General Election Guide: Oregon Measures

Published 5:00 pm Tuesday, October 15, 2002

Editor’s note: The following summaries were compiled by the news departments of the East Oregonian Publishing Co., parent company of the Blue Mountain Eagle. Staffs gathered information at question-and-answer sessions where proponents and opponents of the 12 statewide initiatives spoke about the measures. Endorsements were made by each newspaper’s editorial board.Measure 14 (removing racial references)Where did it come from? After listening to lectures by Portland State University Prof. Darrell Millner, a number of people around the state became aware of racially restrictive phrases in the Oregon Constitution. A group of them coalesced around the idea of amending the Constitution to remove the phrases. Senators Avel Gordly and Margaret Carter were among the prime movers. Their ballot referral was enacted by a wide margin in House and Senate.What it would do: This constitutional amendment would remove language that identifies restrictions based on members of the white race only. This would remove obsolete historical racial references in the Oregon ConstitutionReality check: The Oregon Constitution is a product of mid-19th century American culture, in which only white males held property and political power. Thus the document restricts from residence people who were of mulatto or black ancestry. It also restricts the ability of people in those classes to own property and be in the court system. “White citizens” is a common restrictive phrase throughout the document. Once the 14th Amendment passed in 1868, these constitutional provisions could not be enforced. But the language remains. A number of people testified against the measure. They argued that the phrases were an accurate reflection of that time period.Recommendation: Yes.The Oregon Constitution is, to a certain extent a historic relic. It is also an organic, living document. Reasonable Oregonians can well imagine that these antique phrases are offensive to contemporary Oregonians, because they describe a society in which they would have no rights. Measures 15 and 16 (seismic reinforcement of buildings)Where did it come from? This legislative referral was put together by a diverse group of scientists, lawmakers and those involved in each of these areas. The state’s public buildings are not safe in an earthquake. An earthquake of a magnitude of 9 on the Richter scale is coming, say proponents of the measures. “It’s going to be devastating,” said State Sen. Peter Courtney, D-Salem, speaking for the bipartisan legislative committee formed to address the issue. “It will be like nothing we’ve ever experienced. The degree of danger varies depending on where you are in the state, but it’s not just a threat to Portland.”What it would do: Measure 15 authorizes the state to issue general obligation bonds for seismic rehabilitation of public education buildings, from kindergarten through college. Its companion bill, Measure 16, does the same for those buildings involved with public safety – hospitals, law enforcement and emergency response facilities. These measures would give the Legislature the funding ability to pay for structural improvements.Reality check: Currently the state constitution forbids the Legislature from loaning the state’s credit in excess of $50,000, with limited exceptions. While the measures don’t allocate dollars, they do allow the Legislature to issue bonds, with a cap of $500 million. The bonds would be repaid from any revenue source other than property taxes. Why is a constitutional amendment needed when building codes are typically the answer in other states? “Everything else we had tried had failed before,” said Courtney on getting the support to get the work done. “This was the only way to get the funding to retrofit and remodel these buildings and get them ready for a massive earthquake.” Courtney also notes that 90 percent of the state’s school buildings were built in a time when little was known about how buildings could be constructed to withstand an earthquake’s impact. Recommendation: Yes on both.Measure 17 (age requirement for legislators)Where did it come from? The Oregon Legislature referred this measure to the voters. The moving force behind the measure was Portlander Jake Oken-Berg, who as an 18-year-old ran a convincing race against Portland Mayor Vera Katz for mayor. The measure was referred to the ballot by large majorities in the state House and Senate. No one testified against it during committee hearings.What it would do: Amends the Constitution to reduce the minimum age of eligibility for election to the state Legislature from 21 years to 18. Reality check: The question raised by skeptics of this ballot measure is whether an 18-year-old would have the ability to compromise or indulge in the kind of give and take that is required in a legislative session. Do 18-year-olds have the capacity to move off a position once they staked it out. The larger logic is that if 18-year-olds can serve in the military and defend the county, why not allow them serve in the Legislature?Recommendation: Yes.The questions raised by skeptics are credible. It must also be said that adults as a group are not necessarily predisposed toward compromise and accommodation. The recent special sessions have demonstrated the inability of certain adults to get along in a collegial setting. We are not talking