A quick look at the ballot measure issues
Measure 1
Ballot Measure 1 will amend
the state Constitution's
minimum requirements for
recalling public officials.
Currently, before an election
for the recall of a public official
can be held, petitioners must
gather signatures equal to 25
percent of the number of people
who voted in the official's
district during the most recent
election for state Supreme Court
justice.
The measure would require
signatures equaling 15 percent
of the number of people who
voted in the official’s district
during the most recent gover
nor’s race.
Since voter participation in
Supreme Court races varies
widely, this measure wull
stabilize the number of needed
signatures for a recall, but wdll
not necessarily make it easier or
more difficult to hold a recall
election, supporters say.
Measure 2
Ballot Measure 2 is an attempt
to control government spending
and property taxes that have
gotten out of control, the
measure’s supporters say.
To do that, voters will be ask
ed to approve a constitutional
amendment to limit the amount
of money local taxing districts
may collect to 1.5 percent, or
$15 for every $1,000 of assessed
property value.
The Legislative Revenue Of
fice. the legislature’s private
staff of economists, has
predicted the impact of Measure
2 will include a $1.3 billion
revenue loss statewide for the
1985-86 biennium, a $9.5
million loss for the city of
Eugene, and a $20.7 million
loss for the Eugene 4-J school
district for the 1984-85 tax year.
This is the fourth time voters
have been asked to approve
some form of tax limitation
measure, but a spokesperson for
the Oregon Taxpayers Union,
the supporters of the measure,
said this is a much more
sophisticated measure than the
past initiatives.
‘This isn’t a clone of Proposi
tion 13,” said Rick Bornemann
of the Oregon Taxpayers Union.
The measure, he said, ensures
that local governments can levy
the taxes necessary for their
district.
Included in the measure is an
override clause, which would
allow voters to tax themselves
above the 1.5 percent limit if
they think it necessary. To ob
tain that override, a majority of
registered voters in the district
would have to approve the
request.
But hopes for approval of the
override clause is unrealistic,
according to Tom Doig of the
Eugene Education Association.
A majority of registered voters
participating in any local elec
tion is rare. he said.
The measure also leaves some
questions unanswered, in
cluding the division of property
taxes collected, which are cur
rently divided according to the
amount levied but will be left
for the legislature to decide if
the measure passes.
The legislature will also be
asked to devise a plan for reduc
ing the tax rate in local districts
where the combined tax rates
are above the 1.5 percent limit.
Measure 3
With the passage of Measure
3, a voluntary Citizen’s Utility
Board, made up of ratepayers,
would be formed to serve as an
advocate for consumers at utili
ty rate hearings with the Oregon
public utility commissioner.
With a minimum donation of
$5 and not more than $100,
citizens would become
members of CUB and would be
eligible to vote for potential
board members, Three board
members would be elected from
each congressional district and
would be responsible for hiring
energy experts to represent
ratepayers.
Proponents of Measure 3 state
that as the current system is
designed, public utilities are
given an unfair advantage at
rate hearings with the commis
sioner. They say that the rate
hearings are highly technical
and that white the utilities are
staffed with a large entourage of
professionals to represent their
interests, the ratepayers have no
one with expertise to represent
them.
The utilities disagree and say
that any citizen can address the
utility commissioner at any
time and that all CUB would do
is slow down what is now a
highly efficient rate process.
They point out that while a sole
utility commissioner sets the
utility rates, there is a large staff
to advise the commissioner.
Measures 4/5
Oregon is one of 33 states that
does not have a state-run lot
tery. Passage of Ballot Measures
4 and 5 would change this.
Measure 4 would change
Oregon's Constitution allowing
for a state run lottery. Measure 5
requires 50 percent of the lot
tery’s annual - revenue, go to
prizes. 34 percent to the state
budget (for economic develop
ment and job creation) arid no
more than 16 percent to meet
administrative costs.
Supporters of the lottery
claim it would provide Oregon
with $56.8 million in budget
revenues in the first year alone
An additional $83.5 million in
prizes would be returned' to
ticket buyers and $8 million
would go to ticket vendors.
Despite such rosy revenue
estimates. Gov. Vic Atiyeh,
state Treasurer Bill Rutherford.
