Sizemore admitted Measure 64 would ban passing the hat in a PTA meeting if done in a public place, like a school, and if the purpose of the collection was to support a ballot measure like a school budget. Just another probably unintended consequence of a Sizemore ballot measure.

Measure 64 would ban passing the hat in a PTA meeting if done in a public place, like a school, and if the purpose of the collection was to support a ballot measure like a school budget.

Good. The idea is to stop the use of public resources for political fundraising. There are plenty of ways to raise money without relying on public (i.e., neutral) resources.

This is a lot like the rule that prohibits campaigning/electioneering near polling places. Sure it burdens free speech, but it serves an important purpose: it supports an orderly neutral balloting process by reducing any suggestion that it is compromised.

There are plenty of other avenues available for PTA members to raise funds.

This is a lot like the rule that prohibits campaigning/electioneering near polling places. Sure it burdens free speech, but it serves an important purpose: it supports an orderly neutral balloting process by reducing any suggestion that it is compromised.

The reason to prohibit electioneering a certain distance from a polling place has limited application here in Oregon. Measure 64 is targetting only one kind of employee, the public employee, and chiefly because public employees have opposed the agenda followed by Sizemore and his cronies. The recent meltdown on Wall Street helps to illustrate the eventual outcome of the total destruction of the public sector - leaving the fox guarding the hen house - removing all who are employed to look after the public's interest.

If you can't make up your mind on M65, then proponents haven't made a case for such a radical change with such extreme possible consequences, so you should probably vote No in recognition of that fact.

If you're tired of 8 years of government by "What the hell, let's go for it" gut feelings, don't do the same thing here in Oregon.

Measure 65 is not a "radical experiment."

It was used in Washington State this past election and 70% of voters said they liked the system.

There are no "extreme possible consequences." Its basically the same system we use to elect local candidates.

Why is Rick Dancer in Sal's list of mayors?

re: M65

Every so often, one of the two major political parties in the US falls out of popularity and is replaced by a new major party. In my opinion, the existing primary system perpetuates the status quo; that is, that Republicans and Democrats rule the country. Many people are weary of voting for a minor party candidate because they believe that most people will vote for one of the two major-party candidates. If M65 passes, we enable a rather progressive system where - say the R's fall out of favor because they're leaning off the right-end of the scale - the two candidates running in November could be a Dem and a Green (or a fill-in-the-blank). I believe that people who wouldn't otherwise vote for a minor party candidate would feel empowered to do so if they were one of only two candidates in a runoff election.

Jeremy, I disagree with the statement that Measure 65 is "basically the same system we use to elect local candidates."

In our current system, where there are just two large politically viable parties, our current system ensures that there will never be a general election where we must choose between two members of the same party for the final choice. In our current system, the primaries are more of a time to vote for your ideals instead of playing a game of chess where you weigh the likelihood of a vote for your ideal candidate being a spoiler and allowing some loser into office instead of somebody you could tolerate, but didn't want. For example, if there's one Mannix running, and one Novick and one Merkley, I'm going to vote for the Dem who's ahead in the polls (who may not be the Dem whose ideals I most endorse) because I doubt that both Dems will make it to the general election.

While not miles apart from how we Portlanders do our local elections, I find the distinction to be meaningful. The systems are similar, but, for me, are different enough to be not "basically the same".

54, 55, 56 -- Yes. These are mostly just technical fixes. (Amusing: Measure 54 is the result of a class project at Grant High School!)

Whether or not anyone supports Measure 56, amending the constitution to change the terms under which a measure passes is NOT a "technical" fix. That criticism aside, I applaud your "No On 65" position.

I only disagree with you on the No on 57, I voted No on both 57 and 61 because of the utter laziness and cynicism of the No on 57 sponsors in the legislature in putting in the provisions that whichever of 57 and 61 passes with the most votes becomes law. It would have been much more important to let the courts work through the conflicts if both passed and for us to tell incompetent legislators who can't aren't leaders capable of making the hard decisions to find another line of work.

As it is, I'm guessing 61 will pass and I am very hopeful in a Democratic year that 62 will fail, along with all of Sizemore's measures, so we will get the result that legislators will have to step up and lead by legislating out many provisions of 61 because Republicans won't do the work to pass the taxes to pay for 61. (My votes: Yes on 54, 55, No on 56-65.)

