Oregonians Are Hostage to the Fractions Faction
Chuck Sheketoff
If a majority of the Oregon Legislature thinks a tax is needed to support an important program, or that a tax break for a powerful interest ought to be stopped, or that an outdated tax should be updated, lawmakers should be allowed to make the change. That’s why we elect them.
If a majority of the Oregon Legislature think unanticipated revenues ought to be saved for a rainy day or devoted to a one-time investment that will reap long-term rewards for Oregonians, lawmakers ought to be allowed to take such action. That’s why we elect them.
But majority rule does not apply in Oregon on these important issues. Instead, a minority of the Legislature can hold the majority hostage. How can that be? Oregon voters gave the power to small factions of the Legislature when they voted to require a three-fifths (3/5) majority to raise taxes (36 instead of 31 in the House and 18 instead of 16 in the Senate) and a two-thirds (2/3) majority to spend unanticipated tax revenues (40 votes in the House, 20 in the Senate). In other words, fractions of the Legislature can hold a majority hostage.
Five and two. That’s how many more than a simple majority in the Oregon House and Senate can stop the majority in the Oregon Legislature from eliminating a tax break or fixing an outdated tax code problem like Oregon’s 76 year-old, $10-a-year corporate minimum tax.
Five and two. That’s how many more than a simple majority in the Oregon House and Senate can stop the majority from increasing Oregon’s less-than-a-penny-per-bottle tax on beer to fund needed alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment programs throughout the state.
Five and two. That’s how many more than a simple majority in the Oregon House and Senate can stop a majority in the Oregon Legislature from expanding kids’ coverage under the Oregon Health Plan while simultaneously making poisonous tobacco less affordable.
Nine and four. That’s how many more than a simple majority in the Oregon House and Senate can stop a majority in the Oregon Legislature from either saving the extra fruits of a strong economy for Oregon’s next economic downturn, or investing it in rural counties facing the loss of federal timber-land payments.
Nine and four. That’s how many more than a simple majority in the Oregon House and Senate can stop a majority in the Oregon Legislature from investing unanticipated revenues from a stronger than expected economy in public structures that will reap long-term rewards for Oregon, such as capital improvements in K-12 and higher education.
Partisan ideologues are using the 3/5 and 2/3 fractions to hold the Legislature hostage and prevent our elected representatives from solving some of Oregon’s most important problems. This fractions faction is preventing the Legislature from doing what’s right for Oregonians.
Look at some of the results: gridlock over updating Oregon’s $10 a year corporate minimum tax. Gridlock over paying for widely-supported health care for children. Wasteful tax loopholes that stay on the books.
That’s why the Legislature should show leadership by giving voters another chance to decide whether they want small minorities to control Oregon’s future. Oregonians should not be held hostage by the fractions faction any longer.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
6:05 p.m.
Jun 1, '07
I am highly sympathetic to the criticisms of the super majority requirement. In a better system I would readily agree that they are inherently contrary to our founding principles and are often pragmatically counterproductive. But in a climate where the political sphere is overwhelmingly dominated by two political parties at rough parity with each other, I for one am less concerned about super majority rules than I otherwise would be.
Granted that we much more often see just one of those two political parties voting in lockstep and with seemingly total disregard for what large majorities of Oregonians want, partyline votes are hardly unique on either side of the aisle. And often even the fractured votes are arguably at odds with either side's base.
If we had even just three viable and reasonably well represented (double figures, minimum) political parties then I would be happy to vote the super majority rule down. Until then I'm going to need more compelling reasons before I'd change it.
Jun 1, '07
Thank God for the supermajority. Imagine if the Democrats could raise any tax they wanted by simple majority! I know this is your wet dream, Sheketov, because you are all about redistribution and using government coercion to take from one group to give to another.
But it would be akin to giving a two year old a loaded Glock.
The D's have proposed something like 165 different tax increases this session. Thank God they need some votes from the Daddy party to pass their stupid ideas.
7:27 p.m.
Jun 1, '07
That's right, majority votes shouldn't count, because well, they are the majority and their views and the views of the voters that elected them should be discounted because well, they are in the majority...
What's next from the "eliminate the majority" crowd, a unanimous vote to raise taxes?
Jun 1, '07
"That's right, majority votes shouldn't count,"
I beg your pardon, haven't you ever heard about tyranny of the majority? I think the supermajority to raise taxes is not a bad idea at all, besides the majority voted for it to be that way.
Jun 1, '07
If it weren't for a type of supermajority requirement, imagine what the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court would be.
Jun 1, '07
This is why The Oregon Dems think its ok to take Peoples rights away...AGAIN...look at HB 2640, HB 2640 contains many elements that are both unwarranted and unconstitutional. It extends the ban on collecting petition signatures from the reasonable (polling places on election day and where ballots are issued) to the absurd (100 feet of anywhere or any building where ballots can be deposited, for a full 18 days prior to any election). As Oregon has at least 4 vote-by-mail elections per year. That amounts to 72 days, or more than 2 full months, every year. It means that petitioning would be banned during that time anywhere near public libraries (which are ballot drop-off points), central meeting locations (including Pioneer Courthouse Square), and on public sidewalks that are within 100 feet of any entrance to the building where ballots can be deposited....SO many Sad days in Oregon right now
12:45 a.m.
