Why don't we progressives organize and fund our own ballot measures? Why not spend a few dollars to keep Sizemore and his right-wing friends busy?

There are two reasons Sizemore is able to get lots of his measures on the ballot: (1) he's financially backed by a small group of rich people and (2) he's a racketeer.

The second point is important. We have no idea how much money unions and progressive organizations had to throw away due to his racketeering. We have the OEA/AFT-Oregon lawsuit, but I suspect that's only the tip of the iceberg.

One reason I'm excited about having John Kroger as our new attorney general is that he has promised to take a harder line against this kind of activity. It's sad that we have to depend on teachers' unions to preserve the integrity of the initiative system.

Frankly, I'd like to see some criminal prosecutions.

By the way, if you circulate that video poker measure, I will sign it.

5% lodgings tax on all hotel/motel rooms in Oregon. All revenues dedicated to the maintenance and improvement of Oregon's state parks system. The rate might be higher or lower; the idea would be that this tax, when combined with revenue already dedicated to State Parks, would allow the parks to be taken off the general fund. That leaves more general fund money for schools, and our parks would not longer be repeatedly short-changed by the legislature?

This is a tax that won't hurt business; if a visitor is planning a trip to Oregon, or an Oregonian is planning a trip to the coast, they won't change their travel plans because the $90-a-night motel room now costs $94.50.

Politically, I don't know how this would play. But most of us who live here won't pay the hotel tax very often, and Oregonians tend to support our state parks as long as it doesn't take too much money out of our own pockets. Framed as "should tourists kick in more money to improve our state parks?" it might be a winner.

Washington did it in 1963. California did it in 1960. IOregon has never done it.

This is an idea to renumber the highways in oregon (externally and not the ODOT internal numbers).

Why? Well...US highway 99 has been decommissioned for years yet Oregon still has 99E and 99W - causing confusion for those wanting to drive the valley. US 30 hardly exists because of it's duplexing with I-84...

It just goes on.

Create a committee to decide how to do this and have every number change or decommission of a highway put on the ballot. Yes, some of the changes may be frivolous, but it would make those like Sizemore busy defeating every change/decommission tot he point they wont have time to creat any more stupid initiatives.

Examples for the above:

Decommission US highway 30 throughout the state (With AASHTO's blessing) and re-christen the part from Portland to Astoria as Oregon State Highway 4.

Re-christen the highway from McMinnville to Junstion city (currently 99W) as Oregon State Highway 49.

There is a lot more, but wayyyy to much to put here...but I hope you'all get the point :)

IDEA 1: An initiative requiring DHS to limit child social workers' caseload to no more than n children per worker. (Ask an expert what an appropriate n is -- I suspect it's about half the current caseload.)

Mandate the funding for additional caseworkers come from a combination of:

• Video lottery
• New home & condo development fees
• Alcohol & cigarette taxes

IDEA 2: A massive tax credit for vehicles that get more than 50 mpg highway. Fund it with a gas guzzler tax on vehicles that get less than 30 mpg highway. Make the tax progressive -- the further you get from 30 mpg, the bigger the penalty.

IDEA 2.1: Put auto registration fees on a sliding scale, calibrated by curb weight & gas mileage. The better mileage you get, the less you pay. This would be revenue-neutral -- Hummers pay more, Geo Metros pay less.

How about a measure that requires Bill Sizemore to be declared mentally ill and institutionalize? Or one that declares him an honorary sex offender?

I mean, common on! These would get at least 45%!

Probably, Kari, because of the amount of new signage that would correspond with the changes. The Legislature created new routes a few years ago, yet they have not signed the routes still in many areas due to that they are not as important as would, say, the Beltline Highway (OSR 569)would be in traffic volume.

Maybe if we added onto the changes some highway improvements (the green variety, of course) that would make touring better? My main objective is to make it easier to drive/navigate the state and make the routing more logical and modern. There is no reason to have US 30 when it is duplexed with I-84 for the majority of it's existance within Oregon.

There are also the pesky Highway Historians that would have an absolute fit over anyone messing with US 30 in any capacity. Those people would surely create a coalition of support to fend off any changes of routing/signage of any sort.

A 1-2 sentence Constitutional amendment saying nothing in the Constitution's free speech provisions prohibits the Legislature or the people through the initiative process from adopting reasonable restrictions on corporations contributing to the the political campaigns of candidates for public office in Oregon.

Leave the details to a future ballot measure. Don't try for a comprehensive reform in 2010. Just open the door. The key to drive the right nuts is to limit it to just candidate campaigns and just tackle corporate contributions, which are illegal in almost every other state.

The corporate interests you mention will have to fight it.

I'd like to see an initiative that amends the constitution of Oregon to make it more difficult to amend the constitution of Oregon. Right now, it can be done with a simple majority of voters; this should be raised to 60% or 2/3 majority. The result of the current low bar has been a mish-mash of amendments that should never have become a part of the constitution.

I would make an exception, though, for repealing amendments passed by the initiative system-- the same bar that had to be crossed to pass a bad amendment should be allowed for its repeal.

This is actually pretty funny. For years, Sizemore has used the excuse that he had to play underhanded because the other side was playing that way. Now you're wanting to pick up on his tactics. And I wonder how I got so jaded on politics.

Here's your real problem with overspending by the left in trying to kill Sizemore's measures. There's a whole machine that makes its living off campaigns, and they have every reason to freak people out about the situation and talk them into spending more money hiring them to do a big-time campaign. If Sizemore's measures aren't polling well, then why spend millions to defeat them? They won't pass anyway. If they are polling well, then maybe it's time to consider why that is and get your legislators to act to diffuse the public's frustration, thereby castrating Sizemore.

And why use such slick, expensive campaign techniques when there are plenty of low-cost ways to get the word out to voters sufficiently to kill his measures? I think too many people have become enamored with their own campaign ideas and the process and have forgotten the meaning of the dollars they are spending. The right wing won't respond to any of your ballot measure ideas by pumping a ton of money into them because they're too cheap to do that. Just think about it - when was the last time you saw any sort of expensive conservative campaign like the kinds the unions run in this state? They do everything on the cheap, using volunteers and utilizing the most inexpensive advertising options. Seriously, do the polling first, then think like a non-profit operating on a shoestring. There's a ton of money to be saved that way without losing at the ballot. Then you'd have enough left to support your other issues and candidates.

