Oregon's initiative and referendum system has become the fourth branch of government. It is the only branch without proper checks and balances (only remedy is judicial review). It has undermined representative democracy to such an extent that Oregon has become "ungovernable" in the words of JK.

Ballot measures are the blunt instruments of policy making. Unfortunately, if you have enough money you can enact bad laws that would never pass muster through a legislative process. Both right wing idealogues and left wing idealogues defend direct democracy as a way to subvert special interests. They have it wrong. Special interests own the process and are increasingly using it for tactical purposes due to their inability to move crap ideas through the legislature.

The process was born of a back room political deal by William S. U'Ren (the father of the process) to make the political pawn of the railroad industry senate president to break a deadlock. Oh the irony!

It is time to stop the insanity that has become Oregon's most dominant branch of government. Personally, I vote NO on every ballot measure and urge others to do the same.

"Its schools suffered." "Roads and bridges went un-repaired."

Could this be why Portland Public Schools are a mess and the Sellwood bridge is about to fall down?

There certainly are bad ballot measures. There are many that I won't sign. I'm especially leery of constitutional changes and rarely sign or vote for any of those. On the other hand I don't have a lot of trust in the laws our legislators pass when I'm not looking, especially knowing the pressure they are under from lobbyists. I don't like outside money coming in and sometimes ballot measures pass that I think are really stupid, but at least everybody gets to look at them and decide. I also like the fact that if I get real serious about trying to pass a law, and I can convince enough other people, I can get it on the ballot. So--I wouldn't want to live in a state that didn't have the initiative. It makes me feel like I'm really living in a democracy.

Kair:

At least the lobbyists have to make their case in a deliberate review process that demands reasonable compromise and accomodation of minority vews. In the intiative process any crap idea with a lot of money behind it can become law (or even worse be imbedded in the constitution). If you study the history of the initiative and referrendum process you will find Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Rooselvelt were two of the leading critics of "direct democracy" at the time many states were adopting such laws.

In the end, I'm with our founding fathers who made a conscious, delberate decision to opt for representative democracy over direct democracy. The initiative and referrendum process makes tax reform in Oregon unattainable/impossible and our schools, transportation infrastructure and health care system will continue to suffer as a result. It is no coincidence that the most fiscally screwed up states in the country are all initiative and referrendum states.

A true democrat (small d).

Part of the problem is that average voter don't make enough time to stay educated about what's going on. Add to this by stuffing as many measures and issues on the ballot at once and it becomes difficult to spend the time to research issues.

For me, it's usually not an issue. However, being out of the country, I'm more out of the loop then usual. I urge everyone to pay close attention to whom are behind some of these measures.

While I don't agree with Karl about voting no on every ballot measure I do have a rule of them. If in doubt vote no. To me that seems to be the more common sense solution.

In terms of these out of state groups, pouring money into ballot measures to further their own causes the voters are getting duped by people that manipulate the system. It's just that simple.

Don't kid yourself. This money came from Oregonians. It was just funnelled through national groups so you wouldn't know where it originated.

Regarding Jenni's comment about babies and bath water, I got to wondering: when it comes to ballot measures what exactly are the babies and the bathwater. In other words, what good stuff have I gotten and how are those balanced by bad stuff.

Here's my unscientific methodology: I looked at the list of ballot measures (initiatives and referenda by petition)and made a list of the ones where I thought we got something useful, and the ones where we harmed ourselves. Totally subjective, personal perspective and all that. Also not factored in is whether all or part of a measure was later ruled unconstitutional.

Here's my list of "Good things we got"

Mandatory safety belts Campaign spending limits Physician assisted suicide Adoptee access to original birth certificates Vote by mail Medical marijuana Requirement for conviction before property forfeiture Increase cigarette taxes (twice) Increased minimum wage (twice) and inflation indexing

In exchange for these bad things:

Loss of day of election voter registration Revocation of Exec Order barring descrimination based on sexual orientation Tax limitations (three times, 5, 47 and 50) Term limits Mandatory sentences, other victims "rights" (various, esp. Meas 11) Super legislative majority on revenue bills Changing principle of corrections system from "rehabilitation" to "punishment" Supermajority for local tax measures Putting the kicker into the Constitution Gay marriage constitutional ban Payment to owners for land use restrictions

Now, I look back at the list. Again, it's my list. Yours would almost certainly be different. My conclusion is that the bad stuff fundamentally eroded our civil liberties, and in various ways renders government much less capable of governing (delivering services, taxing for those services, etc.) in a way supported by the majority of citizens. Maybe that's a way of saying we've elevated reluctance to pay taxes to a civil right, I don't know.

