And "True", Is every single one is bad?

Int #1: Okay, this one would an interesting sale to the voters. This would be Math and Ecomonics 101 combined. Int #2: Oh what fun that one will be. Int #3: Bad on for one side-good for the other. Int #4: Good. Let the merits of the candidate platform and ideas-incumbent and challanger-take front seat over what party that person would be "representing". Both diehard mules and elephants wont buy in too it. Int #5: See #4 Int #6: See #1 Int #7: There are some good points of this idea. But further research would be nice. Int #8: See #7 Int #9: See #7

Why can't some of these items come down the turnpike in Nov 05????

Aaron: There is no statewide election in Nov. '05!

Despite my general malaise for the initiative process, I would not mind seeing a measure to make it harder to amend the constitution... I think there is a pretty good shot that we will see that one.

I can make up my mind on most of these right away. I would like to know more about David Delk's proposals. I met David once and was very impressed.

Also if someone would please explain what the point of Charlie Ringo's proposal is.

b!x,

Why do you think eliminating political parties will allow the merits of platforms and ideas to rule over parties? Won't it only increase the influence of interest groups and other organized groups?

I have never understood this very traditionally American rejection of the essential role that political parties play in the elections system. It has an attractive, populist, Progressive sound but it just doesn't work.

The empirical evidence is clear: parties have sprung up rapidly and endured in every existing electoral democracy.

The survey evidence is also clear: the vast majority of citizens use parties as a shortcut and cue to help them understand what a candidate stands for.

And the institutional evidence is clear also: legislatures must organize on some dimension. Parties always emerge in the legislature; to remove them from the election is naive.

It's unclear to me how Initiatives 7 and 8 proposed by David Delk's might affect 527 contributions (still reading through the pdf files on both and researching 527 guidelines) -- anyone have input there?

Did I miss something??? b!X wants to eliminate political parties?

ok -- I didnt miss anything . . . (putting away pdf's and all research as I'm getting a headache)

Thanks, b!X for the food for thought -- if only you could upload us some extra-strength-excedrin . . .

Do away with the initiative process?

It's how we, at the local level can begin to address and voice discontent with the direction of our governement policies at the national level. Activism against the status quo has always expressed itself through the initiatives and referdums process -- for what? Over 100 years now (something like that) and just because success is made using the initiative process by agendas that we dont endorse is no reason to dismiss the process -- it is all the more reason to become active in what Jeff rightly states is the problem -- informing the mis-informed regarding the consequences of those initiatives passing or not.

Moreover -- if anyone is truly serious about doing away with this particular process -- what do they propose to replace it with?

"How about asking our elected officials, who we elected to make laws and decisions on our behalf, to do just that. It seems to work in a lot of democracies around the world and in some states here in the U.S."

The key words in the above statement being "some states".

Again -- what process do you propose turning to in the event that you should happen to live in one of the many states where the elected officials Dont represent / endorse the laws and decisions you entrusted them with -- (assuming, of course, that you even 'elected' him or her in the first place)?

Since I have been asked not to post anymore, until another issue is solved.

May I propose something that says basically that when an initiative pass's say by, oh pick a number, 61 percent, you guys, and your elected, can't touch it, or amend it, PERIOD!

I think that Senator Ringo's proposal of electing state senators and representatives in nonpartisan elections stems from the bitter partisanship of the last session. We need to get to the point where we put "country over party" again and come up with solutions that benefit oregonians. But between the type of people that runs and wins on the other side of the isle and the dogmatic attitude that some of them take in many matters, there is little room for healty compromise or bipartisanship. It would be interesting to see if other states tried something like this proposal and if it worked. I think it is an idea that is worth discussing.

Jack Peek writes:

"May I propose something that says basically that when an initiative pass's say by, oh pick a number, 61 percent, you guys, and your elected, can't touch it, or amend it, PERIOD!"

