editorial
20-day voter cutoff
will eliminate voters
Oregon is the only state that allows voters to register on
the day of an election. But the furor over voter-registration
fraud in November’s Wasco County elections has caused a
majority of our state legislators to push for a revision of
registration laws. (Charges of fraudulently registered pro
Rajneesh and anti-Rajneesh Wasco county voters circulated
during November).
The House State and Federal Affairs Committee is con
sidering three bills that would alter the state’s registration
laws. Two of the bills, sponsored by House Republicans,
would establish a 20-day cutoff prior to an election. The first
bill — House Joint Resolution 5 — is a constitutional amend
ment that would create the 20-day cutoff. The second —
House Bill 2066 — would do the same thing by amending
the Oregon statutes.
The Democratic alternative, which is sponsored by
Secretary of State Barbara Roberts, would establish a four
day cutoff with a requirement that voters provide proof of
residency if they register between the 12th and fourth day
before an election.
Roberts believes it is inevitable that the Legislature will
establish a new cutoff period because of the potential for
fraud that exists within the present system. We believe the
Democratic-sponsored bill — House Bill 2952 — is the best
of the three plans.
In 1982 about 100,000 Oregonians registered to vote in
the 20 days prior to the state’s gubernatorial election; in
1984 about 75,000 people registered to vote during this same
period. The majority of these registrants were people who
had moved and forgotten to re-register, new state citizens
unaware of Oregon’s election laws, and working people who
did not have the time to register at the local board of elec
tions. Roberts fears that if the 20-day cutoff were to become
state law most of these people would be denied the oppor
tunity to vote.
State Rep. Randy Miller, R-Lake Oswego, argues that
the 20 day cut-off would give local elections officials the op
portunity to verify the validity of registration forms. Other
supporters of this plan argue it is inconvenient for elections
officials to process registration forms during the three-week
period prior to an election. But Roberts — Oregon’s highest
elections official — argues her plan will ensure that voters
are legally registered.
Roberts is convinced that a 20-day cutoff would be ruled
unconstitutional. She cites a 1972 Tennessee case in which a
court ruled that a state cannot disenfranchise voters simply
for “administrative convenience.” She says her four-day
cutoff will give elections officials adequate time to process
registration forms.
State officials have the responsibility to ensure the sanc
tity of the elections process. They must identify fraudulently
registered voters and guarantee the legitimacy of the elec
tions process.
But this does not mean they have the authority to pre
vent eligible voters from casting a ballot simply because they
registered during an inconvenient period. Our political pro
cess will only survive as long as all eligible voters have the
opportunity to vote. To deny anyone this opportunity is a
violation of a trust that all government officials must fulfill.
It is ironic that the sponsors of the 20-day cutoff argue
for the vote-by-mail ballot because they believe it would in
crease voter participation. But at the same time they support
a registration revision that would disenfranchise thousands
of Oregonians.
Oregon doily
emerald
The Oregon Daily Emerald is published Monday
through Friday except during exam week and vacations
by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co., at the
University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 97403
The Emerald operates independently of the Universi
ty with offices on the third floor of the Erb Memorial
Union and is a member of the Associated Press.
General Staff
Advertising Director Susan Thelen
Production Manager Russell Steele
Classified Advertising Vince Adams
Controller Jean Ownbey
Advertising Sales: Laura Buckley, Tim Clevenger, Jen
nifer Fox, Michael Gray - Intern, Robin Joannides - Intern,
Carlos Laniadrid - Intern, Marcia Leonard, Rick Martz,
Nancy Nielsen, Brett Pickman, Tim Swillinger, Laura
Willoughby - Intern, David Wood.
Production: Kelly Cornyn, Stormi Dykes, Manuel Flores,
Kathy Gallagher, Dean Guernsey, Jackson Haring, Susan
Hawkins, Kirk Hirota, Grant Keltner, Rob Kraft, Ross Mar
tin, Karin McKercher, Lauri Neely, Kelly Neff, Kara Oberst,
Curt Penrod, Michele Ross, Alyson Simmons, Peg
Solonika, Karen Stallwood, Tim Swillinger, Colleen Tre
maine, Hank Trotter, Mary VanCura.
Paop 7.A
letters
EgA Tret,
TK%
TjUlNtC
ft
ixie 9ws Sure-fire hango/epoke
Some comment
Two letters to the Emerald on
April 29 deserve comment.
First: Steve Richkind must
have either been trying to be
cute or apparently he didn’t
understand the satirical pur
pose of Students for Bestiality.
Dan Goulet never advocated
“fomification with sheep.” The
group’s function was to expose
the fact that the only thing a
particular deviation requires in
the attempt to gain acceptance
is political organization. And
how anybody could say a
display stating, “Bestialy—
right sex, wrong species.
