"In other words, while Sizemore is hot and bothered about the use of the English language, he can't be bothered to use it correctly himself"

This shows how bored and uptight he is with his substandard life and questionable values. It is best just to vote "NO" on it and it will go away. In Fact, any Sizemore (and Mannix for that matter) initiatives gets a "NO" vote automatically.

I would avocate voting "NO" on everything in 2008, but some people just get too uptight about that idea. I will leave it at that until later.

Kari,

If a ballot measure is "crap", it should be easy to campaign against. Evidently, enough people think this one is attractive to get it on the ballot. Do you see legislative review as having an advisory role, or would it keep some initiatives from the ballot? The latter would, I think, negate the power of the initiative system, which is, after all, a check on the power of the legislature.

For the record, I agree that this initiative is ill-advised as well as ill-written.

John, it probably gathered enough signatures because people often don't actually read the proposed measures before signing them.

In my experience, a good way to annoy some signature gatherers is to insist that they show you the full text of the proposed measure before you consider signing it. Then sit there and read the whole thing. Some will regard it as a big inconvenience.

One time, I asked a signature gatherer to explain the measure to me and why I should sign it. (I am reluctant to sign any petition unless I'm convinced the person circulating the petition sincerely cares about it and isn't just motivated by a paycheck.) He scoffed. "It's to save the whales!" he said dismissively. I expressed confusion, because the ballot title had nothing about whales. "Who cares what it says? Just sign it."

I believe many of the people circulating petitions believe in the causes promoted by them and are stirred by their conscience. But we also know that some petition gatherers have little to no actual interest in the politics they are furthering. They sometimes employ tactics to make people feel uncomfortable about trying understanding the measures before they sign.

Tom, I agree it's probably against the principle of the initiative system to give the legislature that sort of veto power. But without some sort of legislative review of ballot measures, it falls on voters to be extra vigilant in rejecting poorly-crafted measures--even when we might agree with the general idea behind the measure.

Frankly, I am angered by the sheer irresponsibility demonstrated by Sizemore here. (Sadly, I am not surprised.) One should not propose changes to the law that are so badly written!

"a good way to annoy some signature gatherers is to insist that they show you the full text of the proposed measure before you consider signing it."

I have done this and more often than not, the gatherer gets really ticked off about it to the point they get verbally abusive. I also ask who wrote the petition...and they tell me "why does that matter"? It maked me wonder if they actually belive in the petition or they are even Oregon residents.

And people wonder why I don't sign any petitions and vote NO on everything.

"But without some sort of legislative review of ballot measures, it falls on voters to be extra vigilant in rejecting poorly-crafted measures--even when we might agree with the general idea behind the measure"

Voting "NO" helps out a lot, too.

Bottom line - Sizemore measure, automatic "NO"

Measure 37 taught me the value of the legislature. More often than not, legislators are unreliable at best, morally compromised at worst, but at least they understand that laws do not get written in a vacuum. It does not serve us to allow any idiot with a typewriter and 1000 friends to put measures on the ballot.

carla axtman wrote:

We already have a check on the legislature. Its called the vote.

That is not an opinion held by most Oregonians, who value the initiative process known nationwide as the Oregon System.

Many of my progressive brethren have turned against the initiative system because of Sizemore, McIntyre, and OCA efforts. Perhaps I am a conservative when it comes to the structure of governance. I do not belief an institution should be destroyed because we do not like how it is being used at present. Circumstances change. Democratic institutions should endure.

A legislative review process as Kari outlines above could be useful if it is not structured to cause inordinate delay in the initiative process. In other words, how long could the legislature doing nothing delay the initiative effort from doing anything?

RE TJ's message, schools use ESL because it has been found to work. For some reason, that upsets right wingers.

"Many of my progressive brethren have turned against the initiative system because of Sizemore, McIntyre, and OCA efforts"

It's called abuse of the system and disrespecting the voters wishes and results. The OCA kept giving us hurtful garbage when the voters clearly told them, repeatedly, NO. It looks like now that Sizemore is doing the same thing. We tell him NO in our votes and he still keeps giving us garbage.

When someone says NO, they mean it and it has to be respected as such. People like Sizemore do not learn this common sense because they feel that since they have the money to do it, they feel entitled to inflict and force feed us the ubiquitous garbage they put forward.

"the fact that Bill Sizemore was found guilty of racketeering and can continue to participate in this process is absolutely reprehensible"

I agree. In the real world of criminal law, a guilty verdict for anything tanslates into one losing some of their rights (in some states, losing the right to vote) and having to earn them back. But Bill operates in his own world. When is he going to learn that those voices in his head are not real people that support his views and notions?

He also misused which where he should have used that.

If this idiocy does pass, and I can't imagine that it will, the SC will strike this down so fast.

Many of my progressive brethren have turned against the initiative system because of Sizemore, McIntyre, and OCA efforts

Count me as one of these folks. Between the wingnuts and the ignorant, paid initiative gatherers, I say a pox on them all. How much more bad, expensive policy has to be enacted before more people join me? I quit signing initiatives years ago, and unless I see some very profound changes to the system, I will continue declining to sign any initiatives...unless I see one to abolish the system completely. Sad but that's how I feel now.

