What initiatives will be on the ballot this fall?
Thursday was the deadline for ballot measure sponsors to turn in signatures. As usual, right-wing conservatives dominate the field.
From the Statesman-Journal, a rundown of the measures still pending a final decision by August 2nd:
Some ballot initiatives are awaiting qualification for the Nov. 4 general election, based on signatures submitted by Thursday's deadline; some signatures were submitted beforehand and have been verified. State officials have a verification deadline of Aug. 2. If initiatives qualify, they will be assigned measure numbers later:TEACHERS: Pay and seniority rights would be tied to classroom performance; 81,149 signatures already verified of 82,769 required; 3,784 more signatures submitted Thursday. Chief sponsors: Bill Sizemore and Russ Walker.
LOTTERY: 15 percent of net proceeds would be reserved for public safety, on top of 18 percent already earmarked in Oregon Constitution for education reserve fund, 15 percent for parks, watersheds and salmon habitat, fluctuating amount for bond repayments. 102,565 signatures already verified of 110,358 required; 18,183 more signatures submitted Thursday. Chief sponsor: Kevin Mannix.
CONTINGENCY FEES: Lawyers' contingency fees would be limited to 25 percent of the first $25,000 recovered in civil suits, and 10 percent of any amount greater than $25,000; 68,227 signatures already verified of 82,769 required; 19,010 more signatures submitted Thursday. Chief sponsor: Russ Walker.
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS: Lawyers could be punished for filing "frivolous" lawsuits or motions; 69,263 signatures already verified of 82,769 required; 19,273 more signatures submitted Thursday. Chief sponsor: Russ Walker.
OPEN PRIMARY: The top two finishers in a primary election, regardless of party, would go into a general election; 69,383 signatures already verified of 82,769 required; 27,421 more signatures submitted Thursday. Chief sponsors: Phil Keisling, Norma Paulus.
Here's the ones that have already qualified:
Some ballot initiatives already have qualified for the Nov. 4 general election. They will be assigned measure numbers later:TAXES: Federal taxes would be fully deductible on state income-tax returns; the current limit on deductions is $5,000. Similar measures were defeated by voters in 2000 and 2006. Chief sponsors: Bill Sizemore and Russ Walker. (Certified for ballot on June 16)
ENGLISH: Students could be taught in a language other than English for no more than two years. Chief sponsor: Bill Sizemore. (Certified on June 16)
PROPERTY: Minor improvements to property, up to $35,000, would not require a building permit. Chief sponsor: Bill Sizemore. (Certified on May 5)
UNION DUES: Public resources could not collect union dues or other funds for political purposes. Similar versions were defeated by voters in 1998 and 2000. Chief sponsor: Bill Sizemore. (Certified on May 13)
PROPERTY CRIMES: Minimum prison sentences would be set for offenders convicted of property crimes. Chief sponsor: Kevin Mannix. (Certified on April 9)
And the ones that were referred by the Legislature:
The Legislature has referred four measures to the Nov. 4 general election. They will be assigned numbers later, but they will be placed ahead of initiatives, starting with No. 54:18-YEAR-OLDS: They would get the right to vote in school board elections, which the Oregon Constitution bars them from doing now. They already qualify to vote in state and federal elections.
REDISTRICTING: Legislators would be able to complete elected terms if they find themselves in new districts as a result of redrawn boundaries after a census.
DOUBLE MAJORITY: Property-tax measures, if they are on May and November elections, would not be subject to the constitutional requirement for half the registered voters to cast ballots and a majority of participating voters to approve them. Currently the measures are exempt from the "double-majority" requirement, which dates back to 1996, only if they are on the general election ballot in even-numbered years.
CRIME ALTERNATIVE: Repeat property offenders would face more prison time, and the state would provide drug treatment, in a less costly legislative alternative to the mandatory-sentencing initiative sponsored by Kevin Mannix.
There's more discussion of the measures - and their backers at the Statesman Journal. (Hint: Loren Parks, the Las Vegas sexual hypnotist, has donated as much money as all other donors combined.)
Discuss.
|
July 6, 2008 |
in the news | Comments (102 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Sue Hagmeier | Jul 6, 2008 3:08:36 PM
Again, it's not an "Open Primary." Calling it that is the bait and switch tactic the proponents have decided to employ because it probably did better in focus groups than "top two" or any other descriptive term. Yeah, I think the thing's a turkey, but I also think that it should succeed or fail on its own merits, not by false association with something it isn't.
