Signature-gathering firms are handicapped more than previously because they are no longer allowed to stand outside major retailers to solicit signatures.

As someone who was working weekends at a major retailer when that decision came down, I don't think some who run ballot measures for a living realized how much some ordinary people (the sort who work in retail and other such unsung jobs) relished that decision. Customers had been complaining, people who came in the front door to work a later shift didn't like having to encounter the petitioners. The term "initiativemeisters" was coined for such people who ran ballot measures and hired the petitioners. There was a suspicion the people running the ballot measures (and who appeared on the airwaves telling us we were supposed to vote their way and not question their wisdom) were not making an honest living--as in "why don't they go out and get real jobs in the real world like the rest of us".

Such folks were not surprised by the number of 2000 ballot measures that failed. Why were these initiativemeisters demanding so much of our spare time? Many of us didn't read most of the Measure Voters Pamphlet and voted no as the default position unless there was a ballot measure we or a friend felt strongly enough about to debate.

I won't sign a petition unless I think the proposed ballot measure is a good idea. This means that I won't sign unless I can read the proposed measure carefully. Unfortunately, there have been times in which the signature gatherer can't find her or his copy of the full text of the measure, which means I won't sign. (For one thing, signing would be a lie: by signing, you state that "A full and correct copy of this measure was made available for review...")

Sometimes, as I work my way through pages of measure text, signature gatherers become impatient and encourage me just to read the proposed ballot title, or some fancy chart or bullet-pointed summary of the measure. These won't suffice. I want to read the entire measure for myself.

Also, this means that if I can't or don't want to devote the fifteen minutes that may be necessary to scrutinize the measure, I am not even going to stop and consider the measure. Sorry.

Not only that, Kari, but I have annoyed many a petition gatherer by asking to read the names of the sponsors of the measure.

Generally, it is a petition about as worthwhile as something Sizemore or McIntire is pushing.

So I say "sorry, I don't sign petitions pushed by people like that".

Petitioners want a signature with no questions asked. But if they can't even take the time to flip over the sheet and show the names of the sponsors, that is not my problem.

Most studnets on the PSU campus don't sign anything at all. Every day there are Ballot Initiatives, OSPIRG, children's charities just to name a few.

Even when Student Government is out there trying to get students to sign something to support keeping tuition low, they're skeptical to sign it.

I'm sure glad the petition to vote on Ballot Measure 5, the property tax limitation measure, was successful. Measure 5 has saved me thousands of dollars in the past 14 years.

<bold>Oregon's first-in-the-nation initiative system now seems more firmly in the grip of special interest groups that go the ballot to circumvent the legislature. <bold>

No kidding. Check out Statesman-Journal report Steve Law's article today about who is behind three of the five petitions that were submitted on Friday:

Sizemore rejoins initiative process

Don't sign anything. It's the only way we are going to end this madness.

It's shocking - I'm actually in agreement with Sizemore on two of his measures: the prohibition on using credit ratings in determining insurance rates, and using the federal income tax deduction as the Oregon deduction.

I don't know what Sizemore has been smoking - the usage of Federal deductions for Oregon income taxes will give Joe Sixpack and Phil Knight the same amount of money, and Joe Sixpack will find the additional exemption more useful. Many people I know have little Federal tax taken out, but significant amounts of Oregon income tax taken out, since the personal exemption is so low.

Combine that with a more progressive tax on the rich, and we're talking a better tax system. Make sure that money gets recaptured from Phil Knight...

Any initiative that's a thumb in the eye of Big Insurance is good as well.

One thing I have seen is that the signature seekers have a "just get the names" attitude. Many I have seen just ask me "will you sign my petition" without asking me if I am registered to vote and/or interested in the topic they are presenting. Even though there now is a law aginst paying these mercenaries by the signature, I still ask if they are being paid by the hour or by the signature. 9 times out of 10 they tell me "why should you care". That kind of attitude just makes me want to never vote again for anything. If the people who sponsor the issues dont care about what the individual voter has to offer in the way of insights and being thourough in their decision, why should the voter even care to vote?

