I was wondering the same thing. I have a lot of issues with abuse of forfeitures and I would NEVER vote for anything like that.

I haven't yet had a chance to really study these measures, but given the lack of a negative argument, are y'all sure that these aren't just housekeeping measures - or measures to REDUCE the the policies that you decry?

I haven't got the foggiest clue, but I'm pretty sure that if these were more pro-prisons stuff, there would be opponents arguing against them...

Maybe we can get a comment from Chip Shields or Floyd Prozanski or someone...

Ballot Measure 51 was referred by the legislature. It was HJR 49.

It was not only approved by the legislature, but there are arguments in favor by AG Hardy Myers, MADD, Parents of Murdered Children, International Organization for Victim Assistance, Oregon District Attorneys Association, and Oregon Association Chiefs of Police. The vote in the State House was: Ayes, 50; Nays, 1--Boquist; Excused, 2--Cannon, Morgan; Excused for Business of the House, 7--Edwards D., Flores, Gilman, Jenson, Maurer, Nolan, Thatcher. State Senate vote: Ayes, 29; Excused, 1--Schrader.

From the Oregon Assoc Chiefs of Police:

"As presently written, the Oregon Constitution provides rights for crime victims but doesn't provide recourse when these important rights are violated. Ballot Measure 51 will insure that the rights we offer to victims in Oregon are meaningful and real. Ballot Measure 51 will give judges the authority they need to enforce the rights of crime victims the way other constitutional rights are enforced. Just as the rights of defendants are honored by the criminal justice system, so too should the rights of victims."

From the Oregon District Attorneys Association:

"Measure 51 provides needed tools for enforcing crime victims' rights. Between 1996 and 2000, Oregonians enacted important Constitutional amendments that provide rights to victims of crime. These rights ensure victims are not revictimized by the criminal justice system and include the right to be present at the trial, the right to restitution, the right to be heard at the sentencing hearing, and the right to know when offenders are released from custody. Unlike other rights and privileges in Oregon's Constitution, if crime victims are denied these rights they may not appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court. Measure 51 makes crime victims' rights enforceable in the state appellate system."

Ballot Measure 52 was referred by the legislature. It was HJR 50. The vote in the State House was: Ayes, 51; Nays, 1--Boquist; Excused, 2--Cannon, Morgan; Excused for Business of the House, 6--Edwards D., Flores, Jenson, Maurer, Nolan, Thatcher. The vote in the State Senate was: Ayes, 27; Excused, 3--Bates, Carter, Schrader. [So contrary to what some say, it wasn't completely unanimous - Boquist voted against both HJR 49 and 50).

It basically has the same set of groups supporting it has M51, as they go together.

From the Oregon Association Chiefs of Police:

"The Oregon House of Representatives and Oregon State Senate voted unanimously to refer Ballot Measure 52 to you, the voters. Such bipartisan agreement testifies to the common sense nature of this important proposal. Please join Oregon's police chiefs in supporting this vital measure to secure the enforcement of crime victim's rights."

From the Oregon District Attorneys Association:

"Measure 52 protects victims' rights and also ensures timely administration of criminal justice. 34 states provide crime victims with constitutional protections. Only Oregon and one other state fail to provide victims a process to enforce these rights. Measures 51 and 52 contain provisions that preserve the speedy administration of justice and offer victims a meaningful mechanism for protecting their rights. "Enforceability of crime victims' rights has widespread support. The Oregon Legislature unanimously referred Measure 51 and Measure 52 to the ballot. The federal criminal justice system already offers victims tools to enforce their rights. Measures 51 and 52 will more closely align Oregon with federal law."

Ballot Measure 53 was also referred by the legislature - it was SJR 18. The vote in the State Senate was Ayes, 16; Nays, 10--Atkinson, Beyer, Ferrioli, George, G., George, L., Morse, Nelson, Starr, Verger, Whitsett; Absent, 4--Carter, Gordly, Kruse, Winters. The vote in the State House was: Ayes, 52; Nays, 2--Smith P., Witt; Excused, 1--Tomei; Excused for Business of the House, 5--Barker, Greenlick, Hunt, Nolan, Mr. Speaker.