Posted by: Dave | Jul 6, 2008 3:53:49 PM
Merit pay for teachers? I can tell you right now that teachers at West Linn and South Eugene will get better test scores than in Woodburn and Jefferson. Does that make them better teachers? Bill Sizemore seems to think so.
These schools in lower SES areas are already at a disadvantage for retaining good teachers. This would make it even more difficult.
Posted by: Fred Stewart | Jul 6, 2008 4:18:34 PM
The lottery should go to finace education....100% Do that and public safty will not be an issue. Using lottery funds to build more jails for people that have committed property crimes and drug offences is a waste of time and money and does not make Oregon more...safe.
Posted by: carla axtman | Jul 6, 2008 5:41:46 PM
Oy. Where are all the progressive measures...???
Posted by: Steev | Jul 6, 2008 6:05:13 PM
"Merit pay for teachers? I can tell you right now that teachers at West Linn and South Eugene will get better test scores than in Woodburn and Jefferson. "
I thought they were tested within the same district. DO you have a solution for grading the ability of teachers then?
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jul 6, 2008 7:03:28 PM
We could talk about grading the ability of teachers, but the standardized test outcomes of students don't measure teacher ability. As a proxy they are neither accurate nor internally consistent. There are too many confounding variables.
Oregonian37, Sizemore's anti-bilingual education initiative exempts foreign language study for home speakers of English.
I am perplexed about how to handle the Mannix vs. Leg. referral on property crimes. I certainly will vote no on Mannix's, but am unsure at this point about the referral, just don't know enough about it to have formed an opinion. Views by informed persons on the merits would be welcome.
Presumably if Mannix's fails, whether the referral fails or passes doesn't matter regarding Mannix, just on the merits of the referral. But what happens if they both pass? Does the one with more votes win?
I.e. is there a game theory reason to vote for the referral even if I don't particularly like it, to maximize my impact against Mannix', which certainly is worse?
Posted by: Oregonian37 | Jul 6, 2008 7:30:24 PM
Oregonian37, Sizemore's anti-bilingual education initiative exempts foreign language study for home speakers of English.
See second point.
Posted by: colin maloney | Jul 6, 2008 7:36:54 PM
Chris,
Regarding the legislative referral that's competing with Mannix's mandatory minimums measure... My understanding is that the top vote getter will be implemented (assuming they both pass).
While there is a game theory rationale for supporting the Leg. referral, I'm likely voting no on both. I don't particularly like being strong-armed into voting for something I don't support.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 6, 2008 9:00:12 PM
Oy. Where are all the progressive measures...???
A much more interesting question back when we didn't control the legislature. Now, we do - and we can get things done there.
That said, I still think there's value in measures that would a) drive progressive turnout and/or b) make the GOP and its allies spend big money defeating them.
But that's the problem with being from the side of the aisle that actually cares about how government works. We're not interested in creating ballot measures just to fuck with the other side (ala Bill Sizemore's anti-union measures.)
Someday, though, the folks with the big wallets will see the political value in running a measure that chops video-poker commissions to restaurants in half and dedicates that money to schools. (Good policy too, but I like that it screws with a major GOP funder.)
Posted by: mlw | Jul 6, 2008 10:17:48 PM
The devil is in the details on merit pay. There's nothing inherently wrong with the approach. However, paper qualifications don't equate to good classroom performance, and the earlier commenters are correct that standardized test performance also is a poor measurement tool.
The bigger issue is the "brain drain" of good young teachers from lower performing schools in communities with poor support of their schools (eg Lebanon) to higher performing schools in supportive communities (eg South Albany, Corvallis). To be blunt, a good teacher makes a bigger difference in a "bad" school than in a "good" one, but all the incentives are for moving to the "good" school. We should be paying good teachers more for going to lower performing schools.
Posted by: KJ | Jul 6, 2008 10:25:02 PM
Sue,
You're right -- it's not an "Open Primary" where you can vote in a party primary whatever your party registration. What is being proposed by Keisling, Paulus and Co. is correctly called a "Jungle Primary". The state best known for the jungle primary is Louisiana, where former KKK Wizard David Duke faced the corrupt Edwin Edwards in a battle for governor. Simply calling it the jungle primary would go a long way toward defeating it IMHO.