I understand the Yes on 57 and No on 61 argument. I just fundamentally believe that if you are going to limit a judge's discretion to a weak sentencing guideline scheme as to how much time a judge can give on the high end, you should parity that with the power of an elected DA to seek a minimum sentence for the public's benefit on the low end- a mandatory minimum. Right Wing? Hmm, power to elected DAs who regularly have contested races and are responsive to the will of her community or to judges who seldomn face opposition b/c of the fear of lawyers losing and being punished by the court. Power to the people or power to one? Which is right wing and which is progressive?

Did the group proposing measure 61 run any ads at all? I don't recall seeing anything about it anywhere. If they did, they could have used this quote to sell the merits of M61:"In short, 61 is punishment; while 57 is prevention"

Now correct me if I am wrong, but if douchebag A steals your car, hasn't "prevention" failed and isn't it time to move on to the "punishment" phase of the process?

Is it just me, or is Blue Oregon just flailing? Comments are drying up; not very interesting posts (and few and far between). DailyKOS is booming, but Blue Oregon is dying, even during a huge Dem year... perhaps Blue Oregon shouldn't be an organ of a party machine consultancy (Kari Chisholm)? I mean, come on... this site is becoming silly.

Measure 64 deserves a yes vote. Almost everyone agrees there should be a wall of separation between church and state. Measure 64 creates a similar wall of separation between our government resources and partisan political organizations. This is good. States like California, Rhode Island, Florida, and Conneticut have had similar laws on the books for years. The bottom line is that if you oppose Nazis, neocons and other destructive organizations from using your tax dollars to raise political funds you should be intellectually honest and oppose the use of public resources to raise political funds for organizations you are ideologically aligned with. Any flaws Measure 64 has can be fixed by the legislature. Please vote yes on 64.

The current issue of Willamette Week makes a strong case favoring a yes vote on M60. They note that tying teacher performance to pay is a fair, reasoned expectation whose time has come and is supported by no less a liberal democrat than BHO in his presidential platform along with Sonja Henning on the Portland School Board.

In the same article the profile of a David Douglas School District instructor who has students that speak 60 different languages is an argument favoring a yes on M58. The quicker students are immersed in English as a common language for all the sooner they will achieve success in school and society.

Hard to see any reason not to support such an egalitarian measure that’s designed to help all students succeed.

I respectfully disagree. First, your objection relates to the initiative process itself and is in no way specific to Measure 64. Second, the legislature writes flawed legislation all the time that has to be corrected in subsequent sessions. The ethics and biofuel legislation from last session immediately spring to mind. Both of those bills will be revisited in 2009. Many other examples could readily be provided. The legislature produces legislation that is not "done right" all the time.

This is a lot like the rule that prohibits campaigning/electioneering near polling places. Sure it burdens free speech, but it serves an important purpose:

The best answer to PanchoPDX is pointing out just how nutty this argument is: With VBM, we have in fact passed a statue that allows people to be politicked as they are marking their ballots at the same time we have another statue against it (NWers seem to be particularly cognitively handicapped in this way of passing contradictory laws, which is exactly the problem with M57 and M61 given the current projections both will pass). So as with Measure 56, regardless of how one feels about the actual issue, this kind of idiocy spouted by the Yes on Measure 64 people provides the best reason to vote NO: Nobody with such incoherent thinking can possibly design good legislation.

Very similar arguments can be made for NO on Measure 65. The only arguments for Measure 65 are nutty rationalizations about imaginary voter behavior that ultimately are smoke screens for petty, self-serving agendas.

”One more thing about Measure 58: It's mean.”

Really? Is it mean to help non-English speaking children learn the most valuable tool they can have in order to succeed in America?

Immigrants to this country have traditionally learned English as quickly as possible in order to assimilate, advance in school, and enter the workforce in something other than menial, dead-end jobs. Children have a proven capacity to learn languages that diminishes the older they get. The sooner they are pushed to learn English the better for them and all society.

Unless there is some ulterior motive to not wanting to see immigrant children succeed? Perhaps in order to maintain a pool of low-wage workers with no voice in the political system due to limited English skills?

