Oregon Votes!
Oct. 17th, 2008 09:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
plutherusWith the Oregon ballots soon to be mailed out, I thought I'd take a look at some of the measures being proposed. I haven't done any research on any of these other than read what's in the voter's guide (which, by the way, can be found online here.
Here, in brief, is my initial impression of each. If I've overlooked anything, let me know. Especially if you think I'm wrong.
54: Amends Constitution: Standardizes voting eligibility for school board elections with other state and local elections.
Normally, anything that starts with "Amends Constitution" would be a big red flag, as it's an indication that it's proponents realize that what they're trying to do is unconstitutional. Strangely, though, we seem to have a law in Oregon that puts the voting age in certain elections at 21. While simultaneously prohibiting checking ID other than a voting registration card. Weird. So, yeah, I think this one's a Yes.
55: Amends Constitution: Changes operative date of redistricting plans; allows affected legislators to finish term in original district.
After they finish Gerrymandering after each census, legislators are automatically moved to their new districts, even if they're no longer from them. Kinda weird. This measure just changes the rules so that new districts don't take effect until the next election. Strange that we're still making this kind of administrative changes to our Constitution. I don't know what the goal is behind this, buy I'm kinda leaning "No", just because I don't trust the bastards.
56: Amends Constitution: Provides that May and November property tax elections are decided by majority of voters voting.
This is the "double-majority" requirement. If less than half the registered voters turn out for a vote, then everyone who didn't vote is counted as a No. So, if, say, 49% of registered voters actually vote, and they all vote "Yes" on a new tax, the 51% who didn't vote are counted as voting "No", and the measure fails. Sounds kind of stupid on the fact of it until you know a bit of the history behind the double-majority. In addition to the annual November elections, in which more than half the people usually vote, there are all sorts of special elections during the rest of the year. Legislators used to frequently use these special elections to sneak in special tax breaks for their supporters, knowing that only 10-15% of voters will bother to vote at all, so they only had to convince 5-7% of the state to vote for them. The double-majority makes it so they have to either convince more than half the voters to go to the polls, or wait until the regular vote in November, which makes it harder to pass special-interest taxes. A big "No" here.
57: Increases sentences for drug trafficking, theft against elderly and specified repeat property and identity theft crimes; requires addiction treatment for certain offenders.
Part of what it does is redirect drug users from prison to addiction counseling. This is a good step in the right direction. (The best would just be to legalize the damn stuff, tax it, and use part of the taxes to pay for addiction treatment for everyone who wants it, even if they haven't committed other crimes. But I digress.)
However, it also raises sentences and spends a few hundred million to build more prisons. We already have the highest percentage of our population in prison than any other nation on Earth. We need to be thinking of ways to decrease it, not increase it. This one's a "No".
58: Prohibits teaching public school student in language other than English for more than two years
This whole "English Only!" thing is really starting to annoy me. I agree that it's important for people who emigrate to this country to learn English. I think it's even OK to have to pass a Citizenship test only in English before being allowed to vote. However, it's stupid to assume that everyone who moves here is going to pick up the language immediately, and it's downright mean to cut them off from society until they do. As for how to best teach English, I think that people who've studied education, have years of experience in teaching and education methods are far more qualified to decide that than a bunch of jerks who just want to fuck with the system because they hate Mexicans. A huge fat "No" here.
59: Creates an unlimited deduction for federal income taxes on individual taxpayers' Oregon income-tax returns
Currently, you can deduct up to $5500 of your federal taxes from your Oregon return.
Looking at the 2007 federal tax tables, assuming you're married and have one child and had no deductible expenses at all last year, if you are paying $5500 in federal taxes, that means you made $63,000 last year. So this measure is, essentially, a tax cut for people making over $63,000 in a year. That's not the top 1% like all the Bush tax cuts, but it is the top 30%. That's still the wrong end of the scale to start lowering people's taxes from. I assume the revenue lost is not counted anywhere and will be taken from the schools at a later date? No, no, and "No".
