Thanks for posting this, Charlie. At first blush, I have to say I've come to expect much, much better than this from the City Club.

From this list, it appears they operated in ignorance of the Citizen's Initiative Review being developed/proposed by Healthy Democracy Oregon -- a very disappointing oversight.

And their endorsement of expanding, rather than eliminating, supermajorities, is pretty shocking.

Don't think I'll be reading much deeper, this doesn't look like a very worthwhile exploration of the issue. But the issue is an important one.

Peter, I can't really speak to the first point, but to your second point re: expanding, rather than eliminating, supermajorities: what the City Club specifically recommended is that for revenue measures, require the Legislature to obtain a three-fifths majority for constitutional revenue measures as long as a three-fifths majority is required for statutory measures.

Call this the Measure 50 provision: Under the current system, fewer votes are required to refer a constitutional amendment -- i.e. raising Oregon's cigarette tax to fund health care -- than a statutory measure. The status quo doesn't make a lot of sense. Amending our state's constitution should be more difficult, or at least as difficult, as raising revenue by statute.

Peter, I just took a look at the link you included and would encourage you to dig into the City Club report still. Both the City Club and the Citizen's Initiative Review appear to share a common goal: providing voters with better access to initiative information (see public hearing requirements from City Club).

Yes, of course Measure 50 illustrates the problem well. But the idea that expanding rather than eliminating supermajorities is the appropriate fix is just preposterous.

If LT is correct, and the City Club's intent is to frame debate rather than drive policy, then I'd rather see them describing the problem then prescribing specific solutions.

As to the Citizen's Initiative Review, glad you took a look. They're doing good work. I may dig deeper at some point into the City Club's work, but as I said, the initial recommendations listed above don't give me much hope about their approach.

City Club made a few good recommendations, such as speeding up the timetable for judicial review of ballot title challenges and limiting the scope and raising the bar for constitutional reforms via the initiative process.

Unfortunately, this report was drafted in January and many of the recommendations appear to have been made in near-total ignorance about statutory and administrative rule changes put into effect this year that have dramatically raised the bar with regard to disclosure and liability for individuals and organizations that use the Oregon System.

Chief Petitioner Committees have legal and financial liabilities and transparency requirements that are an order of magnitude higher than is the case for candidate committees.

As just one example...

A time card outlining the time and location where signatures are gathered must be attached to every signature sheet that is turned in to the secretary of state. The SOS and AG engage in a mandatory audit of those records.

Can anyone think of a comparable disclosure requirement for any other political committee or political non-profit operating in Oregon? In fact, how many business entities are required to make payroll and timesheet documents available to government agencies part of their standard business practises?

Bear in mind, this is not in response to a complaint -- for which chief petitioners are individually and severally liable to the tune of $100,000 per violation -- but just part of the standard operating procedure.

A few other points...

• Having leg counsel review initiative petitions is a good idea, but they should not be the final arbiter of what goes into a petition. Some petitions are written explicitly to challenge the constitutionality of existing statutes. Also, leg Counsel is not infallible with regard to the legality of issues. As one example, significant portions of the ethic reform bill that was vetted by leg counsel and passed in 2007 are likely to be struck down by the Oregon Supreme Court.
• The AG's office, as a matter of policy, already assigns the same ballot title to substantively identical measures, which is why Initiative Petition #4, on which I am the Chief Petitioner, has been assigned the same ballot title it was given in 2006 when the idea was first floated by Ken Allen and Tim Nesbitt.

Ballot title shopping was effectively halted when the 2007 legislature raised the threshold for the number of signatures needed to have a ballot title assigned from 25 to 1000.

One area where transparency has been totally neglected in the iniative system is on campaign spending by groups that oppose ballot initiatives.

Democrats will not always control the reins of government. Someday soon, it is highly likely that some of the strongest opponents of the initiative system will regret the current attempts to erode the right of citizens to use this system.

I'm with Peter on the 3/5 majority in the Legislature. That's a stupid rule when all they're doing is referring something to the people for their vote. There doesn't need to be a high bar for that (and frankly, a low bar for referrals and a high bar for initiatives would encourage folks to work through the legislative process.)

As for this, however:

For constitutional amendments initiatives and referrals, require a three-fifths majority of votes cast.

I like the idea in concept, but I'm concerned that it would essentially lock in today's constitution. If it took a majority vote to enact something, it should take a majority vote to repeal it. Especially if it's something recent; say the last 25-30 years.

Personally, I like the idea of a wholesale constitutional rewrite. Clean it up, scrap most of the junk, and put it before the people anew. It's radical surgery, but sometimes that's what's required to save the patient.

