Oregon Ballot Measures November 2014
Ballot Measure 86
Oregon Funding for Post-Secondary Education
Measure 86 is a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. If approved, the measure would create a fund for Oregonians pursuing post-secondary education and authorize the financing of this fund via debt. Supporters call the measure the Oregon Opportunity Initiative that the Legislature would be authorized to seed with money raised by bonds. It was submitted to the legislature at the request of Oregon State Treasurer Ted Wheeler.
The Measure requires the legislature to create a dedicated fund for exclusive benefit of Oregon students pursuing post-secondary education, including technical, professional and career training. It would authorize the state to lend credit and incur debt to finance the fund. Indebtedness incurred may not exceed one percent of real market value of all property in state. Moneys in the fund are not subject to constitutional limitations on investment.
Investment earnings from the endowment can only be used to provide financial aid for Oregon students to pursue higher education or career training. Money from the state budget that could be used for other purposes would instead be used to repay the debt on bonds sold to create the endowment.
Our State Treasurer Wheeler has the best of intentions in pursing this method of paying for high education especially since Oregon is one of the most expensive in the country and there is a continued rise in student debt. The challenge with the Measure is that it can be funded in a number of ways including the state selling general obligation bonds…and taxpayers could be paying off any bonds for 30 years, with interest. The Measure also doesn’t say when and how much debt the state should incur to put into the endowment. Rather the decision would be left to future Legislatures as well as how any financial aid would be given to Oregon students.
According to an extensive City Club of Portland research report on this measure: “Bonds provide a mechanism to accomplish something the legislature has been unable or unwilling to prioritize up to this point,” the report states. “Bonds allow the State to spread the burden of repayment over many years, rather than forcing the legislature to make a large up-front allocation that could potentially reduce funding for other programs.”
“This measure has the potential to truly be a game changer for our state. The possibility of trade school or higher education benefits Oregon in myriad ways, and this ballot measure is an opportunity for Oregonians to show their support for keeping it affordable,” City Club of Portland Committee Chair Charles McGee said. “After 30 years of declining funding, the state needs a new model for higher education, and a public endowment is a viable solution.”
Treasurer Wheeler suggested in the City Club research report that he would probably recommend the state first take on $100 million in debt to put into the fund. That would give the Legislature about $5 million a year to devote to new financial aid, the City Club report says. Wheeler adds that issuing bonds to fill the endowment is only an option; the Legislature could also fund it with a direct appropriation or seek philanthropic support. Voter approval is no guarantee that the fund will actually materialize because lawmakers are not obligated to commit funds.
Oregonians should vote “yes” on Measure 86 in November to allow creation of a state-debt-funded endowment for college scholarships.
Ballot Measure 87
Allows Judges to Serve in National Guard & Universities
Ballot Measure 87 will determine whether or not to enact a constitutional amendment allowing judges to teach in state universities or serve in the Oregon National Guard and allow school employees to serve in the legislature
A “yes” vote would amend the Oregon State Constitution to permit state court judges to receive compensation by the Oregon National Guard for purpose of military service or by the State Board of Higher Education for purpose of teaching.
Article III, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution (separation of powers clause) prohibits persons from serving in more than one branch of the government at the same time; Oregon Supreme Court has ruled that provision prohibits state court judges from teaching at institutions of public education. Article II, section 10, prohibits state court judges from being compensated for military service in the National Guard. Measure amends constitution to authorize any public university as defined by law to employ state court judges for purpose of teaching at Oregon public universities. Measure also authorizes employment of state court judges by Oregon National Guard for purpose of military service. Measure provides that such educational or military employment shall not preclude person from serving as state judge at same time.
Judges should have the same opportunity to serve their country as anyone else. Measure 87 also would allow judges to contribute their wisdom and experience to the preparation of the next generation of lawyers and judges attending a unversity and to be paid for it. A yes vote on this measure is an opportunity to change old standards that are no longer necessary.