You may have noticed over the past several years that I have some interests in the DPO, and by extension the DNC. Some of those interests involve making some changes in thinking and policy and some in reinforcing them. There is a very good reason I am a Democrat rather than an NA or particularly (R). In a (D)primary we (D)s have the opportunity to set a direction for our Party, removing that opportunity is a vote for the status quo, whatever nonsense its proponents bring up.

Sal's positions regarding political parties certainly has changed from the days when he was asking for and not getting Democratic PAC money. Maybe it would have made a difference in his election, considering his post-election politicking, maybe it is a good thing he didn't get that DEMOCRATIC PAC money he wanted.

Please note that I really don't care to have Republicans deciding who Democrats like any more than I want Democrats interfering in Republican affairs - especially considering their facility for blowing it on their own.

As far as the open elections argument, it takes all of a couple minutes to change a registration if you really want to involve yourself with a different Party's candidate. This thing is a solution in search of a problem - not a good way to set policy.

Please note that I really don't care to have Republicans deciding who Democrats like any more than I want Democrats interfering in Republican affairs

If you don't want Republicans or independents to interfere in our party's affairs, we need to stop asking them to pay for our primaries. Since the DPO has basically said that it would be impossible to fund "our" primary without taking money from "them", I'm going to vote to give them a say.

Kari's Devil's Advocate argument for Measure 65 went like this:

Yes on 65: Democracy works best when all voters are able to participate in all elections.

Bob T:

The elections all voters have access rights to are those in which candidates will actual elect people, or in other words, we have a right to vote in November (or other times such as when non-partisan candidates can be chosen in March), not in primaries.

This solution may kill any chances for reforms I'd like to see. The major mistake was made long ago when the major parties decided that for the most the people needed to be spared the complexities of dealing with smaller parties that could never really get anywhere, making people think that the Repubs and the Democrats are as much a part of the Copnstitutional structure of the government as the offices they hold most of the time. That's why we are forced to pay for major party primaries.

If I had my way, all offices would be non-partisan, but parties are just fine as organizations that recruit, support, and provide identification for various platforms or agendas. Parties pay for their own conventions and elections to get an officially endorsed candidate, but nothing should prevent anyone from filing as the real so-and-so choice and so on.

Couple this with instant run-off elections that go beyond the idea circulated in Oregon a few years ago in which all candidates getting less than 10% in any round are dropped, and which would end after three rounds.

I think the lowest vote getter, and only the lowest vote getter, should be dropped each round, and that the run off lasts until one gets at least 50% plus one. If we don't have the voting machines to do this, then we should work on getting them.

Bob Tiernan

Bill Gallagher,

Seriously? The #1 reason you're going to vote for a measure that opponents feel could really harm Oregonians is that you're pissed at the OEA? Seriously?

Well, okay, how about instead you call OEA 503-684-3300 and tell OEA President Larry Wolf or OEA Government Relations Manager Beth Anne Darby how upset you are about the OEA mailing....then take a breath, step back, and look at the measure from the standpoint of what it might do to our voting system? You know, instead of using your vote as a stick in the eye of the teacher's union who, unless you call and tell them, won't even know you're sticking the stick in their eye.

Just a thought. Votes are precious...voting for revenge is petty and dumb. Vote your conscience, vote your beliefs, but don't vote to get even with someone/some group. Seriously.

Good for you, Sal.

There was an issue Obama raised at one point, when he said "This election is not about me, it is about you".

There are times when it seems people who spend their lives in politics think politics is about them, not the voters.

But there are also voters who support the person who got the 4 way stop at their intersection, or say the most outspoken member of the school board deserves higher office, or vote for the family friend, or the candidate who someone they know watched grow up. Those are not partisan issues.

Sorry, Sue, I don't think Measure 65 "impairs the rights of voters and candidates".

But then, I vote for the individual, not the party. Mostly that means Democrats, but I did campaign for Tom McCall's re-election, vote for Norma for State Supt. after my first choice for that office ran really brainless commercials, and voted for the local candidate I believed to be most qualified, regardless of party.

