Ballots in hand, part 2

One blogger, Tim Roberts, provides his rundown on ballot measures:

Oregonians have 10 statewide initiative measures on their ballot this fall, almost all of which should be allowed to slink back into obscurity. ... After reading through the statewide measures, the Committee for Rational Thinking urges a "no" vote across the board, except for the prescription drug plan, Measure 44. Over the next few days, I hope to write essays documenting my objections to each measure one by one.

Conservative blog "Where's Your Brain?" goes against the ideological grain - with Yes votes on eminent domain, term limits, Dan Meek's 46/47, and anti-tax measures 41 and 48. He votes No on judges-by-district, Sizemore's insurance measure, parental notification, and the prescription drug measure.

Brian Hines makes his ballot rundown pretty simple:

Come November, vote Democratic. And if you’re in Oregon, vote “no” on every Oregon ballot measure. There. I’m done my minimal progressive duty and am done with politics for this blogging day.

PDXistenZ - who describes himself as "just an average guy that felt like I should voice my opinion about the social and political events that surround me" - lays out his picks: No on judges-by-district, tax measure 41, and campaign finance limits 46 and 47. Yes on eminent domain, credit scoring for insurance, parental notification, prescription drugs, and TABOR. And for now, he's a Yes vote on term limits, though he's waiting for "someone [who] can truly convince me otherwise".

Isaac Laquedem, who used to blog here at BlueOregon, offers his takes on Measure 39, 40, and 41. On Measure 40, he offers up a better idea:

A more interesting solution to promote geographical diversity (not that anyone's asked Isaac) would be to require the governor, when appointing a judge or justice to fill a vacancy, to appoint someone from a county in which no sitting member of that court lives. But that's not the measure on the ballot. I recommend voting no on Measure 40.


  • RayCeeYa (unverified)

    I only votes yes on two this year. Perscription Drugs and Eminent Domain. Perscription drugs because I havn't had any for of health care for over two years. Eminent domain because it does specify that it on;y applies to the sale of condemned land to private individuals and private corporations. Everything else is pure crap. The finance measure restricts freedom of speech. The "raainy day fund" measure includes spending limits. I won't even talk about the parental notification or the term limits measures. And as for the Insurance measure, Cheif Patitioner Bill Sezemore, 'nuff said.

  • Brian Hines (unverified)

    Oops, didn't realize that my impulsive advice to vote "No" on every ballot measure would be splashed on Blue Oregon. When I said that I'd forgotten about Measure 44 (prescription drug coverage) which certainly deserves a "Yes."

    Otherwise, I stick with No on the rest. My wife and I went back and forth on Measure 42 (insurance credit scores). Finally decided that anything Bill Sizemore is for we have to be against. Plus, the measure seems to make more sense in the case of individuals than businesses, according to Laurel--who has researched it more thoroughly than I have.

    She tells me that some insurance companies don't base premiums on credit scores, so people with bad credit can shop around for a better deal if they aren't happy with their current insurer.

  • Eric (unverified)

    Yes on 44 and nothing more. A lot of these measures mess with the constitution. Anything that messes with the constitution is an automatic NO vote. The constitution is a document that is to help interpret the law - not be the law in and of itself. 42 was sponsored by Mr. Bill - nuff said.

  • activist kaza (unverified)

    Eric, what makes you think the Oregon constitution is so sacrosanct? If we never "messed" with our constitution, women will still have no right to vote, blacks would be enslaved etc. etc.

    In a sense, Oregonians are "enslaved" today in a political system that listens only to the voices of big money. That's why we NEED measure 46 to amend Oregon's constitution and bring us in line (actually ahead of!) the 45 other states that have some restrictions on campaign financing.

    Unfortunately, I fear your simplistic "logic" may lead more than a few Oregonians to vote YES on 47 and no on 46, but both are necessary for any change to take place. They are companion measures but self-interested political operatives (and yes, they're all over this particular blog!) have a variety of self-serving but ultimately loopy arguments against these measures.

    Read the Salem S-J analysis and yes, endorsement of these measures & think before going off so half-cocked next time!

    Vote YES on 46 & 47 and you'll see how a living, breathing Constitution the will of the people, not simply big monied interests!

  • Eric (unverified)
    <h2>It actually has to do with the fact that right to vote and enslavement are abstract ideas and M47 and M46 are absolute ideas. You can't put absolutes into a document that deals with abstracts. Besides - look what happened when the US constitution enacted the Volsted act (prohibition). I guess no one wants to remember that. Also, no matter what we do with financing a politician, they will find a way to circumvent it. We can do better than trash the constitution with these measures.</h2>

connect with blueoregon