Jack -

Perhaps you missed out on current events, but initiatives drafted as constitutional amendments are just that: Constutional amendments. The legistlature can't touch them without a referendum. 51% is all that is required to pass these amendments.

Think of the flip side of the coin: Multnomah county plus a couple of other largely populated counties can tell the whole state what to do, permanently. Do you like that? Why not improve the system so that permanent constitutional amendments have to pass in a majority of counties? Shouldn't the constitution be limited to those ideas that the whole state wants, rather than pitting rural against urban as we have seen in so many recent elections?

PS... Thanks so much to you right wingers for stripping away the legal rights of my marriage. Drop by personally some time so I can thank you properly.

"Why not improve the system so that permanent constitutional amendments have to pass in a majority of counties?"

Well, then you would have a very conservative state indeed. Many of Sizemore's measures, for example, would have easily passed if the requirement had been adoption by most of the counties (on the flip side, most of the signatures came from the very counties that turned the measures down). Perhaps some system that balances the county vote with the popular vote - something like our electoral college?

Becky -

I didn't mean from my proposal to remove the popular vote requirement. The majority of counties requirement would be required _in addition_ to the amendment receiving a marjority of the votes.

I think this kind of change to the initiative process would be easier to sell and to understand than other kinds of supermajority requirements. For example, increasing the percentage of votes required to 60% smacks of making the will of the people harder to express.

What the "majority of counties" requirement adds is that the "will of the people" must be widespread. It might also go a ways toward healing suspicions that one region of the state is tring to push something over on another, whether that be urban or rural.

It might make people feel better, but I believe it would not do anything to stop conservative initiatives that people on this board disagree with, but it could be very effective at stopping progressive initiatives the people on this board would support. I have not heard any progressives making the argument that the urban voters are having too much say in Oregon politics, thought it is commonly spoken among conservative voters, so this whole idea really surprises me.

I would be curious to see some research. (Yes, I know I brought up the whole idea, but unfortunately I don't have the time to go digging). It would be very helpful to have a spreadsheet of past ballot initiatives, the popular vote, and county-by-county results.

Then, we could examine and experiment with various ideas for initiative reform.

I should share my motives in all of this: I don't want to eliminate the iniative process or make it unworkable. I seek to improve it by orienting it as a mechanism that boosts ideas with widespread support to the political forefront and facilitate true grassroots movements (of whatever political persuasion) whilst diminishing the overly strong influence of well-financed narrow interests.

In comment to Bob R.: One answer to ensuring the “will of the people" be widespread may be a geographic distribution requirement for signature gathering to qualify an initiative for the ballot.

Nationwide 60% of the initiative activity occurs in 5 states: Arizona, California, Colorado, North Dakota and the #1 state being Oregon. There are two requirements for qualifying an initiative for the ballot – or actually lack of requirements – that all five of these states have in common.

First, there is no geographic distribution requirement for signature gathering – as opposed to other states where a specified percent number of the signatures gathered must come from a certain number of counties. Second, there is no requirement for full signature verification. AZ, CA, CO, and Oregon only require a random sample be done for signature verification, while in ND there is a presumption of validity of signatures.

Up until Measure 36 I thought a geographic distribution requirement would be a good thing – but after seeing the political organization coming out of the churches across this state – I fear that this new political-religious organization may be the only structure “widespread” enough to meet the requirements of geographic distribution.

Predictions for other ballot initiatives in 2006: Watch out for the backers of Measure 36 to place a few initiatives of there own on the ballot in 2006 – as they have indicated they would be trying to ban both no-fault divorce and gay adoptions. I also wouldn’t be surprised to see another go at an “informed consent” restriction on abortion – which rumor has it was only withdrawn at the urging of the conservatives, worried that an anti-choice ballot measure would drive out liberal voters in the presidential election.

I really understand all the sentiments here, but it seems for each idea there are many reasons why it wouldn't work. Almost everything only serves to ensure the well-connected and well-funded special interests can continue to take advantage of the process and to block out the everyday person from being able to do so.