Homosexuality— right species,
wrong sex,’’promotes in
terspecies sexL—any more than
it promotes same sex relations—
is beyond me. The purpose was
to make people think about
value clarification issues.
Second: Jack Stranton’s at
tempt to imply Christians view
women merely as “sperm
receptacles” is blatantly false.
Christians see men and women
as special creations and life as
being part of our growth and
maturation process. Reproduc
tion is a natural and necessary
part of life just as eating, sleep
ing and breathing, but no
single function is singled out as
the sole function of existance.
All are required for human life
to exist — and all are natural.
Nobody could argue that
heterosexual sex was anything
but natural but there’s no way
anyone can justify the rectum
being used as a sperm recep
Editor
Managing Editor
News Editor
Editorial Page Editor
Photo Editor
Sports Editor
Sidelines Editor
Friday Edition Editor
Entertainment Editor
Night Editor
Associate Editors
Administration
Higher Education
Politics
ASUO
Student Activities
Community
Features
Michele Matassa
Mike Sims
Michael Kulaga
Costas Christ, Dave Berns
Brian Erb
Brent De La Paz
Sheila Landry
Kim Carlson
Michael Duncan
Michael Kulaga
Jolayne Houtz
Scott McFetridge
Paul Ertelt
Mary Lichtenwalner
Diana Elliott
Cynthia Whitfield
Lori Steinhauer
Reporters: Sean Axmaker, Kirsten Bolin, Michelle Brence,
Robert Collias, Julie Freeman, Thomas Henderson, Robin
Joannides, Allan Lazo, Adam Worcester.
Photographers: Dean Guernsey, Kirk Hirota, Jim Marks,
Ross Martin, Karen Stallwood, Hank Trotter
News and Editorial 686-5511
Display Advertising and Business 686-3712
Classified Advertising 686-4343
Production 686-4381
Circulation 686-5511
tacle. And apparently 98 per
cent of American women fail to
see anything desirable or
natural about allowing another
woman to salivate on or other
wise play around with their
vulva either.
Michael Cross
Senior
History/Political Science
An honest man
The letter to the editor written
by Dan Goulet (ODE, May 1),
seems to advocate political
extremes.
Either you blindly love the
United States or you absolutely
hate it.
What about us folks who feel
blandly at ease with this coun
try? What sort of political rela
tionship should we have with
our country anyway?
The time has come for me to
reveal the answer to this burn
ing question: treat your country
as your friend.
You do not stand idly by
while your friend wreaks havoc
amongst his/her friends. Nor do
you berate your friend, either to
his/her face or behind his/her
back.
You feel a fondness, perhaps
even love toward your friends,
and yet you also care enough
about them to try to help them
improve themselves. Because
my country is composed of my
friends, it is natural for me to
think of my country as my
friend.
Well, this is good and fine
(and redundant), but what
about those people in my coun
try who I don’t view as friends,
whom 1 may even consider as
enemies?
Do I avoid them like 1 would a
bill collector? Or perhaps I
might work to undermine them.
I must admit, I don’t know
the answer to this second burn
ing question. (Another first in
the Emerald letters section, so
meone actually has admitted
this).
You’ll simply have to find out
for yourself.
Dean Livelybrooks
Physics/Geology
It’s a mistake
The Incidental fee committee
decision to reduce the Outdoor
Program’s budget is partly bas
ed on the fallacy theat com
munity participation is a ‘‘free
ride.”
Program participation is a
“cooperative” effort. The cost
for activity involvement is split
equally among all participants.
The program resources
available for use (i.e.
wilderness/outdoor instruc
tional literature, maps) are non
consumable products that re
main at the Outdoor Program.
Community participation
takes nothing away from
students; on the contrary, it
reduces individual activity
costs, adds a greater diversity of
outdoor expertise, which lead
to safer trips, and adds to the
“whole" fun and enthusiasm of
the programs.
To penalize the O.P. for being
open to a more economical,
diverse, and safe program is a
mistake which hurts students
and non-students alike.
Richard Halpern
Springfield
Assembly line
New students
Here they come
More on the conveyer belt
Soon they’ll study the same
things I did
If all goes right,
They’ll look like me and talk
like me
in four short years
They look so excited
The reflection on their smiling
white teeth is death
Before four years is over
most will die —
They will learn to think —
Like I did
For a meaningless search for
meaning
And a piece of paper
that proves they know
all those things which carry no
meaning
Excuse me while I wallow
in disgust, self pity, enjoying it
all the while
and excuse me now
while I vomit through this smile
Oavid Menache
Graduating on the bandwagon
\A!~A_A_