NR election filler 2020

Douglas County residents, on the whole, broadly agreed with each other on the candidates and most of the issues in Tuesday’s election.

But a precinct-by-precinct comparison shows a few differences in voting patterns in different parts of the county.

The News-Review drilled down into the precinct data to see what some of those differences were.

We found that a majority of voters in every one of the county’s 28 precincts favored reelecting Donald Trump to the presidency, but the strength of that support varied.

Views on a new vaping tax measure, a psilocybin therapy measure, and a drug decriminalization measure varied. Some precincts favored one or more of these changes while most opposed them.

Here’s a closer look at some of the data.

Trump’s support ranged from a low of 54.7% in Southeast Roseburg’s Precinct 22 to a high of 76.19% in Precinct 21, a rural district covering a portion of South County between Riddle and Glendale.

Precinct 21 wasn’t the only place where Trump received 70% or more of the vote. Six other rural precincts did that too, along with precincts in Yoncalla, Glendale, Riddle, and West Winston.

Other precincts where Trump received less than 60% of the vote were located in Reedsport, Northwest Roseburg, Southwest Roseburg, Northeast Roseburg and Elkton.

Back in 2016, Elkton’s Precinct 10 voters virtually tied, with 42 votes for Trump and 41 for Democrat Hillary Clinton.

This time, they chose Trump more decisively, giving him 66 votes over 47 votes for Biden. Still, that gave Democrat Joe Biden his best percentage — 40.87% — of any Douglas County precinct. (Trump’s worst precinct isn’t the same as Biden’s best precinct because some voters chose third party candidates or didn’t make a choice in the presidential race.)

The majority of voters in U.S. House District 4 went for Democrat Peter DeFazio, giving him the win. But every Douglas County precinct preferred Republican Alek Skarlatos.

As with the presidential race, though, levels of support varied. DeFazio had the most support in four precincts covering Elkton, Southwest Roseburg, Northeast Roseburg and Southeast Roseburg. He earned better than 40% of the vote in those precincts, but still less than the majority in the county.

On to the ballot measures.

Every Douglas County precinct agreed that they wanted to remain in Oregon rather than joining Idaho.

And every Douglas County precinct voted in favor of Measure 107 on campaign reform, a measure which passed statewide.

But the Douglas County results varied on three other statewide measures — Measure 108 on vaping taxes, Measure 109 on legalizing psilocybin therapy, and Measure 110 on decriminalizing drugs.

Each of these measures was passed by Oregon voters. Douglas County voters as a whole rejected each of them, and 17 county precincts matched that result.

But ten of the county’s 28 precincts favored the vaping tax by majority vote. Five favored decriminalizing drugs. And one precinct even stood alone against the county tide and favored psilocybin therapy.

So where were the precincts that didn’t go with the county as a whole?

Measure 108 on vape taxes was supported by precincts in Reedsport, Elkton, Sutherlin, and in and around Roseburg. Some of those precincts included North Roseburg, Northwest Roseburg, Southwest Roseburg, Northeast Roseburg, Southeast Roseburg and two rural areas west of Roseburg.

Measure 110 on decriminalizing drugs was favored in North Roseburg, Southwest Roseburg, Northeast Roseburg and Southeast Roseburg. Elkton also voted for it.

And the only spot in the county where the majority favored Measure 109’s legalized psilocybin therapy? That was Precinct 22 in Southeast Roseburg.

React to this story:


Senior Reporter

Carisa Cegavske is the senior reporter for The News-Review. She can be reached at or 541-957-4213. Follow her on Twitter @carisa_cegavske

Recommended for you

(16) comments


mworden - I think it is fair to say that we are both going to lean toward the explanation that fits our different narratives. I acknowledge the words that he said, but based on subsequent remarks from Mnuchin and others along with my own common sense leads me to conclude that his intent was not to forever permanently cut social social security taxes or benefits. The executive order allowed a tax deferral on the payroll taxes paid by employees (not the employer side) through the end of 2020 as a stimulus measure. Then, rather than leaving it as a deferral which would subsequently have to be paid back when income taxes are filed, he wanted the deferral amount to be a permanent tax cut thus, forgiven from having to be paid back. I'm not a Trump fan, primarily because he very often misspeaks and doesn't use the correct political rhetoric. Words do matter, but we all need to honestly research and use common sense to find the intent beyond just the words reported or quoted, especially when they come from biased media.