The idea of gathering from each county is one of those ideas. Even if the number required from each county was pro-rated, tied to the actual population of that county, how many of us could actually go to each county in the state and collect signatures? You can only do that if you can find trustworthy petitioners you are willing to pay on an hourly basis to collect those very hard-to-get signatures (hard because the pickings are so slim).

Verification of each signature sounds fine until you realize what a huge burden that places on the public employees - and their department budgets - who are responsible for doing that. Besides, I have personally seen forgeries that passed verification and honest-to-goodness signatures that didn't. What is worse is that the courts do not allow a person whose signature is incorrectly deemed a forgery to either sign the petition again or overturn the false verification result.

As for changing the process, I think it is clear from the arguments posted here that just about any proposed change is usually motivated by a desire to undermine the effectiveness of those on the opposite side of the political aisle, rather than by a desire to make the system actually work better for everyone.

Those of us who are hoping to roll back Measure 36 with a future initiative would appreciate it if those who are in favor of making it more difficult to amend the Oregon consitution would take that into consideration when drafting legislation.

My wife and I thank you. ;-)

Katherine

Those of us who are hoping to roll back Measure 36 with a future initiative would appreciate it if those who are in favor of making it more difficult to amend the Oregon consitution would take that into consideration when drafting legislation.

I respect the mindset that isnt so jaded that it would opt to do away with the initiative system -- and also respect the (excuse the pun) initiative to improve upon it.

Regarding ballot title shopping, it's a mixed bag. I've seen important elements of initiatives removed because that was the only way to get a clear ballot title that accurately explained what the measure would do. You may not like ballot title shopping, but when the AG's office is politically opposed to your initiative and intentionally tries to defeat it by writing a confusing or misleading ballot title, you have to use the tools available to force them to give you a title that is fair. Imagine how you would feel about a Republican AG's office that opposed your initiative to force corporate polluters to clean up their messes and decided to defeat it before it ever got on the ballot by wording the ballot title in such a way that the average voter couldn't tell what the measure would do, or worse, so that the average voter would get the wrong impression of what it would do? It would be especially hard to take if you had already been forced to spend $50,000 collecting the signatures required to file the measure. And if the Oregon Supreme Court was dominated by conservatives who refused to change the ballot title to be more fair to you (provided you had the funding to challenge the AG's ballot title), you'd be out of luck. This is what happens right now to conservatives, and it is why they ballot title shop. That is why I have said that the real problem is ensuring voters get accurate information about the measure via a truly unbiased ballot title process. But bias is helpful to the dominant political party, so no one from either side will take the necessary steps to get rid of it.

Regarding ballot title shopping, it's a mixed bag. I've seen important elements of initiatives removed because that was the only way to get a clear ballot title that accurately explained what the measure would do. You may not like ballot title shopping, but when the AG's office is politically opposed to your initiative and intentionally tries to defeat it by writing a confusing or misleading ballot title, you have to use the tools available to force them to give you a title that is fair. Imagine how you would feel about a Republican AG's office that opposed your initiative to force corporate polluters to clean up their messes and decided to defeat it before it ever got on the ballot by wording the ballot title in such a way that the average voter couldn't tell what the measure would do, or worse, so that the average voter would get the wrong impression of what it would do? It would be especially hard to take if you had already been forced to spend $50,000 collecting the signatures required to file the measure. And if the Oregon Supreme Court was dominated by conservatives who refused to change the ballot title to be more fair to you (provided you had the funding to challenge the AG's ballot title), you'd be out of luck. This is what happens right now to conservatives, and it is why they ballot title shop. That is why I have said that the real problem is ensuring voters get accurate information about the measure via a truly unbiased ballot title process. But bias is helpful to the dominant political party, so no one from either side will take the necessary steps to get rid of it.

