STATE MEASURE #1
Themeasure would amend the constitution to require the Legislature to adequatelyfund school quality goals linked to Oregon’s school reform efforts. If fundingisn’t adequate, the legislature must issue a report analyzing why funding fellshort and how that will affect students. Also, the measure would require thestate to establish grants for poor school districts.
Supporters saythat the measure would hold the legislature accountable for school funding andhelp poor districts that would otherwise lack the funding needed to meet schoolreform benchmarks.
Opponents say either the measure doesn’t go farenough to ensure funding or goes too far and binds the legislature to fundschools based on questionable cost estimates.
The Emerald says YES.Similar to Measure 84, this makes the Legislature cough up money when they makedemands. Measure 1 says that if the Legislature sets school quality goals, itmust provide funding to meet those goals. Simple and fair.
Click here for an Emerald perspective on Measure 1.
STATE MEASURE #2
Themeasure would amend the constitution to create a process for petitioners torequire the legislature to review government agency policies.
Those infavor of the measure say that it will create citizen-driven accountability.
Those in opposition say the measure would upset the state’s balance ofpowers, which already allows for legislative review of agencies.
TheEmerald says NO. Another measure overly complicating our lawmaking process.Measure 2 says that if 10,000 voters get upset about an administrative rule andsign a petition, the Legislature would have to review and vote on the rule. It’seasy to get 10,000 people upset about darn near anything in Oregon. If we can soeasily double- and triple-guess our government, it can’t work effectively.
STATE MEASURE#3
Themeasure requires conviction before property forfeiture, restricts use ofproceeds, requires reporting of the nature and disposition of all forfeitedproperties by forfeiting agencies and declares a penalty for violations.
Supporters of the measure say that it reestablishes the doctrine ofinnocent until proven guilty because no one should lose his or her property tothe government unless first convicted of a crime.
Opponents of themeasure say that it takes a valuable law-enforcement tool away from the state.They say forfeiture is necessary for combating drug use and drunk driving. Theyalso say it would harm animals because it fails to distinguish animals from othertypes of property, allowing abused animals to remain in the hands of theirabusers.
The Emerald says YES. Requires a criminal conviction beforeseizing private property. Currently, the government can seize a citizen’sproperty if they think it was used in a crime, even if the citizen has not yetbeen arrested or convicted. Gee, do you think we should be sure they’re guiltybefore we take their stuff?
STATE MEASURE #4
Themeasure creates a tobacco settlement trust fund with earnings dedicated tolow-income health care.
Supporters of the measure say it will ensurecontinuation of the Children’s Health Insurance Program and makes the best use ofstate tobacco settlement revenues.
Arguments in opposition say tobaccosettlement dollars should be spent on tobacco prevention programs.
TheEmerald says YES. Would establish a trust fund for the tobacco settlementmoney,just like Measure 89. But unlike 89, this measure would use the money only forthe Oregon Health Plan. Either way, Measure 89 or 4, we think protecting thesettlement money and using it for health-related services is a good idea. If bothmeasures pass, the one receiving the largest percentage of “yes” votes wouldbecome law. But if half of the state votes “yes” on one measure and “no” on theother, they could both fail. Best vote for both of them.
STATE MEASURE #5
Themeasure would require mental health and criminal background checks for anybodybuying a gun at a gun show.
Those in favor say the measure would helplaw enforcement, protect Oregon gun owners and close the gun-show loophole, whichallows criminals, juveniles and the criminally insane to buy guns without abackground check.
Those in opposition say that the measure would notreduce crime or violence but would create a hurdle for law-abiding Oregonians andinvade their privacy by asking for personal information during gun-sale checks.
The Emerald says YES. Requires unlicensed gun sellers to performbackground checks — just like licensed dealers do. This is simple: Everyoneselling a gun in Oregon should be required to do a background check on the personbuying the gun.
STATE MEASURE #6
Themeasure provides limited public funding to candidates accepting limits onspending and private contributions.
