October 10, 2004
Endorsement: Yes On Measures 31 And 32, No On Measures 33 Through 38
Our Two Referendum Measures Make Sense, But Our Six Initiative Measures Do Not
Rather than generate an individual item for each of these six initiative-based ballot measures, we'll address them all in one fell swoop -- with the exception of Measure 36, which will be mentioned here but covered in more detail in an item of its own at a later date.
In addition, there are two other statewide ballot measures which were referred to voters by the Oregon Legislature. Measure 31 would institute a process through which Oregon would be able to respond to the unlikely and untimely death of a candidate during an election campaign. Measure 32 would exempt mobile homes from the sorts of taxes and fees levied upon motor vehicles, except when such homes are actually being transported. To date, we have been presented with no rationale for opposing either of these measures, which appear to be reasonably sensible fixes.
Endorsement: Vote yes on Measures 31 and 32.
With all of that introduction and the two referendum measures out of the way, then, here are our endorsements and explanations for Measure 33 through Measure 38.
Measure 33 - Amends Medical Marijuana Act: Requires Marijuana Dispensaries For Supplying Patients/Caregivers; Raises Patients' Possession Limit
First of all, we support our medical marijuana law. Second of all, in a larger sense beyond the medical issue, we tend towards being in favor of drug policy reform as a general concept. However, we're not yet convinced that the problems alleged with the current law, which this measure seeks to address, are clear or urgent enough to require this change a mere handful of years after the original law was enacted. While there's clearly a public policy interest in determining the effectiveness of Oregon's current medical marijuana law, that determination should be made through an obvious and public discussion of the issues raised by proponents of Measure 33 (or any other issues being raised) rather than simply placing only a single option for changes before Oregon voters via ballot measure.
Endorsement: Vote no on Measure 33.
Measure 34 - Requires Balancing Timber Production, Resource Conservation/Preservation In Managing State Forests
Of all the initiative measures in this election, this is the one that has caused us the most confusion and consternation. On the surface, it appears rather straightforward and the instinctive pull of its pitch is compelling if one is environmentally-inclined. In the end, however, our initial sticking point has remained our sticking point. While the measure and its backers claim that the system it would put in place would be based upon best scientific practices, there is something that strikes us as fairly unscientific about instituting a locked-in ratio when it comes to forest uses in the way that this measure does. There may very well be issues that need further resolution when it comes to the existing systems and structures in place for forest management and protection. But as with many of the other measures before us this year, we remain unpersuaded that a complete overhaul, especially one whose central component is such a locked-in ratio, is more sensible than working for any potential reform of the current system.
See the Alliance To Keep Our State Forests Working for more information.
Endorsement: Vote no on Measure 34.
Measure 35 - Amends Constitution: Limits Noneconomic Damages (Defined) Recoverable For Patient Unjuries Caused By Healthcare Provider's Negligence Or Recklessness
While we figure that few people would argue that there isn't a need for some sort of reform to address the realm of medical malpractice, our opposition to this measure has a fairly straightforward explanation: In the absence of a real and concerted effort to debate the issues of medical malpractice, and the full range of potential ways in which to address problems, it is ludicrous to think that a solution championed by the industry which stands to gain the most from its adoption somehow is the proper course of action. For us, it really is that simple. Besides, our television informs us that Erin Brockovich opposes Measure 35. But our opposition to this measure precedes that commercial. Really. We swear.
See the Coalition For Real Insurance Reform for more information.
Endorsement: Vote no on Measure 35.
Measure 36 - Amends Constitution: Only Marriage Between One Man And One Woman Is Valid Or Legally Recognized As Marriage
As stated, we will have an entire item devoted to our opposition to this measure. For now, thanks to the continuing compilation of them by Marriage Matters, we present for your pleasure (and hers, or his) the following endorsements against Measure 36 from newspapers around Oregon:
- Don't Scar Oregon Constitution (The Oregonian)
- Keep Gay-Marriage Ban Out Of Constitution (The Register-Guard)
- Vote Against Measure 36 (The News Guard, via Marriage Matters)
- Discrimination (Mail Tribune)
- Measure 36 Is Not The Answer (The Bulletin)
See No On Constitutional Amendment 36 for more information.
Endorsement: Vote no on Measure 36.
