State Senate, 4th District
Republican
David Alsup
A1 s u p ’ s
platform is
pro-logging.
Not only will
logging help
reduce for
est fires, but
the Drain
native adds
that the in
dustry has
the potential
to help save education.
Alsup said he’d like to see 20 per
cent of logging revenues go to help
local schools. And while Alsup
would work to help fund education,
his primary focus is on K-12.
The Republican, the youngest
of 14 children, said representing
District 4 wouldn’t be a chal
lenge, especially because of his
skills in communication.
Alsup believes he is well-suit
ed to represent District 4, and
plans to involve students if
electd to office.
Democrat
Tony Corcoran
Corcoran
currently
holds the
state’s Dis
trict 4 Sen
ate seat and
would like
nothing
more than
to see voters
continue
backing him
come Nov. 5.
Corcoran supports cleareut
ting as a way to prevent forest
fires and is also pro-education.
But the Cottage Grove resident
thinks it’s time politicians start
making wise choices.
Upset with the state’s current
economic situation, Corcoran
said it’s time to scrutinize where
and how tax dollars are spent.
Corcoran believes his experi
ence will enable him to repre
sent the diverse areas within
the district.
State House, 8th District
Republican
Greg McNeill
McNeill, a
21-year-old
University
student ma
joring in po
litical sci
ence, is using
youth as a
major plat
form for his
candidacy.
Vying to represent the Uni
versity and rural parts of Lane
County in District 8, McNeill
has focused on education as a
top priority.
McNeill said he’d like to see
the state model its higher educa
tional system around ideas used
in Pennsylvania and added that
he relates better to students be
cause he is one.
McNeill has asked voters to
look beyond partylines in mak
ing their decisions and vote for
the person best suited to repre
sent District 8.
Democrat
Floyd Prozanski
Prozanski
is seeking re
election after
losing his Dis
trict 40 seat,
which he held
for 6 years,
because of
term limits.
The rules on
term limits
and the state’s
district boundaries have been re
done, leaving Prozanski excited
about the possibilities.
Student issues and educational
debt are issues Prozanski says he’s
willing to fight for. He said he’d like
to see a statewide tuition freeze
and added that he’s not opposed to
some form of dedicated funding—
perhaps through sales, gross re
ceipts or an added value tax.
Prozanski said he’d hit the ground
running if elected, and has asked vot
ers to look at both candidates’ abili
ties in choosing a representative.
Governor
Libertarian
Tom Cox
The only
third-party
candidate
running for
governor,
Cox has cen
tered his
campaign
around a sim
ple concept:
Less is more.
Cox identifies himself as a fis
cal conservative who’s socially
tolerant. He has built his platform
around bringing more accounta
bility to government and reduc
ing costs, while at the same time
defending individual rights.
On higher education, Cox
would use the money gleaned
from government accountability
to create a allowance for each
student so he or she can decide
where to go to school, whether it
be in Oregon or somewhere
out-of-state.
Democrat
Ted Kulongoski
A candi
date who’s
served in all
three
branches of
the state
government,
Kulongoski
has based
his platform
on building
teams of
people in government to work to
gether to solve tough issues. He has
also distanced himself from his op
ponent Kevin Mannix by defending
social issues such as abortion
rights , gay rights and physician-as
| sisted suicide.
Kulongoski’s top priorities
would include making Oregon
more attractive for potential em
ployers, rebuilding the state’s in
frastructure and creating an edu
cation endowment fund to help
students pay for school.
Republican
Kevin Mannix
M a n n i x
has based a
campaign
around fis
cal issues,
including
funding
higher edu
I cation and
tinkering
with the
state budget.
The Republican has defined
himself in the race by focusing on
specific ways to change state gov
ernment if elected, including
modifying the Oregon Health
Plan and injecting higher educa
tion with $350 million over the
next few years.
Mannix said by accounting for
every dollar spent in govern
ment, he could easily add fund
ing to higher education and en
sure affordability for students.
U.S. Senate
Democrat
Bill Bradbury
Oregon’s
current secre
tary of state is
counting, in
part, on stu
dent support
to catapult
him into the
U.S. Senate.
Bradbury,
who went
into the
Senate race as an underdog
against a well-established incum
bent, has built his campaign
around accountability. He said
he would make both the govern
ment and corporations more ac
countable for their actions and
would also press hard to defend
Oregon’s Death With Dignity law.
A former small-business owner
and television journalist, Brad
bury has relied on the support of
longtime political supporters such
as Gov. John Kitzhaber to fuel
him in his race.
Bradbury said he would fight to
increase Pell Grant funding.
