T EDITORIAL
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF:
Steven Asbury
MANAGING EDITOR:
Thom Schoenbom
NIGHT EDITOR:
Sarah Kickler
EDITORIAL EDITORS:
Mhiey Bach & Brian Diamond editorials, letters, commentary and perspective
:My
iil
H?
:|!!|:|||:|| HI
||||
y
r
..
m NEWSROOM:
? (541)346-5511
■ DISPLAY ADVERTISING:
■ (541)346-3712
5 BUSINESS OFFICE:
5 (541)346-5512
< CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING:
U (541)346-4343
IMIflPiSPiWSBtM
mmssmsmm
■mmmmsifistizrzi*
EDITORIAL
Complications plague
Oregon’s latest election
■ OUR OPINION: Low voter turnout,
questionable legislative decisions and
confusing ballot measures helped
make this weeks election a disaster
In theory, the election process
should be fairly simple. Present the
voters with a series of options, let
them vote, and whatever gets the
most votes wins. The theory is simple
— the actual process is somewhat more
complicated. And all too often, the en
tire process leaves everyone with a bit
ter taste in their mouths.
This latest election proved to be no
exception. Despite hopes that mail-in
ballots would increase voter turnout,
less than 50 percent of the registered
voters in Oregon even bothered to mail
their ballots in. Not only did this partly
discredit the notion that mail-in ballots
would increase voter turnout, it
doomed two would-be levies that might
have passed if more people had
showed up.
The two local levies, 20-83 and 20-84,
created to make up for the loss of rev
enue due to Measure 47 (soon to become
Measure 50) were approved by a majori
ty of the voters. However, because of
Measure 47, any measure that 50 per
cent of the registered voters don’t vote
on automatically fails.
So even though the voters who actual
ly voted supported both levies, the
levies will not go into effect because of
low voter turnout. Under this mixed-up
system, these no-shows did not really
abstain by not voting. They actually
ended up voting “no” on all of the mea
sures.
The mail-in election led to more prob
lems than just low voter turnout. With
over a quarter of the votes already in, the
Legislature decided to make a few last
minute adjustments in Measure 50. And
it wasn’t just a matter of a change in lan
guage; the actual numbers were altered.
So over a quarter of the voters voted
for a version of Measure 50 that wasn’t
the same as the version that ended up
passing. Not only is this a complete vio
lation of voters’ trust, it may be illegal.
There is already talk that now Measure
50 will be challenged in the courts. This
is an ironic twist, given the fact that
Measure 50 was created in the hope of
avoiding a court conflict over Measure
47.
Whether Measure 50 will actually be
overruled because of the Legislature’s
move is anyone’s guess, which brings
up another problem with the elections
— they were just plain complicated.
Trying to find out what is better for
Oregon — Measure 50 or 47 — is hard
enough. Trying to figure out which one
is more likely to be upheld in the courts
and whether or not they contradict other
levies on the ballot is close to impossi
ble. Even for the people making the
laws.
The Eugene City Council was baffled
in trying to figure out what the measures
being proposed would actually do. If the
city council can’t figure out what these
measures will do, how is the average cit
izen supposed too?
It’s no wonder less than half the regis
tered voters turned out to vote. When
the Legislature changes a measure in the
middle of an election and no one knows
if any of the measures are even constitu
tional, it’s hard to get motivated to vote.
Maybe we’re expecting too much
from a state election. But we aren’t ask
ing for a flawlessly run election, just one
that makes sense. If that’s too much to
ask, perhaps it’s time to change the way
our voting system works. If not, choos
ing not to vote could become an increas
ingly popular trend.
This editorial represents the opinion of
the Emerald editorial board.
The Drawing Board
-OUR PARTIAL BIRTH
ABORTION BIH WOULD
BAN THE PROCEDURE UNIBS
it ENDANGERS the LIFE
OF THE*
„,l KNOW WtRf
AlMOS! OUT of GAS,
BUT i UKC CHOKE .,
A
LETTERS
Old friends
Until your May 8 editorial, I was
not aware that handling adversity
was a prerequisite to being here.