Measure 37 - Governments Must Pay Owners, Or Forgo Enforcement, When Certain Land Use Restrictions Reduce Property Value
Ah, here we have the continued assault upon the social contract in Oregon. A thinly-veiled attempt to destroy the public's right, through its duly-elected governments, to function and operate in ways which attempt to benefit society as a whole. Property may or may not be a right, but it is certainly not the only right, nor just as certainly is it an inherently inviolable right. As with all of society's interests, there is a balance whose maintenance must be sought. In its essence, Measure 37 at the very least almost entirely and at the very worst entirely rescinds the public's right, through its duly-elected governments, to seek those necessary balances. Be sure to read the statements in opposition published in the voters' pamplet, especially those arguments regarding the sheer inevitable costs (both financial and social) of this meausre.
See the Take A Closer Look Committee for more information.
Endorsement: Vote no on Measure 37.
Measure 38 - Abolishes SAIF; State Must Reinsure, Satisfy SAIF's Obligations; Dedicates Proceeds, Potential Surplus To Public Purposes
Here we have the same problem we have when it comes to Measure 35. Few people would argue, at this point, that SAIF doesn't have problems which need to be addressed. But, as with Measure 35, it makes little sense to assume -- either at this stage of the game or inherently -- that a proposal championed by the party which stands to gain the most from its adoption somehow necessarily is the correct course of action to take. As with Measure 35, for us, it really is that simple. And, frankly, it seems intellectually lazy and generally self-destructive to believe that simply abolishing an entity is the preferred solution to a problem.
See the Committee for SAIF-Keeping for more information.
Endorsement: Vote no on Measure 38.
Comments (8)
TimC on 10 Oct 2004
I'm with you on Measures 32-38, but I'm not convinced on Measure 31. On the extremely rare occassion that a candidate dies within 30 days of the November election, is it really necessary to spend tax money for a special election for state senator or representative? There are already measures in place to fill vacancies. Filling vacancies on the ticket will be done the exact same way filling vacancies already occurs - the party organization chooses who will fill the position.
Perhaps this might make sense for Governor and US Senator, but according to the explanatory statement, the implementing legislation already passed doesn't even apply it to US Senator. Paul Wellstone and Mel Carnahan both had untimely deaths in recent elections, but elections would go forward as planned for US senator in any case.
What's the point? We have an election day and both parties are subject to the whims of the reaper. I can live with the current system.
nader on 10 Oct 2004
As I understand it Measure 31 only allows the Oregon Legislature to postpone the election in the event a candidate dies, it doesn't require it. Thus if the legislature could, if they wanted, only exercise this power if the candidate who dies was the front-runner or likely winner of the election.
Like Tim C I was a little concerned that the State would have to postpone an election, and absorb all the expense that goes along with it, for an unfortunate, but ultimately politically insiginificant event like the death of candidate who was not going to win - Like when Jim "Spagg" died in the primaries.
Wendy R-W on 11 Oct 2004
Check out City Club of Portland's positions on ballot measures, as well. The site is updated as reports are released and adopted by the membership.
http://www.pdxcityclub.org/2004Election.php
TimC on 11 Oct 2004
If what nader wrote is true, then I am even more concerned. What would stop the party in control of the legislature from postponing an election only if it was to their benefit to do so? I think it has to be automatic or the possibility of abuse is just too great.
JS on 11 Oct 2004
Voting YES on Measure 31 is a vote to create an incentive for losing candidates to kill their opponent...or something like that.
Suzii on 12 Oct 2004
A part of the Wellstone story: Minnesota did not allow people who had voted for Wellstone, via absentee ballot, before his death to change their votes after it. Now, the number of votes Wellstone received was less than the margin by which Norm Coleman beat Fritz Mondale, so I'm not trying to start a conspiracy theory.
I would, however, like to know that Oregon, which will receive ballots from a Whole Bunch of voters by Nov. 1, has a plan to let those voters have a voice on Nov. 2 if the slate changes before the "polls" close.
Mark on 14 Oct 2004
According to the legislative argument in support of measure 31, it triggers SB 552 'to provide for a MAJOR POLITICAL PARTY to replace its nominee during the election if the nominee of that party dies within 30 days of a general election.'
Way to enshrine yet more discrimination in the constitution!
David Moskowitz on 25 Oct 2004
Measure 34: What it is.
Measure 34 creates a roadmap to implement a plan that protects half of the 518,000 acres of public forestland in the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forest. Measure 34 seeks to balance sustainable logging with permanent protection for fish and wildlife populations, to protect clean water that one in ten Oregonians drink, and enhance all recreational opportunities on state forest land on Oregon’s North Coast.
