March 15, 2004
Three Comments Filed On 'Affirmation Of Marriage Act'
No Comments Yet Filed On 'Constitutional Definition Of Marriage'
Checking the status of the two ballot initiatives -- one statutory and one constitutional -- which seek to restrict marriage in Oregon to opposite-sex couples, it seems that three comments were filed (pdf) regarding the draft ballot title (pdf) for Initiative Petition #148 (pdf), the so-called Affirmation of Marriage Act. The deadline for comments on this draft ballot title was March 12.
In the first comment (filed on March 1), M. Dennis Moore of Portland argues that the Caption of the draft ballot title -- "Enacts Provision Specifying That Marriage Is A Civil Contract Between One Male And One Female" -- is misleading.
"[T]he actual intent of initiative #148 is to prohibit equal treatment of persons desiring to marry and to require government discrimination against gays and lesbians," Moore writes. "The wording of the ballot title should make it clear that prohibiting equal treatment is the subject of this measure and that discrimination is its major effect."
In the second comment (filed on March 11), Charles F. Hinkle (a Portland attorney with Stoel Rives, who wrote the opinion concurring with that of County Attorney Agnes Sowle regarding same-sex marriage in Multnomah County) writes on behalf of Roey Thorpe, Jann Carson, and Jeffrey B. Kerr.
Hinkle also targets the Caption of the draft ballot title, arguing that it "does not reasonably identify the subject matter of this measure, because it does not inform voters whether they are being asked to confirm the status quo."
Simply stated, the question is whether Oregon statutes currently permit marriage between same-sex couples. If the answer to that question is "no," then the proposed measure is innecessary (from its sponsors' point of view); it is merely a restatement of existing law. However, if the answer to the question is "yes" -- that is, if Oregon statutes do currently permit marriage between same-sex couples -- then Initiative Petition 148 would bring about a significant change in law.
And, says Hinkle: "Voters are entitled to be told whether they are being asked to change Oregon law or simply affirm current Oregon law."
Hinkle goes on to argue that the Statement of Results of Yes and No Votes suffers "from the same defect as the draft caption: the do not inform voters of the meaning and effect of the choice that is being put before them." He makes much the same case as regards the draft ballot title's Summary section.
In the third and final comment on Initiative Petition #148 (filed on March 12), Steven Novick of Portland echoes the arguments that the draft ballot title's Caption "does not reasonably identify the subject matter of the measure" and that it should "effectively inform voters of how a measure would change existing law." Novick suggests an alternative Caption which would expressly inform voters that the measure "cannot affect Constitution's prohibition agaisnt discrimination."
Novick also writes that the information on the results of Yes and No votes on the measure "does not provide a 'simple and understandable' description," is "misleading," and is "simply confusing."
Comments on the draft ballot title (pdf) for Initiative Petition #150 (pdf) -- Constitutional Definition Of Marriage -- are due on March 24.
This ballot initiative was given the draft Caption, "Amends Constitution: Only Marriage Between One Man And One Woman Is Valid Or Legally Recognized As Marriage." As of today, no comments have been filed.
Comments (2)
k on 16 Mar 2004
And how does one go about commenting on a ballot title?
The One True b!X on 16 Mar 2004
Check the pdf in the item above of the comments on #148. You pretty much just send a letter.