From the legislature:

"But Measure 3 left many things unclear. For example, can a large amount of cash found next to a large quantity of methamphetamine be forfeited? What can a county sheriff do to save neglected pets when it may take months to convict the pet's owners of neglect? Can the pets be put up for adoption? Can local law enforcement share in the proceeds when it assists federal law enforcement in carrying out a forfeiture under federal law? "In response to these unanswered questions, the 2007 Legislature worked with the Oregon Department of Justice, the Oregon District Attorneys Association, the Oregon Chiefs of Police, the Oregon State Sheriffs Association, the ACLU of Oregon, and the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association to develop Ballot Measure 53. If Ballot Measure 53 is adopted, certain abandoned property and neglected or abused animals can be forfeited without a conviction. Under Ballot Measure 53, the cash next to the methamphetamines can be forfeited, the pets can be put up for adoption, and local governments can share in the proceeds for assisting the federal government.

Kari:

We could probably get some more info from Senator Floyd Prozanski, since he was on the Joint Legislative Committee that wrote the arguments in favor of all three measures that were referred to the voters.

Background from the League of Women Voters:

In the general election of 1996 Oregon voters adopted Ballot Measure 40, a comprehensive and far-reaching series of amendments to Oregon’s Bill of Rights, relating to victims and criminal defendants before the courts of Oregon. The Oregon Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling, found Measure 40 unconstitutional because the measure lumped together at least eight constitutional amendments that should have been voted on separately. During the 1999 session, the legislature divided Measure 40 into several separate amendments and sent seven to the voters. Voters passed four of the measures (including Measure 69) and rejected three. Measure 69 granted victims constitutional rights in criminal prosecutions and juvenile delinquency proceedings. These rights, which were added to the Bill of Rights (Section 42 of Article I) of the Oregon Constitution, are: * • The right to be present and informed in advance of all critical stages of the proceedings held in open court when the defendant is present; * • The right of the victim to obtain information about the conviction, sentence, imprisonment, criminal history and future release from physical custody of the criminal defendant; * • The right to refuse an interview, deposition or other discovery request by the criminal defendant or other person acting on behalf of the criminal defendant; * • The right to receive restitution from the convicted criminal who caused the victim’s loss or injury; * • The right to have a copy of a transcript of any court proceeding in open court; * • The right to be consulted, upon request, regarding plea negotiations involving felony; and * • The right to be informed of these rights. Only the prosecuting attorney has the responsibility to determine if a person is a crime victim under the current language of Article 42 and to enforce these provisions, but, while the victim has the right to “prompt” restitution, he or she may not bring suit to enforce it. Rights of the victim do not reduce a defendant’s rights under the United States Constitution. Since the 1999 passage of Measure 69, victims’ advocates have felt that compliance with the constitutional rights of Oregon’s crime victims have not always been upheld. Out of this concern the 2007 Legislature wrote Measure 51 to ask voters to approve an amendment to the Bill of Rights in the Oregon Constitution to include legal means to enforce victims’ rights.

http://www.lwvor.org/VGFiles/primary/Prim08VG/NPm51.html

The same goes for M52.

http://www.lwvor.org/VGFiles/primary/Prim08VG/NPm52.html

You can see the background on M53 here:

http://www.lwvor.org/VGFiles/primary/Prim08VG/NPm53.html

All three measures are meant to clean up problems that have come forward in the years since the original measures passed.

Part of the explanatory text of Measure 53:

This measure would allow civil forfeiture of instrumentalities and proceeds of other crimes that are similar to the crime that a person is convicted of committing, even though the person is not convicted of committing those other crimes. The measure requires notice to the person and opportunity to challenge the seizure and forfeiture.

Something about that is problematic for me. How are the "proceeds of other crimes" determined if the person "is not convicted of committing those other crimes." It seems as if they wouldn't technically be crimes, then.

The ACLU's David Fidanque has a letter to the editor in Willamette Week explaining why the organization is neutral on all three measures, which would be one reason why there are no arguments in opposition.

It makes me feel a little better about voting yes on 51 & 52 but no on 53.

According to Fidanque, Measures 51 & 52 provide for implementing victims' rights provisions of constitutional amendements passed by voters in 1999. Apparently the ACLU supports those particular provisions, but not others that eliminated rights of criminal defendants, leading them to oppose the original amendments. This year the ACLU is remaining neutral because these measures implement parts of the amendments to which they don't object, but don't fix what the ACLU did oppose.