Anyway, you should know as well as anyone how irritating it is having our initiative process hijacked by someone who is searching for something to put on the ballot when the process was intended to serve as a vehicle for the people to address burning issues that their elected representatives could not or would not address. Why try to think up something and clog the ballot if there isn't a widespread burning issue (think women's suffrage, the bottle bill, and runaway property taxes, for example)? If there is a burning issue, then do the right thing and get some experts to draft the measure and carefully vet it, hope and pray that the legalese department in the AG's office doesn't destroy the ballot title like they usually do, do your polling to be sure the final ballot title itself (and not the "idea") will garner a "yes" vote (nobody votes on your idea - they vote on the ballot title), collect the signatures (the most expensive part of the campaign), utilize free media and inexpensive but effective outreach efforts, and let the voters do what you should by then already know they will do. Sizemore does all that for about $200,000 a measure. But without his experience and accessory organizations, you'd probably need $500,000 to do it. If you're lucky, the right wing will spend $50,000 trying to defeat it. Remember, they're cheap.

If you're not ready to go to that much trouble, however, then please stop demeaning the initiative process and fostering impotent anger. Sizemore will only go away when people like Dick Wendt and Loren Parks quit giving him money. In other words, he'll be around for awhile. You've got to quit empowering him by reacting with so much inane over-spending. A few pages in the Voter's Pamphlet reminding people that the measure was written by Bill Sizemore will cost a couple thousand dollars and do more to defeat it than a million dollars in glossy mass mailings and television ads.

We need to do away with unfunded mandates. I see two possible ways to go about it:

1. An outright ban on any initiative that introduces an unfunded mandate (the initiative would have to also introduce a tax or tax increase that would pay for the change).

or

1. Allow the Legislature to raise the revenue (for initiatives that will cost money to implement) in any way they see fit, without regard to tax increase restrictions (ie, requiring a super-majority or having to put it up to voters).

Jeff, What's the idea behind allocating the delegates proportionally? Are you talking the general election?

I'd be more in favor of the National Popular Vote where all of the delegates are given to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote - as an end-around the Electoral College.

On voting issues, I think we also need fusion voting and instant run-off - but I don't think those are the Sizemore-infuriating type of things Kari's looking for in this post.

I agree with Becky about putting resources into worthwhile measures that the public can accept on the merits. Steven is also right about industries like construction, timber, and food services not being enemies. That's where plenty of good, middle-class folks derive the incomes (and pay the taxes) to support the programs society needs.

Put forth an idea that makes sense, would have a fair amount of public support, and for which a campaign infrastructure can be assembled. One idea would be a constitutional amendment that overcomes one of the major drawbacks of Measures 5/47/50 by reassessing property at fair market value at the time of an arm's length sale. Nobody would pay additional property taxes while they own their current residence, and property could still be passed to close relatives without incurring an increase in taxable value. However, the valuation for tax purposes would increase when properties are sold on the open market. Someone purchasing a home for, say, $400,000 should expect to pay taxes on a $400,000 home. That's fair. Most people would agree. It would raise large amounts of money for counties, cities, and school districts without having any impact on someone's current tax liability as long as they continue to live in their current residence (even second homes), own their current business, or keep properties of other types. Only the new owners would be affected.

Yes, there would be opposition. But what would their pitch be? If you buy a $400,000 home, you shouldn't expect to actually pay taxes on that amount? Why not? That's the way it worked for most of us who bought our home some time ago and have held onto it. That California's Prop 13 doesn't do it this way? Actually, they do reassess upon a sale. That's one reason Prop 13 works a lot better than does our law.

Better to expend resources on things that make a difference. You might even find some of those terrible "enemy industry groups" supporting this.

Somewhat off topic, whimsical, but fixes one of my pet peeves: a requirement that all motor fuel prices must be in dollars and cents (i.e. not fractions of cents)per unit volume.

Require a public vote for all future urban growth boundary expansions. The homebuilders and realtors will go nuts and spend millions.

Since we're talking altering the initiative process:

Create an initiative that will mandate that any passed measure can not be repealed or changed or kicked into the coutrs for a period of two election cylcles. There would be also a reverse mandate along with this that states that any defeated measure can not be voted on again in it's original or altered form for the same amount of election cylcles.

Point: When the voters say NO - they mean it. Whent hey say yes, we have to abide by the voters wishes.

Wait a minute Kari. I just finished reading your post more carefully. What the heck is this about:

"and are the first-in-their-family to go to college."

As a middle-child I would strongly take offense at this. What does being first in the family have to do with anything? My brother gets a free ride, but I'm left with a loan or joining the military? You want to take us back to the Middle Ages where the eldest gets all the land and the rest of us suckers have to go fight in the Crusades?

I think you should replace "and are the first-in-their-family to go to college" with "and volunteer X-number of hours to a qualified non-profit or public service organization".

Disclaimer: Actually I did join the military (Air Force) and thanks to the GI Bill do not have any student loans for the degree I just completed this year. Thanks tax payers!

Here's an easy one:

Prohibit all corporate political contributions and lobbying expenses except to the extent that the shareholders have individually volunteered to contribute to the corporate-sponsored PAC. Require that contribution be renewed annually.

Create an initiative that will mandate that any passed measure can not be repealed or changed or kicked into the coutrs for a period of two election cylcles. There would be also a reverse mandate along with this that states that any defeated measure can not be voted on again in it's original or altered form for the same amount of election cylcles.

The first part of this suggestion is unconstitutional, and also really stupid. The second is unenforceable, and equally stupid.

Stupid, perhaps, but it would keep zealots like the OCA from force feeding us their warped beliefs down our collective throats by acting like spolied 6 year olds. It would also re-enforce the respect and common sense of a NO vote. NO means NO and should be respected as such. Just because you have money and resources for any intiative does not entitle you to force it down others throats when they have told you they don't want it with a NO vote in the first place.

And why would it be unconstitutional? That hasn't stopped Sizemore in his zealot agenda...

Bob Baldwin's suggestion is a lovely parallel to Sizemore's paycheck deception scams- though it's more just in that shareholder's don't get to opt out of paying for political contributions at all.

Suggestions: There's many good progressive ideas including one that we should put on the ballot instead of Sizemore - prohibiting credit rating to be used in insurance premiums.

A bill requiring any supermajority measuare to pass by the same supermajority it requires and invalidating any supermajority measures that are in effect that cannot meet that standard.

And one that, as an eldest child, I didn't consider.

I thought as much, but didn't want to make the assertion and... you know... make an ass out of Uma Thurman.

Thanks.

Here's another:

Tie corporate executive compensation (pay, pension, bonuses, etc) to a standardized test of corporate performance, using average wage for all employees, carbon footprint, health insurance available to employees, etc.

Any corporation deemed a "failure" by that measure would have to take money off of exec compensation and re-invest it to bring up that corporations test score.