Those in favor say the measurewill give Oregon the opportunity to lead the nation in campaign finance reformand will bring fairness and accountability back to the political process.
Those in opposition say politicians don’t need the money and that themeasure binds future legislatures to fund the campaigns of multitudes ofcandidates. Opponents also say that public funding would force taxpayers tosupport even the candidates they wouldn’t vote for.
The Emerald saysYES. Moves Oregon toward real campaign finance reform. This measure establishes acampaign fund, so that if candidates for state offices voluntarily limit spendingand show public support for their candidacy, they receive money from the state.The money for this fund comes from eliminating the tax deduction taken bybusinesses and wealthy individuals for huge campaign contributions. Even better,if a candidate’s opponent refuses to abide by the spending limits, the candidategets additional money to match the uncooperative opponent. This measure is a stepin the right direction, and it shows how clear and concise a law can be if it’swritten by an experienced professional, instead of by Bill Sizemore.
Click here for an Emerald perspective on Measure 6.
STATE MEASURE #7
Themeasure would require state and local governments to pay property owners if lawor regulation reduces property value.
Those in favor of the measuresay it would protect farms, create a balance between the economy and environmentand guarantee that landowners are paid fairly for their land.
Those inopposition say the measure would unnecessarily cost the state billions ofdollars, discourage environmental protection and give a windfall to corporationsand developers.
The Emerald says NO. Requires state and localgovernments to pay property owners if anything the government does can be shownto reduce the property value. In other words, if the state establishes a naturereserve near someone’s land, and the owner cries that the development value ofthat land is reduced as a result, the state would have to pay them — fordevelopment that hasn’t happened. Taking private property currently requirescompensation. Claiming value reduction is too broad. This would cost state andlocal governments
$5.4 billion. Yes, billion.
STATE MEASURE #8
Themeasure limits state spending to 15 percent of the state’s personal income in theprior biennium. This will reduce state government spending by an estimated $5.7billion for the 2001-2003 biennium.
Those in favor say the measurewould not require budget cuts but would limit spending by eliminating waste andcreating competition among government agencies to prove their cost-effectiveness.
Those in opposition say the cut will drastically affect servicesincluding education, health care, public safety, services to seniors and disabledpeople and protection of natural resources. Also, opponents say the measure wouldforce Oregon to lose billions of dollars in federal funds.
The Emeraldsays NO. Limits the state’s spending ability — to 15 percent of the state’sincome in the last two years. Every two years, the state budgets for the next twoyears. Sometimes investments need to be made. The Legislature should have theflexibility to spend more than 15 percent if needed. Voters could pass a law ifthey want a balanced budget, but this constitutional amendment is unnecessary andsevere. Measure 8 would reduce our spending ability by $5.7 billion. How would wefund higher education?
Click here for an Emerald perspective on Measure 8 and 91.Click here for an Emerald perspective on Measure 8, 86, 91 and 93.
STATE MEASURE #9
Themeasure prohibits public schools from encouraging or sanctioning homosexuality.Those schools that are found to have encouraged, sanctioned or promotedhomosexuality would lose state funding.
Supporters of the measure sayhomosexuality is wrong and should not be encouraged in schools. They also saythat schools should provide information about how a gay person could becomestraight.
Opponents say that there is no curriculum in Oregon publicschools which encourages or promotes homosexuality or bisexuality. Also, they saythe measure would cut health education, counseling and support programs forteens. Opponents worry that teen suicide would become more common if theseservices were made unavailable.
The Emerald says NO. Would prohibitpublic schools from “encouraging, promoting or sanctioning” homosexuality. Thevaguely written Measure 9 isn’t about protecting children or fairness incurriculum. It’s about the OCA wanting homosexuals scared, silent and suppressed.The OCA has toned down the wording of its recent measures to avoid the charges ofbigotry and hate-mongering it inspired in past years. However, Measure 9 is thesame bigotry, just in a nice, shiny “protect our kids” package.
Click here for an Emerald perspective on Measure 9.