Posted by: Ms Mel Harmon | Jul 6, 2008 10:26:41 PM
Interesting that currently 18 year olds can't vote in School Board Elections. Anyone know why that's in the constitution? Or can anyone think of any objections to this being changed?
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Jul 6, 2008 11:14:23 PM
The term "jungle primary" is opaque and convey little to no actual meaning to voters.
The "Open" in Oregon's Open Primary proposal refers to a non-partisan, or "open" primary, as differentiated from a partisan or "closed" primary.
That usage of the term has been around since at least the 19th century, when "open primaries" of the sort envisioned by Keisling were far more common than they are today.
The most accurate description would be to say that the open primary system envisioned by Keisling (Paulus, Atiyeh, Kitzhaber, Blumenauer, Morse, et al), is a top-two non-partisan primary that is similar to some of the election systems that we already have in many counties and cities around the state.
Posted by: James X. | Jul 6, 2008 11:42:51 PM
What about local measures? The entire media fell down on the job in the primaries, apparently not even aware of the issues that appeared on the ballot, issues that confused everyone once we saw them.
Posted by: KJ | Jul 6, 2008 11:51:49 PM
Sal,
Most Oregonians associate the phrase "Open Primary" with a system like Washington state. What is being proposed by Keisling and Paulus is NOT the same as the one in use in Washington state. What IS being proposed is a nonpartisan blanket primary (aka jungle primary).
Incidentally, the term "jungle primary" does not originate with me -- and Louisiana is currently the only state where the jungle primary is currently in use. This is the system that has given us the spectacle of a creationist like Governor Bobby Jindal as governor of a U.S. state.
Posted by: Bert Lowry | Jul 7, 2008 6:22:52 AM
I'm most troubled by the measure about legal contingency fees. I'm not a lawyer, but I do believe in the basic tenets of capitalism. Businesses, especially non-essential businesses like legal advice, should be allowed to charge whatever the market will tolerate.
I find it interesting that consevatives who think any regulation of business is socialism are so keen on regulating law firms, which are small businesses. I can't imagine any other industry where conservatives would argue strenuously for price fixing. Why have they abandoned the principles of the free market?
Posted by: Steve | Jul 7, 2008 6:57:54 AM
"We could talk about grading the ability of teachers, but the standardized test outcomes of students don't measure teacher ability."
OK, do you have an objective way to measure teacher's merit? I'd like to be able to encourage good teachers and help poor teachers become better, but if you can't measure performance how od you tell?
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Jul 7, 2008 7:49:30 AM
Most Oregonians associate the phrase "Open Primary" with a system like Washington state.
KJ - I believe that most Oregonians associate the phrase "Open Primary" with the Keisling and Paulus measure that has been put in front of every editorial board, and reported on for the last 4 years.
People know what this measure is. It's simple. An Open Primary is a non-partisan primary. Under Oregon's Open Primary, all voters may vote for any candidate in the May Primary. The top two winners of the primary will advance to the general election in November.
Frankly, I think it's the opponents of this measure who want to obfuscate what it's about. That will be a tough sell since most Oregonians already vote in non-partisan primaries in many county commissioner and city council races.
Posted by: Dave | Jul 7, 2008 9:19:08 AM
Measuring teacher performance is one of the difficult challlenges facing education right now. However, taking a system that we know is very flawed "just because we don't have a better idea" isn't the right approach.
Its also pretty well established that parents have more to do with classroom performance than teachers do. That's not to say that there aren't bad teachers out there, but it explains why lower SES communities tend to have "underperforming" schools. It has less to do with the teachers in those areas than the support that many students get at home.
Posted by: skywaker9 | Jul 7, 2008 9:43:14 AM
See my post on this at: http://www.loadedorygun.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=1220
Posted by: LT | Jul 7, 2008 10:05:19 AM
Dave, you are right. Some parents read to their kids, make sure homework is done, are in regular conversation with teachers, enforce discipline ("if I hear that you are disrespectful to your teacher..." or telling a teacher that certain behavior by their child will not be tolerated). Others don't do it(or can't if they are working 2 jobs, or whatever.)
Toledo has a peer review system to weed out bad teachers, but it relies on more than standardized tests. But Sizemore wouldn't like it as it was developed by the teachers union as a quality control measure.
