Legislature Considers Alternative to Mannix Measure
The State Legislature is considering a proposal to increase penalties for criminals with repeated convictions as a an alternative to an upcoming Kevin Mannix ballot measure.
From the Oregonian:
Former state Rep. Kevin Mannix is close to a compromise that would pull his costly tough-on-crime initiative from the November ballot if the Legislature increases penalties for burglars and drug dealers.The deal is proposed by a group of prosecutors and crime victims advocates, who have been working behind the scenes for months on an alternative to a Mannix initiative that would require mandatory prison time for first-time burglars, identity thieves and drug dealers and cost taxpayers up to $200 million a year in prison costs.
"The district attorneys did contact me about a comprehensive approach, which I think is quite viable, but only if the entire package were enacted," Mannix said Tuesday.
The prosecutors' proposal would focus not on first-time offenders, but increase prison time for criminals with repeated convictions. It also would reduce the early release of prison inmates.
The estimated price tag is $55 million a year.
However, there is a notable problem with the deal:
Still, a hurdle emerged Tuesday: Can Mannix pull his initiative after submitting the signatures to elections officials?Margaret Olney, a Portland attorney representing Service Employees International Union Local 53, told the House Rules Committee that the Oregon Constitution requires election workers to verify signatures once they have been submitted.
A law allowing Mannix to withdraw his initiative at this point, she said, "would likely be unconstitutional."
Gov. Ted Kulongoski meets with district attorneys today to discuss their proposal. A spokeswoman said the governor is concerned whether Mannix legally can pull his initiative after submitting it for certification.
"He does believe they have some very good ideas," said Anna Richter Taylor, the spokeswoman.
To address the constitutional issues, prosecutors have suggested inserting a clause that would put their proposal on the ballot.
Read the rest. Discuss.
|
Feb. 06, 2008
Posted in in the news. |
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
1:47 p.m.
Feb 6, '08
I thought that if two measures have conflicting provisions then the one which gets the most votes goes into effect.
If that's true, the Legislature may need to refer their measure to the ballot, and make sure that it gets more votes than Mannix's.
Which they should be able to do, if they have them backing it along with Mannix, compared to Mannix's measure that will have many more detractors. And they should be able to write a better ballot title than Mannix's got.
Is the pickle another example of Oregon's initiative system wasting our public resources? Yes.
Feb 6, '08
The legislature wouldn't be doing anything unless Mannix had filed the measure.
So what is Manvel's suggestion?
1.Gin up a watered-down version,
Engineer a (poll tested) ballot title to get more votes than the real version.
Blame the initiative system for wasting public resources.
Brilliant!
Oh wait, you forgot one.
2:15 p.m.
Feb 6, '08
Sure they would have PanchoPdx - assuming the Republicans were willing to play ball by actually raising the taxes to actually pay for all this new spending they want.
But otherwise, no deal. Somebody has to balance the budget.
Feb 6, '08
" assuming the Republicans were willing to play ball by actually raising the taxes to actually pay for all this new spending they want.
But otherwise, no deal. Somebody has to balance the budget."
And that is the whole point. Repubilcans are in the minority now, and if you add the cost of this to the cost of "plenty of money to pay for more state police using current revenues", they were faced with actually talking about how to pay for Mannix's latest "tough on crime " measure in specific detail. "We must have spending discipline but don't ask for details" just wasn't going to cut it anymore.
They can't have forgotten that they lost the Senate after the games played during the 5 special sessions of 2002, and lost the House after Minnis said it was very simple, no one had the right to bring up any idea Minnis didn't support because "the voters have spoken on Measure 30" --although the turnout for the legislative elections was larger than the turnout for Measure 30.
Time to get serious, folks!
Where do Macpherson and Kroger stand on this?
Feb 6, '08
As mentioned by other posters, Mannix is proposing a "tough on crime" measure that is also "tough on the state budget." (As well as "tough on logic.")
If we Dems ram-rodded our pet causes onto the ballot without having a realistic (or "any," as in this case) source of funding, we would be hung out to dry in the court of public opinion. I don't know how any Democrats, in or out of the legislature, are letting Mannix get away with pushing this measure with no funding source at all. "Spend-and-Spend Republicans" comes to mind. Or maybe "Really-Suck-at-All-Aspects-of-Governing Republicans." (But how to I REALLY feel?)