60: Teacher "classroom performance," not seniority, determines pay raises; "most qualified" teachers retained, regardless of seniority
And who makes the decision on how "classroom performance" is measured? Based on their class' scores on standardized tests? No, thank you. No no no.
61: Creates mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain theft, identity theft, forgery, drug, and burglary crimes
So, basically, all the bad stuff in measure 57, with none of the good stuff, and more bad stuff thrown on top of it.
Mandatory minimum sentences are always a bad idea. Big huge honkin' NO here, too.
62: Amends Constitution: Allocates 15% of lottery proceeds to public safety fund for crime prevention, investigation, prosecution
"Yes" vote amends constitution to allocate 15% of lottery proceeds to public safety fund; reduces percentage of funds available for other lottery-funded programs.
"Other lottery-funded programs" are schools, food stamps, and the Oregon Health Plan.
Reducing poverty reduces crime. Education reduces poverty. Cuts to schools reduces education. This takes money from the beginning of the process and applies it to the end, where it will cost ten times as much and only after lives are ruined. No.
63: Exempts specified property owners from building permit requirements for improvements valued at/under 35,000 dollars
Eliminates the inspection process for home improvements? No thank you. Yes, it's true that it is difficult to get permits and inspections on work you do on your own home. But guess what? It's even more difficult to do work that's reasonably safe and of high enough quality to pass inspection. If you can't the former, you certainly can't do the latter. Maybe this is a personal issue for me, having recently bought a house whose previous owner did lots of work, none of which is to code. And, yeah, contractors make money on the work they do for you. That's not a bad thing. And some are crooked. That is a bad thing. This bill will be great for those who are crooked.
They say there are too many barriers to do-it-yourself-ers. Currently, nobody competent enough to describe their improvements and build them to pass code will have a problem getting a permit for them. Those who think they know better than professional building inspectors are exactly the sort of people who shouldn't be working on their own homes. They're a danger not only to themselves and their families, but their neighbors, emergency response personnel, and people who buy their houses after they drink away their mortgage payments and move out without gluing together their badly-installed sewer extension and abandoning their cats to live under the house, clawing their way through the flexible air vent conduit. Errr... veering a little off topic there, but, uh, "No".
On further reflection, this one would be a godsend for big rental companies who could save a bundle doing "repairs" on houses they rent out to other people by hiring substandard contractors (or their brother-in-law who's been promising to get off the crank and find a job real soon now). This bill would let them risk your life and pocket the profit. Even more No.
64: Penalizes person, entity for using funds collected with "public resource" (defined) for "political purpose" (defined)
Sounds like an Oregon version of the Hatch Act, which would be a good thing.
Until you look a little closer. Normally I wouldn't want to argue by appeal to authority, but looking through the arguments we have, against it, police, fire fighters, unions, charitable group, and teachers. For it, we have Bill Sizemore and some group calling themselves "Americans For Prosperity" - a far-right dogwhistle of a name if there ever was one. Nope.
65: Changes general election nomination processes for major/minor party, independent candidates for most partisan offices
Wow. Looks like it's intent is to smash the two-party system, something I've been advocating for a long time.
None of the arguments against seem very compelling. They all seem to assume that this "one primary" that gets created will be exactly like our current two primaries, but that seems exceedingly unlikely. This is more like an instant runoff election, but replacing "instant" with "several months later", in which you can vote twice - once, in the primary, for the person you really want, and later for the candidate who's less evil. I'm leaning Yes on this one, but I'm open to persuasion here even more so than above. Any thoughts?
So, unless I hear otherwise from anyone here, that's how I'm voting. What are your thoughts? As I said, I'd love to hear them, seriously. I haven't had time this year to do as much research as I really like to, so opinions of someone who've done more would be welcome.
If you've done even less research, feel free to copy the list down and take it to the polls with you. Because, after all, if you're just going to blindly follow someone else's opinion in the election, it might as well be mine.
For the record, in summary, that's:
Measure Vote
-------------- -------
54 Yes
55 No
56 No
57 No
58 No
59 No
60 No
61 No
62 No
63 No
64 No
65 Yes
Here, in brief, is my initial impression of each. If I've overlooked anything, let me know. Especially if you think I'm wrong.
