Congratulations to the coalitions and activists in Defend Oregon. It looks like the ballot measures are heading in our direction! APANO, the Asian Pacific American Network of Oregon, a volunteer-led civic group, was proud to be a part of the work on voter reg, education and GOTV.

Sal, isn't 64 a statute?

The stupidest thing the legislature did in the 1990s may have been rewriting M 47 into M 50 without a court challenge or taking double majority out of it (given that a different measure which failed was openly a double majority measure.

Sizemore measures notoriously are so poorly written that implementation as written is well nigh impossible.

If there isn't a legal challenge to 64 on the basis of the actual language of the measure (if only to clarify the language) the legislature needs to clarify if not modify the measure.

A ballot measure passing is not written in stone. And if Sizemore passed a measure while under court sanction, is the measure legal?

All these things will need to be examined if the final vote shows the measure passing. We need clearly written laws.

Unions and non-profits should file an immediate court challenge on this one. I don't think it will stand up to free speech provisions on the state or federal level.

What happened here? Such a huge margin for Obama--did those folks not vote down ticket, or did some vote wrong on Senator, M64? Sucks...

"I think it will be difficult for the unions to persuade the legislature to accept an outright repeal."

Sal, I wasn't talking about "the unions", but about clarifying whether PTA can meet in a school if PTA is lobbying the legislature.

Nonprofits hold before/after school programs in school buildings. If those nonprofits are part of any coalition lobbying the legislature on anything (incl. the role or nonprofits in Oregon life), what does Measure 64 say if legally challenged?

What about the food bank or United Way on a public employee's pay check deduction? Or the abovementioned child care employees of a nonprofit who are working in school buildings? Can they agree to have a small amount taken out of their paycheck to help a food bank, or must they write a personal check to the foodbank and not involve their employer?

What about holding a food drive at a fire house or a city hall?

Sizemore has always wanted to make this about Team Sizemore against Team Union, and any Oregonian who is not a member of either relegated to the sidelines. Must one be a union member to challenge this in court? How about a lawyer who chairs the board of a nonprofit?

M64 passage means we are encouraging more abuse by Sizemore. This clearly shows we need to alter the initiative process by screening the issues themselves. We need to determine weather or not we have voted no or yes on a simular and/or exact issue in previous elections and allow only those we haven't voted on for a while (say at least 2 cycles before we can vote on an issue again). We also need to have something that says that anybody convicted of certain crimes or has any judgement against them connected to the political process has a credibility ans security issue and, therefore, can not author public initiatives. We need to stop the abuse.

Kate Brown...are you listening?

"Why should a measure be embargoed for a number of elections after it has been defeated?"

Because NO means NO. It is to be respected as such. Repeatedly putting an issue on the ballot after we continually tell them NO is abusive and childish. It shows extreme disrespect for the people like a spoiled 6-year-old who doesn't know the meaning of respecting others wishes.

When the people say NO - they mean it. That's it. Period. End of discussion on that issue. It is not a suggestion to ignore the people's wishes and submit it again.

"What would constitute "similar" measures?"

Remember the OCA and their constant hatred measures? Or have you forgotten already?

As a person who generally votes Republican, used to help collect signatures for Sizemore issues, I am glad to see some of the ones I got on the ballot failing.

However, I must say that I am VERY disappointed in Oregon for passing both 57 and 61. Although 57 is the lesser of two evils I would prefer no evil at all. Our criminal justice system needs a rebuild and I hope that Obama and the Democrats in control will tackle this issue this time around. This is the CHANGE WE NEED.

As a side note, Congrats to all the Dems (Progressives?) who helped pull off this amazing sweep of seats. Truly a historic event.

"However, I must say that I am VERY disappointed in Oregon for passing both 57 and 61."

I wouldn't worry about it. Based on past Oregon history of such contreversial outcomes, and rumors abounding, they are doomed to be challenged in court, thereby making all Yes votes on both mesaures wasted votes.

I'm calling it now, and I'm calling it first -- M61 FAILS OUTRIGHT. Check it out -- Yes votes have fallen behind No votes, with the heft of the votes yet to be counted coming in from progressive Multnomah and Lane counties. So, there you go. I stand by my earlier assertions that: 1) M61 could be defeated; 2) Chip Shields was wrong and "progressives" should have voted NO on M57. It's a New Day in Oregon. Now, in the future, let's stand up to mandatory minimums.

For all the Thursday morning quarterbacks who are going to pretend they "knew" all along that Measure 61 could have been defeated on its own--you need to step outside of Portland and sniff some reality. If an alternative hadn't been offered, M61 would have cleared 60 percent easy.

But since you weren't involved in any way, I suppose it's easy to second guess the expertise of every political expert in the state.

Not sure that's true, Hank. It's possible, but also possible that had we put up a concerted effort to defeat M61 on the merits, instead of clouding the issue with a "not quite as bad" measure, we could have succeeded. It was hard to argue outright against M61 because Dems had our own lesser version. Instead of "Is this the best way to fight crime?" the issue became "Our proposal works almost as well and costs a lot less."

Yeah I'm second-guessing, but the Democrats just handed us a half billion dollar tough-on-crime measure with no attached funding at the same time state revenues are tanking, and we're claiming victory? M57 is going to absolutely screw health care and education next session, and no supermajority of Dems in the House or Senate can fix it.

Two things seem likely to me: The "citizen's measure" vs. "politician's measure" ads were compelling and for that matter -- if Hank is right and 61 had broad appeal -- accurate: this kind of manipulation sends a signal that the legislature has contempt for its constituency. That might have caused a backlash and artificially increased the vote for 61.

Second, at least 11% of Oregonians voted yes on both. Presumably, all of them were confused, but how many of those were on the anti-mandatory-minimums side? It's possible that 3-4% of the yes-on-61 votes were from people who actually wanted to defeat it.