STATE MEASURE #83
Oregon’sVeterans’ Home Loan program provides home loans to veterans who served at least210 days in the military prior to 1977 and filed for a loan prior to 1986. Themeasure would eliminate the 1986 deadline and extend the loan program to veteranswho served at least 210 days after 1977.
Supporters say the measurewould offer loans to deserving veterans, incur no cost to the state, boost homeownership and support communities and schools via property taxes.
No organizedopposition.
The Emerald says YES. This measure allows veterans whoserved 210 days of active duty or in certain eligible operations later than 1976to be included in the Veterans’ Home Loan program. Currently, veterans who servedafter 1976 are not allowed the benefits of this program and they should be.
STATE MEASURE #84
The measurewould retain requirements that the state pay local governments for the costs ofstate-mandated programs. If the measure fails to pass, the requirement would berepealed, forcing local governments to pay for state-mandatedprograms.
Supporters say that if the measure fails, the legislaturewould have no restrictions on imposing new, unfounded service requirements onlocal governments, which would require taxpayers to pay for the unfundedmandates.
Opponents say the measure would make it difficult to set newpolicies in the state and would bind state efforts to preserve the state’senvironment.
The Emerald says YES. In 1996, voters approved thisconstitutional amendment requiring the Legislature to provide money to localgovernments if the Legislature mandates programs or services for those localgovernments. In other words, if you tell a city or county to do something, payfor it. The 1996 measure required a review in 2000. It’s still a good idea.
STATE MEASURE #85
The measurewould modify population and minimum area requirements for forming new counties.The measure permits new counties to be established with less than 400 squaremiles provided that the new county has 100,000 inhabitants.
Supporterssay that the measure updates the current manner of establishing counties,which has not been changed since Oregon’s original constitution in 1857. Themeasure protects existing counties while giving citizens the right ofself-determination.
No organized opposition.
The Emerald says YES. In1857, Oregon decided that in order to be a county, an area of land needed to be400 square miles and have 1,200 inhabitants. It’s now 143 years later. Thisamendment would update the requirement, allowing new counties to be formed withless than 400 square miles if more than 100,000 people inhabit the area.
STATE MEASURE #86
Currentstatutory law requires the state to send refunds to taxpayers every two yearswhen state income exceeds projections by 2 percent. The legislature couldwithhold the refund with a three-fifths vote. This measure would make thisrequirement a constitutional amendment and require a two-thirds vote by thelegislature to withhold a refund.
Supporters say the measure wouldensure voters get deserved tax refunds and that the state doesn’t spend moneythat belongs to taxpayers.
Opponents say the measure would strip thelegislature of its power to reserve excess funds for emergencies and wouldunnecessarily clutter the constitution.
The Emerald says YES. Makes thestate’s “kicker law” a part of the Oregon Constitution. The kicker law says thatwhen state income exceeds the state’s estimates, the extra money gets returned tothe taxpayers. It works fine as a law, but it doesn’t need to be added to theconstitution. If our economy changes, our lawmakers need to have flexibility whendealing with taxes.
Click here for an Emerald perspective on Measure 86.
STATE MEASURE#87
The measure would allow city and county government to zone wheresexually oriented businesses can locate.
Supporters say that undercurrent Oregon law, nude dancing establishments and adult bookstores are able tolocate in neighborhoods and next to schools and parks. Oregon is one of only twostates in the nation that prohibits cities and counties from zoning sexuallyoriented businesses.
Opposition say the measure would give localgovernments too much power and weakens the Oregon Bill of Rights, taking awayfreedom of expression.
The Emerald says NO. Removes the “freeexpression” protection from sexually oriented businesses. Currently, if alocality wants to regulate where a sexually-oriented business is located, it cando so by showing actual or threatened harm. A business shouldn’t be refusedexistence simply based on the content of what they sell. We should protect freeexpression.
STATE MEASURE #88
The measure would cut taxes by increasing the maximum deductible on Oregonpersonal income tax returns for federal income taxes paid from $3,000 to$5,000.