Thanks to all of you adversity
seekers; this year was life in hell
for a lot of very hard-working and
good people.
We have worked at Footnotes
because we believed in students
having jobs and academic support
services. Instead of being cease
lessly abused by you, we should
have been commended for meet
ing our deadlines while fighting
for our very existence.
Footnotes has always been
about students and learning, about
charging low prices and saving
students money. We didn’t gouge
students and bankroll money so
that we could relocate when the
EMU decided to evict us.
It’s not surprising to see your
editor-in-chief take a page out of
Jenna Wasson’s book. He sub
scribes to Footnotes and enjoys
the fruits of our labor while stop
ping at nothing to destroy whatev
er dedication to our mission we
had left!
With “friends” like the Emerald
editorial staff, who needs ene
mies? Your reporting on Footnotes
and your irrational argument in
opposition to our ballot measure
convinced me that j-school profs
are right when they use the ODE
as an example of shoddy journal
ism. Rather than do your home
work and express an informed
opinion, you waged war on Foot
notes.
Having managed Footnotes for
nine of its 30 years, I am proud to
have been part of providing a ca
reer-relevant and positive work
environment for more than 500
students and lecture notes and
other services for more than
50,000 students.
Accuse us of poor judgment and
view us as whiny if you must, but
I’d rather have my karma to live
with than yours.
Kristin King
Footnotes Coordinator
Want it Back
In response to the recent Emer
ald article on the Riverfront Re
search Park (ODE, May 20), it is
important to consider why the
park is being developed. All
across the nation, universities are
doing research for corporations.
This trend in research is popular
for two basic reasons.
First and foremost, it is much
cheaper for a company to have
students do their research than
hiring professional research insti
tutions. Second, it is money for
the often starving universities that
are increasingly the recipient of
devastating funding cuts. This
corporate money is not a dona
tion; it is an investment that they
expect a return on and clearly
places noble academic pursuits in
danger from influence.
Funding cuts make universities
dependent on private money.
This is a major reason the univer
sity has chosen to develop the
Willamette Scenic Corridor. This
decision was made without a le
gitimate effort to hear what stu
dents want.
Currently, the We Want it Back
Committee has filed an initiative
to restrict the development. Diane
Wiley, the Riverfront Research
Park project manager, responded
to development opposition by
saying in the Emerald: “...these
kinds of things are just, you
know, time-consuming and cum
bersome and certainly divert our
energy.” The corporate juggernaut
is rolling; heaven forbid that a
group of citizens would actually
stand up for their beliefs.
The Willamette Scenic Corri
dor is a unique natural domain
that many students and other Eu
gene residents enjoy. The Univer
sity’s decision to develop the Cor
ridor with a full-scale effort
without significant student input
further exemplifies how corpo
rate interests dominate the
University’s decision-making
process.
Michael Olson
Political Science
Comfort unnecessary
When some downtown mall
merchants and customers felt
“uncomfortable” with alternative
looking youth near the
Willamette Street fountain, the
fountain was razed and the street
opened to traffic. Now, because
the same merchants and cus
tomers continue to feel “uncom
fortable” with alternative-looking
youth on the mall, police sweeps
and the reopening of Broadway
Street are discussed as “solu
tions.” Because these sensitive in
dividuals also feel “uncomfort
able” viewing exposed female
breasts in public, the city council
considers criminalizing breasts.
On the state and national level,
politicians “uncomfortable” at
the thought that some citizens
choose to use drugs have crimi
nalized such behavior at a cost of
ruined lives, wasted tax dollars
and increases in violent crimes.
Here at home, when 13th Avenue
merchants and customers felt
“uncomfortable” with alternative
looking individuals and drug ac
tivity in their neighborhood, the
city responded with dog and
skateboard bans, discriminatory
police sweeps and arrests.
Let’s bear in mind that the
founders of this nation designed
for freedom, not “comfort.” Tol
erance of others’ lifestyles and
ideas is often “uncomfortable.”
But let us try to respect the wis
dom of the design, along with one
another.
John Davidson
Eugene