Ballot Measure 88
Creates a Limited Purpose Driver Card
The Oregon Alternative Driver Licenses Referendum, Measure 88 makes four-year driver licenses available to those who cannot prove legal presence in the United States.
Current law requires any applicant for an Oregon driver license or permit to provide proof of legal presence in the United States. This Measure directs the Department of Transportation to issue a driver card to an applicant who does not provide proof of legal presence in the United States, but who has otherwise complied with all Oregon requirements for the type of driving privileges sought, has provided proof of residence in Oregon for more than one year and proof of identity and date of birth.
The driver card may not be used as identification for air travel, to enter a federal building, to register to vote or obtain any government benefit requiring proof of citizenship or lawful presence in United States.
Proponents argue that the driver cards would allow immigrants who are driving on Oregon roads to be insured and licensed. Critics say the cards would encourage illegal immigration and would not improve safety.
Small business owners, farmers, faith leaders, law enforcement officials and community advocacy groups launched the “Yes on 88” campaign citing safer roads. “Law enforcement helped craft Measure 88 to help keep our roads and communities safe for all of us,” said Ron Louie, retired Hillsboro police chief. “A driver card is a common sense way to allow thousands of Oregonians to get to work, church and school while reducing accidents and making our roads safer.”
Dozens of organizations and individuals have endorsed Measure 88 including Governor John Kitzhaber, the Oregon Business Association, Oregon AFL-CIO, Oregon Association of Nurseries, Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon, Basic Rights Oregon Education Fund, SEIU Local 49 and 503, ACLU and Causa Oregon.
While some would argue that we should not reward illegal immigrants with drivers cards, the card will help many Oregon residents follow the law and improve safety for drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians by reducing the number of untested and uninsured drivers on the road.
Keep in mind that in order to receive a driver card, qualified Oregon residents would have to pass the State’s written driver knowledge test and behind-the-wheel driver test, provide proof of residence in Oregon for more than one year and proof of identity and date of birth.
It would benefit thousands of Oregonians including immigrants and refugees, seniors who were never issued a birth certificate and veterans who will be able to use their military documents. If Measure 88 passes, Oregon would join California, Washington, Nevada and six other states with a driver card program.
“Not being allowed to have a driver card places a huge burden on many working Oregonians,” said Jeff Stone, executive director of Oregon Association of Nurseries. “With no legal way to get to work, take a sick child to the doctor or travel to help an ailing and elderly parent, too many Oregonians have trouble meeting their daily responsibilities. Measure 88 will fix that and ensure that all Oregonians have a safe and legal way to get to where they need to go.”
The City Club of Portland released a research report that recommends voters affirm Measure 88. The City Club found important potential benefits from regulating unauthorized immigrants who wish to drive. For example, those drivers would be required to pass the standard vision and driving tests, thereby likely increasing safety on the roads. They also must have insurance, as all drivers must. And the committee reviewed persuasive evidence that the cards, which include photographs that enable facial recognition, would aid law enforcement.
We recommend a Yes vote on Measure 88 anticipating that it will make our roads safer and assist law enforcement by assuring that more drivers understand driving regulations.
Ballot Measure 89
The Oregon Equal Rights for Women Initiative
Measure 89 will guarantee that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the State of Oregon or by any political subdivision in this state on account of sex.” The initiative is also known as the Equal Rights Amendment.
Under Article I, section 20 of the Oregon Constitution, laws granting privileges or immunities must apply equally to all persons. The Oregon Supreme Court has held that provision prohibits laws treating people differently based on sex unless justified by specific biological differences. No current provision in the Constitution expressly states that prohibition. Measure amends Article I by creating new section 46, which provides that equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the state or any political subdivision on account of sex. Measure authorizes legislature to enforce that provision by appropriate legislation. Measure provides that nothing in section 46 “shall diminish a right otherwise available to persons under section 20 of this Article or any other provision of this Constitution.”