Republican
Gordon Smith
An in
cumbent in
the Senate,
Smith has
based his
campaign
on coalition
building,
strengthen
ing Oregon’s
economy
and improv
ing schools in Oregon.
One of his most notable suc
cesses was Smith’s ability to
form a partnership with Sen.
Ron Wyden. Smith lost to
Wyden in a closely contested bit
ter Oregon race for the U.S. Sen
ate, but then bounced back from
the loss, befriended Wyden and
ran again when Oregon’s other
Senate seat became open.
For higher education, Smith
also backs increasing student
grants and said he would fight for
research grants and other aid at
Oregon’s universities.
U.S. House
Democrat
Peter DeFazio
DeFazio, a
U.S. Con
gressman
since he was
elected to the
4th District
seat in 1986,
appeals to
voters on a
“grassroots”
level.
A resident of Springfield, DeFazio
said he has built a series of success
ful congressional races on his ap
proachable demeanor, his willing
ness to represent his community
regardless of the political cost and
his support for government pro
grams and higher education.
DeFazio, who holds the late
Sen. Wayne Morse as his ideal
role model, said he follows Morse
by making decisions with an open
mind and a clear conscience,
such as his recent “no” vote on a
popular congressional resolution
that granted President George W.
Bush authority to wage war in
Iraq if necessary.
Republican
Liz VanLeeuwen
VanLeeu
wen, a nine
term repre
sentative in
the Oregon
Legislature,
is hoping to
connect
with voters
who believe
in her in
tegrity.
A rural Oregonian, VanLeeuwen
has emphasized her role as a busi
nesswoman, teacher and farmer,
and is banking on her life experi
ence to appeal to voters in Oregon’s
4th District, which represents one
fifth of the state. VanLeeuwen’s key
issues include bringing common
sense to government and solving
funding problems by using timber
revenues.
On student issues, Van
Leeuwen said she’s confident any
student who wants to attend
school can find a way, and added
that she’d use timber revenues to
fund higher education in Oregon.
20-67 — Four-year local option tax for youth/school
based services
The measure asks voters to help fund youth and school-based
activities cut by state budget shortfalls. If the measure is approved,
property taxes could increase by more than three percent. The
levy would raise more than 830 million for local schools by 2007.
Supports of the levy say it will restore vital activities for today’s
youth. Opponents say the Legislature should think before making
cuts; passing the buck to voters gives Salem the easy way out.
20-68— Housekeeping amendments to Eugene City Charter
The city has asked voters whether it should update language, im
prove readability and delete obsolete provisions in the City Charter.
Proponents of the measure say the changes improve the Char
ter’s flow and usefulness. There was no organized opposition to
this measure.
20-69— Ethics and conflicts of interest Charter amendment
Measure 20-69 would require the City Council to adopt a code of
ethics that would prevent elected officials from discussing, debat
ing or voting on matters from which they, or their relatives, could
financially gain. If intentional, the violation could result in removal
from office.
Supports of the measure say it will create a sense of understanding
and trust between city officials and community members. There was
no organized opposition to this measure.
20-70—Department head hiring/firing Charter amendment
This measure asks voters whether the city manager should be re
quired to report to the City Council after hiring, promoting or firing in
dividuals. Currendy, the manager is not required to do so.
Those in favor of the measure say it gives the council more insight
into city decisions, allowing councilors to better evaluate the City
Manager. There was no organized opposition to this measure.
20-71 — City attorney Charter Amendment
Of all the measures that would affect city officials, Measure 20
71 has caused the biggest controversy. The measure would re
quire the manager to appoint and staff a city attorney by July 1,
2005.
Proponents of the measure say an in-house lawyer would pro
vide oversight and work toward the city’s best interests. Those in
opposition say that an in-house attorney isn’t needed and point to
history as proof. For more than 25 years, they say, the city has
been fine without its own attorney.
20-72— Filling of eouneil/mayor vacancies Charter amendment
In the event that an elected city official leaves office, this meas
ure asks voters whether an election should be held during any
year, rather than only during even years. Currently, the council
appoints someone to fill a vacant position within 90 days, and the
length of time the person stays in office depends on when the va
cancy occurred.
Supporters of the measure say it reduces the maximum time
that could be served by an appointee. They also say that the fi
nancial burden to hold a special election would be small and that
the implications make the measure well worth it. There was no or
ganized opposition to this measure.
20-73 — Liability for unauthorized expenditure Charter
amendment
If city officials knowingly spend money without authorization or
through gross negligence, should they personally be held respon
sible? That is the question voters have been asked in Measure 20
73. The measure would also permit that city officials be subject to
removal from office.