And for all the credible scholarship, City Club report, etc, I have heard about, no one opposing 65 has dealt with real life examples. They have never explained why it would have been a bad idea in the real life Backlund/Thatcher Dist. 25 primary where 65 would have put Pike the Democrat also on the ballot. That way, Thatcher would have either been eliminated in May or have had to run against someone she had run against before in November.

A list of incumbents supporting 65 really doesn't impress. By nature, their incumbency will give them each a leg up when campaigning for re-election, so the passage of 65 will likely not be a factor. They'll already have the most significant name recognition, so 65 could even give 'em an boost up in the Primary as they compete against a field of candidates that have all been tossed into the same hopper.

This measure, pure and simple, is a pollyanna approach to politics that probably won't fly right in reality. Proponents are pretending that we'll all just get along and that all voters - not just us wonkish activists - will take the time to vote for the "best candidate" without predetermined bias based on Party affiliation.

Pu-leeeze.

Even regular, committed activists can't figure out who the hell to vote for in the Judge, position Umpteen race.

People, whether party dogs or Joe the voter, generally like to have an initial demarkation. I know that there will be some basic shared core values among Dem candidates and voters. I want to select from that group first and I want to be part of a selection constituency that also shares similar values.

I, like Chuck above, have no desire to have Republicans voting in Dem primaries, and I'm sure that R's have little desire for my leftist voice to have a say on their candidates.

One more thing, Chris Beck said this:

"And to people who continue to think M 65 will weaken the parties, I just need to add: Get REAL. The parties aren't that strong now, though their monied overlords have way too much influence. M 65 will energize all politics by making elections more inclusive, more competitive, and, frankly, more interesting..."

1. If this is the same Chris Beck that Sue has found in Orestar, no wonder he wants "more competitive races," What a cash cow!

2. Beck is right about one thing: the parties, whether state or county, aren't that powerful. But the "monied overlords" will have more, rather than less influence with the passage of M65. Any Dem can run in a Dem primary now and not risk a field saturation that would risk the elimination of all Dems. Once a numbers game is thrust on a potential candidate field, the game has changed. Hello, dollarama.

Whether this Measure was put forth because of good intentions or because of self-serving greed (probably a combination of both, with more of the former), the fact that proponents can't fully explain and evaluate possible consequences is enough reason to vote it down.

"Go for it"? Good gawd; this has all the political acumen of GWB. I'll go for it when I skydive or try a new kind of pepper. I'll be damned if I'm voting for a wing and a prayer that will significantly change our election system.

It's the M65 advocates that need to prove their case, answer the questions, and not just ask us to take a leap of faith.

KC, I never met you. However, if I were undecided on 65 and knew someone opposed to 65 was saying this about Phil and Norma who I have known back into previous decades, that alone would have convinced me to vote for it

"Whether this Measure was put forth because of good intentions or because of self-serving greed (probably a combination of both, with more of the former), the fact that proponents can't fully explain and evaluate possible consequences is enough reason to vote it down."

Just as I voted for Norma for State Supt. of Public Instruction after my first choice ran brainless, insulting ads.

Norma was our state rep. when we first moved to Oregon. Phil is someone I knew before he was elected a state rep. I trust them over some stranger on a blog. You may disagree with them, but insulting them only reminds me of a saying for a few decades ago, "When they act like that, you know they know they are losing".

Back before Barbara Roberts was Sec. of State, there was a division of the Democratic Party in Oregon between "always done it that way" and people who wanted to try doing things differently. The first group tried all kinds of tricks on the second group when they couldn't win their point any other way. That's what this remark sounds like.

The tireless Richard Winger, author/publisher of "Ballot Access News" (www.ballot-access.org) has this to say about the cajun ("top two" primary) system in his Nov. 1 edition:

"9th Circuit Sets Up New Challenge to 'Top-Two'" On October 2, the 9th Circuit issued an order remanding the lawsuit _Washington State Republican Party v State of Washington_ 05-35774 back to US District Court. The District Court is requested [sic -- should be "directed"] to allow the plaintiff political parties to 'further develop the record with respect to the claims that Initiative 872 unconstitutionally constrains access to the ballot and appropriates the political parties' trademark . . . . In the US District Court, the case is number CV-05-927 and is before Judge Thomas Zilly, who had ruled 'top-two' unconstitutional in 2005 on freedom of association grounds. . . . "Why This News is Important" Oregon voters are currently voting on Initiative 65, which would impose the "top-two" system in that state. Every major newspaper in Oregon has endorsed it. And every newspaper story on I-65 says that the US Supreme Court upheld "top-two" (in Washington State) on March 18, 2008. The Oregon newspapers are wrong, as the 9th Circuit has now made clear. All the US Supreme Court did on March 18 was to rule that "top-two," on its face, does not violate freedom of association. The Court left open other arguments that top-two is unconstitutional. But one doesn't learn about this if one only reads Oregon newspapers. "New Evidence" Washington used "top-two" for the first time in its August 2008 primary. Every minor party and independent candidate for Congress failed to place first or second. Also, every minor party and independent candidate for statewide state office also failed to place first or second. Therefore, for the first time since Washington started using government-printed ballots in 1890, the November ballot will have no minor party or independent candidates on the ballot for any statewide state race or congressional race. Five minor parties or independent candidates for the legislature this year will be on the November ballot. But they only placed second because they only had one major party opponent. This result shows what critics of "top-two" have long contended, that "top-two" means no more minor party or independent campaigns in the fall campaign season. "Top-Two" stifles dissenting voices when voters are most engaged, and robs voters of any means to vote against both major parties in November. . . . "

In other words, there's a good argument to be made for an injunction to prevent M65 from taking effect if it were to pass, since there's a live remand in the same circuit that might well cause the system to be found unconstitutional. The Oregon political parties can fairly allege irreparable harm if M65 is allowed to take effect.

The html went screwy above. The last paragraph is not quoted material from BAN and should not have appeared in the same font.

With VBM, we have in fact passed a statue that allows people to be politicked as they are marking their ballots at the same time we have another statue against it

No, don't be silly.

If you're being "politicked" while you're marking your mail-in ballot (like, say, you're at a ballot party with friends) then you're choosing to do so. You can also mark your ballot while hiding under your bed, with a gun, behind a locked door.

Let's see, can we imagine why in fact you are forced with VBM to actually take action to NOT be politicked, keeping in mind the relevant comparison is to the kind of restrained politicking we are talking about that would happen at a polling place where no one would be allowed to actually enter the voting booth with you under other parts of the law?

How about if you're watching TV as you're voting and an ad comes on? Or somebody comes to your door within some period as you're getting ready to vote? Or you vote in a coffee shop to vote because you EXPECT the environment is one in which you would not be politicked and someone approaches you to talk up a candidate? Or maybe as you are coming home from work planning to vote pretty much as soon as you sit down and as you are walking into the house a moderately uninformed Bus Project participant approaches you (and unfortunately I've met some atrociously incorrectly informed Bus Project participants, which is why the example came to mind)?

The point is your "choice" argument is a very good example of a "strawman" argument: First, there are any number of ways you can be politicked, your first few words in fact are not developed in a complete argument that the choice on being politicked is in fact what is called a "two-sided" choice --- you have to either choose to be politicked or chose to not be politicked and take appropriate steps. However, the actual intent and principle of the law is that exposure to politicking should only be a "one-sided" choice in which you are not politicked unless you choose to be politicked, even if the "one-sided" choice to be politicked is restricted to referring to literature you made a "two-sided" choice to accept as it was offered to you at a certain distance from the polling place as you walked in, cell phones not having been available at the time these laws were passed in most states.

But back to Measure 65, a shout out to George Seldes for providing the news from October 2 that the WA case was back in the trial court by the order of the 9th Circuit. If the courts now do the right thing in follows the appeals court precedents in Foster v. Love and Love v. Foster that slammed down Lousiana's "top two" primary for Federal offices, it won't be simply because two candidates from the same party make it to the general election. Following the appeals court's argument in those rulings, it would be because if two candidates from the same party make it to the general election, or at best just two parties make it to the general, it will in fact mean that we would know which party won the election, or at most which two parties are left in the election, before the designated general election day in elections in which more than one, or two, parties were contending.

The Federal law setting the an election day was passed so that no state would be able to indicate to any other state which party's candidates --- not the candidates themselves --- were being sent to the Congress because Congress is an institution organized around political parties and control goes to the party with the majority.