Secretary of State Norma Paulus
and Atforney General Dave
Frohnmaver all oppose the
lottery.
“1 am opposed to the lottery
because 1 believe it is a form of
socialized gambling which
preys on the weaknesses of our
citizens," Paulus says. "1 do
not believe it would raise
revenue sufficient to set off its
social costs.”
Lottery opponents also claim
that the revenue forecasts by the
lottery's supporters are inflated.
A study, done by the state
legislature's non-partisan
Legislative Revenue Office
claims the state’s intake for the
first year of the lottery would be
closer to $45 million, not the
$57 million that supporters
claim. The study estimates this
figure would decrease by $15
million in the second year.
Support for the lottery re
mains high, however, says the
lottery’s chief petitioner, state
Sen. Dell lsham, D-Lincoln
“I believe there are a lot of
elected officials who don t
know where the public is at on
this issue,” Isham says.
I sham estimates that almost
one third of Oregon's popula
tion has played the Washington
state lottery during its 28 month
existence. He tears that unless
Oregon passes its own lottery
measure, the passage of a
similar proposal on Tuesday s
ballot in California would lead
to a further drain of dollars out
of the state.
Measures 6/7
Ballot Measures (» arid 7
would restore the death penalty
in Oregon. Measure 8 w'duld ex
empt capital punishment for ag
gravated murder from Oregon
const i t u t iohal p roh ibi t ions
against' Cruel, unusual,
disproportionate ahd vindictive
punishments. . ..
Measure : 7 is a statutory
amendment requiring the death
penalty for. aggravated murder
under certain circumstances, re
quiring a minimum 30-year
prison term otherwise.
The death penalty, ad
ministered by lethal injection,
would be meted out if a
unanimous jury finds that the
defendant intended to kill the
victim a nd resp o n d e d
unreasonably to any provoca
tion by -the victim. The jury'
would also be required to find
that the defendant is a continu
ing threat to society.
Oregon voters passed a death
penalty initiative by a wide
margin in 1978. But that
measure was overturned by the
Oregon .Supreme Court in 1981.
because it left determination of
the sentence to a judge instead
of a jury.
Supporters of the measure say
the death penalty is a deterrent
to murder, citing anecdotal
evidence of the deterrent effect.
The measure will save the lives
of many innocent people, they
argue. .
But many social scientists
claim that statistical analysis of
homicide figures show no deter
rent effect from the death
penalty.
Opponents of the death
penalty say it has often been
—UOBookstore
IX.r» Clt
unevenly administered, with
minority members making up a
disproportionate share of the
death row population.
But since minority members
are more often victims of violent
crimes, supporters of the death
penalty say minorities will
benefit from its deterrent effect.
According to the FBI's
Uniform Crime Report, the
chances of a white male being
murdered are one in 104, while
the chances for a non-white are
one in 28.
But critics of the death penal
ty note that the punishment is
irrevocable and say there is no
guarantee that, innocent people
will never be wrongly sentenc
ed to die.
Measure 8
Measure 8, "the victim's
.rights bill.".calls for sweeping
.changes7 iii Oregon statutes
governing the state’s judicial
system. Nine statutes would be
amended, and eight would be
repealed if the measure is ap
proved. The measure would
also require that-a prison bond
measure be referred to the
voters by the 1985 legislature.
j ■ One of the most controversial
segments of Measi/re 8 has been
the..secttons.involving rights of
police. Current state- statutes
limiting whom police can stop
for questioning and under what
conditions . they can frisk
citizens would be repealed.
Federal constitutional restric
tions would still apply to
police.
Passage of the measure would
also make it easier to obtain a
Continued on Page 7B
U of O Foundation
Annual Fund
TELEFUND
STATISTICS
125.000
100.000
87.500
75.000
62.500
50.000
37.500
25.000
12.500
On 10/30 Lambda Chi
Alpha received 125
pledges for a total of
$2666.
First, second and third
places for most pledges
received are held by:
1st Kappa Alpha Theta-492
2nd Lambda Chi Alpha-404
3rd Tri Delta-336
That brings the total for
the telefund to $51,136
Tonight Sigma Nu will at
tempt to set a new record
for total pledges received.