Use all corporate data for the score, so a Nike paying children pennies a day to make shoes will see an appropriate score.

Bob, I like your idea, but I don't think we can tell corporations how much they can pay their executives. That said, I think we CAN tell them they can only deduct a certain amount (based on your criteria or just something like 40x the average wage of their employees, etc) for tax purposes.

I propose a ballot measure that allows school boards to bypass the public ballot and pass corporate tax levies on businesses in their attendance areas to pay for full-time art, music, and PE teachers at the elementary and middle school level and vocational ed teachers at the high school level.

If that doesn't work, I propose decriminalizing open container laws. I am more accepting of folks like Sizemore when I have a beer in my hands.

Get rid of the initiative system and make our legislators do their jobs. I'm sick to death of progressives' resources getting sucked dry having to fend off Sizemore and Mannix.

We should take another run at the genetically-modified food labeling initiative that ONLY targets restaurants. It might drive ORA nuts. Starts with 92% support. Costs millions to defeat.

On pharma, something having to do with requiring generic drugs to be the default (for example, health care plans required to pay only for generic drugs, and cannot charge policyholders for costs associated with non-generics, if the effects are comparable).

Homebuilders: require new homes to pay their way in infrastructure -- or prohibit subsidizing infrastructure for new homes that are not affordable housing. (Possible nuance: allow local communities to opt out of this pay-your-way set up).

Stop the insanity!

It's popular these days to invoke this definition of insanity: to repeat the same unsuccessful behavior over and over while expecting a different result. One major way we've been doing this in America is the so-called War on Drugs, which is really a War on People We Don't Like and Want to Demonize. And just like the War on Terra, we’re not winning.

Kari called for ideas for ballot initiatives to confound Oregon's entrenched right-wing interests. Well, here's one: the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act 2010. It proposes that we stop the insanity of pouring $66 million annually into enforcing marijuana laws in this state, and that we redirect all the money enriching criminals in the black market. This initiative would permit cultivation of cannabis under license by the OLCC, to be sold in retail stores to adults over 21, just like liquor. Ninety percent of the revenue would go directly to Oregon's general fund, and a smaller percentage would be directed to drug education and treatment. All other sales would remain illegal.

It would also permit and promote the cultivation of industrial hemp, which could create millions of dollars in profits for Oregon's farmers, and provide the raw materials for alternative fuel, hemp food products, clothing and building materials.

School-age kids consistently report that marijuana is much easier to get than liquor – drug dealers don’t demand that you be over 21 and show ID. The Oregon Cannabis Tax Act would protect our children from the unscrupulous black market, fund countless important social programs, protect our environment, and promote energy independence for our future. It makes good sense for Oregon, and could add as much as $300 million annually to state coffers. RELAX IT AND TAX IT!

Want to help stop the insanity? Just click.

Great post, Kari. Lots of stimulating ideas.

What most appeals to me is an initiative that amends the constitution to fix the initiative process itself. Not sure what all that would mean, but it could include raising the number of signatures, further regulating gathering of signatures, establishing a legislative review process, etc. It may not pass the first five times we try it, but it's the kind of thing where you only need one victory and then it's hard to reverse. Like the property tax revolt turned on its head. Just keep bringing it back and keep those guys tied in knots.

Jim H said: Bob, I like your idea, but I don't think we can tell corporations how much they can pay their executives.

"Can" is relative. It may or may not be the case that such a statute passed by initiative would be ruled unconstitutional, but so what? The point here (back to Kari's original post) was ideas the Wingnuts would have to oppose, and which sound good at first glance.

Just about any of the right-wing craziness can be turned around and aimed back at them. It doesn't become less crazy by having a different target.

Chris, a friend of mine who was running a small food court thought that was a great idea--a nickel on a hot dog sort of thing.

He said anyone who couldn't afford that should be cooking at home anyway--less expensive and healthier.

"If they are polling well, then maybe it's time to consider why that is and get your legislators to act to diffuse the public's frustration, thereby castrating Sizemore.

Becky---if a measure has been defeated before, why should we vote on it again? When people ask me about ballot measures, the first thing I say is that I vote against reruns. And when did polls become gospel?

Instead of bilingual instruction or battling unions, how about a ballot measure which says something about administrative pay--limiting how many state administrators can make more than the Gov., how many school administrators can make a higher salary than the Supt.?

Becky, have you ever worked on a legislative election as a volunteer? If not, try it sometime. Term limits (a ballot measure later thrown out) ruined the institutional memory of the legislature and took out those who knew how to solve problems, replacing them with people who play games because they didn't plan to be therea long time.

How about some sort of measure regulating "reruns"? Maybe if an issue is defeated it can't return for a period of years?

"How about some sort of measure regulating "reruns"? Maybe if an issue is defeated it can't return for a period of years?"

I belive I mentioned that earlier in the thread...

"Create an initiative that will mandate that any passed measure can not be repealed or changed or kicked into the coutrs for a period of two election cylcles. There would be also a reverse mandate along with this that states that any defeated measure can not be voted on again in it's original or altered form for the same amount of election cylcles.

Point: When the voters say NO - they mean it. Whent hey say yes, we have to abide by the voters wishes."

LT -

if a measure has been defeated before, why should we vote on it again?

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post, but hey, if they get it on the ballot again, then you're pretty much stuck voting on it again, aren't you? I think your view on this really depends on whether it's your side bringing the issue back or the other side bringing it back.

And when did polls become gospel?

Um, in the real world they pretty much are. If you want to know whether a measure will pass, then you poll likely voters on the precise language they will see on their ballots. Generally, the results will be very close to the results on election day.

have you ever worked on a legislative election as a volunteer?

No, but I've worked on a gubernatorial campaign and on initiative campaigns. And I worked as a neighborhood association chair and put in a lot of hours to get things done. Does any of that count? Or did I miss your point?

Term limits (a ballot measure later thrown out) ruined the institutional memory of the legislature and took out those who knew how to solve problems

I wholeheartedly agree, which is why I've never supported term limits for legislators.

In light of today's In My Opinion piece on the subject, how about a measure to abolish the Oregon Forest Resources Institute and send the tax dollars to universities for science education. Or, if that seems too extreme, radically restructure OFRI to have scientists not timber industry executives setting its policy and supposed education agenda.

For the Oregonian article:

The link to the Oregonian article.

This would force the timber industry to divert a lot of their campaign donations to the measure and away from the R's they usually back.

Is it a coincidence that the rise of the Oregon House Democrats in 2004 and 2006 coincided with the six-year period that Bill Sizemore was largely quiet - sponsoring only a single measure? I don't think so.

Wait, wait. I thought Jeff Merkley was THE ONE responsible for turning the House? Now you're saying it's Bill Sizemore?