54: Amends Constitution: Standardizes voting eligibility for school board elections with other state and local elections.
Normally, anything that starts with "Amends Constitution" would be a big red flag, as it's an indication that it's proponents realize that what they're trying to do is unconstitutional. Strangely, though, we seem to have a law in Oregon that puts the voting age in certain elections at 21. While simultaneously prohibiting checking ID other than a voting registration card. Weird. So, yeah, I think this one's a Yes.
55: Amends Constitution: Changes operative date of redistricting plans; allows affected legislators to finish term in original district.
After they finish Gerrymandering after each census, legislators are automatically moved to their new districts, even if they're no longer from them. Kinda weird. This measure just changes the rules so that new districts don't take effect until the next election. Strange that we're still making this kind of administrative changes to our Constitution. I don't know what the goal is behind this, buy I'm kinda leaning "No", just because I don't trust the bastards.
56: Amends Constitution: Provides that May and November property tax elections are decided by majority of voters voting.
This is the "double-majority" requirement. If less than half the registered voters turn out for a vote, then everyone who didn't vote is counted as a No. So, if, say, 49% of registered voters actually vote, and they all vote "Yes" on a new tax, the 51% who didn't vote are counted as voting "No", and the measure fails. Sounds kind of stupid on the fact of it until you know a bit of the history behind the double-majority. In addition to the annual November elections, in which more than half the people usually vote, there are all sorts of special elections during the rest of the year. Legislators used to frequently use these special elections to sneak in special tax breaks for their supporters, knowing that only 10-15% of voters will bother to vote at all, so they only had to convince 5-7% of the state to vote for them. The double-majority makes it so they have to either convince more than half the voters to go to the polls, or wait until the regular vote in November, which makes it harder to pass special-interest taxes. A big "No" here.
57: Increases sentences for drug trafficking, theft against elderly and specified repeat property and identity theft crimes; requires addiction treatment for certain offenders.
Part of what it does is redirect drug users from prison to addiction counseling. This is a good step in the right direction. (The best would just be to legalize the damn stuff, tax it, and use part of the taxes to pay for addiction treatment for everyone who wants it, even if they haven't committed other crimes. But I digress.)
However, it also raises sentences and spends a few hundred million to build more prisons. We already have the highest percentage of our population in prison than any other nation on Earth. We need to be thinking of ways to decrease it, not increase it. This one's a "No".
58: Prohibits teaching public school student in language other than English for more than two years
This whole "English Only!" thing is really starting to annoy me. I agree that it's important for people who emigrate to this country to learn English. I think it's even OK to have to pass a Citizenship test only in English before being allowed to vote. However, it's stupid to assume that everyone who moves here is going to pick up the language immediately, and it's downright mean to cut them off from society until they do. As for how to best teach English, I think that people who've studied education, have years of experience in teaching and education methods are far more qualified to decide that than a bunch of jerks who just want to fuck with the system because they hate Mexicans. A huge fat "No" here.
59: Creates an unlimited deduction for federal income taxes on individual taxpayers' Oregon income-tax returns
Currently, you can deduct up to $5500 of your federal taxes from your Oregon return.
Looking at the 2007 federal tax tables, assuming you're married and have one child and had no deductible expenses at all last year, if you are paying $5500 in federal taxes, that means you made $63,000 last year. So this measure is, essentially, a tax cut for people making over $63,000 in a year. That's not the top 1% like all the Bush tax cuts, but it is the top 30%. That's still the wrong end of the scale to start lowering people's taxes from. I assume the revenue lost is not counted anywhere and will be taken from the schools at a later date? No, no, and "No".
60: Teacher "classroom performance," not seniority, determines pay raises; "most qualified" teachers retained, regardless of seniority
And who makes the decision on how "classroom performance" is measured? Based on their class' scores on standardized tests? No, thank you. No no no.
61: Creates mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain theft, identity theft, forgery, drug, and burglary crimes
So, basically, all the bad stuff in measure 57, with none of the good stuff, and more bad stuff thrown on top of it.