Supporters argue the measure would reduce the amount Oregonianspay in state income taxes without harming schools, public safety or othergovernment services.
Those opposed argue the measure would reducefunding for schools and universities, which could lead to an increase intuition.
The Emerald says NO. Increases the amount of federal incometaxes that are deductible on Oregon income tax returns, and would reduce theamount of money the state has to spend on services like education and publicsafety. It would cost the state $47 million in 2001-2002.
STATE MEASURE #89
The measure would create a fundfrom tobacco settlement proceeds dedicated to specified health, housing andtransportation programs.
Supporters say Oregon will receiveapproximately $2.2 billion over the next 25 years from tobacco settlements andguarantees funds will be dedicated to providing financial resources for specifichealth-care programs, as well as assisting the elderly and disabled members ofthe community.
Opponents say that tobacco settlement money should beused to make a real commitment to tobacco prevention.
The Emerald saysYES. Creates an investment fund from Oregon’s share of the tobacco settlement tobe used specifically for health, housing and transportation programs to benefitthe most needy Oregonians without using the principal from the settlement. Let’suse this free money for as many health-related causes as possible.
STATE MEASURE #90
This measure wouldallow regulated utilities — including electric, phone, gas and water — tocharge rates high enough to make closed facilitiesprofitable.
Supporters say the measure would unburden utilities and,over time, save consumers money.
Opponents say the measure wouldunfairly hike utility rates to bail out utility blunders.
The Emeraldsays NO. Allows public utilities to raise rates in order to get a return oninvestments in utility property that is shut down. Essentially, Portland GeneralElectric wants to raise electric rates to make money off of the closed Trojannuclear plant. In 1998, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that PGE’s planviolates Oregon law. Then the Legislature voted to change the law. Last year,more than 53,000 voters signed petitions to have the changed law put to a vote ofthe people. Sorry that nuclear power thing didn’t work out, but no.
STATE MEASURE #91
The measure would makefederal income taxes fully deductible on Oregon personal and corporate income taxreturns.
Supporters say the measure will end double taxation andcontrol state spending.
Opponents say a person must make $81,000 tobenefit from the measure and that it will reduce the state budget by at least a$1 billion each year. This could result in a funding decrease for education by 10percent of its current budget and hurt public services such as fire, emergencyservices and libraries.
The Emerald says NO. Makes federal income taxesfully deductible on personal and corporate Oregon income tax returns. Wouldreduce state revenue by between $800 million and $1 billion, drastically reducingthe state’s ability to fund education and public safety.
Click here for an Emerald perspective on Measure 91 and 8.Click here for an Emerald perspective on Measure 91, 93, 86 and 8.
STATE MEASURE #92
Measure 92 would prohibit payrolldeductions for political purposes without specific written authorization from theemployee each year. It would also restrict the use of payroll-deducted funds fromsuch organizations as unions, charities, insurance companies and financialinstitutions.
Supporters argue Measure 92 would not prevent employeesfrom contributing to any political cause they wish; it would only requireorganizations to get annual written permission from the employee.
Thoseopposed argue Measure 92 restricts the political voice of union employees andwould harm such organizations as charities and student groups, which receivemoney from deductions.
The Emerald says NO. Requires organizations toget specific written authorization from employees before allowing thoseorganizations to collect money through payroll deductions for political purposes.This hampers one group of people’s ability to engage in the political process andis unfair to workers.
Click here for an Emerald perspective on Measure 92.
STATE MEASURE#93
This measure would require Oregonians to vote on increases intaxes or fees. If the measure passes, future tax or fee increases would have topass by whatever margin Measure 93 passes. Levies passed since 1998 would becalled to vote as well.
Supporters say the measure would give votersmore control over their tax dollars and halt runaway governmentspending.
Opponents say that voters would be overwhelmed with countlesstax levies and that voters would vote “no” on vital tax and feeincreases.
The Emerald says NO. Requires voters to approve nearly everytax and fee that any state agency implements. This unnecessarily ties the handsof state government to work efficiently and keep agencies running. Click here for an Emerald perspective on Measure 93, 91, 86 and 8.