Every time I think I've figured out how to be a good Democrat, Kari pulls the rug out from under me. :)

More seriously, Kari's post is intriguing. In response to Steve Novick's questions, the point of this exercise isn't to go after Sizemore per se, it's to adopt his strategy and go after other conservative interests. The idea of stooping to their level bothers me, but there is a certain appeal to fighting fire with fire. The upside is that after we do it for a few years, we might actually get those conservative groups to agree to an across-the-board cease fire by reforming the initiative process.

I don't have any specific ideas to throw into the mix, but I think identifying the right-wing interests that we want to go after is the first step in tailoring something that will tweak them. That's what Sizemore does with the unions.

Maybe we could do something that requires restraunt workers, who do not recive tips, to get a percentage of reported tips from that particular restaraunt in addition to their salary/wages. Those that recieve tips already will still get those tips and maybe a tips percentage as well. No cutting wages here.

Bleed the tobacco industry with two (or even three) cigarette tax initiatives - say, $1.33, $1.00, and 50 cents a pack. Focus the proceeds to automatically go on the bottom end of the budget, so any kicker comes out of the tobacco tax.

Ban cell phone use by drivers.

Prohibit denial of health insurance coverage or raising of premiums for pre-existing conditions, and prohibit across-the-board premium increases to avoid this measure.

Cut and cap health insurance premiums - maximum increase of health insurance premiums is 3% a year.

So, could you give me a good example of one thing the Dems have come up with since the 2000 election, that doesn't amount to lies, cheats and thefts, a la the Reps? It's like you said, "they stole the election. Well, life in the big city means we have to be the bigger crook. Let's go for it!"

You're finally getting it. Progressives have been telling you that you're no different for years. Now, you're saying, "hey, that's true. Why aren't we competing with 'em" and taking up their version of the game. And more cynically. Check this. Nancy Pelosi did not fail to criticize one of the House Reps' tactics, during her run. Since then, she has used every one of them, and produced nothing.

Frankly, progressives don't think you're going to get us out of Iraq. They think you'll get us in deeper, and do a worse job while there! There's a perception developing. You're both out of touch, but Reps are more out of touch with society and Dems are more out of touch on an individual level. Put another way, the Reps know they suck. You're trying to learn to suck and convince yourself that you don't. Or you do. You can't decide.

...extend civil liabilities to trucking companies for the behavior of their drivers! There's so many road populist measures that you could introduce. How about "Family = 1 Man + 1 Woman + 1 Child, NO MORE"? Take 'em a week to figure out everyone they could hate/support on that one.

Or bleed him by taking his supporters outright. How about, "Death/Mandatory Life for any Motorist Striking A Child in a School Zone"? They can only show up to/harass/donate to so many causes. And what self respecting Oragun cretin is going to give their contribution to land use statutes when child killers are driving around alive?!? It would never happen, but think of the drain on resources in the meanwhile!

How about a bill to bring back literacy tests to the polling place (back if you're from the South)?

Great concept. It's hard to win when you're spending 90% of your time playing defense.

1. Video Poker - Retaking a significant chunk of video poker revenues would be a great step, particularly if the money went to in-state scholarships. While we're at it, let's ban video poker in establishments where alcohol is consumed, given that diminished capacity results in people spending more than they have any business doing.
2. CEO Pay - We may not be able to tell corporations what they may pay their executives, but the State of Oregon can determine what expenses are tax deductible in corporate income. How 'bout saying that the maximum deductible amount for any employee is the median wage within the company.
3. Corporate Kicker Eliminate it. On August 13, AP reported that the GAO confirmed that 2/3 of the corporations doing business in the US paid no federal income tax. That means they can afford to pay Oregon what they owe.
4. Transient Occupancy Tax It's an outstanding idea and, based on national averages, a 5% tax would be low... even added to Ashland's 7% tax it comes out to about average. It should cover <u>any</u> rentals under 30 days (which is the national standard) including vacation homes, condos, etc.
5. Constitutional Amendments It should take a super majority to amend the constitution but I agree that the initiative should reflect that existing amendments may be repealed or amended by the formula by which they were added.

Thanks, Kari. Most fun I've had since the primaries were over.

Becky, if you think polls are gospel in the "real world", you don't live in the same world I do--a world where many people's job performance is based on their ability to be nice to customers (retail, customer service, etc.) and to answer detailed questions. And I've known people in such jobs to say they don't trust Sizemore because he seems incapable of answering tough questions or being polite to anyone who asks such questions or otherwise disagrees with him.

I happen to think a lot of the success of Democrats in 2002-2006 has to do with the fine work of the Bus Project. Also, the folks in the real world I live in realizing that, in Howard Dean's words, they really do have the power.

Although I know this comes as a shock to some political professionals, not everyone reads every ballot title every year. No law requires them to do that, esp. if they have busy schedules. Also, not everyone sees TV ads, newspaper ads, etc.

A quote from some friends 8 years ago: "Who gave those ballot measure people the power to force us to read that thick ballot measures voters pamplet? We don't have that kind of spare time! Let's just vote against all of them as the default position without reading about them unless a friend of ours has strong opinions on one or more of them!" This was a sentiment more prevalent in 2000 (a year when quite a few measures failed--did voters OD on measures?) than many would like to admit.

"I've decided that Sizemore doesn't care about anyone but himself--how do I know which measures are his so I can vote against them without having to read the whole voters pamphlet?" was something one friend asked me shortly before one election year. This is someone so busy that he didn't realize Measure 30 had been a referendum, not a referral---- "why is the legislature forcing us to read all that stuff, isn't that what we pay them for?".

I submit one reason that the Republicans lost majority was the Minnis "the voters have spoken on Measure 30" nonsense. There was a higher voter turnout to elect legislators than to vote on Measure 30, but that didn't matter? In what "real world" are legislators bound by poll results (or a ballot measure controlling terms of a debate) rather than by what they hear from constituents? Says who?

And about this: "I think your view on this really depends on whether it's your side bringing the issue back or the other side bringing it back. "

Oh, so if it is an idea you like, everyone should be forced to vote on it 6 times if paid petitioners who may or may not be acting legally get something on the ballot?

Paid petitioners should never have been legalized!

Congratulations, Becky, on being a neighborhood chair. That is excellent volunteer activism.

My question, phrased differently, was this: 1) Did the folks in your neighborhood assoc. believe polls were gospel, that as long as something gets on the ballot it doesn't matter how it gets on the ballot?