Their neutrality on Measure 53 is different. Apparently it is the result of a "compromise" they reached in 2005 regarding a Supreme Court case over Measure 3 of 2000, which concerned civil forfeiture reform. Evidently the ACLU supported Measure 3 and "law enforcement" opposed it. According to Fidanque, under the "compromise," the ACLU agreed to remain neutral if the Supreme Court upheld Measure 3, and another constitutional amendment was offered to voters that was "consistent with the compromise." The Court did uphold Measure 3, and Measure 53 is "consistent with the compromise" in the ACLU's view.

Now, what was that compromise? It is hard to say. Fidanque writes:

If Measure 53 is approved, it will require new laws to implement it and ACLU will do what we can to ensure the most essential safeguards of Measure 3 are preserved. If Measure 53 is defeated, and law enforcement agencies continue refusing to do civil forfeitures because they can’t keep any of the money, the world will not end.

This suggests to me that the rather vague parts of Measure 53 allowing forfeiture not only of proceeds of a crime for which there is a conviction, but of similar crimes, would need to have implementing laws, e.g. defining similarity of crimes and burdens of proof that money or property were in fact proceeds of such crimes absent a full criminal conviction, and possibly also whether the state has to win a civil judgment to gain forfeiture, vs. forfeiture where the person whose property is seized has to sue to get it back, and maybe questions of costs.

The basic concept of forfeiture without criminal conviction seems dicey to me which is one reason I voted no.

The "compromise" also appears to have to do with the elements of Measure 53 that would allow proceeds of civil forfeitures to go to "law enforcement." Proceeds going to the seizing entity in my view creates a fundamental conflict of interest for law enforcement, which is the main reason I voted no.

Fidanque also at least implies that at present police and prosecutors are not pursuing forfeiture in cases where they could, because they don't get a cut. If that's true, it illustrates the conflict of interest.

What the ACLU got out of the "compromise" is not clear -- perhaps an agreement that "law enforcement" would not seek to overturn other elements of Measure 3, if upheld?

An amendment to open the door for punishment without conviction? Not a chance. There is a difference between victim's rights and enshrining presumed guilty into the constitution.

From the argument in favor from the legislature:

The State of Oregon cannot seize and forfeit a person's property unless the person has been convicted of a crime, the crime is connected to the property and the value of the seized property is proportional to the crime committed. This was not always true. Before Ballot Measure 3 in November, 2000, property could be forfeited even if the owner of the property had not been convicted of a crime. Measure 3 amended the Oregon Constitution to require a criminal conviction. But Measure 3 left many things unclear. For example, can a large amount of cash found next to a large quantity of methamphetamine be forfeited? What can a county sheriff do to save neglected pets when it may take months to convict the pet's owners of neglect? Can the pets be put up for adoption? Can local law enforcement share in the proceeds when it assists federal law enforcement in carrying out a forfeiture under federal law?

What rights do victims have that are currently unenforceable?

I've already listed them above in the summary from the League of Women Voters.

Kevin Neely,

David Fidanque's letter to Willamette Week, linked above, says that the ACLU of Oregon does not object to these particular provisions, but opposed the larger package in which the constitutional rights were created but unenforceably, because of other aspects of the amendments.

So they remained neutral (presumably after internal discussion). Including not publishing arguments in opposition.

Josh Marquis, your statement with its huge undistributed middle is offensive and insulting. There are plenty of "blue" people who have bad policy ideas from time to time, e.g. Kate Brown and the "fix" to the primary/nomination "problem" that creates much worse problems than it solves. Not agreeing with Hardy Myers doesn't mean you're wearing a tinfoil hat. Or numerous "blues" as "true" as you'd like who voted to authorize aggression against Iraq. Or dozens of regressive things the Clinton administration did.

I don't make any of my other votes on Hardy Myers' say-so and I don't know why this one should be any different.

The forfeiture provisions are just too vague. And it gives cops and prosecutors a conflict of interest.

Try a well-defined forfeiture law that puts procedes into victim compensation funds. You might get further.

I urge everyone to vote no across the board on all three ballot measures.