For that, I've gotten some pretty good stuff, especially phys. assisted suicide and minimum wage indexing, but the list is light, in my opinion. Was it a good trade? Here's my bottom line -- there's no question Oregon would be a better place if both lists never passed.

So, do I think we should do away with the initiative and referendum? No. But we do need some significant changes. Here are two:

1. Require measures that qualify for the ballot to pass a constitutionality review before being voted on. Few things erode public confidence in government more than measures being passed, then being thrown out by the court. Better to get the legal issue resolved before asking the people to weigh in.

2. Require a supermajority for passage of constitutional amendments. In looking at the list, I was struck that measures with such a profound impact on the state often were supported by such narrow majorities, sometimes not even the highest vote getters on the ballot in a particular year. If we're going to enshrine an idea in the Constitution, it ought to be able to get 60% at the ballot.

I chuckle when I read posts about the "reasoned debate" that occurs at the Oregon Legislature. Having spent a considerable amount of time there (which is why my post is anonymous), I can only tell you that if you think there is a "deliberative review process" for enacting laws, you should spend a session at the Capitol, and you will be quickly disavowed of this notion. Trust me, it is truly disheartening.

I will sign just about any petition, whether I intend to vote for the measure or not. Why? Because contrary to what is often asserted, special interests play a much smaller factor in initiative campaigns then they do at the Capitol.

Go to the Capitol on any given day when the legislature is in session and stand outside the House and Senate chamber during floor session. See all the people standing there? They are lobbyists. Do you think they represent the average voter, or are they representing the special interest that pays their salary?

And observe the legislators, as they receive the notes passed in by the lobbyists and come out before a vote for a "chat." Do you think the conversation centers on how a particular bill affects the average jill citizen? I don't either.

You will soon note that the legislators cozy up to certain lobbyists, typically on party lines. Do you think this has to do with coincidence, or is it based on a "relationship" (which usually involves campaign contributions) that the legislator has with the particular lobbyist.

If you are "lucky" enough to talk with a legislator about a bill, in most cases you will discover that you know far more about the law than the legislator who is actually voting on the bill. In other words, the "rational reasoned debate" isn't conducted by the electeds, its conducted in a power struggle between lobbyists, with the "debate" consisting of a series of mindless sound bites read from talking points prepared by the lobby on the floor of the legislature.

Contrast that with the initiative process. In the initiative, the only role for special interests is in the campaigns for and against the measure. In essence, the special interests have to lobby the public. But its much harder for a special interest to try and lobby millions of people who don't depend on them for re-election (and consequently don't give a damn what they have to say) then it is for special interests to corrupt the legislative process (which they have at both the state and federal levels).

That's why every session an unholy alliance is formed between the business lobby (AOI, Oregon Restaurant Assoc., OFIC) and the public employee unions (OEA, AFSCME, SEIU) to make it next to impossible for the grassroots to use the initiative process. The bill is championed every session by Ginny Burdick and some Republican stooly (thus making it "bipartisan") and only dies because the initiative folks have the ability to refer it to the ballot where it would be beaten by the public, the majority of whom like the initiative. Do you think that the business and public employee lobbyists are concerned with the impact of the iniatitive on the good of society as a whole? If you do, I've got some property in Brooklyn to sell you.

Yes, there are poorly drafted initiatives. But there are poorly drafted bills as well. That's why we have a process for amending laws and the Oregon Constitution. And given the quality of our elected legislators, one could argue that if the people aren't qualified to vote for an initiative, they're not really qualified to vote for the least unpopular in a legislative race either.

It's very unfortunate, but I don't think that the legislature represents the people today any more than they did during U'Ren's era, which is why the initiative is vital. You may get some clunkers (along with some winners), but at least they're our clunkers, and not those of the group with the biggest campaign warchest.

Anonymous above is obviously Bill Sizemore, you can tell by his knowledge of the initiative process and his inimitable ability to rationalize. So I guess we're all supposed to give the initiative folks a pass because the Legislature is even worse? This post is nothing more than fancy worded juvenile thinking: "but Jimmy stole two candy bars and I only stole one!"

I never hear the left whine about Oregon being invaded by NEA money. Isn't that odd?

As for Sizemore: did I read that right? He got Loren Parks to fund an initiative that prohibits insurance companies from using credit history as a factor in setting rates?

What, is this so he can afford insurance? Is Sizemore now a leftie? Running initiatives to regulate commerce? What a dumbazz.