Posted by: joel dan walls | Jul 7, 2008 10:07:10 AM
The merit-pay-for-teachers proposal is nonsense. There are no reasonable standards I know of for measuring teachers' performance; the folks promoting this measure will of course blather about standardized tests. Guess what? Some of us are parents of bright kids with learning disabilities who perform poorly on tests--standardized or not--owing to time constraints.
Beyond the point above, we all know that the merit-pay scheme is simply one more attempt by the wingnut ideologues to demonize public employees and union members, and to destroy public education...BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. And since they can't do it via a frontal assault, they try stealth, over and over and over.
Posted by: Dev | Jul 7, 2008 10:50:19 AM
An Open Primary is a non-partisan primary.
Sal - What do you mean by the term non-partisan? Since presumably every candidate is a supporter of a cause, faction or ideal, and most are members of a political party, how does the term even make sense?
I'd argue that partisanship is the most important feature of democratic elections. After all, what's the point of an election where voting does not indicate support for, or rejection of, a party, cause, faction or ideal? A truly "non-partisan" election would be a "non-election" election.
Posted by: LT | Jul 7, 2008 12:34:35 PM
"I'd argue that partisanship is the most important feature of democratic elections. "
Have you noticed the number of people who refuse to choose a major party when they register? Or the folks who register with a party to vote in a particular primary but may not remain registered with that party in years to come?
For that matter, what did partisanship have to do with this year's AG election?
I live in a legislative district where in 2006 an underfunded challenger kept a well known incumbent to a victory margin roughly half the number of voters registered outside major parties. Was that a partisan election, a reflection on the 2005 session and the party in power then, or about which of 2 individuals the voters decided to back?
Posted by: Jack | Jul 7, 2008 12:47:17 PM
God damn Phil Keisling and Norma Paulus. their "open primary" idea is simply assinine. for chrissakes, if you support this, get your head examined. we have political parties for a reason. Keisling, please promptly remove head from butt. if this passes...i dont even want to think about it. Phil, you're in outer space on this one buddy. get a clue.
Posted by: Focus on Walker, Sizemore, and Mannix | Jul 7, 2008 1:00:37 PM
Kari said:
As usual, right-wing conservatives dominate the field.
I know you didn't mean to group the Open Primary folks into this group? Last I checked, Phil Keisling and Norma Paulus were NOT right-wing conservatives. (I'm just givin' ya grief)
My personal feelings. We should be much more concerned about Russ Walker, Kev Mannix, and Bill S.
Posted by: Focus on Walker, Sizemore, and Mannix | Jul 7, 2008 1:05:56 PM
PS - Paulus is a Republican but she ain't no nut-job.
Posted by: Eric Parker | Jul 7, 2008 1:07:41 PM
Anything sponsored by Mannix, Sizemore, and Walker gets a NO vote - regardless of the issue. it is time to stop them abusing the system for thier own personal and childish attitudes.
Also, anything refereed to us by the legislature that SHOULD HAVE been dealt with during the session and not sent to us because they were too lazy to resolve it themselves. We put them in Salem to work, not to be lazy. Just because they can't do thier jobs does not entitle them to shift it to us and then blame us later.
No on everything!
Posted by: Mike Schryver | Jul 7, 2008 1:12:29 PM
Last I checked, "dominate the field" isn't the same thing as "are the only members of the field".
Posted by: Eric Parker | Jul 7, 2008 1:19:16 PM
If I did vote yes on anything, it would be the open promary. It was given to us by Phil Keisling, and the legislature had nothing to do with it coming to us for a vote.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jul 7, 2008 2:24:10 PM
Sal, the term "open primary" is most commonly used to contrast a closed primary, where you have to be in the party to vote their primary. An open primary means a dem can vote in the GO primary if they want, and vice versa. Nonafiliateds can also vote in any primary.
The kiesling/paulus plan has no primaries at all, and is thus better referred to as top two or jungle primary, IMO.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jul 7, 2008 2:28:08 PM
also, it's totally misleading to call top-two "nonpartisan," since most if not all candidates will have their party affiliation listed.
Vote no, please.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Jul 7, 2008 2:33:43 PM
I have not studied this initiative yet, but I did not like Keisling's last effort. Still, Sal is right to object to the term "jungle" to describe the plan, though opponents may want to try to pin that name on it. "Jungle" has plenty of emotional charge, but little rational informational content. I have quite a bit of political experience, but have no idea what makes a primary jungley. It sounds dark and scary though.