Sizemore's means are strange; his ends are awful.

My wife teaches high school ELL (English for Language Learners, also known elsewhere as ESL). Students are not grouped based on native language; they are grouped based on their level of English proficiency (beginner, intermediate, advanced). Accordingly, she might have three or four different native languages within a single class. The language of instruction is English. It's pretty obvious why: apart from the pedagogical challenges of running a class in multiple languages simultaneously, my wife does not speak Russian and Mixtec and Korean and Arabic!

Now, schools with high concentrations of a small number of non-English language groups should (and some do) provide bilingual instruction, as research shows that being literate in your native language is a strong predictor your success learning another. It's also important that immigrants not get too far behind in math and science, for example, merely because they are struggling to learn English. The reality, however, is that bilingual instruction is not the norm in many ELL/ESL classrooms, nor is it the expectation.

It appears that Sizemore's intention is to eliminate a sizeable amount of the type of ELL instruction that my wife provides. It is not at all clear that his statute would do that; in fact, it's hard to figure out how it would.

For reference, Oregon's current policy on language in schools reads:

336.074 Teaching in English required; exceptions. Instruction in all subjects in public, private and parochial schools shall be conducted primarily in English, except:

  (1) Instruction in foreign languages.

  (2) Instruction may be conducted in more than one language in order that pupils whose native language is other than English can develop bilingual skills to make an early and effective transition to English and benefit from increased educational opportunities.

(Am I in trouble for copying this here?)

I don't know Tom Sizemore from Adam, but isn't it intellectually dishonest to automatically vote no to something?

I'm not sure that Sizemore's idea is a good one but I think you are all getting lost on his grammatical error and missing the point of the whole bill. I'll make my statement and then explain why:

I don't think the point is to try to screw legitimate non-english speaking Americans out of a good education.

Now here is why I believe that. I lived in a former Soviet, Muslim country for two years, where I did not speak the language. To learn the language I was in the culture from day one, mixing it up with people who didn't speak a lick of English. In that two year period I learned the language. I was not fluent, and still had an accent, but had no trouble paying bills, engaging people in conversation, and living life.

Often times 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation Mexican-Americans, Asian-Americans, and Russian-Americans live and interact in closed community pockets, and so I'm not sure that even if Sizemore's bill passed, many of them would be motivated to engage in the english-speaking sector. I think the problem that Sizemore and those that will vote for the bill have is that a lot of tax dollars are going to a program that takes several times longer to teach english than what it should take.

With that said, where I lived, if you were a foreigner living there (not just a tourist) you were expected to learn the language, so it's nothing new or ethnocentric to expect.

Haha, I don't know Bill Sizemore either. That's my bad... I'm not sure where I got Tom Sizemore from. Great actor.

Eugenian:

He also misused which where he should have used that.

That's really funny.

"isn't it intellectually dishonest to automatically vote no to something?"

Not in the least. Until common sense comes back to the system (and, unfortunately, in the form of legislation), I will vote NO on everything unless there is an actual compelling reason to vote YES on any issue.

When someome says NO, it has to be respected as such. NO means NO. End of story. Badgering people with the same or simular issue over and over again after they have made a NO decision is just palin rude, selfish, and not very respectful of them at all.

"...no public school student shall be taught in language other than English for more than two years..."

I'm going to have a little fun with this. Wouldn't it be more better if the above stated shall be taught in A language, or ANY language?

"...no public school student shall be taught in language other than English for more than two years..."

I'm going to have a little fun with this. Wouldn't it be more better if the above stated shall be taught in A language, or ANY language?

Coming in late to this thread. For those of you still checking it out and wondering about different methods for reviewing ballot measures, a group I helped found called Healthy Democracy Oregon is working on a legislative proposal to provide a full review of every measure on the ballot. It's called the "Citizens' Initiative Review", or CIR.

Rather than require the legislature to wade into "pro/con" fray of reviewing ballot measures, the CIR is a process that utilizes citizen panels (a cross-section of voters) to learn about and evaluate the merits of each measure on the ballot (one panel per measure). The process is facilitated and takes place over multiple days to ensure that "gray areas" are explored and the big picture is taken into account. Once the review is complete the panel provides its summary views of the measure to voters. The intent behind engaging everyday voters in the review is to provide an evaluation based upon a diversity of views from folks with no axe to grind over the measure under review.

This is still a work in progress and we'll be running a demonstration of the process this Sept. If this is something you might find interesting please check out our website at heatlhydemocracyoregon.org.

These 'reviews' need to be done before an issue is put on the ballot - not afterward. This is what the issue in this thread is all about - why can't we look at and discuss the issue before it gets signatures and gets to be voted on...and, more importantly, look at who is actually putting this issue forward (i.e. This is a Sizemore issue - nope, sorry, can't help you here - you kidding? - go away and try again to write something even more stupid).

That's why it is best just to vote NO on everything and leave it at that.

