I disagree, I don't see the state as being union money driven, nor do I see Bradbury or the other Democrats as beholden to public employees. And no, I don't belong to a union, never have. No one in my immediate family ever has. Going out a bit further, I know of only one who has ever been a member of a union -- my grandfather when he worked at GM. So I'm not a member of a union family trying to protect my own.

Why the bit about no union ties?

Because usually anytime someone defends the unions they're automatically labeled as just protecting their own. As such, regular posters like myself often times will state right up front what our connections are/aren't. Saves some time and labeling.

I'm not blind. I've seen the labor unions disagree with policies plenty of times. I've seen them very unhappy with candidates and elected officials, including Kulongoski.

I've seen policies pass that are not the outcome the unions want to see.

Yes, there are union people who have become staffers for many of our elected officials. That isn't surprising, and it has nothing to do with union favortism. There are not many jobs available in politics that are full-time beyond the election season. Many people interested and involved in politics end up working for the unions. So when positions come up in offices like the governor's, often times the most qualified people have worked, or are working for, unions. Until the DNC started hiring staff in every state, there just weren't that many political jobs that lasted beyond a few months unless you went to work for a union.

The public employee unions, with their money, lobbyists and organizations support every single democrat, support every liberal policy they come up with, support every tax increase and oppose every conservative candidate and intiative.

I can disprove this assertion right away. This is a falsehood that has been repeated so many times that people believe it to be true.

I've seen them not only support, but endorse, conservatives. Just to name a few: Karen Minnis, Dennis Richardson, Debi Farr, Vicki Berger, Billy Dalto, Wayne Scott, John Lim, Linda Flores, and Patti Smith.

In the 2006 election, in 25 of the 60 House seats Oregon AFSCME endorsed a Republican. In 4 cases they recommended no action. So 44.6% of the House races they recommended voting for a Republican.

Hey Kari, are there still "protecting the commons" plans in the works and do they include ways to discourage sock puppetry?

Rose wrote:

The public employee unions, with their money, lobbyists and organizations support every single democrat, support every liberal policy they come up with, support every tax increase and oppose every conservative candidate and intiative.

Even if that were true, which it's not, what's wrong with it?

Is there something inherently wrong with regular people, organizing themselves, and fighting for their vision of our society?

I've argued pretty strenuously here against right-wing groups like the Oregon Family Council and FreedomWorks, but I've never argued against their right to exist.

(And don't gimme the "they're doing it with public dollars" claptrap. Political work is done by private and voluntary donations from people's paychecks. The only "public money" involved is related to the paycheck processing, like the United Way drive.)

[And yes, Doretta, we're working on that stuff. Slowly, but surely.]

Here is a statement below (under the line) by Crime Victims United, which indicates why this bill is opposed by them and by such progressive groups as OSPIRG and the Pacific Green Party. Note that the bill, as passed by the House, would not in fact allow signature sheets to be circulated online, as some have claimed, any more than they can now. The bill would continue to require all signature sheets to be printed out double-sided. That is what disqualifies a large percentage of sheets that people print out and then mail into the chief petitioners. For months I have suggested eliminating the two-sided requirement.

<hr/>

HB 2082 would impair the initiative and referendum processes and make it more difficult for grassroots organizations to qualify measures for the ballot.

This bill was crafted behind closed doors. Many groups asked for a working group to discuss its complex provisions, but the committee declined.

HB 2082 is opposed by a wide range of groups, from OSPIRG on the "left" to Oregonians in Action on the "right." Why? Because HB 2082 seeks to create a monopoly on law-making for the Legislature only. Here are just a few of its notable features:

Requiring that All Signature Sheets be Sorted by Name of Circulator

Incredibly, Section 11 of HB 2082 requires that all signature sheets on initiatives and referenda be sorted by the name of the circulator when turned in to the Secretary of State. There is utterly no reason for this, but it will add hundreds of hours to the process of preparing sheets for submittal. HB 2082 would require such sorting even for the "one signature" sheets sent in by those who download and fill out the "one signature" electronic template. This would require chief petitioners to alphabetize literally tens of thousands of names.

We have circulated our initiatives with hundreds of volunteers and have received tens of thousands of signature sheets back in the mail. HB 2082 literally requires that we alphabetize all of these sheets, for no reason at all.

Changing "signed in the presence of" to "witnessed the signing"

In many places, HB 2082 changes the attestation of the circulator from the fact that the voter signed the petition in her presence to the fact that she "witnessed the signing." This would preclude anyone from the normal practice of passing around a signature sheet at a meeting, unless the circulator physically accompanies the sheet from person to person and actually sees the voter's ink flow onto the paper.

    It is probably unlawful under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as it precludes any vision-impaired person from gathering signatures.

Many states have no circulator requirements at all, including Washington. There, a signature sheet is perfectly valid, whether or not the circulator signs it. So why do we need this new draconian requirement, which may spawn squads of opponents armed with video cameras.

