▼ EDITORIAL
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF:
Steven Asbury
MANAGING EDITOR:
Thom Schoenbom
NIGHT EDITOR:
Sarah Kickler
EDITORIAL EDITORS:
Ashley Bach & Brian Diamond
editorials, letters, commentary and perspective
9 NEWSROOM:
S (541)346-5511
E DISPLAY AOVERTtSING:
(541)346-3712
s BUSINESS OFFICE:
g (541) 346-5512
i CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING:
M (541)346-4343
Protecting
Oiegon from
the voters
■ OUR OPINION: The power
of voting must be balanced
against the future of the state
It’s not surprising that
less than 50 percent of
the population votes in
any given election. Vot
ing is not easy. And with 23
measures to vote on in the
last Oregon ballot, 1996
was no exception.
YS
Unfortunately, of the
people who do vote, many
don’t put the time and effort
into the process that is needed to
make intelligent decisions. Read
ing through complicated and of
ten misleading measures is hard
work, even for the most educated citi
zens. It’s much easier to simply vote for
what sounds good instead of researching
all the issues involved.
This raises serious questions as to
how well prepared voters really are on
the issues they do vote on. Many people
don’t have a clue about what the initia
tives they voted for will really do. Oth
ers for initiatives that sound like they’ll
do one thing but end up doing the oppo
site.
This leads to frustrated voters who don’t
understand why the measures they passed
don’t do anything and agitated legislators
who are forced to cope with poorly
thought-out initiatives (e.g. Measure 47).
In response to these frustrations, legisla
tors have been creating ways to change the
process that puts initiatives on the ballot.
The idea is to come up with a process in
which the state will have more flexibility
in changing initiatives passed by the vot
ers.
Requiring more signatures for an initia
tive to get on the ballot and less signatures
to amend it is one possible solution. This
would supposedly weed out the more
confusing initiatives and make it easier for
“bad” initiatives to be changed. Also, leg
islators would be given more freedom to
amend initiatives that could cause poten
tial problems if they are passed.
On one hand, our elected representa
tives have a greater understanding of what
CHRIS HUTCHINSON/Emerald
the initiatives we vote on will really do.
We elect representatives because the aver
age person doesn't have the time to fully
analyze every issue.
In addition, when voters pass initiatives
that change the state constitution, the fu
ture of the state may be put in jeopardy,
not just in the immediate future, but for
years to come. The state shouldn’t suffer
for decades because voters passed an ill
conceived amendment.
On the other hand, it is important that
citizens retain their fundamental power to
have an effect on the government. Giving
legislators the freedom to change any mea
sure passed by voters violates the very
principles our democracy was founded
on.
Changing the requirements for the
amount of signatures required to put a
measure on the ballot has problems of its
own. Today, many firms specialize in
gathering signatures for people who want
a measure passed.
Increasing the number of signatures
needed will not necessarily lead to an in
crease in the quality of the initiatives vot
ers have to choose from. Instead it will
provide an unfair advantage to people
with more money and make the initiative
process less accessible to the rest of the
population.
While it is understandable, especially
after the last election, that legislators want
a way to prevent voters from voting in
questionable initiatives, voters must be
able to have a say in the state’s future. It is
inevitable that voters will at times make
bad decisions, but that is just part of living
in a democracy.
Efforts to prevent initiatives from alter
ing the constitution in ways that will harm
the state are certainly worthwhile. Efforts
that prevent voters from having a say in
the future of the state, no matter how
tempting, must be avoided. A balance
must be struck between protecting the fu
ture of the state and the power of the vot
ers.
This editorial represents the opinion of
the Emerald editorial board.
1
/)
AH thumbs
V/
The College Board
The organization be
hind the dreaded
SATs fulfilled every
coliege-bound stu
dent's dream when
compiling last fall's
test. A 17-year-old
New Hampshire stu
dent discovered a
flaw in a question on
the math portion of
the exam. Now, over
45,000 high school
students will have
their scores boosted
by as much as 30
points.
O.J. exposure
Various legal op
tions, including a
series of appeals,
still await the O.J.
Simpson legal team
—and the public.
We don't mind the
appeals; they’re all
part of the process.
But more media
overexposure will be
hard to take.
“Lobby Day”
The influx of Univer
sity alumni and offi
cials to Salem on
Tuesday to lobby
for higher education
was encouraging.
But the energy and
time spent cannot
be isolated to just
one day to see long
term results.
Skinner Butte delay
On Tuesday, a fed
eral magistrate gave
lawyers a week to
write legal argu
ments against one
posed in favor of the
cross by the Ameri
can Legion. This de
cision delayed any
final ruling on the
cross but mil pro
vide a more bal
anced and re
searched
conclusion.
■ In the Feb. 10 story, “Hyundai plant pro
testers stage candlelight vigil," Moshe immer
man's quote should have read: “So we've got
to get involved in our process: We've got to
say this is not financially responsible; No
more giveaways to Hyundai or HMT; No more
electronics companies here. We must have an
environmental impact study if anybody else
wants to come here at all. But most of all, we
have to take charge of our own future."
■ In the Feb. 12 edition, three articles con
tained errors. In the story, “Judge delays
cross decision,” Thomas Coffin was incorrect
ly identified as a U.S. District Judge. His title is
actually U.S. Magistrate.
■ In the article, “BSU recognizes black histo
ry,” Black Student Union Director Lakeyshua
Washington's name was misspelled.
In the news briefs section, some event times
were misstated. The University Outdoor Pro
gram’s events with writer Dick Person will be
on Feb. 19,20 and 22, not this week as print
ed.
The Emerald regrets the errors.
OMU*0*.
LETTERS
PC limits debate
The opinion piece on the Ebonics debate
makes a valid point (Feb. 7, ODE). Too of
ten when dealing with societal issues, we
focus on the minor items rather than look
at the bigger picture. In the case of racially
divisive issues, however, the ODE misses
the boat as to causes.
Many people will not discuss racial is
sues from any larger perspective due to the
fact that any attempt at rational, issues-cen
tered debate which contradicts today’s PC
crowd (which the ODE definitely qualifies
as) will get one branded as a racist. (Wit
ness the fate of Student Senator Sari Wisch
for merely questioning the MCC.) Until
people can discuss and debate without be
ing labeled and branded, don’t expect any
intelligent discourse.
Stefan Baratto
Instructor
Mathematics
No cool T-shirt
Recently the Emerald posed the follow
ing trivia question: What was originally at
the site of 150 Columbia? I promptly called
the number provided, only to be informed
that the question had already been an
swered. Then reference was made to a cer
tain men’s athletic facility.
"But that is incorrect,” I protested. “Ac
cording to the actual wording of the ques
tion, the answer should have been: grass
and trees, perhaps the odd bit of bear flop.”
After a pleasant chuckle at my perceived
wit, the periodical’s representative con
ceded that I was indeed accurate in my
analysis of the problem as posed and that,
“in the future," more care should be taken
regarding specifics.
In the future... but in the meantime, I
have no “cool T-shirt” nor a “$5 classified
gift certificate” to call my own.
“This is a major university!” was, upon
reflection, my incensed thought. “Should
not more attention be paid to accuracy
within its confines and by those who pro
fess to represent it?”
But then, I realized that the conundrum
in question had appeared in a five-days
per-week-and-not-during-breaks publica
tion self-named the Oregon Daily Emerald.
Bill Smee
Kiosk attendant
OPS