STATE MEASURE #94
The measure repealsMeasure 11 — mandatory minimum sentences for certain violent and other felonies– and requires resentencing.
Supporters say the measure would allowjudges to determine the length of a sentence, minimizing tough sentences onyoung, first-time offenders.
Opponents say violent juveniles should besentenced as adults, and that criminals committing crimes such as rape, murderand assault should not be given minimum sentences.
The Emerald saysYES. Repeals the mandatory minimum sentencing requirements of Measure 11 andrequires resentencing of criminals sentenced under Measure 11’s minimums. Measure11 has hijacked justice in Oregon, so we recommend repealing it. But Oregon needsto increase rehabilitation efforts for juveniles and increase penalties forviolent crimes like rape.
STATE MEASURE#95
The measure would link teacher pay with student performances onassessment tests.
Supporters say the measure would improve publiceducation by discouraging pay based on seniority, requiring teachers to meetstandards and encouraging teachers to seek ongoing training.
Opponentssay the measure would unjustly threaten jobs and create competition betwe
enteachers. They also argue that no student exam would sufficiently assess studentperformance.
The Emerald says NO. Attempts to gauge “teacherperformance” by requiring measurement of “student learning,” and would baseteachers’ salaries on that “performance.” Teacher performance can’t be measuredthat easily, and pay should be based on skills and education.
Click here for an Emerald perspective on Measure 95.
STATE MEASURE #96
This measure would barthe legislature from altering the initiative process to make it more difficultfor an initiative to reach the ballot.
Supporters say the measure wouldprotect the initiative process from being restricted.
Opponents say themeasure would unnecessarily restrain legislators from fine tuning theprocess.
The Emerald says YES. Prohibits the Legislature from making itharder for citizens to put constitutional amendments on the ballot. We supportthis because everyone should have an equal opportunity to put measures on theballot. But citizens need to be more careful to not tinker with the OregonConstitution for every private agenda.
STATE MEASURE #97
This measure would prohibit theuse of animal traps, including steel-jawed leghold traps, and would outlaw theharvest and sale of fur using such traps. It would also make the use of poisonssodium fluoroacetate and sodium cyanide illegal.
Proponents say themeasure will put an end to the use of needlessly cruel traps thatindiscriminately trap animals.
Opponents say the measure would take avital element of the agricultural business out of the hands of farmers andranchers.
The Emerald says YES. Stops farmers and ranchers from usingbody-gripping traps and poisons until after they’ve tried other methods. This ishumane and rational, and animal owners can still get a permit to use traps fromthe Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
STATE MEASURE #98
The measure would prohibit the useof public resources– including public monies, public employee time, publicbuildings, and public equipment and supplies — to collect or help collectpolitical funds. Political funds include money contributed to candidates,political committees or parties and ballot measure or initiative petitions.
Supporters say the measure would give back public workers’ rights andmake sure that every political contribution a public employee makes to his or herunion will be freely given.
Opponents say the measure would take away aworker’s right to choose whether or not to participate in political funding andwould negatively impact students.
The Emerald says NO. Bars publicemployees from using payroll deduction to give money for political purposes, justbecause the state’s payroll department would have to process those payrolldeductions. Again, similar to Measure 92, this singles out one group of peopleand makes it harder for them to participate. That’s not democracy.
Click here for an Emerald perspective on Measure 98.
STATE MEASURE #99
The measure wouldamend the constitution to create a state commission that would work to ensurehigh-quality home care for elderly and disabled people who receive publiclyfunded personal care in their homes.
Supporters say the measure wouldimprove in-home care for elderly and disabled people. They argue that in-homecare is less costly and more humane than institutional care.
No organizedopposition.
The Emerald says YES. Creates a state commission to regulatehome care workers for the elderly and disabled. The commission would be sure thathome care workers are properly trained and registered, and would represent homecare workers for collective bargaining purposes. This is a win for the elderlyand disabled and a win for home care workers. Only Satan would oppose thismeasure.
