State and Lane County special elections 1999
Lane County
Continued from Page 1
margins last year, with the Lane
County four-year Community
Safety Levy failing by less than
1 percent and the Jail Intake As
sessment Center failing by a
mere 13 votes.
The narrow failure was the
impetus for the return of the is
sue to the ballot this year, said
Steve Carmichael, director of
Youth Services.
“The council spent three
years studying this, and be
cause we came so close last
year, failing by less than 1 per
cent, we needed to try again,”
he said in an Oct. 15 ODE arti
cle.
But opponents cite what they
believe to be a misrepresenta
tion of where the surcharge pro
ceeds were to go had the meas
ure passed. While
advertisements in support of
20-25 claimed it would priori
tize “the needs of youth and
families,” the overwhelming
majority of directed funds
would have gone toward addi
tional jail beds, a new drug
court, jail intake assessment
and the unfinished and under
funded new juvenile justice
center on Centennial Boule
vard.
“With $19 million for police
and $3 million for prevention,”
said Carol Berg of the No-On
20-25 Committee, “it’s a very
skewed imbalance.”
Berg was in attendance at a
Tuesday-night gathering of
those who have worked against
the measure’s passing over the
last several weeks. The group
was elated after the first up
dates from election headquar
ters came in around 8 p.m. sig
nifying a victory for their cause.
Gary Kutcher, chair of the
committee, said he thought the
vote would be closer because so
much money had been spent to
promote it. But he conceded
that the measure’s failure
proves you don’t have to spend
money to make a difference.
“The priorities of the county
government are really different
than that of the people,” he
said. “We want less police and
jails because they’re the expen
sive way to go. The kindlier,
gentler way to deal with prob
lem youth is to put the money
into prevention.”
A local activist who recently
spoke at the anti-police brutali
ty protest in the EMU Am
phitheater, Janet Gicker, said
20-25 sends a message she’s
comfortable with to law en
forcement.
“They can’t just spend unlim
ited resources,” she said. “I am
• happy, happy, happy the people
in this town said no to this.”
Three measures
catagorized as
‘victim’s rights’
■ Only two proposals on the ballot are
new and original, not redesigned
By Sara Lieberth
Oregon Daily Emerald
A total of nine state measures referred to
voters by the Oregon Legislature on Tues
day’s ballot received a mix of responses from
voters, with four passing and five failing.
These numbers reflect 64,039 ballots count
ed representing a 33 percent voter turnout.
All but two of the proposals to amend the
State Constitution were segmented hand-me
downs from the election of 1996. Voters
passed Measure 40, which contained the sev
en amendments, but was subsequently over
ruled by the Oregon Supreme Court.
Categorized as a group of “victim’s rights”
bills, Measures 69 through 75 were strongly
supported by Crime Victim’s United, a group
led by president Steve Doell.
As of late Tuesday, Doell said it appeared
they were losing only three, Measures 70,71
and 73, but that overall he was pleased the
amendments were rendering support.
“I’m very heartened the voters of this state
have taken the time to see through the smoke
and mirrors of our opponents’ campaign,” he
said. “I challenge them to let the will of the
people stand.”
Rep. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, said that
the three measures that were not passing as of
11 p.m. Tuesday were an indicator that voters
had correctly upheld the constitutionally
protected rights of all Oregon citizens, not
just those narrowly defined as “victims.”
“I’m pretty encouraged,” he said. “Those
are probably the most fundamental protec
tions we have. It shows the voters took some
time to really look at these individually like
they should have with Measure 40.”
The results tallied as of midnight Tuesday
for Measures 68 through 76 were as follows:
Measure 68, which would allow the pro
tection of businesses and certain government
programs from displacing private sector jobs
Scott Barnett Emerald
(Above) The unfinished Juvenile Justice Center on Centenial Boulevard was to receive funding from Measure 20
25. (Below) No-On 20-25 committee members celebrate a clear lead with 21 percent of the vote in.
■M
Or tr?.m> an he
to prison work programs, was passing with
53.3 percent of the vote.
Measure 69, which would grant victims of
crime constitutional rights in prosecutorial
proceedings, was passing with 50.8 percent
of the vote.
Measure 70, which would give the public,
through a prosecutor, the right to demand a
jury trial in criminal cases was failing with
65.9 percent of the vote.
Measure 71, which proposed to limit the
pretrial release of accused persons to protect
the public, was passing with 51.2 percent of
the vote.
Measure 72, which would allow murder
convictions to be handed down by an 11 to 1
jury verdict, instead of unanimous decisions,
was failing with 57.1 percent of the vote.
Measure 73, which proposed to limit im
munity from criminal prosecution of persons
ordered to testify about their involvement in
crimes was failing with 60.3 percent of the
vote.