Montana did that some 30 years ago, and everything was fine.

Chief Petitioner Committees have legal and financial liabilities and transparency requirements that are an order of magnitude higher than is the case for candidate committees.

And that is as it should be. Chief Petitioner Committees are making law. Candidate committees are merely electing candidates.

No, it's you that doesn't get it.

I understand that it's the voters that technically "make" the law, but they don't get to write the initiatives. It's the chief petitioner committees that do that - without any public process, without any legislative review, without any legal counsel required.

Once approved, an initiative is the law. It's done. If it's a constitutional amendment, it's really, really stuck.

An elected official, however, will only be one player in Salem - in order to make law, they'll have to get a bill drafted, through at least two committees, through the Senate and the House, and a Governor's signature.

I agree that a constitutional rewrite is an exciting idea, and it's interesting to hear that Montana did it so recently. Kari, how do you envision such a thing happening? Who would lead the process, and how? Would it be a constitutional convention like they did in 1857, or would it be a process in which all members of the public get to participate on an even footing?

Also, what would the risks be? Article 1, sec. 8 gives us some of the strongest free speech protections in the country. Would that survive? What other problems could be introduced? We've all seen the voters approve bad ideas when special interests from across the country dump millions into local campaigns. What would prevent local figures from manipulating the process, in collusion with powerful national interests?

I like the idea in principle, but would want to hear more specifics.

And that is as it should be. Chief Petitioner Committees are making law. Candidate committees are merely electing candidates.

Well sure, Kari. But the City Club recommendation quoted by Charlie implied that petitioner committees are somehow operating under a lower bar than candidate committees -- which clearly is not the case. Both the disclosure requirements and the liabilities are much, much higher for petitioner committees, but you wouldn't know it by reading the city club report.

One other point...

I'm surprised that Kari would hold up the Montana system as a direction for Oregon to go since the Montana system is modeled after the Oregon system and has a much lower threshold for getting a ballot title assigned (0 signatures versus 1000 signatures) and for total signatures needed is comparable.

The reason why there was a rush of initiatives in 2008 is the rules changed to make getting a ballot title assigned increased and the rules around signature-gathering were strengthened.

The changes that were made by the 2007 legislature were historic. We would do well to give those changes an election cycle to see what the impact is.

Sal, I think Kari was talking about Montana's effort 30 years ago to clean their state's constitution, not their initiative system as a whole.

Sal, I think Kari was talking about Montana's effort 30 years ago to clean their state's constitution, not their initiative system as a whole.

Got it. Good idea, but the devil is in the details. Taking the seismic retrofitting of government buildings out of the constitution will probably be easy. Dealing with the kicker or the double-majority? Not so much.

djk, let's examine the nuts and bolts a little more closely.

There are two ways to initiate a change to the constitution: initiative and referral.

Constitution-amending initiatives already require 33% more signatures to qualify for the ballot than statutory initiatives. Which is an incentive to make changes in statute, rather than in the constitution, where possible. Would you have a supermajority on top of that incentive? If so, why is the higher threshold for signatures not enough?

All things being equal, I would guess that referrals from the legislature would universally be statutory, where that's an option. That's because voters don't look fondly on the Legislature messing with the constitution. If you want to get something passed, eliminating that negative is a good first step.

Right now, all things are not equal: we have this weird supermajority thing for revenue-raising bills. So the legislature, full of reps who have taken a ridiculous "no new taxes" pledge, was unable to adjust the tobacco tax; referring a constitutional amendment was their only option.

So if we didn't have the statutory supermajority, I don't see any scenario where a supermajority of voters on constitutional amendments would be necessary or desirable.

I agree that a constitutional rewrite is an exciting idea, and it's interesting to hear that Montana did it so recently. Kari, how do you envision such a thing happening?

Sounds like a fascinating mid-summer BlueOregon topic. I'll ponder that.

djk, I'm not sure I agree with you. Not sure I disagree, either.

I think that we both see all kinds of nutty Constitutional changes getting passed in recent years, and would both like to do something about it. We're in agreement on that much.

But I'm hopeful there's a better way to address the issue, than simply bumping up the requirements. I don't generally think that Oregonians are bad at making important decisions, so much as I think that information outlets (elected officials, newspapers, TV, blogs...) have done a poor job of framing the debate.

If Oregonians were simply bad at making important decisions, it seems to me we're in for a world of hurt no matter what we do. I'd rather focus on the way we all approach the initiative system, than on making changes to it.

<h2>Anyway -- I think I understand and respect where you're coming from, but I don't have a firm opinion on this right now.</h2>