Posted by: Dev | Jul 7, 2008 3:55:50 PM
Eric P. - Changes to the Oregon Constitution must to be referred to the voters for approval.
LT - My point is that being a partisan means more than belonging to a major political party. Anyone who supports or opposes a cause, faction or ideal is also a partisan. That’s why a non-partisan election is a nonsensical idea. And yes I think that the AG's race was an extremely partisan affair since different factions backed different candidates.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jul 7, 2008 6:31:57 PM
Like I've said time and time again, this top-two primary system will just lead to less choices on the ballot - not more. The parties will hold some sort of nomination process outside the ballot and will choose the candidate who will represent their party that way. So instead of hundreds of thousands of people choosing the nominee, it'll be done by a small number of people who participate in the new process (likely something like a caucus).
There are also other changes made by this measure. It changes the way precinct committee people are elected - every 4 years instead of two. This is a big problem, as officers for the party have to be voted in by elected PCPs, and that means you'll have very few people able to participate if you can only be elected every 4 years. Over the course of 4 years, the number of elected PCPs will dwindle down due to resignations and moves, while at the same time a lot of people will become involved through the appointment process. For instance, I was elected as a PCP in HD 50 in 2006, but later that year I moved into HD 49. That meant I became an appointed PCP and was not eligible to vote for party officers until after this year's primary when we held a new PCP election.
It also changes how legislative vacancies are handled. Right now, a vacancy has to be filled with someone in the same party as the candidate who had held the seat. That will no longer be the case under this ballot measure. That might be great in areas like Multnomah County where the County Commission is progressive/liberal, but what about those seats we hold in an area where the commission is mostly Republican?
Posted by: LT | Jul 7, 2008 8:18:04 PM
"The parties will hold some sort of nomination process outside the ballot and will choose the candidate who will represent their party that way".
And you know this how?
Jenni, as I have said many times before, any argument against open primary has to explain why it wouldn't have been for the common good in the District 25 primary (2004, as I recall) when Kim Thatcher defeated moderate Vic Backlund.
"The party" wasn't behind her--many were supporters of Vic Backlund--but that was right on the heels of the Measure 30 election, and that whole volunteer base was behind her. Backlund only lost Marion County by something over 200 votes, and arguments have been made about different campaign decisions which could have helped him win Marion County (I have no understanding of Yamhill County politics.)
The candidates filed that year were Thatcher and Backlund for Republicans and Pike on the Democratic side. As I understand this measure, the ballot would have been given to all voters, with the names Thatcher, Backlund, and Pike. Many people who were not going to give up the right to vote in a Democratic primary just reregister GOP to defeat Kim were upset with the result. I believe in that situation, the vote would have been Backlund, Pike, Thatcher--so those 2 men would have been on the fall ballot, and Kim Thatcher would have been out of luck.
"The party" cannot do anything without the actions of individuals. Having been involved in a few replacement nominations (vacancy on the ballot), I believe any party action would be determined largely by the actions of the party officers, rules committee, and pct. people. Are you thinking that appointed pct. people would have a hand in actions of "the party" in your scenario, or only elected pct. people?
A friend of mine was once state Rules Comm. chair. That committee is generally a very hard working group concerned with concrete specifics, not just theory.
What leads you to believe that county, cong. district, or state central comm. would create a caucus system? Would the votes be there among those with the power to create such a system--how can you know without knowing who is involved? If this passes, any such decisions would be made by those elected at Reorganization meetings. As I well know (was nominated and elected to state central comm.without being asked first if I would serve) sometimes surprising people get elected to party office. And you know how those people would react?
One more thing: people who are not registered with a party will be allowed to vote on this proposal. Is it your position that parties deserve to maintain a monopoly on voting and if anyone doesn't like it they can register to vote in a party primary the way people did to vote in the presidential primary? If so, say so. But please don't tell us how you know the actions of State Central Comm., 5 cong. district. committees, and over 30 county parties will play out here in Oregon. No one can know in advance how all those people would react to the passage of this measure. There are those who admire Phil and Norma and don't like the current management of parties.
Posted by: Focus on Walker, Sizemore, and Mannix | Jul 7, 2008 8:36:14 PM
Again, why is the majority of this conversation so focused on the Open/Jungle primary? Have you seen the garbage Mannix, Walker, and Sizemore have put out there?
They didn't need to canvass & gather signatures (wholly) in rural and conservative places for the signatures either. I saw them all around downtown Portland getting plenty of folks to sign to get this garbage on the ballot.