2) . "If you want to know whether a measure will pass, then you poll likely voters on the precise language they will see on their ballots." If the members of your neighborhood assoc. (the ultimate in grass roots activism) were not polled, would they vote for a measure that a likely voter poll (which I'm skeptical of because of how "likely voters" are determined) determined would pass as long as it was worded a particular way? Or do they have free will and the ability to think for themselves?

Becky, I'm thinking maybe we see the world as differently as one-way campaigns vs. 2 way campaigns.

2 way campaigns are like how Kitzhaber ran for Gov. and Wyden ran for Senate---hold town hall meetings, answer questions, engage in dialogue with voters.

1 way campaigns inflict their rhetoric and ads on voters with the idea that voters are there to be manipulated, and the best choice of wording is that which gets people to vote a particular way.

I believe voters check the NO box on ballot measures if they don't understand them, if they don't like the basic idea, increasingly if they don't like the sponsor, if they think they are being manipulated.

I believe that, in recent times, the Adult Adoptee measure was what Wm. S. U'Ren had in mind. The Open Primary measure also is something he might have approved of.

I don't believe ballot measures should be a business. I believe ballot title shopping should be outlawed, the Sec. of State should have all necessary funding to enforce the laws currently on the books, and we should have some sort of penalty (like taking away a drivers license) to penalize anyone who breaks those laws.

Has Sizemore paid off his court mandated debt yet? Or does she still consider himself the King of Sizemoregon and thus he needn't pay that money because laws and court decisions don't apply to him?

I think Sizemore is a bully. I suspect he might also be some sort of gangster/ racketeer (of the sort my grandfather prosecuted in the 1930s when he was a prosecutor in Michigan).

You may not like my attitude, but don't say I don't understand "the real world". I suspect I understand ordinary voters better than you do.

Great work Kari! Just imagine loading more useless and paranoid initiatives onto the ballot and the voters in a cynical ploy to wedge Sizemore and the uber right.

Yeah that's the ticket! I can just see the hordes of voters turning away in droves from ANY meaningful initiative once you get done completely perverting the process.

Oh, and which ultra left money bags is going to pour millions down the drain in this misguided effort?

Disclaimer - I've probably voted "Yes" a time or two on a Sizemore initiative (but can't remember what it might be). However, I have far mor "No" votes than yes votes.

Dan, it would be wonderful if direct democracy worked the way you would like it to. But in the past century, politics has evolved way past any semblance that. The initiative process is irrevocably broken, and until there can be some effective limits on the "free speech" protections for corporate and wealthy interests, the protagonists of private profit will prevail.

As imperfect as the legislative process may be, it is still a much better filter of bad ideas than the initiative primary idea you advance.

Dan Meek points out several impediments to progressive ballot measures. I'll stress one: Progressive funders do not support progressive initiatives unless they are in control of the language of the initiative and the campaign to enact it. Sizemore, on the other hand, has little trouble finding financial backing for his initiatives, even ones that that are poorly thought out and even though his success at getting his ideas enacted is paltry.

There will be no "left-wing Bill Sizemore", as Jeff Mapes put it, unless he/she has his/her own money to support the campaigns.

Fair and Balanced,

What leads you to believe the legislative process is less perverted by the lack of "effective limits on the 'free speech' protections for corporate and wealthy interests" than is the initiative process? I see no evidence of that.

"There will be no "left-wing Bill Sizemore", as Jeff Mapes put it, unless he/she has his/her own money to support the campaigns."

This is very evident in this thread. There are a lot of ideas here, but only if you have the recourses and the resources to put it to even get signatures, they will not happen.

LT, I can see that you are absolutely misunderstanding me, so I will try to clarify so we can actually have a discussion that makes sense.

First, as to the point over whether polls are “gospel,” it seems to me your position is that we should not be ruled by polls. I have no argument with that. What I am saying is that if you want to know what the outcome of an election will be, ask someone how they’re going to vote. You do that by taking a poll. If you can see that only 35% of the voters at the outset like your idea, the odds are that won’t change very much by election day. So yes, in the real world of politics, polls do matter because they can tell you whether you’re wasting your money or not, which was my point. I hope you see what I meant here.

You also go on at length about how few people will read everything in the Voter’s Pamphlet. Again, we’re not talking about the same thing here. I’m talking about the ballot title – the one sentence description of the measure that is actually printed on the ballot. It is the precise question that voters answer when they mark “yes” or “no.” For instance, look at Sizemore’s merit pay ballot title for this year:

“Teacher "Classroom Performance," Not Seniority, Determines Pay Raises; "Most Qualified" Teachers Retained, Regardless Of Seniority”

A very similar measure in 2000 had this ballot title, and it never polled high enough to have a snowball's chance in hell (and it went down hard):

“Amends Constitution: Student Learning Determines Teacher Pay; Qualifications, Not Seniority, Determine Retention”

If you want to know whether the measure will pass, you don’t call up 500 likely voters and ask them, “How would you vote on a measure that bases teacher pay on how well their students perform, rather than on how long the teacher has been teaching?” Nor would you ask them, “Bill Sizemore has put a measure on the ballot requiring merit pay for teachers. How will you vote on that measure?” Because you are asking them a different question than the one they will be asked when they vote. They might not understand the language in the question printed on the ballot. They might not remember that it was placed there by Bill Sizemore.

And about this:

Oh, so if it is an idea you like, everyone should be forced to vote on it 6 times if paid petitioners who may or may not be acting legally get something on the ballot?

I was simply making an observation. If you read everyone’s posts on this thread you can see that some people are actually advocating bringing the same measures back over and over just to use up the other side’s money. So it’s amusing to me that I’m the one you attack about that – especially when you have no idea about my own view on the matter. And my point here has been that if the left did its polling correctly, it would be able to see right away which of these maddening repeat measures were actually a threat and which ones were part of a bait and switch. You could save some money that way. Let Loren Parks and Dick Wendt blow their money putting losing measures on the ballot over and over every general election for all I care. It keeps them from having the money to put into something that they might win. The only way their strategy works is if the left keeps falling for it and overreacting by spending a freaking fortune fighting stuff that doesn’t have a chance of passing, or that could be defeated for far less money, provided some brain power was actually engaged.

My question, phrased differently, was this:

1) Did the folks in your neighborhood assoc. believe polls were gospel, that as long as something gets on the ballot it doesn't matter how it gets on the ballot?

Hopefully, I have already satisfied your question here. Then, again …

2) . "If you want to know whether a measure will pass, then you poll likely voters on the precise language they will see on their ballots." If the members of your neighborhood assoc. (the ultimate in grass roots activism) were not polled, would they vote for a measure that a likely voter poll (which I'm skeptical of because of how "likely voters" are determined) determined would pass as long as it was worded a particular way? Or do they have free will and the ability to think for themselves?

