

  • Jack Roberts

    You guys aren’t serious about this, are you? First of all, there is no rule about what jobs you have to include in listing your occupational background in the voter’s pamphlet. In all my years in the voter’s pamphlet, I never mentioned working as a law clerk while going to law school–or for that matter, working at McDonald’s while in high school.

    Second, while Barton might be guilty of “puffing” in his claim to have worked as a prosecutor, it is not a lie.

    If Bradbury upheld a complaint like this against a Republican, I would be incensed and say it just confirms all the bad things we have said against him as a partisan hack. I don’t expect him to uphold this complaint against Barton, either.

    • kenny

      The truth is out. Jack Roberts worked at McDonald’s. There goes your Burger King lobby support.

  • dean

    Barton did real criminal prosecution as part of his law school training. All law schools send their 3rd year students out to get real world defense and/or prosecution training. Much ado about nothing.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)