Sal Peralta, you are by far one of the biggest cranks in the Oregon blah-blah-sphere:

KC, I love ya, but questioning the motives of Chris Beck, who was a three-term Democratic legislator, and a man who continues to fight the good fight for conservation, and the preservation of the Columbia Gorge ... publicly questioning the motives of Earl Blumenauer, John Kitzhaber, Phil Keisling, Norma Paulus, Sam Adams, Tom Potter, Dave Hunt, Ben Cannon, and the rest of the progressive leaders who support this measure hardly seems an appropriate role for the Chair of the Multnomah Democratic Party.

There is no question it is the role of voters and political leaders to question misguided elected leaders. This actually is a case where a group of mostly very mediocre leaders (even Kitzhaber has been disappointingly erratic in the last two years), have put certain personal agendas way ahead of good sense, genuine respect for we the voters, and, as already noted, some very important principles of our system.

LT:

There was an issue Obama raised at one point, when he said "This election is not about me, it is about you".

Bob T:

Is that why he had the word "President" stitched onto the back of his big chair on O-Force One?

Bob Tiernan

Hey, thanks for answering my question to Chris Beck who was too good for me, did not deign to answer, as I am a person lacking necessary gravitas... hah.

I asked him in seriousness if he was from a particular OK family line that was involved in an historical family feud on the level of Hatfields and McCoys...

I searched Orestar and did not find him by name, so thanks for giving answer. He's not the CB I know, and highly unlikely connected to that family line I reference.

It's just false to talk about fairness with this measure. No voter is prevented from voting in a primary for any candidate on the ballot, EXCEPT BY THEIR OWN CHOICE.

Not true, TJ. You cannot currently vote in the primary for a Republican candidate for one office, a green candidate for another, and a Democrat for a third. And you cannot vote for any of them if you're unaffiliated. Since the right to free assocation also includes the right to not associate with any particular group, shouldn't voters who choose not to associate with a party have a say in the limited options they will have in November?

The only legit argument against this is that as a private club, political parties should be able to run their own affairs without outside influence. And I would be persuaded by that argument if the political parties paid their own damn way. Absent that, I'm voting for M65, which will absolutely give voters new rights that they do not currently have.

”Expertise has been demoted in our culture ever since Reagan. It's time to let go of that. Let's recognize that sometimes professional expertise is a better guide.”

Leaving policy making exclusively to “experts” excludes the legions of people who have volumes of intuitive and practical knowledge at their disposal. This is precisely why there are PTA’s, citizen advisory boards, etc., and exactly why Oregon has a time honored initiative process. This measure made it to the ballot because the collective intuition of voters said it made sense and deserved to be put before the people.

Don’t for a moment think that the experts aren’t any less inclined to put self interest first and support policy which advances their particular professional, political, or social goals, much of which is not in the best interests of society.

I’ll take the experience and wisdom of average Americans any day over academicians with zero real life experience who’ve lived cloistered lives behind ivy covered walls.

So it is supposed to be a good idea that while the DPO currently stays out of contested Primaries that they now should interfere? I thought there was some idea of lessening Party influence? You 65 people don't think this through, your idea will jam the monied interests right straight into the Primary and you can kiss goodbye the idea of insurrectionist candidates.

This mess is the tool of status quo, you guarantee that by pushing influence into the Primaries and there is no way that influence can stay out of it with this mess.

Those of you complaining about the cost of Primaries should consider that the DPO can afford to caucus if you would prefer that. That is exactly why caucuses exist.

A couple years ago Democrats in CD2 were given the choice of 4 candidates in the Primary which resulted in very splintered vote, that situation could easily under this scenario with two credible Rs running result in 2 Rs running for that seat. That's a swell alternative. Proponents say, "oh that's unlikely," and my question is why create the possibility?

Writing about the initiative process, let's change it so that those requiring funding either include the funding mechanism in the measure, or wait until the funding mechanism is adopted in a subsequent measure.

After all, aren't candidates often asked how they are going to pay for their proposals? Why should voters be treated any different?

Law-n-order D:

If you're saying that if a Judge is limited in the maximinum sentence because of guidelines, then a DA should be able to impose manadatory minimums, then you're missing the point.