LT, “likely voters” are those people who have voted in all of the previous elections. They always vote, so you can pretty much predict that they’re going to vote this time, too. Bet you didn’t know campaigns can get those lists, did you? As for your “free will” and “ability to think for themselves” comment, you really are in la-la land if you think it’s that simple. People in this country aren’t trained to think. They’re trained to parrot what their side tells them to believe – some on a simple level, and some on a more complex level, but it’s still parroting. You can disagree with me all day, and that’s your prerogative, but I’m absolutely convinced I’m right on that.

I believe voters check the NO box on ballot measures if they don't understand them

Precisely. And they vote YES if they THINK they understand them. That’s why the ballot title is so important. Remember, the sponsor’s name isn’t on the ballot.

I believe ballot title shopping should be outlawed

I STRONGLY disagree because ballot titles are one of the most important tools available to assure passage or failure of a measure - therefore, they are extremely susceptible to political manipulation by people who engage in the natural human behavior of attempting to utilize the power of their positions to influence the outcome of elections. If partisans screw up your ballot title and make it impossible for the voters to actually be asked a question they can understand and engage their free will to vote on, how is it fair to forbid you from trying again? Make a ballot title confusing and people will vote against it, even if they would have liked it. You can even word a ballot title in such a way that people don’t know whether to vote yes or no to get what they want. And if you have a favorable ballot title that makes something sound really good, you can trick people into voting for something that they don’t like. Doesn't that bother you? Wouldn't you be royally ticked off if a Republican Attorney General manipulated the ballot title of your measure - after you went to great lengths to garner public support for it and you knew people wanted it - and suddenly it was so confusing people who supported it would vote against it, and you knew you couldn't raise the millions of dollars necessary to educate them out of their confusion? It has happened, you know - this isn't just theoretical stuff. You may not understand the importance of the ballot title, but I assure you that the big guys on the left – the unions, most especially – do. And that is why they invest a good deal of time and money in influencing how those ballot titles are written, as do those on the right. In my opinion, opposition to ballot title shopping comes from only one of two sources: ignorance or ugly partisanship. I have no patience for it at all.

In conclusion, LT, I just want to be clear on one thing that you seem to have misinterpreted: I am not a Sizemore groupie. I am as disgusted with is behavior as anyone - and probably more so. So you can take off those tainted glasses when reading my posts.

Steve,

When did $10 million become indicative of moral superiority?

If the GOP is the party of business, then the best way to attack the GOP is to attack business. A bill requiring all employees to be E-verified for employment. Any business that hires someone who doesn't pass risks loosing their business license.

Steve Novick---thank you for saying to Dan Meek what I would like to have said, and saying it better. There is the ideal world, there is the real world, sometimes they are not alike. As my old friend Cathy used to say (active from teen years until middle age when she burned out on politics--having been a volunteer, a staffer, a campaign manager, friend of many candidates), there's 5% of the population which really cares about politics (generally the folks we meet here or on campaigns) and often they believe they decide elections.

But in reality it is the 95% of the population (folks too busy to follow the details of politics, don't always watch TV ads, more involved in work and family than who has which ad or mailer out this week) who talk among their friends, have very strong views on some issues, may once in their lives have attended a political event or have been called by a pollster, who actually decide elections.

And all polls are not created equally. The wife of a candidate once told me she was called by a pollster surveying what turned out to be her husband's challenger campaign. She said "Maybe I should tell you who my husband is" and with a supervisor's approval the poll went on anyway and she answered all the questions. I was called by the same poll and we joked about how slanted some of the poll questions were--in the incumbent's favor. Do slanted questions (using the language one side would prefer, for instance) give a good snapshot of voter attitudes?

In 2000, there were people who got so fed up with ballot measures they voted no by default unless a friend felt very strongly (Conversations at work or in social situations happened like, "Jim feels really strongly about Measure 3--ask him about it and then if you want to, you can read the voters pamphlet"). THAT is the real world, whether some political professionals want to admit it or not. Word of mouth can trump any political tactic or consultant's tool.

Becky, I know there are lists of people who have voted in the last 10 elections. My point is this: do all polling organizations have those lists and use them to determine "likely voters"? Or do they ask people how likely they are to vote and take their word for it?

If you could read the wording of a poll and talk to the pollsters about their work, which would you trust more?

1) A polling organization which has the voting data for the last 10 elections (how would they connect the voter names and voting history and get a random sample? ) and only speaks to people who have been eligible to vote in the last several elections.

2) A polling organization which asks at the very beginning "How likely are you to vote in this election?" as one of the first 3 questions.

3) A polling organization which asks the "how likely are you to vote?" question at the end of the poll.

One of the best campaign managers I ever knew (she went on from an Oregon election to help elect a California Congresswoman and do many other interesting things) made it clear she would trust 2) more than any other poll.

Now, about this: "Most Qualified" Teachers Retained, Regardless Of Seniority”

What Sizemore and those like him have trouble with is answering detailed questions.

In this example, the question could be "OK, how do you determine most qualified---the NCLB standards, the results of standarized tests, the systems used in Toledo, OH, Denver, CO, Washington DC?"

If the vote of someone would be determined by whether they got a straight answer, and whether they agreed with the answer, how would polling for the best language win those votes? Or don't they matter because voters are to be acted upon and the optimum language would prevent people from having those conversations? My guess is there are lots of voters who understand there are those who don't trust their intelligence---and may just vote against those and in favor of those campaigns which treat them like intelligent adults. (I know there are consultants who don't like me for that sentiment.)

I don't care what the polls say. If ordinary folks (parents, teachers, grandparents, anyone who ever worked in a school in any capacity, 18-24 year olds who have their own views of what makes a quality teacher) start discussing this measure--and whether they think the sponsors really care about the details or just trying to earn money in the initiative industry or make a point--- I suspect those conversations will have more effect on the outcome of the measure than any polling could measure. (Pollsters, consultants, etc. don't have a clue about most personal conversations like that).

On an earlier computer (and probably saved on a disk somewhere) I had a spreadsheet or chart of some kind about the 2000 results. I do have the print results back from the days they were published in paperback form.

The print 2000 Official Abstract of Votes shows Measure 9 (anti-gay) going down by a little over 86,000. Other measures lost by more. Measure 8 (limit state appropriations), Measure 6 (public campaign funding) Measure 2 (review administrative rules), Measure 98 (anti-union), Measure 97 (banning certain animal traps), Measure 96 (amend constitution regarding initiative process), Measure 95 (constit. amendment Becky talked about), Measure 94 (change parts of Measure 11), Measure 93 (constit. amendment - voter approval of most taxes), Measure 92 (constit. amendment prohibit payroll deductions), Measure 91 (federal taxes deductible constit. amendment), Measure 90 (utility issue), Measure 89 (tobacco settlement). Measure 87 (constit. amendment on sexually oriented businesses--which some said was a laudable goal but a poorly written, overly broad measure), Measure 85 (constit. amendment regarding formation of new counties) all went down by a larger margin than that.

