City Measures

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 $30 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, improve readability and delete obsolete provisions in the City Charter.
Proponents of the measure say the changes improve the Charter’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, debating 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 required to report to the City Council after hiring, promoting or firing individuals. Currently, 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 require the manager to appoint and staff a city attorney by July 1, 2005.
Proponents of the measure say an in-house lawyer would provide 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 council/mayor vacancies Charter amendment
In the event that an elected city official leaves office, this measure 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 vacancy occurred.
Supporters of the measure say it reduces the maximum time that could be served by an appointee. They also say that the financial burden to hold a special election would be small and that the implications make the measure well worth it. There was no organized 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 responsible? 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 protecting those who make mistakes through ignorance. There was no organized 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 better 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 provision 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.

County Measures

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 intake 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 multiple times — voters in Lane County have better ways to spend their money, they say.
20-60 — Lane County public safety emergency communications 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 communications 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 general obligation bonds
The measure asks voters to consider adding access improvements 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 sheriff’s service desk and adding new security 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 disabled. There was no organized opposition to this measure.
20-62 — Lane County park improvements general obligation 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 existing parks.
Supporters say in paid statements in the voters’ pamphlet that it’s high time to fund county parks, which one group calls a “diamond in the rough.” There was no organized opposition to this measure.
20-63 — Lane County public health building general obligation bonds
The measure asks voters to consider moving the county’s public 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 mea
sure.
20-65 — Lane County Planetarium and Learning Center general obligation bonds
The measure asks voters to consider building a new planetarium and learning center at the Lane County Fairgrounds. The old structure, 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 references 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 “mulattos” in the Oregon Constitution.
No arguments in favor of or in opposition to this measure were filed.
15 — Amends Constitution: Authorizes state to issue general obligation bond for seismic rehabilitation of public education buildings.
Ballot Measure 15 would allow the state to issue general obligation bonds to retrofit or reinforce public education buildings to withstand earthquakes. The Oregon Legislature would use taxes, lottery proceeds, tobacco settlement funds or other revenue 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 pattern 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 general obligation bonds for seismic rehabilitation of emergency services buildings.
Ballot Measure 16 would allow the state to issue general obligation bonds to retrofit or reinforce public education buildings to withstand earthquakes. The Oregon Legislature would use taxes, lottery proceeds, tobacco settlement funds or other 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 Oregon 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 requirement 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 Oregon 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 establish 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 permanent 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 judicial 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, regardless 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 candidate, special elections must be held in succeeding May and November elections until the position is filled by a candidate other than “None of the Above.”
Proponents argue the measure would make judges more accountable and allow Oregon citizens to respond to court decisions. 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 money 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 Oregon Court of Appeals be elected by judicial district. Under current law, the judges of the Oregon Supreme Court and the Oregon 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 Oregonians of the right to elect the highest quality judges regardless of their location.
23 — Creates a health care finance plan for medically necessary 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 eligibility criteria for persons working in Oregon but residing elsewhere, effective January 1, 2005. The plan would be funded by new individual progressive income and payroll taxes and transfers 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 insured. Opponents argue the measure would create a flawed system where the government retains control of health care and individual tax bills raised as much as $25,000.
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 dentures, while only dentists are allowed to install partial upper or lower dentures that replace individual teeth with permanent 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 advice 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 stat
e 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 families to support. Opponents argue that Oregon has one of the highest minimum wage limits in the United States, and increasing it would only further boost Oregon’s high unemployment rate.
26 — Amends Constitution: Prohibits payment or receipt of payment based on the number of initiative and referendum petition 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 signatures obtained on an initiative or referendum petition. Current 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 incentive for fraud, forgery and identity theft when signature gatherers 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 using 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 beverages 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 material is present in the final product; foods grown using GE agricultural inputs; dairy and meat products derived from animals that have been fed GE feed or feed additives; and products derived from animals treated with GE hormones or drugs, regardless 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 compromise immune system responses — contains genetically-engineered ingredients. Opponents argue the Food and Drug Administration 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.