about all 18-year-olds, but the exceptional young person with the desire and ambition to serve in the Legislature. It that person were sufficiently charismatic to rise above the crowd, Oregon might be well served by him or her. Measure 18 (split rate constitutional amendment)Where did it come from? Deschutes County commissioner and former state legislator Dennis Luke said his county asked for this legislation in order to introduce permissive language in state law.What it would do: State law does not include express permission for local taxpayers to voluntarily impose different tax rates in separate tax zones depending on where citizens live. As a result, local agencies such as sheriffs’ offices can be forced to operate on short-term voter levies rather than receive a more predictable and consistent tax base through public vote. In Deschutes County, for example, voters are asked to approve a levy every three years to support sheriff’s services. With passage of Measure 18, voters could be given the option to approve separate tax zones with permanent rate limits. An example is a split rate between city and county jurisdictions to ensure fairness when citizens pay for the services provided by local levels of government.Reality check: In Deschutes County, passage of Measure 18 would allow the sheriff to receive a permanent tax base via a public vote rather than require a levy every three years to run the sheriff’s department. Measure 18 allows local voters to approve permanent tax bases with limits. “It’s an option. It’s not imposed on anybody without a vote,” Luke emphasized. Measure 18 appears to be a housekeeping measure. However, its implications are important to public servants such as Luke who are trying to see that property taxes are properly collected and distributed. Supporters of Measure 18 include the Association of Oregon Counties, League of Oregon Cities and chambers of commerce.Recommendation: Yes.Through a quirk of Oregon law, split rates for property taxes were not specifically allowed. Measure 18 corrects this oversight. Measure 21 (“None of the Above” Act for electing judges)Where did it come from? Oregon’s perennial tax activist Don McIntire, who was the father of Measure 5, and Loren Parks (money bags to a host of defeated ballot measures), put this measure on the ballot. Opponents claim this measure is an attempt by McIntire and his supporters to undermine the state’s judicial election system because they cannot get their candidates on the ballot.What it would do: This constitutional amendment would require judicial vacancies be filled through special elections the following May or November after the vacancy takes place. If the vacancy occurs within 90 days of the election, the race would be pushed back until the next May or November. This would replace current law that requires the governor to appoint judges into those vacancies until regularly scheduled judicial races, which are filled during general elections (November of even-numbered years). Also appearing on the ballot of all judicial races will be “None of the Above.” If “None of the Above” draws more votes than the candidate winning the most votes, a runoff election will be required until a candidate other than “None of the Above” receives the most votes. Supporters believe incumbent judges seeking re-election often have an unfair opportunity to keep their seats. With the governor appointing judges when vacancies occur, it gives them the judges who supporters say have similar philosophies as the governor who appointed them. It also gives them an advantage when they run for re-election. Opponents believe this will leave gaping holes in Oregon courts, especially those in rural areas where it doesn’t make sense to leave positions open until the next election. Too many cases will back up and such a law would not be practical. Besides, they argue, it’s unfair to run a so-called candidate “None of the Above,” which further politicizes a process that should not be political. The proposal is to allow Oregon voters to elect all judges from the beginning, rather than have the governor appoint them. Also, it allows voters a way to get rid of incumbent judges running unopposed whom they do not want in office, claim supporters of the bill. Instead of governor-nominated judges filling vacancies, special elections would be held the following May or November. If the vacancy occurs within 90 days of the election, it would be pushed back until the following May or November. If “None of the Above” receives more votes than any challengers, another election must be held until a candidate receives more votes than “None of the Above.”Reality check: This, for the most part, takes the governor out of process of choosing judges to fill vacancies. It also allows opponents of judges running unopposed to mount a campaign against them by supporting “None of the above.”Recommendation: No.An independent judiciary is the bedrock of American and Oregon’s democracy. This initiative threatens that basic tenet, by bringing special interest politics into the courtroom. If enacted, this measure would easily lead to a perpetual election cycle for judges, because they would constantly be competing with a phantom opponent named “None of the Above.” Judicial districts could easily sit vacant for months after “None of the Above” won. Our judicial elections work fine. They aren’t broke. There is no need to “fix” them.