"If you are "lucky" enough to talk with a legislator about a bill, in most cases you will discover that you know far more about the law than the legislator who is actually voting on the bill."

I would hope so. That's why I am talking to him. Legislators deal with hundreds of issues just in their committees. They can't possibly have a good understanding of all of them, muchless all the bills they vote on on the floor.

The most annoying politicians are the ones who won't listen because they already have the answers. Even when they are on your side, they will mess things up by voting based on the cliches they have heard.

In other words, the "rational reasoned debate" isn't conducted by the electeds

Of course it isn't. The electeds are the audience for the debate, they are the decision makers. The legislature is not a public policy discussion group. It's a working body with decisions to make. The debate is supposed to help them to weigh the pros and cons of an issue.

, its conducted in a power struggle between lobbyists, with the "debate" consisting of a series of mindless sound bites read from talking points prepared by the lobby on the floor of the legislature."

The debate on the floor of the legislature is mostly irrelevant as far as determining votes. Legislators are explaining their decisions to the public, not trying to persuade their colleagues. Why would you expect those speeches to be different than most campaign speeches - mindless soundbites and prepared talking points?

Tell me, I have arrived at the blog "Blue Oregon," correct? This is supposed to be (at least) somewhat progressive? Hmm.

I had no idea that insurance companies used someone's credit score as part of the rate setting process. This seems arbitrary and definitely works disproportionately against the middle and lower middle class.

I guess I'm surprised to finally see a proposed ballot measure coming from the conservatives that is actually progressive. Maybe we can all work together on something for a change!

Anonymous(1),

Very well put. Too bad you'll get nothing but jeers in this forum.

Anonymous2,

Next time try making sense on your own. Playing your game, I can extend your logic to insist we should get rid of the (two-candybar-stealing) legislature along with the (one-candybar-stealing) initiative process.

Anonymous(1)'s point is that in terms of an open system of public debate for creating law, the initiative process is cleaner than the legislature. If you disagree, debate that.

Sasha,

I was scratching my head over the Sizemore credit score/insurance measure. My guess is that after the unions got that multimillion dollar judgment against Sizemore, his credit was destroyed and his insurance co. dropped him/raised his rates.

Odd position from a freemarket standpoint, but the insurance industry is already so overregulated I'm not sure what the difference will be. Evaluating a driver's accident risk based on his credit score seems like an odd social policy with the result of removing low income folks with poor credit from insurance pools.

On a related note, I never thought that getting good grades (and I usually qualified) made me a less risky driver for insurance purposes either. I remember hearing about a study finding that high IQ people were involved in more accidents than average IQ people (theory was that they try to do too many things while they drive and distract themselves more often).

Ross:

What do you mean the legislature is the audience for the debate? Read your Constitution, as you seem to have the legislative branch confused with the judiciary.

Legislators are the policy makers - their role is to create policy, not weigh the pros and cons of policies crafted by lobbyists. That's the problem with politics in Oregon (and I suspect in most other states) - the lobby runs the store, not the people we elect.

It would be nice for once if a legislator had an idea of his/her own, rather than simply being a shill for the concepts drafted by the lobby. I want legislators to tell the lobby what policies are going to be worked on, not vice versa.

And frankly, if a policy maker doesn't have a good idea of what he/she is voting for, then we're all in trouble. Take the time to read and understand the bills. If we pass less bills because it takes time for the legislators to read and understand them, fine. Better to not pass a law than to pass one that no one except the lobbyist who drafted it understands.

Or switch to annual sessions, or pay legislators more so you attract a better qualified lot. But to pretend its okay for a policy maker to not have the first clue about the policy they're about to set is to invite the lobby to run the show. I don't think this is a good idea.

-Patrick,

Bravo! You made some solid points on good and bad ballot measures and some possible amendments to the process.

I especially agree that Constitutional Amendments should require not only a constitutional review, but also a supermajority to pass. We require 2/3 majority in each house of Congress and the approval of 75% of the states to amend the US Constitution, am I right? Why not hold Oregon to the same bar?

I also believe that if a Constitutional Amendment is challenged within the first year of passage the cost of the defense of the measure should be entirely the sponsors of it. Why should tax payers pay for faulty measures? Surely, this is more complex than I indicate, but idealistically it makes sense to me. DOMA would be out of business if this were true.

I also think that laws should be passed to limit money and influence from coming in from outside of the state. I got tired of seeing most of the protesters against SB 1000 standing outside of the state house being from Kansas. They have ruined their own state, don't ruin ours! Not sure how best to do this, but it is time to kick these people out.