I apologize for the repeat posts. My computer is for some reason occasionally sending these things twice. To the Administrator - please feel free to remove this and my duplicate post!

b!x, I was responding to this comment:

Int #4: Good. Let the merits of the candidate platform and ideas-incumbent and challanger-take front seat over what party that person would be "representing". Both diehard mules and elephants wont buy in too it.

which I read very much in the tradition that casts political parties and party affiliations as bad things, and whose influence, if we cannot completely eliminate, we want to reduce as much as possible.

There is no evidence the eliminating party names on the ballot lets candidate platforms and ideas surge to the fore.

Becky:

"when the AG's office is politically opposed to your initiative and intentionally tries to defeat it by writing a confusing or misleading ballot title"

Any documentation of "political" opposition and intentions to defeat by writing a confusing or misleading ballot title?

Other than Lars?

Randy - is personal experience good enough for you? I've been a chief petitioner a number of times. I'm afraid it isn't possible in a case like this to supply documentation that will satisfy someone who is a skeptic about what I've said, but that has been my experience. By the way, I don't listen to Lars - I'm much more into Franken these days.

FWIW, Nebraska has a unicameral, nonpartisan legislature and I hear it works quite well. The nonprofit I work for has had a Nebraska senator come and do trainings on consensus building and negotiating for positive outcomes -- they've had good success in Nebraska.

http://www.unicam.state.ne.us/learning/index.htm

PS... Thanks so much to you right wingers for stripping away the legal rights of my marriage. Drop by personally some time so I can thank you properly.

Sounds like a threat Bobby !

Ahh,Bobby....did you get married at Linn's deal?

Of Course you did, I don't give a rip about what you do in your bedroom...the majority of the country isn't ready to have their marriages made unreconizable by your standards either.

The guy who runs this website is "paying" me too go away......but until I do, your marriage is between you and your "pardner" not the fricking state.

Move ....CANADA is great, We really can't get along on thos one.

HEY TRUE ......You got me kicked off. leave it at that.

One thing that is really wrong about the initiative process is that people are at the mercy of the effectiveness of the organization who makes the argument for or against the measure.

It will be said that "The people have spoken!" but usually it is the money and organization of the winning side, and the ineptness of the side which loses, which has spoken.

I would rather empower our representatives with this power only, so that there is a full debate, and an analysis of the impact and longterm effects, and if our representatives do something which we do not agree with, we make it known with our vote.

Maybe we need an initiative to kill the initiative process.

P.S. Bob R., after you give those people a proper thank you, please send them my way so that I may express my appreciation as well.

As I recall, Ringo's idea for non-partisan legislature had something to do with the 15-15 Senate mostly functioning more efficiently than the House(and certainly being the mature adult branch compared to the House) as much as anything else. There was no partisan majority in the 2003 Senate and the world did not come to an end.

"Watch out for the backers of Measure 36 to place a few initiatives of there own on the ballot in 2006 – as they have indicated they would be trying to ban both no-fault divorce and gay adoptions."

Oh yes -- back to the days of private eyes, salacious trials and bare-knuckled brawling. Divorce lawyers everywhere will rejoice at the huge increase in fees for divorces.

"shrugs"

I would rather empower our representatives with this power only, so that there is a full debate, and an analysis of the impact and longterm effects, and if our representatives do something which we do not agree with, we make it known with our vote.

If Oregon citizens had waited for the legislature to deal with our problems, our state would be dotted with nuclear power facilities and we wouldn't have the bottle bill.

If the legislature were consistently willing and able to tackle tough political issues such as meaningful tax reform, or to address the problems and complexities of the state's land-use laws, we would not now be saddled with Measure 37.

The problem is not Oregon's initiative process. The problem is that political progressives have never built a lasting coalition capable of promoting progressive reforms in areas that the legislature is afraid or unwilling to tackle. Instead, all-too-often, we are playing defense. For example, how different would things be today if, instead of spending money to oppose Measure 36, BRO and their allies had spent their money to promote an initiative that defined and protected civil unions in Oregon?

