Cody

I almost ended up testifying on this one!

I agree with the general thrust of your argument here. In a referendum, the citizenry is being asked to affirmatively overturn a legislative vote. A no vote says "no, I do not want to over turn the legislature's decision."

Also, I am concerned that the current system takes advantage of the tendency on the part of citizens to vote "no" when they are uncertain or uninformed. A "no" vote for a referendum or initiative says "no, leave things as they are"--which is OK for an uninformed vote.

BUT all that being said there are two things for you to consider:

1) The legal argument you make about the status quo is wrong. Once a piece of legislation goes in front of the voters, it no longer has the force of law. It is as if it was never passed. So I am not sure that you can say that the "status quo" is to keep the law in place.

2) The problem with changing the referendum is that it makes one part of the citizen's vote process the opposite of the other two. A "yes" for an initiative and referral means "yes, pass this proposal." A "yes" for a referendum means "Yes, overturn the Legislature's decision" or alternatively "Yes, I am making a negative statement about this proposal."

This part of your post I don't understand: Under the current system, those who oppose a legislative vote can stir up the process by gathering signatures to force a referndum and then relying on non-voters to count as "no" votes, thus killing the law without having to campaign for it.

Do referendums require a certain percentage of turnout, a'la a double majority? If not, then your statement about non-voters counting as a "no" is inaccurate.

Kurt, I believe both forms of the plural are permissible, but I see your point on the 2010 vote -- even if 2010 is not the right timing, I hope 2011 is.

Paul, you're right about the italicized sentence -- I meant to describe voters who vote "no" when uncertain but typed the wrong thing. Sorry.

As to your bullet points, however, I want to clarify that, first, I was not making a legal argument about the status quo, but rather a practical one. At any rate, whatever the law says now about the effect of forcing a referral on the efficacy of the legislature's vote, that, too, can be changed.

And I see the point in the second bullet point, but I think it misses the bigger picture. I view the referendum not as a vote on the bill, but as a vote on vetoing the bill -- a yes vote should be for the veto. A rough comparison could be made to the 21st Amendment overturning Prohibition: If it had been referred to the voters, the question should have been "Do you vote to overturn the 18th Amendment?" not "Do you vote to retain the 18th Amendment?" One could imagine a similar scenario involving the overturning of Measure 36 (one man, one woman).

Which reminds me of another thing. This change should not be limited to tax measure referenda; it should apply to all referenda.

We can solve all this confusion - and a bunch of other confusion - by going with Option A and Option B.

Let me second Kari's "Option A vs Option B" idea. If we are going to change the process, let's really change it and get away from a "yes vs no" vote.

Steve B, easily handled: randomly switch the position of the described positions on the ballot.

The ballot is op-scanned anyway.

This is not at all without precedent; some states vary the ordering of the candidate names because research has shown that the first name/position receives an statistically greater number of votes even if all other characteristics of the candidate are controlled for in an experimental setting.

This bill was a lousy idea, not a great one.

Cody argues "voters who want to reverse the change -- and alter the status quo -- should vote yes to do so."

This is a sleight of hand that substitutes a sophistical definition of "the status quo" for what most people plainly understand:

Voters who want to change existing law should vote "yes."

I believe most voters interpret the question that way, or as "Do you agree with what the Legislature voted to do?" or "Do you agree with the proposed law?" If they do, they vote "yes," if they don't they vote "no."

This is the proper way for matters to stand. Votes in an initiative, referendum or referral all have the same consequence.

A "yes" vote majority produces a new law, legislated by the people acting as ultimate legislature. A "no" vote majority defeats the proposed new law.

Making referenda votes different is what will confuse matters and voters.

Further still, I believe the Voters' Pamphlet explains quite clearly what the consequences of a "yes" or "no" vote are.

There is no evidence of problem here that requires correction.

Can anyone cite a referendum under current rules (or similar rules in another state) where there is evidence that the result was other than what the voters intended? Where because of confusion the voters overturned a law that a majority meant to support, or supported a law that a majority meant to overturn?

The proposed change really is inexplicable. If it weren't, it wouldn't be so hard to explain.

Sorry to say it Cody, but this "framing" isn't helping your cause.

First, what the legislature passed is not, in law or practice, the status quo once a referendum has been called.

What the hell can it mean for a law to be the law in practice but not the law in law? What is a law in practice except actual law? Your defense, I fear, is just nonsense.

This goes back to the basic principle of initiative, referendum and referral: that the people as a body are a superior legislature to the elected legislature. Like it or not, argue whether it should be or not, that is the constitutional position in Oregon today.

Second, because the endless repetition of the Latin status quo, your new framing is nearly incomprehensible. But you have to use it to perform the sophistry of substituting status quo for the common sense "existing law."

If you are looking for a framing that will be clear because you believe people will support the change if they understand it clearly, you have not found that framing.

However, for the reasons stated in my previous comment, I think that expectation probably is wrong. When people understand the proposed change clearly, I think most of them will oppose it.

Cody is legally wrong. A "yes" vote on a referendum does change existing law (just like a "yes" vote on a referral or an initiative). That is because the law passed by the Legislature is nullified by the submittal of sufficient valid signatures within 90 days of the end of the session, and the law never takes effect until and unless it is approved by voters in a referendum. Thus, just like with initiatives and referrals, a "no" vote on a referendum preserves the status quo.

I explained this repeatedly in the earlier thread on this subject.

The problem faced by some liberal groups is that they have campaigned ceaselessly for the past several years to urge people vote "no" on all measures. Now they are learning that the sword has two edges.

Cody is further wrong in this statement: "Under the current system, those who oppose a legislative vote can stir up the process by gathering signatures to force a referndum and then relying on non-voters to count as "no" votes, thus killing the law without having to campaign for it."

There is no such thing as "nonvoters to count as `no' votes" in any referendum. A referendum is passed if there are more "yes" votes than "no" votes, period. Cody is thinking of "double majority" requirements, which do not apply to referenda or initiatives. Those apply only to legislative referrals to voters of measures which increase property taxes at special elections.