Did they all lose because the wording of polls or ballot titles wasn't convincing enough? Or did 15 measures lose by fairly substantial margins because there were effective campaigns against them, people made individual decisions on some/all of those measures, or those reasons combined with busy people saying ENOUGH ALREADY! Who are these people forcing us to vote on all these measures? I think that question is as important on whether people are of a particular ideology when it comes to ballot measures!

OK Kari you drew me in. This is probably my second posting on a blog ever.

I admit I know Sizemore and like him as a person. As Sizemore, Novick or anyone else can tell you I do not like the initiative system, too many people use it for personal gain or combative politics much like you accuse Sizemore of, and then recommend it as a solution in your post. Unions have gotten into the game also, once again I do not like the initiative system, it has become a attack process from all sides.

The last measure I remember got on the ballot and did things the right way for "pure" reasons was probably the "gun show" measure. The paid signature piece is just the unions trying to make the system work better for them then their enemies. So if you want to target groups like mine or anyone else, I can not stop you, but do not complain about Bill Sizemore because you are just like him.

If you want to try and get ugly politics out of the initiative system, give me a call I have been working with Democrats, unions and others on this very subject for years. The system is broken; you can try and fix it or jump in the mud with the others.

LT, it's amazing to me how incapable you seem to be of understanding my points.

And all polls are not created equally.

Exactly, which is why you poll the exact question voters will be asked instead of polling someone's description of the measure.

do all polling organizations have those lists and use them to determine "likely voters"?

Of course not. But why would you hire an organization to poll "likely voters" if they didn't have those lists to work from? If you're going to buy a poll, use your brain. You do have the power to provide the exact wording of the poll and a lot of other details. Why would someone skew their own poll if they actually wanted the truth? I'm not saying you as a voter should trust or even care about polls. I'm saying if you are going to spend a lot of money to put a measure on the ballot or fight one that is going to be on the ballot, then be smart and poll the ballot title the measure received to see whether it has a chance of passing or not before spending a bunch of money that might end up being wasted.

Did they all lose because the wording of polls or ballot titles wasn't convincing enough? Or did 15 measures lose by fairly substantial margins because there were effective campaigns against them, people made individual decisions on some/all of those measures

Again, you're not hearing what I'm saying. The ballot titles were what they were. I will wager that the titles that came out of the Democratic A.G.'s office shaved a few percentage points off the passability of every conservative measure, and that favorable ballot titles drafted by a Republican A.G. would have done the opposite. Would the measures have passed with different ballot titles? Who knows? It really depends on how close they were. If you asked people whether they should be paid just compensation if government regulations reduce the value of their property, you're going to get a "yes" out of probably 75% of Oregonians. If the ballot title mentions this will cost the government millions of dollars, or name any number of other specifics, then the "yes" vote will drop dramatically. So clearly there is room in the ballot title for details that can be used to sway public opinion on an issue, at least a little. If you think specific language isn't important, tell my why the struggle to change the wording from "doctor assisted suicide" to "death with dignity." The reason is that nuances in language change people's opinions. I can't reach you if you don't understand that basic fact.

Who are these people forcing us to vote on all these measures?

Imagine a Republican A.G. put out a ballot title on the Death with Dignity act that said something to the effect that if the measure passed, doctors could prescribe lethal overdoses to people to help them commit suicide, and all the negative language in that ballot title scared people away from it, even though, as we all know, Oregonians support the issue. Wouldn't you agree that supporters should have another chance at passing the measure, with the hope that if they did a little ballot title shopping, they could get wording that would help people better understand the measure and feel comfortable voting for it? Or would you say that seeing as how a single Republican A.G. defeated your measure through political means, that idea is forever off the table, and too bad. If you're being honest with yourself, you're only looking to end ballot title shopping because the measures that are being repeated happen to be conservative issues. Someday you may be dealing with a Republican A.G., and you need to keep that in mind when making the rules for initiatives.

These people can put things on the ballot over and over because they have the money to collect the signatures and because enough Oregonians, whether you like it or not, care about the issues and are willing to sign the petitions. Don't you owe them some respect and an opportunity to vote on issues that matter to them?

I really don't see why it's so exhausting for you to mark a box on your ballot voting "no" on a measure you already are familiar with - are you that weak that you can only fill so many boxes on a piece of paper at any given time? You should be grateful the idiots keep blowing their money on stupid measures that don't have any chance of passing instead of spending their money getting their candidates elected. The real problem with it all is, as I tried to emphasize from the very beginning, opponents of the measures continue to allow themselves to be sucked into the game by throwing millions of dollars at measures which, if they would do a simple poll, could be defeated for maybe a couple hundred thousand. That's why they don't have money left to do things that might be more beneficial - which is what this thread is all about, unless I misunderstand.

I don't care too much really whether you believe me or not, but it's a strategy that has been working for the right for quite awhile now. And it will keep on working until the left quits falling for it.

Two things are clear from reading these comments:

1. There are great reasons to promote progressive ballot measures, notably going on offense and reclaiming the initiative system for progressive purposes. To this, I would add: elevating progressive frames and dividing opponents.

2. There are great impediments to bringing them to fruition

Having said that, let me throw another idea into the mix:

Promoting the Work Ethic by Increasing the Tax on Inheritances Valued at Over $4 million. The framing: Reign in massive multimillion-dollar inheritances that amputate the work ethic, promote a leisure class, send a bad message to our kids, and hurt the people they supposedly help, rich kids, by ripping away their initiative and work ethic.

Many progressives have given up on this issue or find it unsavory and are afraid of being accused of "class warfare." But that's a conversation for another time...

A ballot measure limiting initiatives to issues previously rejected by the Oregon Legislature. In other words give the legislature the right of first refusal. That way voters will have all of the measured debate and data that was introduced by the legislative process.

Red Cloud,

Your idea is an easy out for the legislature, as ideas unpopular with the legislative leadership never get a hearing, let alone a floor vote.

Becky, you miss my point.

Often the reliability of various polls has been discussed here. So about this:

"Exactly, which is why you poll the exact question voters will be asked instead of polling someone's description of the measure."