Just say no.

I'm sure that there are good, well thought out initiative petitions. But I just don't see many of them.

What I see are signature collectors who have no clue as to what the initiative means. So you get some kid with green hair and three nose rings with a petition on public employee union dues -- who, perhaps other than collecting signatures and selling drugs, has never worked at a paying job, knows nothing about unions, and couldn't discuss union dues to save his life. Or you get some other dude, who looks like he just crawled out from under a highway overpass, collecting signations on some managed care initiative -- who is unable to describe what managed care is, and who has no idea what the initiative would do.

And then many of the initiatives are so poorly conceived and worded that, if they pass, the legislature has to figure out what the thing even means.

The wonderful thing about initiative petitions is that the initiative doesn't have to balance or account for anything. So you can have an initiative that cuts taxes, without any hint of what programs will be cut. Or you can have an initiative that mandates some new program without any hint of where the money will come from.

And of course no matter how bad the initiative is -- how stupid, how poorly written -- it often aspires to amend the State constitution.

Initiative petitions are a great idea --- a great idea that has gone bad. So my solution is never to sign them. I don't care what they say. Write an initiative that will guarantee me a million dollars a year for life, and I won't sign it. I'm done with them. And in the event that enough dolts sign one, I vote against it. Representative government can be pretty bad, but it's usually a hell of a lot better than most of the crap that is presented through the initiative process.

The observations in the article about the reasons for declining petitions are all accurate, as is the observation that ID theft is dissuading people from handing their signatures over to people they don't know - particularly those with the reputation so many petitioners have.

All the initiatives, including their full language, are available at the Secretary of State's website. I would recommend people who are asked to sign decline, go home and find out what it is, and if they like it go back and sign is. Petitioners will usually be at the same location again because good spots are not easy to find. Or you can write to the Chief Petitioner and ask for a copy of the petition if you like it. (Of course, if you are asked to sign a Ben Westlund petition and didn't vote as a Democrat or Republican in the primary, you shouldn't hesitate for even a moment to sign it!)

I think the reluctance of people to sign petitions is a sign that radical initiative reform to reduce the number of initiatives, as is often discussed by people like Ann Martens, is unnecessary. Rather, efforts should be focused on enforcement of the law, as is being done by Patty Wentz. People who are doing what they should be doing have nothing to fear from her group, even if they are political opponents.

I am so sorry to hear that so many are inconvenienced by democracy. It's evident from reaction here and by the fact that people can't even be bothered to put a stamp on a ballot that was mailed to their door.

As far as special interests being behind ballot initiatives... uh, of course!? Could there be any more special interest that one targeting one specific piece of legislation to put before the people? I find it hard to swallow that there are some posters on a website billed as a gathering place to left progressives that would advise people to reject the freeflow of ideas presented through the initiative system. That they would advocate for the close of an avenue for change.

In an era of increasingly rabid partisanship and gridlock I'm glad that there is another pipeline for ideas into our government. I'm also quite certain that there are issues that no representative would be willing to tackle such as campaign reform.

Part of the problem I see is that left groups have difficulty getting their act together long enough to raise the money and will to take their own initiatives to the ballot. It really is a great way to promote discussion and change if you can just pull it together long enough to go the distance.

Lately BLUEOREGON has promoted a running article asking what you'd like to see changed to make Oregon a better place. Why not build a consensus, a small bankroll, some volunteers and do it yourself? Wouldn't that be something?

Well in Oregon, at least for the time being, you can do that. At least as the initiative system remains open.

Personally, I have some trouble with the idea that the intitiatve system allows the public the power to vote on things which our government officials don't want them voting on.

Interesting discussion from the point of view of a Chief Petitioner running a true grassroots initiative petition effort (we are not using signature gathering companies)

The Healthy Oregon Initiative

We went to the initiative process for the same reason it was invented in Oregon 100 years ago - the Legislature is not responding to needs and not representing the interests of their constituents - THAT'S US. I personally feel the intiative process is good for passing a set of ideas (or principles) to guide the Legislature, but details needed for more extensive lawmaking are confusing to voters. Ideally, the Legislature should legislate, then we wouldn't have to use the initiative system.

