Skip to main content
The first elections complaint against Democratic candidate for governor Nicholas Kristof landed at the Oregon secretary of state’s Elections Division this week.
Roey Thorpe, the former executive director of Basic Rights Oregon and a well-known figure in political circles, filed a complaint against Kristof on Nov. 18, taking issue with the timing of Kristof’s formation of a political action committee and disclosure of certain transactions.
“I believe Mr. Kristof and his campaign did not form a committee on time, have not reported campaign contributions and expenditures on time, and may not have reported all contributions and expenditures,” Thorpe wrote.
Thorpe is a supporter of House Speaker Tina Kotek (D-Portland), who, like Kristof, is running for governor.
Before Kristof, a longtime New York Times journalist who grew up in Yamhill, entered the race, WW raised questions in August about whether he met the requirements to run for governor laid out in the Oregon Constitution, namely that a candidate must be an Oregon resident for three years prior to the election.
The language in the constitution is stilted and less than crystal clear: “No person except a citizen of the United States, shall be eligible to the Office of Governor, nor shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the age of thirty years, and who shall not have been three years next preceding his election, a resident within this State.”
Kristof and his family lived in New York state in recent decades and he voted there in November 2020, attesting with his vote that he was a resident of New York. He and his attorneys say that’s irrelevant and, in a 15-page legal memo, argue that his having been raised in Oregon, owned property here while he lived elsewhere, and always considered himself an Oregonian dictate his residency.
It is the cost and timing of the legal opinion, rather than the underlying residency question, that is the subject of Thorpe’s complaint.
“I don’t believe Mr. Kristof complied with the requirement that a candidate must establish a campaign committee and file a Statement of Organization within three business days of spending or receiving more than $750,” Thorpe writes.
Thorpe argues that the gap between the legal opinion—authored Aug. 20 by Misha Isaak and Thomas Johnson of the law firm Perkins Coie—and when Kristof filed to form his political action committee Oct. 12 means he either incurred significant legal expense or accepted an in-kind contribution from Perkins Coie that should have been disclosed earlier.
“The memo is a polished piece of work, reflecting considerable research and consultation by lawyers at a full-service civil firm with offices throughout the U.S. and Asia,” Thorpe writes. “It is inconceivable that Perkins Coie’s lawyers worked up that memo for less than $750. Even if they did it pro bono, I doubt they would assess the in-kind value of their work at less than thousands of dollars—with good reason, because Mr. Kristof’s residency issues are complex.”
Carol Butler, Kristof’s campaign chairwoman, says the complaint is without merit.
“Nick Kristof is running as an outsider against an entrenched political system that is failing the people it’s supposed to serve, so we expect this is just the beginning of groundless attacks from insiders,” Butler says.
“Ascertaining that he was eligible to run was a necessary, important, and responsible part of Nick’s decision-making process. The judgment that he qualifies was an important step toward making a final decision to run. He was not a candidate, nor had he decided to become one when the memo was written, so there was absolutely no requirement to report it as an expenditure.”
The complaint will now be investigated by the state Elections Division.