2010 Ballot Measure Analysis

Hello fellow bloggers. This is a repeat of an email I sent out. I'm posting it here for your general comments. Thank you for your support.

******************************************************************

I have received many inquiries asking for an analysis of the 2010 General Election Ballot Measures. Although every voter must make his or her own determination on these important issues, for what it is worth, here are my observations on each measure.

Measure 70.
Positive. Amends Oregon Constitution to make all Oregon veterans who served on active duty eligible for a veteran’s home loan. The loans will be funded through the issuance of tax-exempt Oregon Veterans Bonds. Currently, the Oregon Constitution allows only “war” veterans to qualify for the Oregon veteran home loans, within 30 years of their honorable discharge. Measure 70 would allow all “active duty” veterans who are Oregon residents to qualify for such loans, regardless of how many years have elapsed since being honorably discharged. In addition, M-70 makes eligible for such loans spouses of those qualifying as “MIA” (missing in action), or POW’s (prisoners of war), and surviving spouses of veterans who died in action. Such eligibility ends when such spouses remarry.

Currently, there are 87,000 Oregonians who qualify for veteran home loans, M-70 would increase the eligibility number to approximately 264,000.

The legislature unanimously passed in the House and the Senate this Referral to the people.

Measure 71.
Negative. Amends Oregon Constitution by requiring the State Legislature to meet every year instead of meeting every other year. If M-71 passes, the odd year session will be limited to 160 days and the even year session will be limited to 35 days. There will be no limits to the measures that could be run through the accelerated 35 day “election year” session.

When this matter was debated in the House, I argued against an election year session if it was not limited to budget issues. Non-budget issues deserve multiple public hearings and should not be rushed through a short session without adequate consideration.

To avoid having a short election-year session become a partisan play ground, I believe all non-budget bill should require a 2/3 vote. As written, regardless of which party is in charge, M-71’s wording will allow the majority party to use this abbreviated session as a pre-election campaign platform.

In short, M-71, in my opinion, will (1.) make the Legislature even more partisan, (2.) cost the citizens more money, and (3.) move Oregon’s citizen-legislature toward becoming a full-time job for elected officials, similar to California’s full-time legislative assembly.

To demonstrate the partisan nature of M-71, note that the measure is supported by Oregon’s main public employees unions (SEIU & AFSCME) and teachers unions (OEA & Am. Fed. of Tchrs.), and was passed unanimously by the House Democrats over the negative votes of 23 House Republicans-- Bentz, Bruun, Cameron, Esquivel, Freeman, Garrard, Gilliam, Gilman, Hanna, Huffman, Jenson, Kennemer, Krieger, Maurer, Olson, Richardson, Smith G., Sprenger, Thatcher, Thompson, Weidner, Whisnant, and Wingard.

Measure 72.
Negative. Amends Oregon Constitution, Article XI, section 7, by adding another exception to the State’s borrowing limit of $50,000.

This additional exception to the borrowing limit allows the State to borrow, at any one time, a maximum of not more than one percent of the real market value of the taxable property in Oregon. The total statewide real market value for the 2009-10 fiscal biennia is $4.987 billion; therefore, the maximum current borrowing authority granted under this Measure would increase to approximately $5 billion.

The measure requires the state to pledge its full faith and credit and taxing power, except the property taxing power, to repayment of debt incurred under the provisions of the measure. The measure will allow the state to issue general obligation bonds. The bonds may be used to finance or refinance costs of acquiring, constructing, remodeling, repairing, equipping or furnishing real or personal property that is or will be owned or operated by the State of Oregon. Recently, such borrowing has been allowed under Certificates of Participation (COP’s), which do not have the State’s “full faith and credit” guarantee and therefore result in a higher cost of borrowing. This measure will allow COP’s to be replaced by general obligation bonds. COP’s in recent years have been used extensively to circumvent Oregon’s Constitutional limitation on incurring long-term debt without the approval of the people, Using COP’s in this manner has been a questionable practice.

The Oregon Constitution prohibits the state from pledging the full faith and credit of the state to secure indebtedness incurred by the state in excess of $50,000. Over the years the voters have inserted into the Constitution 17 exceptions that permit the state to pledge its full faith and credit for substantial indebtedness. M-72 is yet another Constitutional Amendment to permit the Legislative Assembly to incur even more debt backed by the full faith and credit of the state. Although M-72 indicates the new indebtedness cannot exceed one percent of all of the real market value of the property in the state, such a provision would potentially allow another $5 Billion dollar of long-term debt to be incurred.