Unfortunately, the initiative system has been ruined by the Bill Sizemores and FreedomWorks...it's true, mention an initiative, and people think you've got something up your sleeve. It's also true, interestingly, Portland is a harder place to gather signatures.

One idea that would help - change the law to ensure only money from inside Oregon could fund initiative campaigns.

Using volunteers is ideal, and very doable, it just takes about 2 years (something we may re-attempt if unsuccessful this year - we only have had 5 months to do it this time).

Ultimately, we, and all of the health care related initiatives are in real danger of not qualifying for the ballot.
If we want a hot button issue, seems like health care fits the bill... but while some nut in Nevada can fund 3 initiatives about minor issues, the progressive community (including progressive bloggers who should be able to organize for these things if they wanted), may not organized themselves to even qualify health care initiatives...

If things can't be pushed through the Legislature (as happened last session and sessions before), and we can't qualify intiatives, how do we expect laws to change? Progressives have to choose winnable moral issues like health care and campaign finance reform get behind them...or just continue to vote on Bill Sizemore's solutions to the health care crisis...

Ideas?

Evan, these aren't the only two choices. A better choice is: spend your time and money getting rid of conservative legislators who are bought by conservative interests and elect progressives in their place. The undeniable evidence from the last couple of decades is that the initiative system is, on balance, bad for Oregon. We are better off to keep electing progressives and moderates to statewide office, create a moderate/progressive majority in the Legislature (very doable in this state), and forget about our screwed up initiative process for progressive policy-making. We'll still have to block the bad stuff, alas, from the likes of Sizemore and Parks.

I refuse to sign any ballot measure, not only because I share Kari's concern about giving some stranger on the street my name and address but also because the whole system these days is owned by special interests not citizens. Unless you do your homework it is impossible to even tell who is behind the measures and why.

For example, the so-called "nursing home safety act" is being pushed by the union who represents nurses aides (I am a nurse). The whole point of the measure is to increase union membership and dues and has nothing to do with patient safety. It also will cost a ton of money the state doesn't have but nobody circulating the petitions will tell you that. One in downtown Ashland told me last Thursday "it was already funded." I grew up on the east coast and had never heard of the initiative process until I moved to California for school. One of the reasons why I think California and Oregon are so messed up financially is because of this whole out of control process where anyone with enough money can pollute the ballot with a bunch of special interest BS.

Willamette's own Dr. Richard Ellis wrote an excellent book on the initiative process: Democratic Delusions: The Initiative Process in America.

Of course it uses Oregon for some of its case studies and discussion.

We elect a legislature to hold hearings on issues, then deliberate and propose legislation, which usually is amended. The initative system has allowed the legislature to abdicate its responsibilities.
This is why I don't sign initiative petitions.

Of course the legislature doesn't work according to Civics 101, especially in the past dozen years since the conservatives took control. So we get no problem solving from the legislature, and we get half-assed attempts at solving problems from the initiative process. That is, in the few cases in which a ballot measure isn't just a means for some special interest group to line its pockets.

Nursing homes in Oregon are receiving $200 million in taxpayer money to enhance patient safety.

From what I heard, this is a misleading statement. There is an interesting loophole that the nursing home industry and the state of Oregon are taking advantage of. There are federal matching funds that can be used for nursing home safety, but since the taxpayers (meaning the legislature) is not willing to fund this, the nursing home industry has agreed to pay an additional tax, that is returned back to them together with the matching federal money. This means that for the most part, the "taxpayer" in this statement is the nursing home industry itself. The initiative increases staffing levels significantly. I find hard to believe the claim that the proponents are making that it would not add to the cost of nursing home care.

The initiative system is clearly overused, such as when it's used to deny rights of some, or create privileges for some, but is needed to correct some things and keep government at bay, such as one to protect us from anything-goes Eminent Domain following the absurd Kelo Decision. The latter defense is needed in all states even though it was a general government (national level) obligation to put its foot down regarding the takings clause.