Those in favor of the measure say it will hold those who are
grossly negligent accountable for their actions while also protect
ing those who make mistakes through ignorance. There was no or
ganized opposition to this measure.
20-74 — Ordinance adoption and effective date Charter
Amendment
This measure would revise provisions for city ordinances. It
would require the City Council to hold a public hearing, require
the city to provide public notice at least 10 days before the hearing
and would require the city to post the proposed ordinance on its
Web site at least 10 days before the hearing.
Proponents of the measure say the changes would provide bet
ter public notice and information about the ordinances. There
was no organized opposition to this measure.
20-75 — initiated ordinance Charter amendment
Measure 20-75 would protect ordinances adopted by voters from
revisions without a unanimous vote by the City Council. This provi
sion would add a new section to the Charter. Currently, the council
can amend or repeal any voter ordinance.
Supporters of the measure say it would create a way for citizens to
initiate laws and protect them from City Council tampering. There
was no organized opposition to this measure.
20-51 — Lane County Jail improvements general obligation
bonds
The measure asks voters to provide funds to remodel parts of
the Lane County jail. The project would expand the county’s in
take center to 100 beds and renovate the jail’s medical unit and
mechanical systems. If the measure is approved, property taxes
would increase to $10.7 million for the work.
Supporters of the levy say voters should support the jail
improvements, which will allow the county to do a better job
of processing inmates in what they say are crowded facilities.
Opponents counter that similar measures have failed multi
ple times — voters in Lane County have better ways to spend
their money, they say.
20-60 — Lane County public safety emergency communi
cations general obligation bonds
The measure asks voters to consider providing county
emergency services with new radio technology to serve areas
that aren’t completely covered by the communications gear
the county currently has. If bonds are passed, they would use
up to $10.35 million to pay for the new microwave communi
cations system.
Supporters of the measure say voters should give the county
much-needed equipment. They say the current communication
holes in the system constitute a safety hazard, and say their
current systems are based on “60s technology.” There was no
organized opposition to this measure.
20-61 — Lane County Courthouse and plaza access gen
eral obligation bonds
The measure asks voters to consider adding access improve
ments to the Lane County Courthouse. The levy would use up to
$6.38 million in bonds to remodel parts of the current courthouse,”
including building a new sheriffs service desk and adding new se
curity measures to the building.
Supporters say in paid statements in the voters’ pamphlet
that renovation for the building is long overdue, and add the
current structure is unable to properly accommodate the dis
abled. There was no organized opposition to this measure.
20-62 — Lane County park improvements general obliga
tion bonds
The measure asks voters to consider supporting major
park renovations and acquisitions county-wide. The levy
would spend up to $20.7 million in bond money to build new
youth parks, marinas and campgrounds and to develop exist
ing parks.
Supporters say in paid statements in the voters’ pamphlet that
it’s high time to fund county parks, which one group calls a “dia
mond in the rough.” There was no organized opposition to this
measure.
Vote
continued from page 5A
ASUO hit its registration goal, State Affairs Coordina
tor Adam Petkun said this year’s registration campaign
was one week shorter and off-year elections usually are
characterized by a lack of voter interest.
Null and void?
The power of the youth vote will be most felt when stu
dent leaders lobby legislators in Salem.
When the Oregon Legislature reconvenes in January, the
state government may face a deficit of more than $ 1 billion,
forcing legislators to make tough budget decisions.
Higher voter turnout will make it easier for student
lobbyists to persuade officials to vote with the students’
best interests in mind.
“The more students vote, the more legislators will listen
to them. Legislators listen to people who vote,” said Melissa
Unger, legislative affairs director for the Oregon Student As
sociation, a group that represents students at nine major
colleges and universities across the state.
Unger said the high student turnout during the 2000
election brought a few legislative victories for Oregon’s
students, including funding the Oregon Opportunity
Grant and the child care block grant.
ASUO representatives understand their job in Salem will
be much harder if students don’t mail in their ballots.
“If we come to legislators with low voter turnout num
bers, everything after that is null and void,” said Stefan
Myers, ASUO legislative associate.
Audrey Douglas wonders why more students don’t join
her cadre. She points out the group does not have very
discriminating tastes, collects no dues and has no spe
cial dress code. However, they do hold an exclusive right
of citizens everywhere.
“If you don’t vote, then you don’t have a right to com
plain about the government,” she said. “And I think
everybody should have that right.”
John Liebhardt is a freelance writer for the Emerald.
SOURCE: Federal Elections Commission
20-63 — Lane County public health building general obliga
tion bonds
The measure asks voters to consider moving the county’s pub
lic health services from the County Annex to a new building. The
levy would use up to $29.9 million in property tax increases to pay
for the construction.