Measure 74, which would require terms of
prison sentencing to be served fully as they
were issued in open court was failing with
51.9 percent of the vote.
Measure 75, which would prohibit persons
convicted of certain crimes from serving on
juries was passing with 5*3.2 percent of the
vote.
Measure 76, proposing to require varying
motor vehicle classes to proportionately
share the costs for highways was failing with
54.9 percent of the vote.
Failing
Proposes to expand Lane
County public safety services!
and programs through as
sessing an 8 percent income taxsurcharge.
Pro: Would fund the Juvenile Justice Center; ex- |
pand the Forest Work Camp and put thirty more
Eugene police on the streets.
Con: Would disproportionately fund law enforce
ment over prevention programs for at-risk youth [
and their families j
Passing
Proposes amending the Ore
gon Constitution to prohibit prison work crews
from competing for private-sector jobs.
Pro: Gives private industry first dibs on labor con
tracts and prevents competition and loss of jobs to
prison work crews, which typically require less
payment than do private businesses.
Con: No known opposition to this measure.
Passing
Proposes granting crime victims certain constitu
tional rights throughout the court process.
Pro: Would give crime victims rights in the Consti
tution, which has previously focused exclusively or
defendants’ rights.
Con: The rights are currently guaranteed by state
statutes and shouldn’t be locked into the Constitu
tion, which requires an election to revise.
Failing
Proposes giving public prose
cutors the constitutional right to demand a jury trial
if defendants waive their right to trial by jury.
Pro: Makes it harder for defense attorneys to go
“shopping” for judges they believe would be more
lenient or sympathetic.
Con: Gives public prosecutors too much power.
Passing
Proposes amending the Ore
gon Constitution by allowing
judges to refuse a defendant
bail if there is probable cause to believe the defen
dant is guilty and there is clear and convincing evi
dence that the defendant would pose a threat to so
ciety if released.
Pro: Would protect victims and society from crimi
nals before and during trial.
Con: Would overcrowd jails and force the release oi
convicted criminals and would impede revision of
the law by locking it into the Constitution. Violates
the right to be presumed innocent until proven
guilty.
Failing
Proposes changing the Oregon Constitution to al
low persons to be convicted of murder by an 11 -1
jury verdict.
Pro: Would reduce the possibility of a “rogue” juror
impeding justice by ignoring a judge’s orders or al
lowing prejudices affect judgment.
Con: Could increase the possibility of innocent citi
zens serving time for crimes they didn’t commit.
Failing
Proposes amending to the Oregon Constitution to
limit immunity from criminal prosecution of an in
dividual ordered to testify about their conduct in an
investigation.
Pro: Would make Oregon immunity laws more
similar to Federal immunity laws.
Con: Would severely threaten the right against self
incrimination guaranteed by the Oregon Constitu
tion.
Proposes changing the constitution to require
prison sentences be served in full without excep
tions.
Pro: Would protect society for a longer time and act
as a strong deterrent to crime.
Con: Would remove the possibility of shorter sen
tences eliminating incentives for prisoners to im
prove.
jkHttf Passing
- Proposes amend the Oregon Constitution to ban
persons from serving on grand juries and criminal
juries if they had been convicted of certain crimes.
Pro: Would promote responsible and fair juries.
Con: Would violate citizens’ right to serve on juries
and would unnecessarily limit the jury pool.
require the state assess whether or not heavy vehi
cles and light vehicles are paying taxes proportion
ate to the damage each class of vehicle incurs on
Oregon roadways.
Pro: Would lock a taxation policy in the constitution
ensuring all motorists pay their fair share of road
way maintenance, repair and improvement costs.
Con: It is unnecessary, unbinding and could invite
frivolous lawsuits.
Proposes placing amendment
in the constitution that would
VYkCi
%fsYYO,>
iH
Lane County voter Tim Greathouse drops his ballot off early Tuesday evening.
Scott Barnett Emerald
Election carries low voter turnout
■ The ASUO is working to increase
voter participation among University
students, which is low in the special
election for a variety of reasons
By Darren Freeman
Oregon Daily Emerald
Only 33 percent of Lane County’s regis
tered voters turned out to decide the fate of
this special election’s ballot measures,
which addressed public safety, the state’s
use of gas tax revenue and the constitutional
rights of citizens accused of crimes.
This election was Oregon’s eighth special
election to be exclusively vote-by-mail, a
process that relegated the lines and ballot
booths of polling places to Oregon’s histori
cal record when voters decided last year to
extend mail-in elections to primary and gen
eral elections.
The Legislature approved vote-by-mail to in
crease voter participation, said Annette New
ingham, Lane County chief elections officer.