But then, Kelo was made possible by many decades of anti- private property sentiment that made their way into law as well as court decisions. Well, at least I've been hearing many of them woke up upon hearing the Kelo decision even if they still misinterpret what it's all about (it's not abot corporate rights, but government zoning and planning powers that were allowed to expand beyond free society limitations).

Bob Tiernan

Someone posted something about not having a good reason to give a total stranger his/her name, address, etc. Yup, there's that and the fact that the initiative system is corrupt.

I guess I feel sorry for the poor schmuck standing in front of my branch library day in, day out trying to gather signatures, but I still try to avoid him, and if I cannot, I tell him this:

The only initiative I want to sign is the one that abolishes the initiative system.

The initiative system can be corrupted by money--Just like the legislative system. However, an educated and informed public can make the initiative system work to its' benefit, especially when the legislative is too beholden to special interests. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Actually, Kari, I am somewhat of an expert on this topic because I did a research report last year on Medicaid finance and used the Oregon nursing home provider tax legislation as a case study. Here is how it works -

In 2003, Oregon's legislature passed legislation to help fill the hole in Medicaid funding for nursing homes (the state was in a severe budget crisis at the time). Nursing homes "agreed" to tax themselves under a provision in federal law. Over a four year period (2003-2007) Oregon nursing homes will pay approximately $127 million in provider taxes to the state of Oregon. Oregon then must appropriate the money to Medicaid nursing home care to pull down the federal match (approximately $73 million net of the tax over four years). Providers who serve Medicaid patients will then receive higher Medicaid rates to pay back the tax, plus give them a modest reimbursement increase. This was all done to avoid large budget cuts.

The $200 million increase claim is bogus. It doesn't include the cost of the tax payments made by the nursing homes to the state ($127 million). If the proponents wanted to claim nursing homes received $73 million over four years ($18 million a year) that would be truthful.

The problem lies in the fact this measure will increase staffing costs by almost $100 million a year according to DHS officials I spoke with but the nursing homes only received about $18 million a year in increased payments. Obviously the math doesn't add up.

This measure is all about special interests (in this case the SEIU) trying to increase their money and power at the expense of the taxpayers and seniors who need nursing home care. Beware of any measure that claims it can provide you something for nothing.

When I first moved to Oregon 10 years ago I thought it was great that anyone with an idea and a little moxie could get their idea on the ballot. What better system could there be? Democracy truly open to anyone!

Now 10 years later I think it is a horrible idea. Anyone can get any idea on the ballot by paying a few flunkies to get the sheep to sign a sheet of paper.

In theory, yea it sounds good, but in practice...? Anyone who's ever ridden on the max has seen this scene;

Signature Gatherer: "Would you like free money"?

Petition Signer: "Um, sure. Where do I sign"?

SG: "Right here. And this one says the streets will be paved with gold".

PS: "OK"

SG: "This one says politicians must never lie".

PS: "Oh yea, I think that's a good idea".

Obviously I'm being a little sarcastic. The truth is that few gatherers know what they're asking for and few signers ask any questions of them. While the measure writers may be well intenioned, medical care for all, they rarely give details of funding the measure, or ramifications of instituting the measure. Need I mention measure 37?

So after 10 years of being in Oregon I think it's a bad idea. After all, anyone with an idea and a little moxie can get their idea on the ballot.

Timmy -

<h2>I'm with you. Give me some good old fashion representative democracy (with all its flaws) compared to direct democracy. In a legislative process issues are examined by a host of policy experts at the committee level (sure there is politics involved). There is a deliverative process and there are multiple checks and balances in place. With an initiative the only way to "educate" voters about complex issues is if you have millions of dollars for simple, seductive 30 second spots and direct mail. Most of the paid media is BS anyway (particulary since you can lie all you want in a ballot measure campaign - i.e., see the thread above about the nursing home measure not costing any money). I say don't sign and if it makes the ballot because of the money behind it - just vote NO!</h2>