Supporters say in paid statements in the voters’ pamphlet that
county needs the new building to provide health services, especially to
respond to disasters after events like the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11,
2001. There was no organized opposition to this measure.
20-65—Lane County Planetarium and Learning Center gen
eral obligation bonds
The measure asks voters to consider building a new planetarium
and learning center at the Lane County Fairgrounds. The old struc
ture, located near Autzen Stadium, would be replaced by the new,
larger facilities by using up to $ 10 million in bonds.
Supporters say in paid statements in the voters’ pamphlet that if the
new center is not supported, the old planetarium is in danger of being
“mothballed.” There was no organized opposition to this measure.
State measures
14 — Amends Constitution: Removes historical racial ref
erences in obsolete sections of Oregon Constitution, Article
VII (original), Article XVIII.
Measure 14 would remove references to the state’s “white
population,” “white” inhabitants, “free Negroes” and “mulat
tos” in the Oregon Constitution.
No arguments in favor of or in opposition to this measure
were filed.
15 — Amends Constitution: Authorizes state to issue gen
eral obligation bond for seismic rehabilitation of public ed
ucation buildings.
Ballot Measure 15 would allow the state to issue general obli
gation bonds to retrofit or reinforce public education buildings
to withstand earthquakes. The Oregon Legislature would use
taxes, lottery proceeds, tobacco settlement funds or other rev
enue sources to repay the debt. The measure would limit debt
amount to .2 percent of real market value of all property in the
state. Property taxes wouldn’t be used in the repayment.
Proponents argue that, because recent studies show a pat
tern of big earthquakes in Oregon, upgrading buildings to be
earthquake-proof would save lives. Opponents argue the
measure could raise taxes other than property taxes.
16 — Amends Constitution: Authorizes state to issue gener
al obligation bonds for seismic rehabilitation of emergency
services buildings.
Ballot Measure 16 would allow the state to issue general ob
ligation bonds to retrofit or reinforce public education build
ings to withstand earthquakes. The Oregon Legislature would
use taxes, lottery proceeds, tobacco settlement funds or oth
er revenue sources to repay the debt. Measure would limit
amount of indebtedness to one-fifth of one percent of real
market value of all property in the state.
Proponents argue that an increased earthquake risk in Ore
gon makes it necessary to reinforce old emergency facilities,
which were not built to withstand a major earthquake. There
was no organized opposition to this measure.
17 —Amends Constitution: Reduces minimum age require
ment to serve as state legislator from 21 years to 18 years.
Ballot Measure 17 would allow a person at least 18 years old
to run for the Oregon House of Representatives and the Ore
gon Senate.
Proponents argue that because people who are 18 years old
are able to serve in the military, vote and pay taxes, they
should also be able to run for the Oregon Legislature.
Opponents argue the New Testament warns not to make
novices into leaders, and that anybody who’s 18 years old is
considered a newcomer and ineligible for government.
18 — Amends Constitution: Allows certain tax districts to es
tablish permanent property tax rates and divide into tax zones.
Ballot Measure 18 would allow local taxing districts that have
not imposed property taxes for any tax year — beginning on or
after July 1, 1990 — to ask district voters to establish a perma
nent property tax rate limit for the district or establish tax zones
within the district. Each zone would have a different tax rate
limit.
No arguments in favor of or in opposition to this measure
were filed.
21 — Amends Constitution: Revises procedure for filling ju
dicial vacancies, electing judges; allows vote for “None of the
Above.”
Ballot Measure 21 would amend the Oregon Constitution to
require that in all judicial elections “None of the Above” be listed
as an official candidate in addition to all other candidates. The
candidate who receives the most votes in the election, regard
less of the percentage, unless it is “None of the Above,” would be
elected to the position, and there would be no runoff election. If
more votes are cast for “None of the Above” than any other can
didate, special elections must be held in succeeding May and No
vember elections until the position is filled by a candidate other
than “None of the Above.”
Proponents argue the measure would make judges more ac
countable and allow Oregon citizens to respond to court deci
sions. Opponents argue the measure would compromise the
right to a speedy trial because courtrooms could potentially be
empty as citizens awaited a winning judge, as well as waste mon
ey via multiple elections.
22 — Amends Constitution: Requires Oregon Supreme
Court judges and Oregon Court of Appeals judges to be elected
by district.
Ballot Measure 22 would amend the Oregon Constitution to
require that judges of the Oregon Supreme Court and the Ore
gon Court of Appeals be elected by judicial district. Under cur
rent law, the judges of the Oregon Supreme Court and the Ore
gon Court of Appeals are elected on a statewide basis.