Republicans (and Libertarians) love to call the "kettle black" with regard to lobbists and outside money, yet in nearly every campaign Republicans outspend Democrats. Frankly, this is why I support state funded campaigns. Eliminate all outside money, allow equal free advertising, etc, etc. The less elected officials have to worry about raising money for their campaigns the more work they are likely to get done in the legislature.

Unbelievable!! I find myself in favor of an initiative promoted by Parks and Sizemore....

Yes, credit ratings are used to decide insurance rates. Being mid-fifties, having one moving violation and no chargeable accidents in my entire driving history, I found it incredible when my insurance company (one of the big ones) raised my rates almost 20%, and told me it was due to my post-divorce cedit issues. Welcome once again to the United Corporations of America.

Legislators are the policy makers

Not that I have ever seen. Politicians come in at the end of a public debate and codify the will of the people into law. They weigh all the competing public interests into a common legal framework. They can't have the knowledge or experience to invent their own solutions to most problems. They don't lead the public, they mostly follow it.

It would be nice for once if a legislator had an idea of his/her own,

Why? Their job is to evaluate ideas and put the good ones into effect once they are fully baked, not be advocates for their own half-baked ideas. The rest of us can do that.

Take the time to read and understand the bills.

I think that it is totally unrealistic. You can't expect them to understand every impact of every line of legislation they are asked to consider. We elect them to represent us in making the decisions, not to be superhuman.

But to pretend its okay for a policy maker to not have the first clue

No one suggested they shouldn't "have the first clue", but if they want to better understand the implications of legislation they will do better by listening, not talking. And, if they are clueless about an issue, they certainly aren't going to get a clue by listening to floor speeches by their equally clueless colleagues.

We shouldn't pretend if they just take the time to read a bill, if they are smart enough they will fully understand all its implications. We need to make sure they hear and consider a full public discussion by people who have some understanding of its various implications. Then they make, or don't make, decisions. That, not giving compelling speeches or developing new policy solutions, is what we elect and pay them to do.

Ross:

We couldn't disagree more. If legislators are simply evaluating others ideas in an effort to determine the will of the people and act on it, then we will have politics by poll, ala Clinton. This would be less offensive if there were a way to truly and accurately determine the will of the people, but there is no way to do so. Whether we like it or not, the people with the greatest access to politicians are the lobbyists. Thus the supposed popularity of a particular bill is filtered by the "message" delivered by the lobby ("just trust me, your voters will really like this.")

Not only do I want legislators who think for themselves, the people deserve it. A legislature should be composed of members with expertise in all areas of the law, not just those who are good at arbitrating disagreements between segments of society. If legislators are not capable of independent and creative thinking, then we all suffer. Thinking of creative ways to solve problems is one type of leadership. I want legislators who have new and creative ways to solve problems, not just those who sit there and weigh the pros and cons from the same tired lobbyists.

That we don't have these types in the Oregon legislature is a failure, in my opinion.

Nor do I think it is unrealistic to expect legislators to read the bills and understand them before they vote. I think it is inexcusable if they don't do so. I did not say that legislators need to anticipate every impact of every line of legislation, as you claim (although you did a good job of knocking down the strawman you set up). But it is not too much to ask that a legislator have a working knowledge of every area of the law, and if Oregon would create more favorable conditions to attract good candidates, we could find people of this quality.

I agree with you that legislators aren't going to get a clue by listening to their equally clueless colleagues. Our disagreement is that it appears that you believe that being clueless is a fait accompli for a legislator. That may be the way it is now, but that doesn't mean that we should accept it.

The initiative process is perverted by big money.

The representative process is perverted by big money.

If campaign finance reform (P8 & 37, followed by voluntary public financing) results in a governor and legislature who work on the public's behalf, then I will consider limiting the initiative system, the funding of which is constitutionally more difficult to regulate. Until then, the voters need the protection from paid-off politicians that the initiative system affords, imperfect as that may be.

I agree with the last post.

At least in the initiative the perversion of big money is not directed to the decisionmaker, unlike a campaign contribution to an elected official. Talk about buying votes.

Nor do I think it is unrealistic to expect legislators to read the bills and understand them before they vote. I think it is inexcusable if they don't do so The problem both in Oregon and nationally is a process which allows the time to read the bills.

Peter DeFazio was on KPOJ this morning talking about a major piece of legislation written in the middle of the night and the GOP tried to pass it before anyone read it. So Peter said he would use every parliamentary trick in the book and tie up the House for a whole day if they wouldn't let him read the bill, so "the got the copy machine burning and got me a copy to read and all the members thronged around my desk wanting to read it too" (not an exact quote but close).

