Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Just out. (Portland, OR) 1983-2013 | View Entire Issue (Nov. 4, 1994)
ju st out’s g wonderful world o f politics regon’s lax initiative process has created a political quagmire. This year’s ballot has 18 statewide measures for voters to wade through. The majority of the measures endeavor to add amend ments to the Constitution that would clutter and sully that instru ment of supreme law fo r Oregon. Maybe you are overwhelmed by the plethora of measures and are tempted to allow your voter precinct card to atrophy this election, but we can 7 have that. There are many important issues to be decided. We offer ourselves as your guide through this marshy wasteland of initiatives. Here are our endorsements fo r you to ponder. O ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ Ballot Measure 3 Changes deadlines for filling vacancies at general elections ✓ YES This measure was referred to the voters by the Legislature, and is a simple, straightforward mea sure—the only one on the ballot—designed to ease the financial burden of filling elective office vacancies. The Victory Fund would be forbidden to con tribute to our candidates, along with the Human Rights Campaign Fund and others. Outside money can help us. It can work against us, such as when Pat Robertson is the contributor to radical right candidates, but, over all, let the money flow. Ballot Measure 7 Supposedly guarantees equal protection ✓ NO Ballot Measure 4 Creates a vacancy if legislator is convicted of felony ✓ YES Also referred to the voters by the Legislature, it amends the Constitution to create a vacancy if a state legislator is convicted of a felony while holding office and prevents a convicted felon from being a state legislator until that person’s full sentence has been completed, including jail time, probation and restitution. This measure does not prevent a convicted felon who has paid his or her “debt to society” from running for public office, it simply holds legislators to a higher standard. Like, they should not break laws while in office or while running for office. Too bad Virginia doesn’t prohibit felons from running for office, then Ollie North would be out of the U.S. senate race. Sexual minorities and people with disabilities were sacrificed by the petitioners of this measure in their efforts to get a more "palatable” discrimi nation amendment into the Constitution. Katherine Draham, the chief petitioner, wanted women pro tected by the state Constitution. She was quoted early in the petition-gathering process as saying that if she had added sexual orientation to the initiative it wouldn’t have gotten enough signa tures and how could anyone argue with that. We can. Ballot Measure 7 sacrifices too much. A more comprehensive equal rights amendment that protects everyone should be on the 1996 ballot. Ballot Measure 8 Ballot Measure II Requires public employees to help pay for pensions Mandates minimum sentences for felons 15 and up ✓ NO ✓ NO A decade ago, state employees made a con tract agreement with the state of Oregon when it was in a financial crisis. They agreed to forgo a pay raise in exchange for employer contribution to their retirement fund. This ballot measure would violate that agreement. It is also important to note that PERS, the state employees union, has always supported the les bian and gay community in its struggle for equal protection under the law. It’s time for us to do the right thing and return the favor with a no vote on Ballot Measure 8. Opponents see this measure as a grand slam, coupled with Ballot Measure 10. Both 10 and 11 are sponsored by Rep. Kevin Mannix, who seems to be touting himself as the tough-on-crime czar for the state. Not only is this measure unnecessary, it is extremely costly. The Voters’ Pamphlet estimates the financial impact to be nearly $500 million. The majority of that money would go to the construction of more prison beds. Oregon doesn’t need to warehouse its felons; it needs innovative solutions to prevent crime. It needs to do community outreach to empower disenfranchised youth so they have other avenues to building self-worth than committing crimes. Vote no. Ballot Measure 0 Adopts campaign contribution and spending limits ✓ NO Supporters can argue that deep-pocket con tributors can tilt an election, and in many cases they do. We don’t argue that some type of cam paign-finance reform is in order, but this isn’t it. The measure as written does not prohibit can didates from contributing as much as they want to their own campaigns. That means the wealthy could buy themselves an office, while the non- wealthy would be unable to. Harry Lonsdale is one of the chief petitioners for this measure. He lost his last bid for office when he was out-spent by Les AuCoin, due to AuCoin’s support from various political action committees and other special interest groups. In the general election AuCoin was out-spent by Bob (Let-me-kiss-you) Packwood, who used his influence to squelch a national story that would have certainly changed the outcome of the elec tion. So, money isn’t everything. Vote no. Ballot Measure IO Restricts voter-approved sentencing changes ✓ NO This measure is not necessary. A majority vote in the House is already required to change any bill regarding sentencing guidelines that were estab lished by voters through initiative or referendum. Currently, there are only two prison sentences that have been created by voter initiative: life without parole, and death. Yet another unnecessary measure to clutter our Constitution. ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ■A-*** 'Governor ED Ballot Measure B JO H N KfTZHABER Bars new or increased taxes without a vote ✓ NO This measure seems like a simple way for voters to reduce spending by local and state gov ernments. In reality, it forces people to vote over and over on many financially complex issues. This measure is destructive for Oregon, and we don’t need another Ballot Measure 5 haunting us for years to come. voters’ pamphlet Democrat I S f r id i" 0" * ! n n , lira . U* m IT » Y ° I O , ^ nn rOHOHEoo* • • t o o « * » '« S Û T :.11*, y * * * » n i i h I Restricts out-of-district contributions to campaigns If this measure passed where would all the lesbian and gay candidates get the majority of their funding, when most Oregon queer dollars get sopped up by Oregon Citizen Alliance ballot measures? This was one of the most difficult endorse ment choices to make. Supporters argue that re pealing the Davis-Bacon act, as the prevailing wage requirement is known, would allow non union contractors to make more competitive bids on public works projects. The opposition says it would hurt unions and reduce health care and education programs for workers. Both of these things may be true. The bigger truth is that Oregon’s prevailing wage needs to be properly set by the state to better represent the communities it is designed to pro tect. For example, people in Roseburg shouldn’t have to pay Portland prices for labor. The problem with the system comes from the state not conduct ing surveys to set those wages. That forces local and state governments to depend on wages set by the federal government, which often gets its infor mation from local trade unions. When dealing with public projects, some safe guards need to be in place to ensure health care and equal opportunity. The prevailing wage is a good idea; a better system for establishing it needs to be implemented. Vote no. Ballot Measure 13 Mandates discrimination against gay men and lesbians ✓ NO (duh) Ballot Measure 14 ✓ YES r ✓ No ✓ NO Amends chemical mining laws *[>uc*nowA, the Ballot Measure 8 Repeals prevailing wage requirement for workers on public works The only thing amusing about this ballot mea sure is the very first “Argument in Favor” in the Voters’ Pamphlet, submitted by the Special Righ teousness Committee. Congratulations to M. Den nis Moore for securing such a primo location and for getting his word out before Lon T. Mabon. We point this out because you probably didn’t waste time reading the arguments in favor, but take the time to read this one—it’s worth it. ttoCTon , HICKAU Ballot Measure 12 t o •oÆnVcTT.T"» t, * •" •>• lo o n d 10 ■ *¿'•“'¿ ” 1 ° J£ui*-*iuain*nti M NO l-Pallet I This measure would add to Oregon’s already tough mining law passed in 1991. It adds environ mental safeguards and mandates perpetual site clean-up of open-pit cyanide mines. The opposition to this measure is almost solely financed by the Newmont Mining Co., which has mining claims on 24,500acres of Malheur County. It doesn’t want this measure to pass, because perpetual clean-up is too expensive. In the state of Washington, Newmont Mining Co. has refused to foot the bill for clean-up costs in similar mining operations. Oregon doesn’t need irresponsible mining. This measure ensures that mining companies leave