A DA is a party to the action. Yes, they represent the state, but they are still represent a party, with all the human tendencies to want to win, because they believe they are right, because they developed a relationship with the witnesses (police) and the victims. (because lawyers all want to win)

The Judge on the other hand is the neutral party. Its her/his job to listen to both sides and make a decision based on the competing claims, the equities, and decide based on mercy, community safety, use of penal resources, etc.

So to equate a judges discretion with a DA's discretion and propose that its only fair that the objective fact finder/decider has to be balanced with an agent of the police is in fact right wing. Its not progressive (whatever that means). It is more similar to the Bush adminsitration saying that they needed to avoid court oversight of all wiretaps because of national security.

And as to competitive DA races and Competitive Judge races, I believe you're wrong. In the Metro area alone, I can think of two contested DA races (clackamas both times and both times the same two individuals) in the last 20 years, but at least a half dozen judicial races. I could be wrong, but go ahead and count them up if you want.

And a quick comment on 65, which I ended up voting for. I'm not sure why the D and R leaders are so upset about third parties being left off the November ballot, don't they tell us every year that we're throwing our vote away by voting third party in Nov? So 65 is doing them a favor right? Doesn't 65 really mean that the Primary is now going to be the election of choice for third parties and thats where they'll seek to influence agendas. Common sense tells me that we will get pol's with slightly more moderate positions on issues. Whether thats good or not....

Our neighbors to the north used this primary system for the first time this year.

It's way too early to tell what effects this system will have. Perhaps it's an effective system, but how can we tell after it's been used once?

I hate to disagree with my sister, but I do have one small quibble--to a certain extent the structure of a system will favor certain outcomes. That's true of all structures.

There's no way to know what outcomes will be favored should M. 65 pass.

Sue, "Makes sense given Phil Keisling's reported affiliation with the DLC. " is the same sort of guilt by association as some of the stuff McCain's campaign is doing to Obama.

Besides, the DLC is not the same group it once was, and it has lost power. But did you ever read their 1991 platform? I did, from cover to cover (during a boring meeting). I agreed with 1/3, disagreed with 1/3, had a lot of questions about 1/3. The seeds of DLC's own destruction were sown by those who called people like me suspicious because all good people supported the whole thing without question.

What I would like to see is more discussion of actual issues (problems of wounded veterans, ways to restructure the tax/budget system of this state including opening up the Tax Expenditure Report and making every tax break in their subject to audit, health care, education, lots of other pressing problems). I don't think the current Team D vs Team R approach allows that kind of policy discussion. I don't think it promotes an open public process in the legislature---the Public Comm. on the Legislature was a more open public process than ANY legislative session this decade.

OK, am I in the "middle", or just someone who would like to see a return to more intelligent politics as there were when Phil was first a legislative staffer and then a legislator, or when Norma was my state rep.

As far as "the right working harder", David Brooks says that having worked in most if not all conservative groups in the 1980s, he thinks their era is over and they are likely to resemble the British Conservative Party after Margaret Thatcher.

If people believe that anyone who registers NAV doesn't deserve to vote for primaries, then explain to those people why their taxes should pay for running partisan primaries. Explain why 65 would not have helped in the Backlund/Thatcher Dist. 25 real life situation when Kim Thatcher rode her volunteer base from the Measure 30 campaign into a primary victory and then for whatever reason the Democrats failed to support Pike in what became an open seat after incumbent Backlund lost the primary. That is, if you can answer those questions without maligning anyone who dares to consider voting yes on 65--or already voted for it as I have.

But I don't like being told anyone who supports this idea must be one of those dreaded DLC people. I have known Phil and Norma for years, and dissing them doesn't make me any less of a M. 65 supporter. If DLC is so powerful, why did Obama avoid their national convention this year?

Maybe there are those on BO who need to get out more and talk to ordinary folks---in some circles, BO is getting the reputation of an echo chamber.

For those who might still be interested and might have missed it, Kari has posted another item on his "No" vote on 65. May I suggest this conversation head there because even if 65 passes it is sure to go to court?