Proponents argue that it’s important to elect judges with a
range of experiences and backgrounds to ensure Oregon courts
have judges who don’t come from one region and share the same
philosophy. Opponents argue the measure would deprive Ore
gonians of the right to elect the highest quality judges regardless
of their location.
23 — Creates a health care finance plan for medically nec
essary services; creates additional income, payroll taxes.
Ballot Measure 23 would create the Oregon Comprehensive
Health Care Finance Plan to pay for medically necessary health
services for all Oregon residents, as well as establish by rule eli
gibility criteria for persons working in Oregon but residing else
where, effective January 1, 2005. The plan would be funded by
new individual progressive income and payroll taxes and trans
fers to the fund of all federal, state and local governmental health
payments. The measure further allows new revenue bonds to be
issued if the income and payroll taxes are insufficient to fund the
plan, and replaces Medicare, Medicaid and the medical coverage
of worker’s compensation and automobile insurance.
Proponents argue that a small, progressive income and payroll
tax would be a small price to pay for providing health care to
Oregonians — more than 423,000 of whom currently are not in
sured. Opponents argue the measure would create a flawed sys
tem where the government retains control of health care and in
dividual tax bills raised as much as 825,000.
24 — Allows licensed denturists to install partial dentures
(replacement teeth); Authorizes cooperative dentist-denturist
business ventures.
Ballot Measure 24 would change current law to allow licensed
denturists to install removable upper and lower partial dentures
to replace missing natural teeth. Current law allows licensed
denturists to install only removable upper and lower full den
tures, while only dentists are allowed to install partial upper
or lower dentures that replace individual teeth with perma
nent or removable dental appliances.
Proponents argue denture patients should have the freedom
to choose where they receive their denture services and
shouldn’t have to pay a third more because the law requires
only dentists install partial dentures. Opponents argue the
measure does not guarantee denturists will give the same ad
vice and diagnosis for partial dentures that dentists would
give. Partial dentures involve the incorporation of natural
teeth, which opponents argue dentists are more qualified to
do because of their advanced academic and clinical education.
25 — Increases Oregon minimum wage to $6.90 in 2003;
increases for inflation in future years.
Ballot Measure 25 would amend Oregon statutes to increase
the state minimum hourly wage to $6.90 for calendar year
2003. For calendar year 2004 and beyond, the measure would
require the minimum hourly wage to be adjusted annually for
inflation. Under current state law, the state minimum hourly
wage is set at $6.50 and is not adjusted for inflation.
Proponents argue that full time minimum wage earners only
make $13,500 per year, and many of those workers have fam
ilies to support. Opponents argue that Oregon has one of the
highest minimum wage limits in the United States, and in
creasing it would only further boost Oregon’s high unemploy
ment rate.
26 — Amends Constitution: Prohibits payment or receipt of
payment based on the number of initiative and referendum pe
tition signatures obtained.
Ballot Measure 26 would make it unlawful to pay or receive
money or any other thing of value based on the number of sig
natures obtained on an initiative or referendum petition. Cur
rent law does not limit the ways in which persons sponsoring
initiative and referendum petitions may pay for signature
gathering. This measure makes it unlawful to pay money or
anything of value for signature gathering activities when such
payment is based on the number of signatures obtained.
Proponents argue the measure would take away the incen
tive for fraud, forgery and identity theft when signature gath
erers collective signatures for initiatives. Opponents argue the
measure would hurt the ability for grassroots to be involved in
elections because, while corporations can afford to hire full
time signature gatherers, grassroots organizations prefer us
ing a small per-signature incentive to supplement volunteers.
27 — Requires labeling of genetically-engineered foods sold
or distributed in or from Oregon.
Ballot Measure 27 would require, by statute, that all foods
and beverages distributed in or from Oregon, created from or
with GE materials, to be labeled as such.
The labeling requirements would apply to all foods and bev
erages in the following categories: foods containing more than
one-tenth of one percent GE material by weight; foods derived
from or prepared with GE material, whether or not that mate
rial is present in the final product; foods grown using GE agri
cultural inputs; dairy and meat products derived from animals
that have been fed GE feed or feed additives; and products de
rived from animals treated with GE hormones or drugs, re
gardless of whether they are present in the final product.
Proponents argue Oregonians should be informed if the food
they are eating — which they say could be toxic and compro
mise immune system responses — contains genetically-engi
neered ingredients. Opponents argue the Food and Drug Ad
ministration reviews crops created with biotechnology to
ensure they are safe, so a measure that would cost taxpayers
more than $118 million over the next 10 years is unnecessary.