Why it is the right action to take because of the context:
This plan represents the ongoing work by conservation and recreation organizations over nearly a decade. It comes about because Oregon Department of Forestry ignored the recommendations of 2 independent scientific panels as well as over 3,000 public comments. Measure 34 is also necessary because the Oregon Board of Forestry is comprised of citizen members who have more direct economic conflicts than is allowed by Oregon law. The composition of the board has contributed to the effort to take these issues directly to the voters. The Oregonian said Measure 34 is ballot box forestry that Oregon does not need. Remember that Oregon voted to pay for the replanting the Tillamook in a 1948 ballot initiative. Why is a ballot initiative any less appropriate to again protect the Tillamook in 2004?
Food for thought:
If you have seen the television ads paid for by out-of-state timber companies, you could imagine that imminent, catastrophic forest fires will destroy the Tillamook unless we let them cut it down. Fire is natural part of the coast range, but occurs only once every 300 to 400 years. Measure 34 would require restoration forestry to help restore healthy forests and watersheds damaged by the last round of salvage logging. Fire is an issue for any forest but fiery television ads are just another example of poor corporate timber practices. Too bad the timber industry burned up so many of its shareholder’s dollars buying those misleading and fear-mongering ads.
Out-of-state and non-union timber companies also claim that Measure 34 will hurt schools. In fact, Measure 34 preserves funding for local public school districts who receive revenue from harvests. Measure 34 also guarantees five percent of timber receipts to the Common School Fund, new money that is not there now. This funding comes from re-allocating revenue that funded fancy new buildings for the Department of Forestry in Salem and Tillamook. If anything will hurt schools, it will be the boom and bust logging cycles promoted by out-of-state timber companies as well as the failure of local and state officials to see the forest but for the trees.
Timber companies (did I mention that many of them are out of state corporations?) continue to blame regulations for the job shrinkage in the wood products industry. The real culprit is automation – both in the woods and in the mill. By logging the bigger trees at an unsustainable rate, two things happened. First, watersheds lost their capacity to produce wild salmon, wildlife, and clean drinking water. All seven major rivers flowing from the Tillamook and Clatsop State Forest do not meet water quality standards. On Friday, the federal Environmental Protection Agency told the Board of Forestry that their rules on small streams do not protect water quality for fish.
The second result of unsustainable logging on northwest forests is that Wall Street and their accountants took over for the foresters. They learned that trees grow fastest in their early years and they learned that you could make more money if you harvest them more often. Now that the big trees are gone, one guy can drive to a forest, get into a machine that grabs, cuts and loads small logs directly onto a logging truck, and then get into the logging truck and drive it to a mill that operates 24 hours a day with half the workers needed to run it than were needed just a decade ago.
Top forest economists estimate that harvesting 1 million board foot (mbf) of lumber creates 12.7 direct jobs in the wood, paper and pulp industry. Let’s see if this estimation survives scrutiny. In 1995, 80 mbf were harvested from the Tillamook. Harvest doubled by 2000 so this 80 mbf increase over 5 years should have created 1,016 jobs statewide. The Oregon Employment Department found during that 5-year period, 12 jobs were created in Tillamook County and 4 in Clatsop County. Our opposition uses the slogan “It doesn’t add up.” Perhaps they are talking about their own claims that over 2,000 jobs will be lost. Timber workers have more to fear about their employment future from mechanization and corporate cost-cutters than from Measure 34.
This healing forest is managed by the Oregon Board of Forestry. Their 2001 management plan based on “structure based management” is innovative but untested. In fact, the Board of Forestry ignored the critical opinion of two different independent scientific panels as well as over 3,000 citizens who wanted a better balance between permanent reserves and sustainable logging.
The Board’s blindness to other opinions should not be surprising. Even though Governor Kulongoski has staked the future of protecting state lands on this Board, it is unlikely that it can rise to the occasion because nearly every member has a direct or indirect economic conflict of interest in the industry that it regulates. State law allows no more than 3 members of the Board to have an economic conflict. Five of the current seven members have a direct conflict, and there exists the possibility that the remaining two members also have impermissible conflicts. In that atmosphere, it is no wonder that the State Forester has been accused of cutting backroom deals with the industry.
Given a track record that includes ignoring both the weight of scientific evidence and overwhelming public opinion during the planning process, extensive conflicts of interest and backroom deals, Oregonians have every right to go to the ballot box to protect the forest that they planted.
Restore balance. Vote Yes on Measure 34.