Suppose 3 polling organizations polled the exact question as you mention. Same wording of each poll. Do you believe Suppose one has a phone poll with real people asking questions (do they ask in the poll "how likely are you to vote?"), one uses robocall polls, and then one adds that exact question you are talking about to a longer poll with lots of other questions. If each has a different sample (different people, maybe different demographic balance), and is using different methodology, are you going to rest the entire ballot measure campaign on the result of those polls--esp. if they come up with different results?

A friend of mine was once deprived of caucus support when running for Congress because the caucus pollster (not from Oregon) said it wouldn't be a close race, the guy did not have a chance. An Oregon pollster said he did have a chance. After a recount, DCCC sent an apology letter. And lots of people who lived through that race never quite trusted either ballots or caucuses again.

Yes, I do hear what you say, "Again, you're not hearing what I'm saying. The ballot titles were what they were."

You have faith in polls and ballot titles. I have more faith in individual voters than you do.

Let's set up a hypothetical. The AG is someone you successfully campaigned for. There is no Supreme Court challenge and you get exactly the ballot title you wanted--the one a poll you paid for said would be the most successful. But, the measure was on the ballot in a year like 2000 when people had ballot measure overload and voted no as the default poisition unless they had a darned good reason (like a friend who supported the measure) to vote yes.

How much are you willing to bet (a month's salary?) that the ballot measure would win?

I'm saying I know all that "professional politics" stuff that "political professionals " put so much faith in. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, and I don't have faith in polls, ballot titles or all that other stuff. I'm not willing to bet anything that under those conditions your ballot measure would be a slam dunk.

And given your compensation example, I'm interested in whether you think it was just the legislatively approved ballot title and not grass roots activism which passed Measure 49. I knew young farmers (too young to have had any benefit from 37 unless their parents had put property in their name the year they were born) who were worried about 37 claims taking water they needed for their farms.

That's real life, not whether there is a well written ballot title. And a legislative referral sometimes has more credibility than a lobbying group like OIA putting something on the ballot which turned out to be other than what was advertised. Do you believe people only look at the ballot title and not who sponsored the measure?

Becky, Dave Frohnmayer was a Republican AG, so was Lee Johnson (and before that, you'd have to go back to the 1950s). There have been a number of quality Republicans in statewide office. But Atiyeh was telling more truth than some want to admit when he said he became Gov. as a conservative and left after 2 terms as a moderate--not because he changed, but because his party drifted to the right.

If you think the arguments about Oregon Death with Dignity/Assisted Suicide didn't go on whatever the content of the ballot title, you weren't very involved. Some of us with friends who had terminal conditions took our lead (both times it was on the ballot) from those friends--along the lines of "Nancy supports it and I believe she has the right to make that choice". It is one thing to argue religious objections to such a measure, saying a terminally ill friend has the right to support it is quite a different argument. Such discussions went on not because of the ballot title, not because some poll told them it was popular or unpopular, but because people had strong feelings.

The difference between us really comes from the first words of the Oregon Constitution: We the people.

It does not say "they the political professionals", it does not institutionalize running ballot measures for a living.

There are 3 ballot measures I found while researching which were grass roots initiatives---aimed at making Oregon better for Oregonians, not at making a political point.

Measure 7, 1988 Oregon Scenic Waterway System

Measure 58 of 1998 --the Adult Adoptee measure "Requires Issuing Copy Of Original Oregon Birth Certificate to Adoptees "

And about your teacher measure examples:

“Teacher "Classroom Performance," Not Seniority, Determines Pay Raises; "Most Qualified" Teachers Retained, Regardless Of Seniority”

“Amends Constitution: Student Learning Determines Teacher Pay; Qualifications, Not Seniority, Determine Retention”

I wonder if you give people credit for critical thinking skills. Neither ballot title tells how this would be measured. Or doesn't that matter because ballot titles determine voting behavior? (Someone I have known for many years and I have argued whether everyone reads every ballot title every year many years ago. I am on the side which says there is no way to measure how many Oregonians see it as their duty to read every ballot title every year, esp. in an "overload" year like 2000.)

How does the measure (either ballot title) measure "Student Learning"? Or isn't that the point? Even Sec. of Education Spellings, the author of NCLB, is admitting that maybe the way "learning" has been measured (every subgroup in a school incl. those just learning English and those in Special Ed had better meet benchmarks or else the school fails to "meet adequate yearly progress" and can be penalized) and that maybe a school which goes from 20% of the benchmark to 89% of the benchmark is really improving more than a school which missed the benchmark one year by a few points and now exceeds the benchmarks. And how would librarians, art and music teachers, PE teachers and others be measured?

No matter how a Sizemore measure is worded, how the ballot title is worded, there are going to be parents who remember those cocky days of the 1990s. There are going to be people (incl. kids who were in high school in those years) who remember when parents marched for better school funding right before the Starlight Parade in Portland one year during Rose Festival. Sizemore was on TV calling them all "dupes of the teachers union".

Yeah, we get it, he'd like to go back to maybe 50 years ago, before teachers even had a guaranteed lunch period away from their kids, before teachers were allowed to serve in the legislature. But the man whose initials spell what some people think of him couldn't get himself elected to public office to change that, he hasn't paid his court debt, but the wording of a ballot measure (using the wording that polled best) is going to win because he got the right wording for the ballot title?

One more thing, which I remembered while watching the coverage of the Sept. 11 ceremonies. It was public employees who gave their lives trying to rescue people from burning buildings. And has the one-liner has asked for the last seven years, "Hey! You anti-government, anti-tax types, how many anti-taxers ran into burning buildings to save people on 9/11?".

I've worked on a lot of "impossible" campaigns in my lifetime, incl. attending Common Cause meetings back during the Measure 9 campaign finance reform campaign. All the "smart" opinion (lobbyists, political professionals, etc.) said it would never qualify and it would never pass. But as I recall, it collected signatures in every county and passed in every county.

Becky, I understand what you are saying--you have the consultant's world view that people earning a living in politics can change the results of elections because citizens can be manipulated into not thinking for themselves. If you think that happened because Common Cause and the other M.9 Campaign Finance Reform sponsoring organizations "ballot title shopped" for the best ballot title language (rather than saying "if you think there is too much money in politics, sign here") and that the ceremony on the capitol steps before the signatures were turned in was composed of people who cared about nothing more than ballot title language and polls, you and I don't live in the same political world--our political world views are that different.

One more time and I'm done, LT. You're looking at this like it's either the measure's fate depends on the ballot title or the measure's fate depends on the voters' engagement of brain power. What I'm saying is both really matter. A lot. Measures win or lose by a few percentage points all the time. Those few can literally be the votes of people who didn't prepare for their vote and went to the polls and read the ballot title and decided on the spot.