A federal equal rights amendment was first proposed by the National Women’s Party in 1923. The strongest efforts to attempt to pass such an amendment were made in the 1960s and ‘70s. The National Organization of Women (NOW) and other women’s rights activist groups strongly supported an amendment ending legal discrimination based on sex.
In 1970, the House approved the equal rights amendment, and the Senate followed in 1972. By 1973, 30 of the necessary 38 states had ratified the amendment. The amendment, however, did not pass. Opposition rose against the measure from many perspectives. Some argued against it in favor of traditional roles for women in society, while others claimed it would remove laws that protect women, like sexual assault laws and alimony. The number of states ratifying the amendment slowed drastically, and several states even repealed their own approval of the amendment. By 1982, the amendment remained three states short of approval.
While the federal effort did not succeed, equal rights amendments were added to 20 state constitutions between 1879 and 1998. These state measures guaranteed varying degrees of equality.
There are five (at least five) exceptional reasons to vote YES on this ballot measure:
1. Will establish state policy in the State of Oregon that it is imperative upon the government to enforce the laws in a way that ensures equal treatment.
2. Will expressly provide for equality in the Constitution where only case law now exists.
3. Will eliminate the hole for biological differences justifying differential treatment.
4. Will prevent women’s rights from ever rolling back if the temperament on the Court ever changes.
5. Will help provide momentum for the federal ERA.
Ballot Measure 90
The Oregon Open Primary
The measure would create a top-two system of general election voting where all voters receive the same primary ballot that shows all candidates, regardless of political party. Candidates would be allowed to include on the ballot their party registration and if they’ve been endorsed by a party. The top two candidates, regardless of political party, would then be voted upon in the general election.
Currently, each major party has a separate primary election ballot. The major party’s (Republicans and Democrats) registered voters nominate candidates and during the primary ballot only registered Democrats and Republicans vote for those candidates. The General election ballot may include multiple candidates per office: unaffiliated, major, minor party candidates.
Measure 90 would replace Democratic and Republican party primaries with a single primary election open to all voters, regardless of party affiliation, including independents. This change in the electoral process would apply to all currently partisan local and state races. This includes all 90 Oregon legislative races, four statewide offices (governor, attorney general, treasurer and secretary of state), U.S. Senate and Congressional elections and some county elections still held on a partisan basis. Due to federal law, this does not apply to the Presidential primary.
The top two vote getters would advance to the general election. This change would give every Oregon voter an equal voice, in every election.
The problem with the current system is that in the primary election, held in May when the Democrat and the Republican candidates are selected to run in the general election in November, only those voters registered as Republicans or Democrats can vote…and they can only vote for their party’s candidate. Independent voters are not allowed to vote in the primary election for partisan positions. With more and more people registering as Independents and disappointed with the traditional parties, a large percentage of voters are left out of the election process.
In Oregon there are the over 650,000 independent and minor party affiliated voters that are locked out of the process and the over 350,000 Democratic and Republican voters that live in geographic regions that are dominated by the opposite party. The most recent voter registration numbers from the Oregon Secretary of State show that in a recent two-month voter registration drive; nearly 80 percent of new registrants chose not to affiliate with either of the two major parties
The Oregon Open Primary ensures that 1) every voter gets to have a say in who advances to the general election and 2) voters always have a real, competitive choice between two candidates in the general election.
Washington state voters approved the use of a similar open primary system and California voters adopted the open primary system beginning in 2012.
Measure 90 addresses a key gap in the California and Washington system: helping voters distinguish between candidates. A candidate might be a registered Democrat and also endorsed by the Democratic Party, Working Families Party and Independent Party of Oregon. Now the voter will receive four pieces of information about the candidate instead of one. This helps voters distinguish between candidates and what they stand for. These voter registration and endorsement provisions are not part of the Washington and California top-two system.
Measure 90 empowers Oregon voters to take back control of their politics and allows all voters to choose the best candidate regardless of political party.