This is my 2 cents on this is--if state-level and statewide officials defers from the legislature to the initiative process they need not to run and hide. If these individuals are too scared to make hard choices and passing laws and stick by them during the election cycle, they need to step down and let others take the lead on these critical issues about revenue streams, balanced budgets and enforcing the tax code and laws that the state of Oregon has in place.

Measure 30 died because there was not full participation of the Democratic leadership, which should have taken that banner and rode around the state discussing why it is soooo important to get the message out on passing it. It makes us, the average Democrat activists; look like ill-trained monkeys doing bad tricks in front the pride of angry lions.

So yes, there are many flaws to the initiative process; but removing the full process would then make potentially our officials to make harder choices for us that we might not like in the long run.

Anne -

I read your article, and although I agree the initiative process has some serious flaws, I have a few points of contention with your view of it.

You wrote, "Direct democracy – the initiative, referendum and recall instituted in this state in the early 1900’s and known as “the Oregon system” has created a system without checks or balances, without open public process, and, lately, without much regard for the public good."

Checks and balances on the initiative process include: the AG's office, which gives the initiative a ballot title (often biased, depending on the political views of the AG) and issues a statement as to whether or not he believes the measure complies with the Constitution (if it does not, it is not allowed to proceed); the official committee which drafts the language describing the measure in the Voter's Pamphlet; the Oregon Supreme Court, which has the final say over the ballot title, and which holds the authority to overturn the will of the people; the voters, of course; the Governor, the press, and a myriad of special interest groups who can work to persuade the voters; the Legislature, state agencies, and local governments, which determine how the measure will be implemented; the Legislature, which can alter statutory ballot measures, or which can offer voters a fixed version (e.g. Measure 53, pursuant to Measure 47); and the public at large, which can submit a repeal to the voters.

The public process is very open. The measure's language is available to every person who signs the petition. From the moment it is filed, it is available to the public on the Internet. The entire ballot title process is open for public input - anyone can submit comments and thereby gain standing to challenge the final ballot title in court. The measure is printed in the Voter's Pamphlet and mailed to the home of every voter. It is fully discussed in the media, both in campaigns and in general coverage. Campaign finance disclosure certainly could be made more transparent and accessible via internet publishing of data, but ultimately that information is made available to the public.

As for your comment that initiatives are not put forward in the interest of the public good, it is a shame that you don't see that the majority of the time ballot measures are motivated by someone's belief that their idea is in the public interest and will accomplish a public benefit.

You wrote: “'The people' who make decisions on ballot measures is an ever-changing fraction of those who are registered to vote. On Measure 30, roughly 45% of all those eligible to vote actually voted (with a median age between 50 and 60), 18% of those eligible to vote voted yes, and 27% of those eligible to vote voted no. The people have spoken. Or rather, 27% of the people who could have spoken have won."

Funny, I've never seen the left use this argument when we were talking about the percentage of voters who approved tax increases that were clearly not broadly supported and which would impact working families, the unemployed and retirees to a tremendous degree. The widely popular double majority, which I'm sure you don't like either, was intended specifically to ensure that tax increases occurred only during elections with high participation rates. Initiatives always are put before voters at elections with the most heavy participation rates.

You wrote: "With initiatives, there is no open meeting, there is no public hearing, there is no public record, and there is no expectation of truth. There is no prior review to ensure constitutionality or logic. There is no opportunity for amendment. There is no unbiased statement of costs or consequences."

Au contraire. See above. Don't forget the AG does, in fact, review for constitutionality. Further, most purveyors of initiatives seek legislative and/or expert legal assistance with the language to ensure it is thorough, sound, and accurate. The rash of measures being overturned, whether you will admit it or not, is due to a politicized Supreme Court using the single subject rule stretched to absurd proportions as an excuse to throw out measures it does not like. As for unbiased statements of cost, I would agree with you. The State Treasurer could easily overstate or understate costs based on what was included in the analysis in order to harm or aide ballot measures' passage. But then, the same thing can happen with legislative measures. It happens to Congress, too - or do I need to remind you about the understated costs associated with Medicare reform?