However, voter participation varies ac
cording to people’s emotional attachments
to the issues, said Amy Cody, assistant to
Secretary of State Phil Keisling.
Newingham admits that many voters felt
this November’s ballot measures didn’t ad
dress “exciting and engaging issues.”
Nonetheless, both Newingham and Cody
expressed concern about the paltry turnout.
Low voter participation “is a phenome
non we’re seeing nationally,” Cody said.
And the University is no exception.
ASUO State Affairs Coordinator Matt
Swanson said that University voter partici
pation in presidential elections is compara
ble to that of the rest of the community.
But the ASUO is also working to increase
student voting turnout. It hosted a panel dis
cussion last Thursday about issues in the
special election and is working to bring
presidential candidates to campus, ASUO
President Wylie Chen said.
However, Newingham said that few Univer
sity students vote in non-presidential elections.
“The U of O generally has very poor
turnout,” Newingham said.
She said that when about 60 percent of
registered Lane County voters participate,
only 20-30 percent of University students
typically vote.
Many students, such as freshman pre
journalism major Emily Gross, don’t vote
because they feel overwhelmed by school.
“I don’t want to get involved because it
takes a lot of time to responsibly research the
issues,” Gross said.
Omar Qutub, a sophomore biology major,
said that he plans on registering soon but
just hasn’t taken the time to do it.
“I’m too involved with my own life,
school, grades, everything else,” Qutub said.
“It’s kind of a bubble at school.”
Other students, such as Aundie Garcia, an
undeclared freshman, don’t vote because
they feel government doesn’t directly affect
their lives.
“I really don’t care that much,” Garcia said.
She said she’s unwilling to take the time
to educate herself enough to vote responsi
bly.
“I don’t read the newspapers, I don’t
watch the new« and I don’t know what’s go
ing on,” Garcia said.
Some students, like senior ethnic studies
major Melinda Myrick, abstain from voting
for ethical reasons. Myrick said she feels
politicians don’t adequately represent her
and, instead of voting, she focuses on im
proving her environment by herself.
“I’d rather not vote for the lesser of two
evils,” Myrick said. “I just live and I don’t
really care too much about the way people
are running things.”
On the other hand, many students want
to vote but haven’t taken the time to register
or don’t know where to where to find voters
registrations.
“I would like to vote so I could have a say
in what happens,” freshman psychology
major Kate Cody said.
Cody said she didn’t know where to find a
voters’ registration form and was unaware
of November’s special election.
Geoff Horton, a sophomore business ma
jor, said he has voted in his hometown in
Washington County but is in tlje process of
registering to vote in Lane County.
“It’s just a matter of putting it in the enve
lope and sending it out,” Horton said.
Still, Horton missed the special election.
Both Swanson and Cody said they feel
that politicians need to improve communi
cation with voters.
“It’s important that students and politi
cians see that their needs and values line
up,” Swanson said. “It’s also important that
students make politicians listen.”
Cody points out that until students be
come a stable voting block, politicians won’t
work to appease them.
Paula Krane, president of the League of
Women Voters of Oregon, said that govern
ment and advocacy groups need to show
students the connection between voting and
their day-to-day lives. To meet that end, the
League of Women Voters published avoters
guide to November’s special election
Election Brief
PORTLAND — Oregon voters approved
four get-tough-on-crime measures, includ
ing ones spelling out the rights of crime vic
tims and prohibiting the release of inmates
before their terms end, but rejected three
others Tuesday after a campaign in which
opponents said the measures would give
too much power to prosecutors.
With 83 percent of the mail-in ballots
counted, voters also approved measures to
limit the pretrial release of accused people
to protect the victims and another to pro
hibit people convicted of certain crimes in
the past 15 years from serving on criminal
trial juries.
The chief spokeswoman against the
measures was Arwen Bird, a 25-year-old
Portland woman who was left paralyzed by
a drunken driver six years ago.
At a gathering Tuesday night, Bird said
the vote results showed that Oregonians
“recognized that these measures had noth
ing to do with victims.”
“The tide is turning,” she said. “Oregoni
ans don’t want a system that is totally puni
tive. They want a system that is effective in
reducing crime.”
The main spokesman for the pro-measure
campaign, Steve Doell of Crime Victims
United, said he was relieved that a majority
of the measure passed.
“We had a fierce campaign waged against
us by the criminal defense lawyers. It was a
campaign of distortion, and they made
some of it stick,” said Doell, whose 12-year
daughter, Lisa, was run over and killed by a
emotionally disturbed teen-ager who later
served three years for manslaughter.
Doell also said Bird is misguided and was
being used by criminal defense attorneys,
the American Civil Liberties Union and oth
ers who oppose tougher criminal laws .
The Associated Press