As a general rule, I hate ballot measures. We have a representative form of government whereby we elect individuals to consider and debate ideas and proposals and, hopefully, make intelligent decisions as to which laws should be enacted and which should not. While I have little faith in the wisdom of our legislators, at least we have the right to throw the bums out when necessary. Ballot measures are generally too heavy-handed and don’t address the intricacies necessary to really be effective.

The worst of the ballot measures are those that seek to amend the constitution and/or tie the hands of certain branches of the government. A prime example from the not-to-distant past is Ballot Measure 11 and its progeny which deal with mandatory sentences. This idiocy was the brainchild of Crime Victims United and Kevin Mannix and others who are primarily one-trick ponies. These people believe that the only answer to crime is incarceration. Never mind that mandatory sentences just result in more prisons being built and maintained at greater and greater expense to the State, counties and municipalities (not to mention the taxpayers!), but they also create a breeding ground for more serious criminals. This approach to crime reminds me of the old saying that when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Prior to Measure 11 and its progeny, judges were given the discretion to determine what sentence was appropriate for a particular crime and a particular criminal, taking into account all relevant factors. As an example, a young man who commits a violent crime might be sentenced to varying lengths in prison or, if its determined that the crime was the result of momentary stupidity and not some sort of ingrained venality, an alternative sentence might be appropriate and might even allow a youthful offender to be rehabilitated. Under Measure 11, the judges no longer have that discretion. It has now become cut-and-dried, you do the crime, you do the time. A catchy slogan but not very practical.

I’m sure that certain injustices have occurred in the past whereby judges have been overly lenient in their sentencing, thereby allowing psychopaths the ability to re-offend or for the guilty to serve less than a fair sentence. Under our system, however, the people can choose not to re-elect a judge that is overly lenient or otherwise out of tune with the times.

Now this leads me to the various ballot measures that we are facing in November, 2008. Following my First General Rule of Ballot Measures, unless I feel confident that a measure is well-reasoned and necessary, I vote against it. Accordingly, and unless you are going to do your own research, I recommend that you vote “no” on every ballot measure, even the one that I support. Here’s my quick opinion on each of the upcoming ballot measures:

MEASURE 54 (Election Reform) This Measure was referred by the Legislature because of their inability to address one of the great inequities of our time: standardizing voting eligibility for school board elections to conform with all other election. Whew, I’m sure glad that this problem is being resolved.

MEASURE 55 (Redistricting) And yet another referral from the Legislature to allow a legislator to be re-assigned after the political party in power completes its gerrymandering, oops, I mean re-districting. Does anyone still believe that the re-districting that goes on from time to time is anything but political gamesmanship? This is one of those measures where my general rule applies.

MEASURE 56 (Property Tax Elections) This is the Legislature’s attempt to repeal the double majority requirement for new taxes. Of course Sizemore opposes this but my thought is that if the majority of voters want to pay more in taxes, who am I to say no (other than being a voter.) The double majority rule only helps those who are too lazy or stupid to vote. If they have to pay additional taxes because they choose not to vote, I feel no sympathy for them. Right now, I’m leaning in support of this measure.

MEASURE 57 (Mandatory Sentences) Once upon a time, in the wonderful world of law and order, the Legislature opposed Kevin Mannix’s Ballot Measure 61 but figured that rather than declaring it idiotic and short-sighted, they proposed their own kinder and gentler version of mandatory sentencing for primarily property crimes. Under this Ballot Measure, the State would only incur additional expenditures of $70 million/yr. while still further emasculating the judges. I don’t know about you, but if I’m going to turn our judges into mindless bureaucrats, I’d rather do it for $70 million/year rather than $128-200 million/year it will cost under Mannix's proposed measure. After all, we have to be practical about this, don’t we?

MEASURE 58 (English Immersion) This measure would enact a statute which would limit English as a Second Language (ESL) programs to 1 to 2 years. On its face, I like this measure. It at least begins to address some of the problems we have with immigration, i.e. a lack of assimilation. I will address the issue of immigration in further detail in another blog. In the meantime, this is a measure that requires further scrutiny.

MEASURE 59 (Tax Reform) This measure makes federal income taxes fully deductible on your state tax return. This is a Bill Sizemore/Loren Parks initiative which leads me to my Second General Rule of Ballot Measures, to wit: if it is proposed or supported by Bill Sizemore and/or Loren Parks, it should be rejected.

We have a lot of problems with Oregon’s tax system but suggesting that we fix the problem by passing laws like this is stupid. All this measure does is to reduce tax revenue to the State. While this may not be a bad idea in theory, you don’t do this without addressing the facts that revenue reduction also requires spending reductions. Saying taxes should be cut is easy. Figuring out which programs should be cut is the tough part. As usual, Sizemore and Parks tackle the easy stuff and leave the mess for others to figure out. Out of curiosity, I wonder if Sizemore and Parks would agree to cut spending on our criminal justice system to help compensate for the loss of tax revenue caused by this Measure?

