We should require a 3/5ths majority vote to amend the state constitution. That would have prevented a LOT of problems over the years. A badly-drafted statute can be fixed by the legislature once the problems become clear.

What we should do is have two items for initiatives:

1. If a measure passes, it can not be repealed or altered for two election cycles. Quite frankly - if it is bad and the people vote it in anyway, we have to live with it. We would have no one to blame but ourselves.

2. If a measure is defeated, the issue (or altered states of the issue) can not be voted on for two election cycles. Those who remember the OCA's abusively repeated attempts at thier 'child protection' measures over and over and over can see why this point would be here. If the public says NO - we mean it. Leave us alone and go forth with something better.

These two items, if put into the system, would make all of us stop and think twice before we vote on, or send forth initiative ideas/measures. Common sense needs to be legislated into the system to save it.

You can't legislate character. As long as the culture extolls material over all, and people are not well enough educated to find alternatives or smart enough to think for themselves, you will get the results we have witnessed.

As you state, for 90 years very well intentioned people have tried to fix the system. If it was possible to have direct democracy, in spite of the character of the population, or if the initiative process could improve that character, it would have.

It's just too smart for Amerika.

"Those who remember the OCA's abusively repeated attempts at thier 'child protection' measures over and over and over can see why this point would be here. If the public says NO - we mean it. Leave us alone and go forth with something better."

Also, let's not forget those pesky women, who put a measure on the ballot FIVE times before we finally allowed them to vote.

In 1912.

I have said several times that it seems to me the best model for OR Constitution is the US Constitution's Amendment process with counties replacing states. If you can pass that bar you're pretty assured the State is solidily behind a measure and it wouldn't affect the legislative referendums.

I like it, Chuck.

The idea that something did not pass because of the vote in Gilliam, Sherman, or Grant counties would, somehow, tone down those 'Portland runs everything' arguments for a while.

If the legislature did a better job of representing the people of Oregon, distributing the tax burden and reaching across the isle instead abusing their responsibility by just representing the special interests such as bicyclists, environmentalists, various professions and their own greedy self interests; there would not be waves of ballot measures.

Yes, the problem is that the legislature is in the tight, sweaty pockets of the bicyclists.

Don't be so down on the people, Paulie. For example, they're on to Sizemore, even defeating initiatives that have some merit, like the one prohibiting insurance companies from using credit scores to set rates, just because Sizemore's name was on it.

And if the legislature gets some guts, they will put a kicker modification the ballot this fall, when memories of our short-sighted budget policies are fresh in voters' minds. I bet it would pass.

And the people have saved us nine times now from a sales tax - and for that I am (as are poorer people everywhere who would be hit by such a regressive tax) eternally grateful.

I support kicker modification/elimination. I support major tax restructuring, along the lines the Revenue Restructuring Task Force outlined, or anyone else's ideas.

I also support rules for the initiative process. The adult adoptee measure got on the ballot and passed in a year when many measures were voted down -- in some cases where people made NO their default position on ballot measures to protest the avalanche of measures.

The Public Comm. on the Legislature debated printing the sources of money to put a measure on the ballot in the Voters Pamphlet--but in some cases the money was passed through different entities so many times that the C&E reports would say that a large chunk of money came from some group with a cute name like the Citizens for a Wonderful World or some such.

The adult adoptee measure was sponsored by women who believed in their cause, put the measure on the ballot and later passed it on a very frugal budget. One said they didn't need to rent big office space or buy office equipment because they could use their kitchen tables and the Kinos on the corner had all the updated office equipment and all they had to pay for was what they actually used.

At the very least, chief petitioners should be made legally liable, and circulators should have to pass a training course. The days of "I don't know anything about this measure, I am just doing this for a job" should be behind us.

If Mannix and the other initiativemeisters can't train their petition carriers to be able to answer questions about the measure, that is their failing. Trying to hide that failing behind ideology should not be accepted.

And yes, I have worked on a successful ballot measure campaign. It collected signatures in all 36 counties and had a lot of grass roots support. If Mannix or anyone else could come up with a measure with grass roots support (where supporters were more than happy to answer questions on the measure) rather than just collecting money from bigwigs who couldn't get their ideas heard in the legislature, we would have a more intelligent process.

And Terry, "If the legislature did a better job of representing the people of Oregon, distributing the tax burden" makes me wonder which legislative campaigns you worked on in recent years.

Even Rep. Esquivel (R-Jackson County) wants to look at each and every tax expenditure and see if they are worthwhile. There are Democrats who also want a process like that. When did you communicate with your legislator or other legislators about your views on "distributing the tax burden"?

Or is it easier to just complain on a blog?

Too bad ACORN is not subjected to the same rules regulating petitioners'fraud.

oooooh . . . ACORN! boogity boogity! Poor people! Voting! Run! Save yourselves! Boogity boogity boogity!

ummm . . . wait a moment . . . being actual human beings and American citizens and all, yep, the good people of ACORN are subject to the same laws as everyone else.

Darn.

"The days of "I don't know anything about this measure, I am just doing this for a job" should be behind us."

I will belive that when I actually hear and see it. I still see parasitic mercenaries yelling "sign my petition" wihout knowing what it really is (just yesterday actually). This person told me "just sign it - who authored it is of no concern to you".

I agree with Kari on the inadvisability of constitutional amendment by county.

I would also like to see the method of amending the US Constitution changed. We will never be rid of the electoral college because it favors the small states who will never approve it's dissolution. Of course, since that change would require support from the small states, there's no hope.

As to the initiative process in Oregon, it is dominated by money just as our candidate elections are. However, our elected officials show little concern over corruption of the process that elects them. Since the initiative process limits their power, it is a tempting target, hence the willingness to reform it.

I am eternally greatful for Sizemore. What? Well, if not for his deliberate manipulation of this initiative process, Oregon would not now be reviewing and revising the process. I am a strong believer in citizen initiatives. I am steadfastly against professional initiative proposers who make an very good salary about the citizen process.

It appears that Tim Eyemann is another person subverting the iniative process in WA state in order to make a comfortable living. Getting those types out of the business, setting reasonable restraints and constraints about timing would help us all.

I will belive that when I actually hear and see it. I still see parasitic mercenaries yelling "sign my petition" wihout knowing what it really is (just yesterday actually). This person told me "just sign it - who authored it is of no concern to you".

Would love to know what measure that is (this early, my guess would be by Sizemore or some other initiativemeister). Such a measure does not deserve to be on the ballot AND is why we need further regulation of the initiative industry.

We need three more initiatives:

1) Define a person as a living being for purposes of Constitutional protections thereby bringing the Constitution back to it's original intent.

2) Disallow corporate monies as speech (note: this includes ExxonMobil as well as Greenpeace.)

3) Require truth in political advertising including full disclosure the full cost of redoing a vote if a party is found intentionally or negligently "misspeaking."

We need to protect the ballot measures and ensure that in the process of solving one problems, others are not introduced thereby restricting the ability for citizens to bust the legislative process which in my experience is far corrupt and filled with special interest agenda. Try getting your legislative to introduce a bill and have it be moved through a commitee even if it solves a fundamental problem in the law.....