Similar things have been tried here including one year when Republicans had a night hearing and told the Democratic members that the meeting was adjourned at something like 10:30 pm. so the Democrats then went home. And then at 11pm the Republicans meet and vote different language out to the floor.

Usually the people doing such nonsense get caught. But I wouldn't blame all members for the hijinks of a few.

"If legislators are simply evaluating others ideas in an effort to determine the will of the people and act on it, then we will have politics by poll,"

I agree. Now, who said they should do that?

"Whether we like it or not, the people with the greatest access to politicians are the lobbyists."

No doubt. And they pay for it with campaign contributions.

"Not only do I want legislators who think for themselves"

So do I. I want them thinking about how to create legislation out of all the good ideas out there, not coming up with their own new ideas.

"Nor do I think it is unrealistic to expect legislators to read the bills and understand them before they vote. I think it is inexcusable if they don't do so."

Have you tried to read and understand every bill in the legislature? There were 3500+ bills just in the house from the looks of it. You couldn't do it for the bills that make it to the floor, muchless add another set that are considered in committee and never reach the floor. How about taking ten at random, read them and explain their implications? Here is one , give us a synopsis.

Its this sort of silly expectation that gives lobbyists their power. They know legislators aren't going to read and understand every bill and that they depend on others to educate them about the implications of legislation and their impact. And there is that willing and helpful lobbyist to to give them the "facts" so they don't look stupid to their unrealistic constituents.

Our disagreement is that it appears that you believe that being clueless is a fait accompli for a legislator.

My experience is that legislators have personal experience that allows them to be semi-experts for a very small number of bills. If legislators try to be experts on everything that government touches you are guaranteeing that the decisions they make will be clueless. I think our problem is that we have far too many elected officials who try to fit the mold you want instead of actively seeking guidance from people who do have knowledge and experience. The result is that the only people they talk to are lobbyists, whether professionals or amateurs.

More to the point, I think the larger community is the real experts on most bills. Unless they are included in the discussion, you will get bad legislation based on a narrow set of considerations. And that happens far more often because legislators think they know everything, than because they don't.

Anyone who thinks the initiative and referendum system isn't dominated by special interests and big money hasn't been paying very close attention. I agree with the comment that was made that there is no accountability or any checks and balances other than judical review. Also, minority viewpoints are not even heard in the initiative process let alone accomodated.

Oregon's fiscal mess is a direct result of the intiative system (can you say Measure 5, super majority, kicker in the constitution, etc.). Oregon's inability to pass meaningful tax reform is the result of the initiative system. Our problems with school funding, lack of transportation infrastructure and our tattered human services system are all paying the price.

Let's face it, the initiative and referendum system has so undermined representative democracy JK was right when he said Oregon is ungovernable.

I'll say it again - just vote NO - most of the measures are special interest crap either ours (backed mostly by labor) or theirs (right wing anti-government bullshit).

I'll say it again - just vote NO - most of the measures are special interest crap either ours (backed mostly by labor) or theirs (right wing anti-government bullshit).

How even handed. How about some specifics of labor-backed crap? The minimum wage laws? The "just vote no" stuff is at least as silly and dogmatic as some of the initiatives out there.

There is a problem with the lack of process for incorporating broader views into initiatives either before they are voted on or afterwards. The legislature is generally loathe to tamper with iniatives once passed.

You can't ignore the reality that there are ulterior motives for some initiatives that have nothing to do with whether they pass. Many of the anti-labor initiatives are designed to eat up resources of opponents. And the social issue initiatives are designed to motivate voters in Republican churches. Even their constitutional problems aren't necessarily a result of the authors' poor design, it just allows them to be recycled if they happen to pass.

Initiative 23, banning insurance from using credit scores is one I like. And I am definitely not a Bill S. supporter. Am I missing something here? Who would be against this and why? Just saying because it's from Bill S. doesn't cut it. What would the downfall of this be?

Is Bill S. the chief petitioner? Is he allowed to be?

Who is putting up the money for the ballot measure? Does Bill S. have the right under court action to even know the answer that question?

Beyond the possibility he hit on something popular (how many state resources did he use ballot title shopping on this one?), how do we know it does what it says it will do? How many ballot measures that Sizemore passed in the 1990s still exist in the form they passed? Didn't 47 become 50 because even he admitted it couldn't be implemented as written?

Or should I trust something just because the slogan sounds good and not look at the details?