All debt comes with a cost. In the current 2009-11 budget, $550 million will be spent on debt service alone ($295 million from the General Fund and $255 million from Lottery Funds). In addition, the Legislature authorized more debt to be incurred in the current biennium and it will add $247 million more in debt service costs in the 2011-13 State Budget. That $247 million represents a 45% increase is debt service (total, $797 million) in just two years. Think about what nearly $800 million in debt payments will mean to education, public safety and the programs for Oregon’s most needy seniors and disabled. Another $247 million will be cut from those budgets to pay for additional debt payments. To add insult to injury, such debt service costs often continue for decades.

To demonstrate the partisan nature of M-72, the referral of this measure passed unanimously by the House Democrats over the negative votes of 21 House Republicans--Bentz, Bruun, Cameron, Esquivel, Freeman, Garrard, Gilliam, Hanna, Huffman, Kennemer, Krieger, Maurer, Olson, Richardson, Smith G., Sprenger, Thatcher, Thompson, Weidner, Whisnant, and Wingard.

Measure 73.
Negative. This measure was placed on the ballot by paid signature gathers; it was not referred to the voters by the Legislature. M-73 establishes or increases mandatory minimum sentences. The average cost of incarceration to taxpayers is $84 per day. Thus, while “get tough on crime” makes for a great campaign slogan, more jail time comes with a cost in excess of $30,000 per year per inmate.

If there was the political will to do so, there are more creative and inexpensive ways to effectively deal with sex offenders and drunk drivers than just locking them up with longer sentences. Each voter should ask whether or not paying $84 per day for every day of a longer mandatory sentence will make the public safer. Is there not better and more economical ways to lessen recidivism? As a society, over the past century we have lost the will to impose punishments that are swift and sure, so we end up locking criminals away in “criminal universities” for longer and more expensive prison terms. I believe all social problems are being successfully solved somewhere, and we should examine the practices of those countries with the lowest incidents of sex abuse crimes and drunk driving. Why not consider what kinds of swift and sure punishments really deter repeat offenders? Unfortunately, without the will to reform current sentence practices, voters are left with a dilemma. Either (1.) trust experienced courtroom judges to use good discretion when determining which offenders deserve stiff prison terms and which deserve alternative forms of punishment and rehabilitation, on a case-by-case basis, or (2.) pass measures like M-73 that remove sentencing discretion from Oregon’s circuit court judges by voting for additional mandatory, “get tough on crime” measures like M-73. Such mandatory sentencing measures result in transferring to the Department of Corrections and county jails millions of dollars from education and other budgets.

In short, more mandatory sentencing is a broad-brush approach to sentencing that places voter discretion ahead of the trial judge’s discretion. Each voter must decide if taking discretion away from the circuit court judge is a good thing, and the decision should be made with a clear understanding that it comes with a hard-dollar cost that must be paid by the taxpayers.

Having said the above, here is a summary of what M-73 does:

M-73 has two parts. The first increases the mandatory minimum sentence for certain, repeat major felony sex crimes to 300 months, from the current minimums of 70-100 months. The second part deals with drunk driving repeat offenders and makes it a Class C felony to be convicted of a third DUII within a ten-year period. This will result in a mandatory minimum sentence of 90 days. Currently, it takes four DUII convictions within ten years to be considered a Class C felony.

Measure 74.
Negative. On October 1, 2009 there were approximately 14,000 medical marijuana cardholders. Today, just one year later, there are 37,000 cardholders with an additional 5,000 applications pending. In short, Oregon’s medical marijuana laws, which were intended to provide inexpensive pain relief to patients suffering with chronic pain, are now providing a “do not go to jail” card for nearly anyone who wants to grow or smoke “weed.”

All that is necessary to obtain an Oregon Medical Marijuana Program (OMMP) card is to visit a doctor who distributes OMMP cards and pay the doctor’s fee. M-74 promotes further availability of marijuana to users while increasing the difficulty for police officers to enforce Oregon’s marijuana laws.

If you support the legalization of marijuana in Oregon, vote for M-74; it takes Oregon one step closer to that end.

If you oppose legalizing marijuana without a direct vote by the people on that issue, consider the following:

M-74, in my opinion, is a “bait & switch” ballot measure. It focuses on one issue, establishing non-profit dispensaries of marijuana for those who do not grow their own or have someone growing it for them, while doing another, establishing State sponsorship of marijuana research and distribution. Consider the following provisions of M-74:

A. Section 3 creates new provisions to expand distribution of marijuana, but does not limit in any way the current growing rights of cardholders or their designated personal growers.