For about the 100th time (since it keeps being tossed out a 1000 times), I would have been HAPPY to vote YES on an initiative to defund primaries (i.e., to charge political parties the fair cost of running a primary) so that people who could not participate in them didn't have to pay for them.

That would have had the virtue of actually addressing what seems to be a common complaint ("Why do I gotta pay for primaries I can't vote in?"). M65 doesn't do it, instead leveraging off that somewhat reasonable question to create a new system with no solid intellectual foundation.

If you want a majority winner, instant runoff voting does it. If you want fusion, you can go for fusion (preferably with instant runoff voting so that people can express support for a multiply nominated candidate on the party line that best expresses their views). But M65 offers none of that -- it KEEPS the whole public paying for TWO general elections, while preventing all but (at most) two parties from participating in the actual election-to-office round.

In response to Judicial Independence:

I agree there should be an independent judiciary, but in Oregon the only discretion a judge has is to impose a weak sentence. Judges also have the human weaknesses. Such as wanting to give a little something to each side in order to appear "fair" no matter what the merits. If a prosecutor acts unfairly the people can vote her out or have him recalled. Two DAs have been recalled in the last two years and another two were voted out of office. The number of judges recalled or voted out = Zero.

According to the Oregon State Bar ethics rules prosecutors are the only lawyers who have a specific duty to do justice. (They are independent of the police). All other lawyers only have a duty to their client. That is why I do not have a problem with democracy and prosecutors.

To Law-n-Order D

Judges have human weaknesses but DA's don't? I'd prefer to take my chances with a Judges human frailty's rather than a DDA's.

I actually agree that the sentencing guidelines imposes unreasonable limits on Judges. The answer however is to alter or loosen the guidelines, not shift the balance of sentencing power even more to the DA's.

Lets face it, mandatory minimums shift power to DA's offices. Its why DA's offices have M-11 committees, Even they understand that they are doing the sentencing in many of these cases. And I applaud them for their rigor and concern for justice and equity. I'm just saying that power is better left with the Court.

And as to DA's Being different than other lawyers because of their unique ethical requirement, I've heard that many times over the years, and every time its in the context of justifying the power shift from the courts to the DA. In reality, the rule simply recognizes that while private attorneys have an obligation to a single client and not the public, the DA's client is the public and therefore any zealous advocacy for the public is by its nature seeking justice. In other words, its simply a truism.

And as to the DA recall versus Judges, perhaps you'd don't remember the May 2008 primary when Judge Rogers of Washington County was bested by a DDA who accused Rogers of being soft on crime. I'm sure there are others, particularly in Mult. Co. And I didn't see any contested DA races you cited either.

Hey Judicial Independence. I do appreciate the responses since no one else really finds the issue interesting.

Did not know about the Washington County race; so I'll throw you a point there. The 2 DA recalls were Sherman and Wheeler County. The contested DA races where the DAs where voted out were Lincoln and Wallowa County (and Sherman County before the recall).

I think most lawyers are too afraid to run against sitting judges for feat of being "punished" by the bench. Therefore, less democracy going on. A DDA can be more insulated since some offices routinely challenge off judges they don't like. (Personally, I think former prosecutors are more liberal judges and former defense attorneys tend to be harder- probably a karmaic balancing going on). Unfortunately, I think it scares good civil lawyers away from going after incumbents at the bench.

I won't speak for DAs, but I will find common ground with you in that I would agree to get rid of mandatory minimums if judges had total discretion for true stautory sentences (not watered down by DOC) so a judge can give someone 5 years for a C Felony, 10 for a B and so on.

But as things are now, as a law abiding member of the public I do not believe in unilateral disarmament against the criminals and I will agree to disagree with you on the merits of mandatory sentencing as the rules currently stand.

<h2>There’s no doubt that with the way statewide ballot measures are worded, it’s pretty darn hard to figure out what in the world they’re trying to say. We did our best to educate ourselves on what we were voting on but must admit that some things were still a bit confusing.Apparently, there are some damn good writers out there because our state was solidly sold…on every single issue.</h2>

dennie rhode island drug rehab

Confused about all those ballot propositions? Let the League of Women Voters help! "PROS and CONS Arguments will be presented for each of the State Ballot Measures on the November 2008.

<hr/>

dennie rhode island drug rehab

<hr/>