I'd be most worried about teacher pay and union dues
Posted by: Sue Hagmeier | Jul 7, 2008 8:36:29 PM
Sal, you still haven't explained this:
"Term in office of Precinct Committeepersons. Notwithstanding anything in ORS 248.015, the term in office of Precinct Committeepersons elected under ORS Chapter 248.015 shall be four years, and shall expire on the 24th day after the date of the primary election held in a presidential election year at which they were last elected."
I've commented at length on this turkey before, and it contains so much junk that it requires a lengthy takedown.
I believe that most Oregonians associate the phrase "Open Primary" with the Keisling and Paulus measure that has been put in front of every editorial board, and reported on for the last 4 years.
People know what this measure is. It's simple. An Open Primary is a non-partisan primary. Under Oregon's Open Primary, all voters may vote for any candidate in the May Primary. The top two winners of the primary will advance to the general election in November.
This translates to:
"I don't know what you mean by "glory", Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."
Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
This thing is full of novel definitions.
I understand that some people are dissatisfied with the election process, and with the Democratic Party in particular. Parties, though, are not an evil force that must be contained. In fact, parties, all of them, are how PEOPLE assemble with tolerably like-minded people in order to pool resources and effort to influence government. When you hamstring parties, you do the same to the PEOPLE who make them. The way to change how they operate is to show up and work.
This proposal is just another "bomb it all and sort it out later" bit of irresponsible, sloppy use of the initiative system, badly researched, badly conceived, badly drafted.
Posted by: Steve | Jul 7, 2008 9:14:11 PM
"the folks promoting this measure will of course blather about standardized tests."
OK, explain to me why universities insist on MCAT, PSAT, LSAT, etc. to determine who goes to school or not?
Again, if you have a better method to sort out which teachers are doing well and which need help, I think voters are open, we just haven't heard it yet.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 7, 2008 10:10:37 PM
The state best known for the jungle primary is Louisiana, where former KKK Wizard David Duke faced the corrupt Edwin Edwards in a battle for governor.
Is it possible to have a conversation about the open/top-two/jungle/one-ballot primary without someone bringing up David Duke? One weird ass election nearly 20 years ago in another state hardly means anything.
I know you didn't mean to group the Open Primary folks into this group? Last I checked, Phil Keisling and Norma Paulus were NOT right-wing conservatives. (I'm just givin' ya grief)
Phil and Norma are not right-wing conservatives. Nothing in the post says that all the measures are exclusively from righties. And please don't assume that every post here is written by me.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jul 7, 2008 10:19:57 PM
LT:
Having spoken with plenty of people within the party ever since this came up some years back, it has become obvious real fast that the parties will come up with some system in order for members of the party to choose their party's nominee. Both major parties have protected their right to select their own nominee, which is why they typically will not open up the primary to those not affiliated with a party. It goes without saying that they would continue this trend if the primary system were changed. They would likely a caucus system since that's already something used elsewhere and easy to duplicate, but it could be something different.
The parties aren't saying they have a monopoly on voting, but they do have the right to choose the person who will represent them on the ballot. There's still a primary ballot every 4 years whether we have partisan primaries or not. The presidential election is not part of this, which means every 4 years we'd need partisan primaries to choose the nominees. Not to mention the two statewide nonpartisan positions that are in the even year between presidential elections.
Believe me, this is an issue that has been discussed pretty heavily within county parties, caucuses, and other organizations within the party. It's something that I've discussed with people from all over the state. And what I've heard from everyone thus far is that they support the Party going to its own nomination system outside the election if this were to pass. Even those who have been happy with the running of the Party felt that the members of the Party should be the ones selecting their nominee.
Posted by: LT | Jul 7, 2008 11:43:35 PM
Jenni, you say this has been discussed by county parties.
Does that mean if I talked to the chair of the Marion or Polk county Dems, or to someone in another county farther away from Portland, they will say they have discussed this? I belong to a Yahoo Group of one local party which sends out emails to those who sign up for the service. Can't remember this ever being discussed.
And about this:
"Having spoken with plenty of people within the party ever since this came up some years back, it has become obvious real fast that the parties will come up with some system in order for members of the party to choose their party's nominee."
"Plenty of people within the party" are specific individuals--a party does not make decisions, specific people do. Let's (for the sake of discussion) call them Pam, Ray, Edie, Richard, Sam, Wayne, Judy, Mary, Larry and some others.