I'm in Precinct 21--that precinct with the highest Trump vote. I spent a boatload of time canvassing for the Democratic Party in each election since 2008, the year we came here. It's been difficult to believe how many of my neighbors vote against their own interests and their own stated values. One "least racist person you'll ever meet" neighbor, in 2012, had a bumper sticker, "Don't Re-Nig in 2012"--so, there's that. Same guy gets Social Security, Medicare, and other benefits of the social welfare state, and bloviates about socialism.


The idea that many voters seemingly vote against their own self interest has flummoxed democrats, myself included, for several election cycles.

The problem with that idea is that Democrats don't get to define what is in people's best interest. And, as Isabel Wilkerson argues in her book, Caste, what may actually be in some people's best interest is maintaining their position in our caste system. Kind of puts a different perspective on the whole idea of "best interest".


That point of view is saying that our caste system of white supremacy is a valid political position. It's not. It's systemic racism and advocating to conserve that is repugnant and should be shamed out of existence. It shouldn't be coddled or accepted as valid. What's good for the top caste should not come at the expense of anyone else.

Life is not a zero sum game and we can ALL do better.


Understood. Please see my comment, above. Looking forward to Putnam book.


and, in celebration:




I do not think that is not what Wilkerson argues. I think her point is that we live in a caste system. She compares and contrasts our caste system to the caste systems India and to Germany in WW II. The book is at the library and is not horribly dense. She tells a lot of stories.


True, and thanks for the book suggestion. I further suggest Dying of Whiteness, which makes the same argument. It's tribal and positional, more than based on enlightened self-interest, it seems. I'm about to start Putnam's new book, which may suggest some remedies.


Oh. And Wilkerson differentiates between racism and caste. I have to admit I didn't quite understand how they are different except perhaps that caste is something that a person is born into and racism is something that is learned. Caste, then, would run deeper than racism and be harder to overcome. Please note that I am still internalizing Wilkerson's book.)


so true




That's typical of many retirees. Trump had already stated he was going to eliminate the payroll tax which funds Social Security. For some reasons, retirees were unable to figure that their SS was going to disappear if that happened.


Maybe it’s because they don’t believe everything CNN tells them. Upon doing a little research, it is clear that he proposed a reduction in payroll taxes deducted from employee wages through 12/31 as a stimulus measure (just as Obama did back in 2008). Whatever words he used, his intent is not to eliminate or defund social security, but to make more of the funding come through the general fund since it will become unsustainable on its own in the not too distant future. No one currently on social security will lose benefits in their lifetime. And, here’s the other thing, my husband and I are in our early 50s. We have been paying into SS for more than 30 years, yet we are not planning for it to be available to us when we hit retirement, but that’s ok, because we know that the funds we have contributed are helping to fund our parents benefits.


MDudley, I admire your ability to say it's okay if SS is not there for you and your husband because it's helping your parents now. That's a great, unselfish attitude. Part of my activism is aimed at making sure people your age and younger will still have the benefit of both Social Security and Medicare when they retire or if they become permanently disabled.

Trump did say that if he was re-elected he intended to make the payroll tax cut permanent. There is video. I just watched it to make sure my memory was correct. He says it clearly. It's not iffy at all.

"President Trump pledged on Saturday to pursue a permanent cut to the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare if he wins reelection in November..."


Here is my thoughts on how to keep Social Security solvent.

1. Lift the cap completely. All wage earnings are subject to Social Security tax.

2. Make Capital Gains subject to the same Social Security tax.

3. All this increase will mean a decrease in the amount people will pay into the FICA tax and could increase benefits to recipients.

My question to you MDudley is how do you know what Trump's intent on eliminating Social Security? Are you privy to his thoughts?

The only thing keeping the SS solvency from being dealt with is political will. Too many of our politicians are gutless.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.