Mandatory Training and Registration of Circulators

Section 2 requires all paid circulators to register with the Secretary of State and complete an undefined training program on an undefined schedule. The bill does not require that the Secretary of State offer the training on any schedule. It could be offered as few times as he desires. The training would likely consist of a bewildering mosaic of laws and rules, followed by emphasis on the prospect for civil and criminal prosecution for any violation of them.

If this is a good idea, then we should have mandatory registration and training for legislative aides and for lobbyists. After all, a petition circulator is a lobbyist to the people for the measure she is carrying.

Also, this provision will very likely draw a successful lawsuit. The United States Supreme Court in 1999 overturned on First Amendment grounds a Colorado statute that required circulators to register with the State and carry ID badges.

Punishing Chief Petitioners for Faulty Criminal Histories

Section 2 disqualifies from petition circulation anyone convicted of identity-type crimes within the past 5 years.

This is too short; it should be a lifetime ban.

It also throws out all signatures collected by such a person. First, this disenfranchises innocent voters who signed the petition. Second, there is no reliable means available to chief petitioners to determine whether a prospective circulator has such a conviction.

Requiring Collection of Signatures without a Ballot Title

HB 2082 requires that the chief petitioners collect the first 1,000 valid signatures on every measure with a blank signature sheet that has no ballot title on it. In fact, the blank signature sheet would contain absolutely nothing that even identifies the subject matter of the petition! Who would sign such a sheet? Opponents would no doubt say, "Don't sign any sheet, unless it states on it what the petition is about." Yes, HB 2082 would remove everything about the measure from the signature sheet!

Requiring 1,000 Signatures on Prospective Petitions

As OSPIRG has stated, this increase in the number of signatures on a prospective petition from 25 to 1,000 will "create a significant barrier for true grassroots efforts to get started."

Faulty Official Templates

Here, supporters claim that HB 2082 will allow the Secretary of State to produce a one-sided electronic template for the signature of a single individual. That is not the case. HB 2082 makes all templates "subject to the requirements of ORS 250.045," which requires both a "cover" and a "reverse side" for the signature sheet. This defeats the whole purpose of the "one-signature sheet."

Section 3 also requires that each petition be carried in more than one color, thus causing voter confusion.

The bill is not clear on whether the templates can be photocopied, so the Secretary of State may have to print hundreds of thousands of sheets at state expense.

Extensive Reports and "Presumption of Violation"

Section 5 requires that all paid petitioning efforts make extensive reports to the Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Labor Commissioner, including contracts, manuals, payroll records, records showing amount and purpose of each payment to contractors, and even copies of the completed signature sheets. If all info is not provided, "there is a rebuttable presumption that a violation of [pay-per-signature ban] has occurred" and all circulation is thereafter banned for the chief petitioner. It allows the Secretary of State to demand the completed signature sheets at any time.

As OSPIRG states, this will place a significant administrative burden on grass-roots efforts, while not on those of professional firms in the business of gathering signatures.

Discriminatory Reporting Requirements

Section 13 requires chief petitioners to do electronic reporting of contributions and expenditures every 7 days for a period of 18 weeks, starting 6 weeks prior to primary election date. This is 3 times longer for 7-day reporting than is required for any candidate committee or other political committee.

This is very highly discriminatory against those who wish to use the initiate process, particularly because organized opponents of petitions or measures are not required to report anything about their contributions and expenditures devoted to discouraging signatures. Nor are they required to report anything about their contributions and expenditures against the measure itself, until it "becomes a measure" 3 months prior to the November election. This is a fundamentally unfair and biased reporting system, which HB 2082 would make worse.

I'd been told it was already the case that you were supposed to be there with the signature sheet -- that it wasn't to be passed around the room without you there with it.

That's why people were trying to find witnesses who saw this happen at churches when M36 was put on the ballot.

I disagree, I don't see the state as being union money driven, nor do I see Bradbury or the other Democrats as beholden to public employees.

Cough...cough...sputter...gasp...wheeze.

Ahem. Excuse me. I was having a hard time swallowing something.

I think it's fair to say that D's are no more beholden to public employees unions than R's are to large trade associations and their members, such as big timber, the restaurant association, etc.

Both sides have their funding partners, and neither side gets too crosswise with those partners.

One big difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the Republicans are, by-in-large, are much more reliant on out of state donors than are Democrats.

Jenni, the statute says: "The circulator shall certify on each signature sheet of the initiative or referendum petition that the individuals signed the sheet in the presence of the circulator and that the circulator believes each individual is an elector."

The SoS has an administrative rule requiring "witnessing," but that rule would probably be determined by the courts to be invalid, if it were ever enforced, because the statute is clearly contrary to the rule.

<h2>Thus, changing the statute from "in the presence of" to "witness" is a significant change.</h2>