MEASURE 60 (Merit Based Pay for Teachers) And yet another Sizemore/Parks initiative that appeals to the heart more than the head. Don’t we want the best teachers to be paid the best? Why should we pay older teachers more just because they’ve been teaching longer and have more experience? Sure, this doesn’t address the issue of who is to judge the teachers and how they are to be judged but, hey, let’s just leave that to someone else to figure out. Let’s not get bogged down in details when we’re trying to help the kids.

MEASURE 61 (Mandatory Sentences) This brilliant measure will further emasculate judges and prevent them from applying any discretion when it comes to property crimes. Kevin Mannix must be so proud to have gotten this measure on the November ballot. Heaven forbid that we should allow our elected judges to hear the evidence and then apply their knowledge and experience to make the best of a bad situation. Isn’t it much better to have judges who just become mindless functionaries who deal with issues in black and white rather than getting mired in the grey? Having been a civil litigator for the past 24 years, I’ve gotten to know a lot of judges. Some are smarter than others, some work harder than others, some are more arrogant than others. I’ve not, however, run into a single judge that I thought to be dishonest or not at least trying to do his/her best for the benefit of the Community as a whole. I’ve run into only a couple of judges who I felt to be “not up to the task,” but these judges were few and far between. Why not let the judges do what they are supposed to do - judge!

Oh, by the way, it has been estimated by the State’s Criminal Justice Commission that the Measure will cost the State between $128-200 million/year. Does Mr. Mannix propose where this money will come from. Oh, yeah, I didn’t think so.

MEASURE 62 (Allocation of Lottery Proceeds) One would think that an experienced legislator like Kevin Mannix would understand that it is the Legislature’s role to allocate tax and lottery revenues as they deem appropriate. One would be wrong, however, and maybe Mannix knows something that we don’t. The problem with this proposed measure, among other things, is that it will further limit the discretion that the Legislature has to determine which programs are most deserving of funding. Why is that Mannix, Sizemore and their followers have a problem with elected officials exercising their judgment and using discretion to make tough decisions? If we don’t trust our elected officials to exercise their judgment and discretion, why do we elect them? If Mannix, Sizemore, et al. so distrust our form of government, why aren't they proposing procedures to change that form of government rather than just trying to further muck up governmental processes that don't work that well as they are.

MEASURE 63 (Building Permit Exemptions) OK, this one hurts. As much as anyone that has ever had to get building permits, I hate them. Its not the permits so much as the mindless bureaucrats who issue them. Having dealt with a large number of morons that work for the City of Tigard, I feel completely comfortable in saying that its not the permits but those who issue, inspect and approve the permits that are the problem.

This Measure proposes to allow property owners to build improvements up to $35,000 without obtaining any construction permits. Yes, this is another Sizemore/Parks initiative. What to do - support the idiots or support the bureaucrats? This time the bureaucrats win. Can’t you just see the problems in trying to determine whether that $34,999 bid for that $50,000 house addition is a good faith bid or, heaven forbid, a vile attempt to skirt the law. Do you think that the insurance companies just might raise premiums on buildings which have been constructed without permits? Its likely that any monetary savings by avoiding permit fees would be offset by increased insurance premiums and those premiums will go on year after year.

MEASURE 64 (Campaign Finance Reform) This measure would prohibit the use of money collected with the use of public finances from being used for most political purposes. Huh? What, oh what, could Sizemore, Parks and their merry band of rebels be trying to do? Looks like it would prevent any government employees from engaging in any lobbying. I know that lobbying is a bad word but what happens when County officials want to request that the Legislature provide them with public improvements, such as highway improvements, or seek additional money for new judges or other issues that effect the Counties?

The measure also prohibits any “public resources” to be used to collect money for political purposes and then defines “public resources” as including public buildings. Does this mean that a person can’t approach legislators at the Capital? Maybe in Sizemore’s and Parks’ world, meeting with legislators in seedy motels and badly lit alleyways is a better way of working with them than meeting in the open air. Hmm, I think I’ll vote no on this one.

MEASURE 65 (Open Primaries) Under this Measure, the general public would no longer subsidize the various political parties by paying for the parties’ primary elections. I’ve long been a proponent of opening up primaries. As long as we only have 2 major political parties, its somewhat absurd to have no say in who the finalist will be for elected positions. Personally I’d go further and delete any reference to political parties on the ballot but I don’t think we’re there yet. This would be a great first step. If the two best candidates are both Republican or both Democrat, I want the ability to choose.

One need look no further than 2004 when the "best" two candidates presented by the two major political parties were George W. Bush and John Kerry. Were those two really the best that those parties had to offer for the highest elected office in the land? Really?

This is one measure that I strongly, strongly encourage and support. Its time to allow independents and supporters of minor parties to have a say in who the final candidates will be for various elected offices.