You wrote: "We can, if we are so inclined, decipher campaign finance reports to see who’s buying how much for each side, but few people do, and the trail is convoluted – often it is impossible to tell that a PAC called “Citizens for a Better Something” is really a shill for one or two millionaires or corporations."

I believe these issues could be addressed, but because those with the power to address the problem also must live by the disclosure reforms they pass, they have so far been unwilling to do what it takes to ensure the people are adequately informed as to who is behind campaigns. This one rubs both ways.

You wrote: "Measure 11 didn’t list the cost or number of new prisons that are now necessary to house those confined by mandatory minimums."

Perhaps the voters were less concerned about the cost of the prisons than they were about getting the criminals who were victimizing them off the streets.

You wrote: "And when people vote on ballot measures it is not recorded and public and accountable to constituents; it is private, secret, and unaccountable to anyone or anything but the voters’ own self-interest."

So is everything we vote on. I dare say many a representative also ends up voting either in his or her own interest, or else according to what the party (based on its contributor base) wants.

Finally, you wrote: "Government cannot be responsive to the wants and needs of citizens if we don’t allow it any discretion."

Discretion is the tool of indiscriminate, crooked politicians to get what they want for themselves, their friends, and their contributors. You can wax sentimental about representative democracy all day long, but in the end it's all a dirty business in which people get walked on and have to fight to protect their interests. I dare say if the initiative process was churning out laws you liked instead of laws you don't like, you'd be all for democratic decisions made by "the people."

Well put Becky.

I am generally annoyed by the elitist contempt of the initiative process held by persons like Ms. Martens until I remember that she is the hired mouthpiece for our own Secretary of State.

He's same guy who is supposed to apply the law with impartiality and for the purpose of enabling and extending all the franchises of the voter.

I see Anne.

You hate the initiative and are quite vocal about it, yet you put aside your hatred every day when you go to work for the one state office in charge of guaranteeing our initiative rights?

Sort of like having Bill Sizemore arbitrating collective bargaining agreements.

Anne -

I do see your points, honestly, and they have merit, though I disagree with your conclusions. I don't believe there is a perfect system here, but I believe it is better to have an initiative process with its flaws than to not.

As to your statement, "I believe in good government, Becky does not." I've seen similar statements on other threads on this site, and may have fallen into making statements like that myself, I don't know. But I think it is pretty cocky for someone to state as a matter of fact what someone else believes in. It's kind of like someone saying, "Liberals hate America," or "Republicans don't care if our troops are well equipped." Ridiculous. You and I may not agree on what "good government" is, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in good government. I believe good government includes the initiative process and you don't. You seem to trust bureaucracies more than I do, and I trust the people more than you seem to. So we disagree.

I'm glad to hear you have confidence in the impartiality of the AG's office in the ballot title process. Perhaps it is impossible to look at a neutral explanation of a measure and feel comfortable with it when approaching the matter with a particular idealogical bent. Either something biased looked neutral to you, or something neutral looked biased to me.

Becky must feel more comfortable than I do in putting her future in the hands of people who know nothing about the subject, haven't read the proposal, and have no obligation to think about anyone other than themselves.

Dear Anne,

We call many of the people you are describing "voters", and rely on them to elect our legislators who, like many voters, may or may not read the material they are voting on; may or may not have the public interest in mind; and may or may not think of anyone other than themselves or their caucus when making a decision.

How many times has the House voted down house-keeping bills from your office for purely partisan reasons? How many times do caucus members vote one way or another on a piece of legislation, unread, because they are instructed to do so by leadership?

One way of addressing such problems may be through the initiative process, as Senators Ringo, Brown, Gordly, Morrissette, Shrader, Hass, et al are attempting to do through the nonpartisan legislature.

Though I am not blind to problems associated with the initiative process, I would suggest that there are whole classes of problems that the legislature is ill-equipped to deal with simply because of partisanship and personal interest.