And then there's the other issue: wasn't Kevin Mannix posturing as some kind of "champion of the citizen initiative process" when last session, the Dems tried to protect the state against the fraud and manipulation we've seen in the initiative process? Isn't our initiative process "the paragon of citizen involvement, the surest way the Little Guy's voice can be heard over the din of professional politicians" (I am in no way quoting Mannix, and only hyperbolically paraphrasing)? So how does Mannix justify that he himself (dare I say a "professional politiian?") can "withdraw" the signatures of hundreds--thousands?--of Oregon Little Guy voters? And more importantly, is the media going to ask him that?
This initiative stinks from the ground up. For one things, many of these property crimes are tied to drug use, and whatever our prisons may do, they do NOT cure drug addictions. They also do little to nothing to reduce recidivism. So while overt costs between $55 and $200 million are being talked about, there seems to be little consideration that the hidden costs of sending minor property offenders to State lockup (junior college for criminals) will continue to climb as prison time encourages small-time crooks to move up to the big time. I think the legislature should Can all versions of this measure.
Feb 6, '08
Where do Macpherson and Kroger stand on this?
Greg Macpherson has on several occasions said that he is and was always weary of Measure 11, he doesn't like the one size fits all nature of the sentences, and that opposes the new Mannix initiative. It is my understanding that he is a key player in crafting a response to get out to the voters. Just another example of Greg fighting for the people of Oregon. I have no doubt he will continue to as AG.
Feb 6, '08
sorry
...and that he opposes the new Mannix initiative...
remember to proofread kids...
3:49 p.m.
Feb 6, '08
I don't have a problem with the compromise on it's merits. Funny how being an identity theft victim can color one's perceptions. But... I have to second Steve and LT. Without a funding source I'd vote against either the originals or the compromise. As Steve said, somebody has to balance the budget.
Feb 6, '08
Ben, Macpherson has never said that he opposes Measure 11 and always has. Macpherson says he has some misgivings about it, but that he thinks it generally works in Oregon thanks to the DAs. More importantly, if he did want to repeal or change Measure 11, he should have done something while Chair of the Judiciary Committee. Instead, he has done nothing. He may have a feeling about it in his heart, but unless he translates that feeling into policy or action, it is not really relevant to his performance in office.
All that said, this bill is not about Measure 11, it is about mandatory sentencing for property crimes. So far, both Kroger and Macpherson are opposed to Mannix’s initiative but nether has said anything about the compromise measure.
4:37 p.m.
Feb 6, '08
Here's the real problem with the deal--it gives Mannix a seat at the table which the voters have repeatedly declined to give him. It sets a precedent for special-interests groups to blackmail the legislature with threats of "citizen" initiatives.
It would be a better use of the legislature's time to fix our broken initiative system. I'd recommend starting by drastically increasing the number of signatures needed to get anything on the ballot. That would serve to return the initiative process to its intended purpose of fixing truly egregious laws but not interferring with our represenative democracy (remember that idea?)
The legislature should show some courage & send Mannix packing. The voters already did.
Feb 6, '08
Tough on crime rings my chimes, but it seems to me a major reclassification of criminal offenses is in order. We live in a society where some knucklehead caught with x amount of weed in his/her possession winds up doing far more time than a violent criminal, pedophile or dangerous sex offender. Does that make a lick of sense?
9:46 p.m.
Feb 6, '08
It would be a better use of the legislature's time to fix our broken initiative system. I'd recommend starting by drastically increasing the number of signatures needed to get anything on the ballot.
The only problem with this strategy is that the number of signatures required to put something on the ballot is set out in the Constitution, which means it can't be changed without a vote of the people.
The legislature tried that about ten years ago without success. It seems the people at large didn't share the enthusiasm of legislators for limiting the people's right to pass laws directly. I'm guessing they still don't.
11:37 p.m.
Feb 6, '08
This isn't tough on crime at all, just big on posturing.
Feb 7, '08
"Here's the real problem with the deal--it gives Mannix a seat at the table which the voters have repeatedly declined to give him. It sets a precedent for special-interests groups to blackmail the legislature with threats of "citizen" initiatives."
Perzactly, Jamais Vu ... Mannix is a jerk, always has been.
Feb 7, '08
Here's what really galls me about this. The Democratic legislature is likely to pass a compromise that costs $55 million a year, while failing to spend anything close to that amount on health care and education. I actually agree with the idea that repeat property crime offenders should spend some time in jail, which under our current system they often don't. But for me the question is this: Which is the higher priority, locking up property criminals, or getting health care or better education to kids?
It's the latter. So why don't our Democratic representatives agree with me? Why aren't Merkley, Brown, and Courtney arguing that we should reprioritize our spending? If they won't make the argument, should we replace them with Dems who will?