Mandatory minimum sentences are always a bad idea. Big huge honkin' NO here, too.
62: Amends Constitution: Allocates 15% of lottery proceeds to public safety fund for crime prevention, investigation, prosecution
"Yes" vote amends constitution to allocate 15% of lottery proceeds to public safety fund; reduces percentage of funds available for other lottery-funded programs.
"Other lottery-funded programs" are schools, food stamps, and the Oregon Health Plan.
Reducing poverty reduces crime. Education reduces poverty. Cuts to schools reduces education. This takes money from the beginning of the process and applies it to the end, where it will cost ten times as much and only after lives are ruined. No.
63: Exempts specified property owners from building permit requirements for improvements valued at/under 35,000 dollars
Eliminates the inspection process for home improvements? No thank you. Yes, it's true that it is difficult to get permits and inspections on work you do on your own home. But guess what? It's even more difficult to do work that's reasonably safe and of high enough quality to pass inspection. If you can't the former, you certainly can't do the latter. Maybe this is a personal issue for me, having recently bought a house whose previous owner did lots of work, none of which is to code. And, yeah, contractors make money on the work they do for you. That's not a bad thing. And some are crooked. That is a bad thing. This bill will be great for those who are crooked.
They say there are too many barriers to do-it-yourself-ers. Currently, nobody competent enough to describe their improvements and build them to pass code will have a problem getting a permit for them. Those who think they know better than professional building inspectors are exactly the sort of people who shouldn't be working on their own homes. They're a danger not only to themselves and their families, but their neighbors, emergency response personnel, and people who buy their houses after they drink away their mortgage payments and move out without gluing together their badly-installed sewer extension and abandoning their cats to live under the house, clawing their way through the flexible air vent conduit. Errr... veering a little off topic there, but, uh, "No".
On further reflection, this one would be a godsend for big rental companies who could save a bundle doing "repairs" on houses they rent out to other people by hiring substandard contractors (or their brother-in-law who's been promising to get off the crank and find a job real soon now). This bill would let them risk your life and pocket the profit. Even more No.
64: Penalizes person, entity for using funds collected with "public resource" (defined) for "political purpose" (defined)
Sounds like an Oregon version of the Hatch Act, which would be a good thing.
Until you look a little closer. Normally I wouldn't want to argue by appeal to authority, but looking through the arguments we have, against it, police, fire fighters, unions, charitable group, and teachers. For it, we have Bill Sizemore and some group calling themselves "Americans For Prosperity" - a far-right dogwhistle of a name if there ever was one. Nope.
65: Changes general election nomination processes for major/minor party, independent candidates for most partisan offices
Result of "yes" vote
"Yes" vote changes general election nomination processes for most partisan offices; all candidates run in single primary; top two primary candidates compete in general election.
Result of "no" vote
"No" vote retains the current party primary election system, retains procedures for the nomination of minor political party and independent candidates to the general election.
Wow. Looks like it's intent is to smash the two-party system, something I've been advocating for a long time.
None of the arguments against seem very compelling. They all seem to assume that this "one primary" that gets created will be exactly like our current two primaries, but that seems exceedingly unlikely. This is more like an instant runoff election, but replacing "instant" with "several months later", in which you can vote twice - once, in the primary, for the person you really want, and later for the candidate who's less evil. I'm leaning Yes on this one, but I'm open to persuasion here even more so than above. Any thoughts?
So, unless I hear otherwise from anyone here, that's how I'm voting. What are your thoughts? As I said, I'd love to hear them, seriously. I haven't had time this year to do as much research as I really like to, so opinions of someone who've done more would be welcome.
If you've done even less research, feel free to copy the list down and take it to the polls with you. Because, after all, if you're just going to blindly follow someone else's opinion in the election, it might as well be mine.
For the record, in summary, that's:
Measure Vote
-------------- -------
54 Yes
55 No
56 No
57 No
58 No
59 No
60 No
61 No
62 No
63 No
64 No
65 Yes