Jun 2, '07
Here's what I find amusing.... righties (like Colleen Krieger) like to rant and rant about the "will of the people" -- nevermind that 31 votes in the Legislature reflects the will of the people.
Jun 2, '07
"nevermind that 31 votes in the Legislature reflects the will of the people."
But how much more does 40 votes reflect the will of the people? I guess the point is if you want to stick people with new/higher taxes, be sure you really want it.
Jun 2, '07
“a minority of the Legislature can hold the majority hostage.”
At the same time, a minority of special interests can hold a majority of Tri-County employers and taxpayers hostage to subsidize TriMet where farebox revenues paid by those actually using the system only covers slightly more than 20 percent of costs of operations. Another minority of special interests continues to hold drivers hostage and rustle funds to pay for specialized bicycle infrastructure that drivers can not even use and bicyclists irresponsibly receive free of charge. Additionally, these same minorities of special interests continue hold the public at large hostage by not allowing a public debate, open dialog or even the solicitation of an opinion through surveys with simplistic straight forward questions directly relating to this minority special interest paying more of their own way instead of the current hostage tax state of mind. Without a supermajority vote required for tax measures, the legislature would also be come an arena of hostage held by the special interests with tax mania the outcome. The supermajority is the best possible tool to protect taxpayers from Oregon becoming a state of tax mayhem controlled by these same types special interests.
Jun 3, '07
I know it's OT (sorry Kari), but I cannot let little gems like this pass without comment:
TR
Another minority of special interests continues to hold drivers hostage and rustle funds to pay for specialized bicycle infrastructure that drivers can not even use and bicyclists irresponsibly receive free of charge.
***"Hostage"? Ya' know, TR, hyperbole will never trump reason and logic.
A. I suppose you'd trade drivers' rights to use the 3' bike lanes for bikers' rights to use freeways?
B. Every bicyclist on the road is (theoretically) one less car on the road and at those times I am driving, I am thankful.
God forbid someone you look down your nose at might receive something to make their lives easier and safer.
Back on topic:
The supermajority theories are from the same school as the term limiters. It is designed to excuse people from (a) thinking rationally about the purpose of government and how to pay for it and (b) taking responsibility for whether a person's representative is discharging that responsibility.
Simple solutions for simple-minded people.
Meanwhile, back to American Idol!
Randy
Jun 3, '07
Randy2,
I believe you are way off base with your assertion:
I believe that your characterization of term limiters is correct, but that has nothing to do with supermajorities.
The idea behind supermajority requirements is that some changes to government are so important that a simple majority should not be sufficient to make the change. See, for example, constitutional amendments. Raising the bar for enactment prevents a (potentially) temporary simple majority from making long-lasting or far-reaching changes to government -- but certainly allows such changes if enough people support them. This is very distinct from term limits, which absolutely prohibit certain outcomes (the election of someone who would exceed the limit) no matter how many people support that outcome. Nothing about a supermajority abdicates any voter responsibility, nor does it eliminate the need to consider any given question carefully -- because a vote on the issue must still be cast, unlike with term limits where the issue of re-electing a term limited (potential) candidate is not even put to the voters.
Anyhow, supermajorities, correctly applied, help to provide stability to government. The rub lies in each person's definition of "correctly applied".
The real difference of opinion here, I believe, is in whether the setting of tax rates rises to the level of "fundamental change of government" that would make a supermajority appropriate. Good, well-intentioned people can certainly disagree on this point.
It does seem to me, however, that restricting tax increases with a supermajority requirement, without also restricting tax decreases to the same requirement, is logically unsupportable. If the concern is for stability of tax rates as a fundamental function of government, then lowering tax rates is just as disruptive as raising them and should be likewise restricted.
And in any event, spending money that has been legitimately collected through valid existing tax rates is a very temporary function of government (a budget only lasts 2 years, after all). In my opinion, the expenditure side should not rise to the level of supermajority protection.
I believe that the specific provision alluded to in the original article, however, has to do with the (now constitutionally-protected) kicker money -- in which case, the supermajority theoretically protects against capricious diversion of constitutionally-mandated tax rebates. Which means that the real problem, for those who see it as such (as I happen to), is the constitutional protection of the kicker, not the supermajority required to override that constitutional protection.
Jun 3, '07
“I suppose you'd trade drivers' rights to use the 3' bike lanes for bikers' rights to use freeways?”
Bicyclists are just required to ride on the shoulders and are not banned from freeways in Oregon; nor do they financially contribute tax dollars to pay for freeways, or the bike paths that often parallel freeways. The Zoo Bombers in Portland that race down the hill on 26 are a good example. Bicyclists are only not allowed in the tunnel for their own safety, little concession when their total irresponsible actions are less than safe. Therefore, these hostage takers should be required to directly help pay for freeways too!