Ballot Measure 91
Oregon Legalized Marijuana Initiative
Measure 91 would legalize recreational marijuana for people ages 21 and older, allowing adults over this age to possess up to eight ounces of “dried” marijuana and up to four plants. Additionally, the measure would task the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) with regulating sales of the drug.
The initiative is being sponsored by the group New Approach Oregon. Anthony Johnson, the chief petitioner, hoped legislators would refer the measure to the ballot, however they failed to do so before the 2014 session ended on March 10, 2014. It is also known as the Control, Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana and Industrial Hemp Act of 2014.
Currently, cultivation, possession, delivery and sale of marijuana are unlawful, excepting regulated production, possession, use of medical marijuana. The Measure allows production, processing, delivery, possession, sale of marijuana to adults, licensed, regulated by OLCC, which will collect the tax imposed on a marijuana producer at different rates for marijuana flowers, leaves and immature plant.
Homegrown marijuana is not regulated nor taxed. Tax revenues will be distributed like this: 40 percent to Common School Fund, 20 percent for mental health/alcohol/drug services, 15 percent for state police, 20 percent for local law enforcement and 5 percent to Oregon Health Authority.
Approval will make Oregon the third in the nation to legalize marijuana for adults outright. Colorado’s numbers reveal the state made more than $60 million in legal marijuana sales this year. What would this mean for Oregon?
Voters in seven states, one U.S. territory and at least 17 cities and counties across the nation will face a marijuana initiative when they go to the polls in November. Consumer finance site NerdWallet was curious to see how much money each state could earn from legalizing marijuana. Here’s what we found:
The U.S as a whole stands to earn $3,098,866,907 in extra revenue from state and local taxes of legal marijuana
Oregon could net an extra $55 million in revenue each year by legalizing and taxing the drug
California could gain the most from taxes on sales of marijuana, potentially earning $519,287,052, which almost covers the 2013 budget for the California Department of Parks and Recreation
http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/cities/economics/how-much-money-states-make-marijuana-legalization/
Ballot Measure 92
Oregon Mandatory Labeling of GMOs Initiative
Measure 92 would mandate the labeling of certain foodstuffs that were produced with or contain genetically modified organisms. The measure is sponsored by the group Oregon GMO Right to Know.
Current law does not require labeling of genetically engineered food. The Measure requires retailers of genetically-engineered raw food to include Genetically Engineered on packages, display bins or shelves. Suppliers must label shipping containers. It requires manufacturers of packaged food produced entirely or partially by genetic engineering to include “Produced with Genetic Engineering” or “Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering” on packages.
It defines genetically engineered food as food produced from organisms with genetic material changed through in vitro nucleic acid techniques and certain cell-fusing techniques. It exempts traditional plant-breeding techniques like hybridization. It does not apply to animal feed or food served in restaurants.
First you have to ask the question: why do we need this? It creates red tape and new costs for farmers, food companies and grocery stores and ultimately Oregon consumers. Oregon would become the only state in the country to have a separate food labeling system forcing companies importing food into Oregon to re-label their products. Under current nationwide labeling regulations, consumers who prefer to choose foods made without GMO ingredients can already do so by purchasing products labeled organic or non-GMO.
Will it give reliable information about which foods are made with GMOs and which are not? As written the measure requires certain food productions to be labeled genetically engineered even if they’re not. And then other food products are exempt from labeling even if they are made with or contain GMOs, which conflicts with existing national labeling standards for organic and non-GMO labels for these products.
The measure has created a complicated, time-consuming and costly labeling process. How can you tell what is actually exempt and what needs labeling when it exempts restaurant foods, alcoholic beverages, food and beverages sold ready to eat and food in school and hospital cafeterias?
Who will pay for the inspection program? Oregon Department of Administrative Services estimates that inspection programs would cost taxpayers more than $14 million every budget cycle. These costs will have to be passed on to consumers.
Basically Measure 92 would create a whole new food production and labeling system just for Oregon. This Measure is unnecessary and complex. We recommend a no vote.