"Now here is why I believe that. I lived in a former Soviet, Muslim country for two years, where I did not speak the language. To learn the language I was in the culture from day one, mixing it up with people who didn't speak a lick of English. In that two year period I learned the language. I was not fluent, and still had an accent, but had no trouble paying bills, engaging people in conversation, and living life. "

But we're talking about school children trying to keep up with their peers, not to mention all the standardized testing. It's very difficult to catch up on these subjects if you begin with such a disadvantage. I don't think the kids "mixing it up" together in english will help them with their math and science requirements. There not just trying to have conversations and live life, they are trying to receive an education.

This will pass easily and help these foreign students out as it has in many other states.

You people don't even look up the results in CA. or AZ. and try to understand the wonderful difference for the Kids, Parents and Teachers.

You all speak like you are still in the stone age and based on my 4 years research, most of you have no idea of what works and doesn't and what is a hidden agenda to not lose that extra 50% pay out for ESL kids.

Get used to actually HELPING these kids instead of holding them back (drop out rate, NCLB, prove their multi-generational struggles) because this will pass.

Folks, Steve Novick has an excellent commentary in the Oregonian today on these ballot measures. If I had an email address for him, I would write and tell him that.

And Dena, on what do you base "Bottom line is this has a very good chance of passing."

Mike Erickson (portrayed in a recent cartoon as having all the letters in his name grayed out except for the ICK) and Linda Flores are really rising stars in Oregon politics??

In 2008, there are voters who have never voted before in the electorate--those just turned 18 but also those who registered to be involved in the primary campaigns. They will vote for this because.......?

Has Sizemore passed ANYTHING in the 21st century? Is he even supposed to be raising political money until he pays off his court-required restitution? Did anything Bill S. ever passed survive in the form it passed for more than 5 years or so?

Erik, What Kari mentioned early on in this post, and what I was responding to, was to process of having a qualified measure sent to the Legislature to review prior to being placed on the ballot, also known as the indirect initiative process. In the indirect initiative process (in general) after the leg reviews the measure it then either passes it into law, sends it along to the next ballot "as is", or sends out a counter measure. Different states have slightly different processes for this (some are even opt-in).

Whether you favor this kind of system, or some way to vet initiatives at the get-go, there's still the critical issue of providing higher quality information to the people making decisions in the initiative process, the voters. To me that seems like the most important function of any review process introduced to the initiative process.

Dena said:

"It is a GOTV measure on behalf of R's. Mike Erickson in CD5 and Linda Flores in Dist. 51 will use this ballot to their advantage."

to which LT replied:

"Mike Erickson ... and Linda Flores are really rising stars in Oregon politics??"

About Erickson 'nuff said, but unfortunately Dena's point is well made about this initiative playing into Rep. Flores' strategy. Her bio in the voters' guide for the primary touts her 'dedication to learning', and under the heading 'Other Top Priorities' the first entry is "Restricting benefits and state identification for illegal immigrants."

Rep. Flores is a standard-issue Republican and will use this as a wedge issue, encouraging people's xenophobia to deflect blame for the economy's going into the toilet onto immigrants. We will be spending resources to combat this red herring. More's the pity.

"You people don't even look up the results in CA. or AZ. and try to understand the wonderful difference for the Kids, Parents and Teachers."

Actually, I have been following the developments in CA and AZ. All of the research I read says that the drop out rate for Latino children is MUCH HIGHER than before the measures were passed in CA. Immigrant children are preforming WORSE in schools and on tests since the measure has passed as well.

Chris Lowe is right on. This ballot measure in OR andthose in states such as Ca and AZ are direct attacks on Latino communities. We have seen this before. Remember the Chinese exclusion act. Remember the targeting of Italian and Irish immigrants.

Whenever our economy goes south, white supremacists (YES that's right let's call them what they really are) and those on the right have always used immigrant and communities of color as scapegoats. We need to wake up and realize that the issues with our country are not the fault of hard working immigrants who are coming to our country to feed their families (often coming because our trade policies like NAFTA and our foreign policies like Plan Columbia have destroyed their livelihoods and communities).

Let's fix our immigration system on the federal level where it should be done in a way that is humane and acknowledges the role our policies play in the forced migration of millions of people instead of fueling hate in our communities and targeting innocent people.

"Insure" means "to guarantee" in my unabridged Merriam Webster 1959 edition...

I remember learning in H.S. in 1977 that either word can be used. Tiny point. Big point: Sizemore is a brand. Oregon does not buy that brand. Woe unto us when he changes his name (Jeff Stone, anyone?).

Count me as one of those people who has turned against Oregon's initiative system in recent years. The signature requirements are far too low, there's no provision for early review (although I know there's a group that's trying to change this) and the courts have said we can't ban paid signature gathering. Bottom line: it's just too easy for big money to qualify and pass bad laws that no elected legislature would touch. The same is true for California and Washington, but Oregon is easily the worst of the three in this regard.

I know it's not gonna happen anytime soon, but I would vote Yes on a measure to abolish the whole thing. (In the meantime, however, I will continue to support measures I consider worthwhile. Reflexively voting No on everything is self-destructive.)

By the way, I used to be a copy editor and I don't really have a problem with using "insure" for "ensure," although it's not something I ordinarily would do myself.

<hr/>