Lucero and Ritter have earned another term

The world of Butte County partisan politics is a rough one. Political parties and candidates will stop at nothing to demonize their opponents and get their own side elected. And let’s face it, both sides are pretty good at it.

We’re seeing an especially aggressive campaign against Supervisor Debra Lucero, who is seeking reelection in District 2. And Tami Ritter, who along with Lucero make up the two generally progressive/liberal votes on the county board, is seeking reelection in District 3.

As regular readers of this space know, we don’t agree with every decision made by Lucero and Ritter, and we’ve come down on the side of the three conservative county supervisors on most of the more well-publicized agenda items of the past few months (notably redistricting and the Tuscan Water District).

But does that mean we want to see the Chico-based supervisors replaced in the June 7 election?

Absolutely not. Lucero and Ritter are ultimately guilty of little more than representing (and fighting for) the will of the people who put them in office.

They never get outworked; they’re as wellversed in the issues as any voter could hope for; and by any standard, they’re very responsive to the people they represent.

Those are just three of the reasons both candidates have earned our endorsement.

Let’s start with Lucero. In what has shaped up to be the most contentious of the two races, Lucero is challenged by Peter Durfee, a sergeant with the Chico Police Department, and Carl Jeffries, a longtime environmental health and safety manager. The money and endorsements show it’s shaping up as a tight race between Lucero and Durfee, and the recent redistricting didn’t exactly help Lucero’s chances.

Durfee is backed by some of the biggest names in local conservative politics — including Assemblyman James Gallagher (R-Yuba City), Chico city councilor Sean Morgan and a few family members of Butte County Supervisor Tod Kimmelshue. (For the record, we generally agree with their political stances, and endorsed all three men in their most recent elections.) Not surprisingly, Durfee also has the full backing of local law enforcement as well as six of the seven sitting Chico councilors.

That’s no small deal and frankly, there’s plenty to like about Durfee. As a sergeant working graveyard shifts, he’s knowledgeable about his district and its people. He rightly puts public safety and homelessness high on his list of issues and he’s got invaluable front-line experience dealing with both. He’s personable, has earned several impressive endorsements, has a great life story to tell — he beat indescribable odds in becoming a major league baseball umpire — and we like his stance on a good number of the issues.

One thing, though. If elected, he says he’ll keep his job with the police department. That’s admirable, and we don’t doubt that he has the passion and energy to fill both roles.

But we just don’t see “county supervisor” as a second job these days, especially when your first job is such a demanding venture. We fully respect and admire Durfee’s work as a police sergeant; the problem is, he’s running against someone who spends every waking moment representing her constituents. There’s just no way he could match that; there aren’t enough hours in the day.

That’s one reason we’re endorsing Lucero. There are others, and they all have to do with the job she’s done. Simply put, she’s earned it.

Lucero is a fulltime supervisor and beyond. She serves on 28 different committees and, partisan attacks aside, that work often garners benefits for her constituents. She’s quick to listen to, and respond to, any concerns her constituents have, be it in person or via social media, at pretty much any hour of the day or night.

And it needs to be emphasized that without Lucero, Chico may not yet have its Pallet shelter site. And then what kind of mess would we be in? (A reminder to Chico’s far right: Enforcement has begun. That’s because we have a Pallet shelter site. Without the Pallet shelter site, enforcement would still be months, or maybe years, away. You think the city’s a mess now? Consider the alternative.)

Whether you agree with some of Lucero’s views or not, it was her last-minute negotiating that netted the necessary fourth vote to approve the county’s purchase of the shelters with $1.7 million from the American Rescue Plan Act. From that standpoint alone, one could argue that Lucero did more to help “clean up the camps” in Chico than many of those trying to defeat her today.

And let’s talk about that campaign. Recent advertising supported by a PAC called Butte Forward

has associated Lucero with everything from needles in the parks to the high price of gasoline — a stretch even by normal political advertising standards. (Actually, she and Ritter were part of a 5-0 vote banning syringe programs within the county’s unincorporated areas; Chico and Oroville had already adopted similar measures.)

It’s just one more example of the two Chico sides campaigning against their cliche-ridden versions of the other side. Unfortunately, that often works.

In the District 3 race, Ritter also recognizes homelessness as a major ongoing issue, and few have a longer history of hands-on involvement with it. We like the passion and the knowledge she brings to this fight. In an era where the truth barely stands a chance against the “run them all out of town!” mob mentality that got Chico into this Boise vs. Martin mess in the first place, Ritter recognizes that homelessness is a multi-faceted issue with no one cause and no one answer; we like having her in a position to continue fighting the fallacies with facts, especially in terms of understanding the housing and mentalhealth aspects.

We’ll note, too, that Ritter — like Lucero — is actually in agreement with the other supervisors on a majority of the issues. There are more 5-0 votes than 3-2. In a county that’s about as divided as it gets politically, we think a 3-2 split on the controversial issues sounds about right too.

We also liked Mary

Murphy-Waldorf, a political newcomer who is challenging Ritter in Democrat-heavy District 3.

Her calls for collaboration, community interests and working together to solve issues were warmly received in her discussion with our editorial board, so much so that we couldn’t help but wish we had people with her mindset occupying all five seats. We hope she gets involved with local politics and brings a few like-minded people with her; our cities and county could use them.

We’ll touch on a final issue: Water. We brought it up in every candidates’ interview. It was obvious that Ritter and Lucero could have talked about the issue — any issue, really — from every angle all day long. It was another reminder that these supervisors study what’s important and never show up to any forum less than fully informed. Right down the line, their grasp of the issues stood out compared with that of their opponents.

So ultimately, we’re sticking with one of the guiding principles we held in 2020 and 2018 and many elections in the past: If the incumbents that were duly elected by their constituents are doing their job, working hard and reflecting the will of their voters, we think they’ve earned the opportunity to keep their jobs.

Lucero and Ritter have definitely done that, and more. While we’re lucky to have so many good candidates on the ballot, we’re especially lucky that the two best choices are already on the job.

If the incumbents that were duly elected by their constituents are doing their job, working hard and reflecting the will of their voters, we think they’ve earned the opportunity to keep their jobs. Lucero and Ritter have definitely done that, and more.