Could it be that, say, Pam, Ray and Larry look at the election result and say it is time to discuss it openly and not blindly go in one direction?
My point was that in the next re-organization, even if Edie, Richard, Sam, Wayne, Judy, Mary, Pam and Ray are all elected to party office, there may also be people elected with a different point of view(if not from Mult. Co., perhaps from counties with people who admire Phil and Norma, or have friends who got fed up and registered NAV). Do you know for a fact that the state or county parties would create a caucus system for, say, legislative nominations? How exactly would that work in districts which rarely have primaries, and if so only 2 people? Do you know the steps it would take to create a caucus system? Has the current Rules Committee done the research necessary?
It is one thing to say there are people who oppose Phil and Norma's measure who have been active in the party. But I know how change can come quickly after Reorganization. Most recent example: Jenny Greenleaf defeating M. Botkin for DNC member. Imagine that level of change happening in everything from state chair to county officers, not to mention leadership of some of the standing committees, and you will know what happened at the various re-organization meetings after the 1984 elections.
I gotta tell you that there were former legislators at the Public Comm. on the Legislature debating this: Phil and Norma did the presentation for the idea behind this ballot measure, and others did the same for other ideas like IRV.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/pcol/final_report/Part12SupInfoCommSummaries.pdf
Page 9 will give you a paragraph about what the relevant committee decided about open primary. There were highly partisan individuals (current/former legislators and others) on the Commission. And yet, if you use the URL
http://www.leg.state.or.us/pcol
you will discover that one of the pieces the commission proposed was open primary.
I was on State Central Comm. for 4 years, and a friend was once Chair of the Rules Committee. What you suggest will not happen overnight, there might be legal concerns, and even if there are absolutely no changes in state or county central committee leadership, no one will be able to snap their fingers and create a caucus system. There would be a very detailed process to react to this measure if it passes. And unless that process took place out in public where everyone could see, it would violate the ethic of an open party ---which, in the case of delegate selection rules, has been part of party rule since 1964.
I know all the background of why party presidential primaries are supposed to be closed to people who aren't registered Democrats. But, contrary to 1984, in 2008 states like Wisconsin did allow independent voters to vote in the presidential primary, and I understand why.
I understand why people oppose this measure, but I knew Phil and Norma each before they became Sec. of State. They were great moderate legislators who believed in open process. But parties in the last few years have not been as open--PCOL was more open to the general public.
The legislature has been too polarized and caucus-driven in recent years. No, it was not like that when Phil and Norma were legislators. Actually, when Norma was a legislator there were 10 women in the House in a year when it was split something like 31-29. This was in the 1970s before the common sense modernization of laws which created such things as fair credit reporting. Much like the "5 under 35" legislators in 2007, the 10 women were a voting bloc. Since they were not all of the same party (imagine a political spectrum wider than the one from Minnis to Merkley) they formed a bloc more powerful than either party and were able to pass some amazing legislation.
In recent years, the legislature has been more about "my caucus right or wrong" rather than about passing legislation. There were many quality legislators elected prior to the formation of groups like Future Pac, and maybe this measure would help bring those days back. No opponent of this measure seems to want to address the District 25 scenario which gave us Kim Thatcher.
Posted by: Ms Blue | Jul 8, 2008 12:17:10 AM
Focus on Walker, Sizemore and Mannix is right.
It would be fantastic to see a progressive measure, one to counter Sizemore's tax initiative, for instance.
An initiative to eliminate entirely the deduction for federal taxes paid might do it.
Of the 41 states with broad-based income taxes, only Alabama, Louisiana and Iowa allow an unconditional full deduction for federal income taxes -- as would Sizemore's regressive initiative. Only three others join Oregon, and permit taxpayers to deduct not all, but a portion of the federal income taxes they pay.
A large or unlimited deduction for federal taxes advantages the wealthy; it lowers their taxes, and without it showing in the state's tax rate tables.
The Sizemore excuse for granting this advantage is that it constitutes "double taxation." But if double taxation is the real concern, why does the initiative not address the “double taxation of wage earners by allowing a deduction for payroll taxes? It seems these aren't the taxpayers Bill Sizemore is concerned about. The only Oregonians his initiative will help will be those paying more than $5500 in federal taxes.