SECTION 3. (1) The Department of Human Services shall establish a regulated medical marijuana supply system. [BUT, see the fine print in subsection 3.]

(3) …The system shall not infringe on a [cardholder’s] ability to produce the [cardholder’s] own medical marijuana or to designate a person [to grow it for the] cardholder.

B. Section 4 says that after passing M-74, Oregon’s Department of Human Services must implement a program to promote distributing marijuana to low-income and needy users.

SECTION 4. (1) The Department of Human Services…shall develop and adopt rules to implement a program to assist low-income and needy registry identification cardholders in obtaining medical marijuana.

C. Section 5 is quite devious. It intentionally creates a legal ambiguity that will require agency or judicial interpretation. Note, the underlined words in Section 5 (1), indicates DHS “may conduct” research, provide grants and determine quality control, purity and labeling of marijuana. Then contrast the discretionary use of “may” with the underlined, compulsory wording in Section 5 (2). By stating in subparagraph (2) that DHS is “required” to conduct the research referred to in subparagraph (1), a conflict in terms is created. This ambiguity of terms will enable proponents of legalizing marijuana to argue in court that Oregon voters intended that DHS must pursue such research, financial grants and marijuana “quality control.”

SECTION 5. (1) The Department of Human Services may conduct scientific research into the efficacy and safety of medical marijuana used by registry identification cardholders of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program.

(a) The purpose of the research is to assist physicians and patients in evaluating the risks and benefits of using medical marijuana and to provide a scientific basis for future policies.

(b) The department may provide grants to persons in this state to conduct such research.

(c) Research may include developing quality control, purity, and labeling standards for medical marijuana dispensed through the system.

(2) The department shall report the results of the research required under subsection (1) of this section to the Advisory Committee on Medical Marijuana established under ORS 475.303.

Voters should be wary of any attempt to trick them into voting for one thing, while deceptive wording of the measure or law will accomplish something quite to the contrary.

Measure 75.
Negative. This measure would allow Oregon to establish its first non-tribal gaming casino and set a precedent for other regions to follow in the future.

M-75 asks Oregon voters to approve a site for a non-tribal casino east of Portland. Supporters point out that a portion of the profits will be paid toward Oregon K-12 education and other government programs and services. Opponents point out that once non-tribal gambling is allowed at one location, Oregon will be on the path toward statewide legalized gambling. On issues relating to expanding Oregon’s gambling opportunities, it is worth remembering that it is not the wealthy who spend billions of dollars on Oregon lottery tickets and at gaming establishments across the state. Most of the billions of Oregon gambling dollars are spent by poor souls who are mathematically challenged.

Measure 76.
Negative. In 1998 Measure 66 was passed that dedicated 15% of Oregon lottery profits to protecting natural area and parks. M-66 will sunset in 2014 and the purpose of M-76 is to permanently dedicate such funding in the Oregon Constitution. In 2011 $87 million will be dedicated in M-66 funds. In 2001 the amount was half what it is today.

The purpose of the sunset in the 1998 measure was to give voters a chance to reconsider whether or not it was a good idea to dedicate 15% of lottery profits for construction and maintenance of parks, and for purposes such as to “Maintain the diversity of Oregon’s plants, animals and ecosystems.”

While there is great benefit in having new parks and healthy plant and animal ecosystems, during hard economic times such issues directly compete with funding needed to provide a full school year for our children, enabling needy seniors to stay in their homes and providing a place to live for severely disabled citizens.

In our current times of severe financial recession, there may be value in giving the legislature the option of prioritizing limited funds and allocating them to Oregon’s greatest needs. Dedicating 15% of lottery profits to parks and wildlife means none of the $87 million of 2011’s dedicated funds can be used anywhere other than for parks, wildlife and other stated purposes. M-76, if passed, will permanently place in the Oregon Constitution a declaration that parks, plants, fish and animals will always have a higher claim on hundreds of millions of dollars than people, public safety and education. You decide if such a mandated, inflexible limitation on precious state revenues should be permanently placed in the Oregon Constitution.

Conclusion. Regardless of how you vote on each of the seven Oregon measures discussed above, please be sure and vote. Make your voices heard. Encourage your family, friends and associates to vote. In my opinion, this election will determine Oregon’s future for decades to come. Please VOTE.



Dennis Richardson
State Representative