The question facing Oregonians in November, clearly put, is whether they wish to cut taxes by nearly $400 million in order to benefit the least needy of their fellow citizens. Do we really want to pay the price of reduced government services and crumbling public structures in order to lower the taxes of the richest Oregonians?
Instead of embracing Bill Sizemore's proposal, Oregon should join the vast majority of states and allow NO deduction for federal income taxes. Between 1989 and 2002 four states eliminated or scaled back the deductibility of federal taxes. In Oregon, however, we increased the cap on the federal deduction from $3000 to $5500 and then indexed the cap. If we were to reduce our cap back to $3,000, we'd have $140 million a year to pay for kids' health insurance. Reduced it to zero, as in most states, we'd add nearly $400 million a year in revenue - that could give us back a decent university system or pay for more jails, if that's what we vote that we value most.
Posted by: David English | Jul 8, 2008 1:35:49 AM
That's a pretty ugly list of ballot measures coming at us in the fall (if they qualify). I'd vote no on most of those with the following four exceptions:
These three I'd vote yes:
-Allowing 18 year olds to vote in school board elections
-Allowing legislators to serve the remainder of their term if redistricting takes place.
-Changing the double majority
And the open primary measure I'd say I'm undecided.
Posted by: Steve Rankin | Jul 8, 2008 5:45:30 AM
Only Louisiana and Nebraska have heretofore used nonpartisan elections (aka "open primaries") to elect their state legislatures. One would be hard-pressed to show how those two legislatures are improvements over any other state's.
During California's failed 2004 "open primary" campaign, a state judge forbade it from being called "open primary" in the Voter's Guide. (California voters first defeated this monstrosity in 1915, as did North Dakota voters in 1925.)
If the "open primary" is such a great idea, why is it that only Louisiana has heretofore used it to elect all of its state and congressional officials? (And Louisiana has this year restored party primaries for its congressional elections.)
Washington state's "top two" (a much more accurate term for it) faces more litigation in the future. The first round is scheduled for August 19, but the 9th Circuit is considering whether to block it.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Jul 8, 2008 7:28:02 AM
The open primary as envisioned by Keisling, Paulus and the rest is not that different from the systems that most Oregon counties already use for commission, city council, judge, etc.
The only major difference is that provided there are at least 2 candidates of any party, there will always be a contested general election. Contrast that with our current system of elections, which has produced a 2008 cycle in which 44 out of 75 legislative races, plus the AG's race will be uncontested in November.
We will do much better than that under the Open Primary.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Jul 8, 2008 8:30:12 AM
"Term in office of Precinct Committeepersons. Notwithstanding anything in ORS 248.015, the term in office of Precinct Committeepersons elected under ORS Chapter 248.015 shall be four years, and shall expire on the 24th day after the date of the primary election held in a presidential election year at which they were last elected."
The date of the primary election will not change under the open primary.
Whether or not the state continues to foot the bill for the elections of precinct committee persons for the major political parties is outside of the scope of this legislation. That being said, I am opposed to using public money to pay for the election of members to private political organizations.
Posted by: Dave | Jul 8, 2008 9:23:10 AM
"OK, explain to me why universities insist on MCAT, PSAT, LSAT, etc. to determine who goes to school or not?
Again, if you have a better method to sort out which teachers are doing well and which need help, I think voters are open, we just haven't heard it yet."
Actually, many universities are dropping the SAT/ACT requirement because of the flaws. What you're promoting is using a system that doesn't work just because "we don't have a better idea." Sometimes, standing pat for now is better than implementing a "solution" that doesn't work and is bound to fail.
Posted by: randy | Jul 8, 2008 9:56:44 AM
Looks like a decent list. I'll vote for most of them. Merit pay looks like a good thing to try, not even sure why we need any years of non-English instruction in public schools much less 2 years, and the union dues proposal makes sense.
Post a comment
Posted by: Oregonian37 | Jul 6, 2008 2:55:29 PM
ENGLISH: Students could be taught in a language other than English for no more than two years. Chief sponsor: Bill Sizemore. (Certified on June 16)
Yep, let's pretend that the ability to communicate with people who speak other languages won't be neccessary in the future of globalization, or anything. And I'm not even going to pretend that the very intentional attack this measure has on immigrants in this country, or children of immigrants is not as obvious as the hack nose on Sizemore's bigoted hack face.
I'm not usually so deragatory, but I absolutely detest having my intelligence insulted as this man continues to do.
Ok, I feel better now.