OREGON PRIMARY ELECTION

ACLU Takes Neutral Stance on Three Ballot Measures

April 22, 2008 -- There are three ballot measures referred by the 2007 Legislature that have civil liberties implications on the May 2008 Oregon primary ballot.  ACLU was active during the legislative session on all three and took a “neutral” position on the proposals during session. 

The statewide ACLU Board of Directors this month voted unanimously to take a neutral stance on all three ballot measures in the 2008 primary.

Ballot Measures 51 and 52
Ballot Measures 51 and 52 would amend constitutional provisions in the Oregon Bill of Rights that provide specific rights to victims in criminal proceedings. 

The ACLU opposed these so-called “victims rights” measures when they were first approved by voters in 1999 (Measures 69 and 71) because they not only created  rights for crime victims but also eliminated or weakened rights guaranteed in the state constitution to people accused of committing crimes. We also opposed them at that time because they gave prosecutors the sole power to determine who was and was not a “victim,” allowing prosecutors to exclude victims who disagreed with the DA’s strategy in the case (such as seeking the death penalty, etc.).

Measures 51 and 52 would amend those provisions to provide a “remedy” for victims when the rights guaranteed under these provisions are violated. Generally, ACLU believes that there should be remedies to rights provided to individuals in the Oregon Bill of Rights. These measures would allow victims to seek judicial review of a DA’s refusal to recognize a victim and other rights. 

However, because we still oppose the underlying provisions that weakened the Oregon Bill of Rights, the ACLU of Oregon is “neutral” on Measures 51 and 52. 

Ballot Measure 53
Ballot Measure 53 modifies Ballot Measure 3 (2000), a constitutional amendment that ACLU helped write and which reformed the civil forfeiture process in Oregon to require a criminal conviction prior to completion of forfeitures and to prohibit the use of forfeiture proceeds for law enforcement purposes. 

As a result of Measure 3 passing, the Oregon legislature changed state forfeiture laws in 2001 to comply with the new constitutional requirements, but those opposed to Measure 3 insisted on a four-year sunset so that the new laws would expire in 2005.  Those opponents also challenged Measure 3 in the courts on the theory it was more than one amendment. 

When the legislature convened in 2005, the Oregon Supreme Court had yet to rule on the legality of Measure 3.  In light of previous court rulings, we thought there was a good chance the legal challenge would be successful (and if it had been, we would have lost all the improvements contained in Measure 3). Because of that risk, we supported a compromise that retained the requirement for a criminal conviction in the vast majority of cases but also allowed for a portion of the proceeds to be used by law enforcement even if Measure 3 were overturned. We also agreed that if Measure 3 was upheld by the Court (and it was), we would not oppose amending Measure 3 to authorize the compromise reached in 2005. 

In short, Measure 53 broadens the use of civil forfeitures and modifies the allocation of civil forfeiture proceeds to allow some use by law enforcement, but also retains most of the goals of the original Measure 3 to require criminal convictions and increase funding for drug treatment programs. 

The ACLU of Oregon is therefore “neutral” on Measure 53.

Links for full text of the ballot measures:

Ballot Measure 51 (HJR 49) (PDF)
 
Ballot Measure 52 (HJR 50) (PDF)

Ballot Measure 53 (HJR 18) (PDF)
 
You also may use the Military/Overseas Voter's Guide, which has background information on all the measures.

PREVIOUS REPORTS:

Initiative Reform in Oregon

The ACLU of Oregon has been active in election law. We have worked to preserve rights guaranteed in the Oregon Constitution through court challenges and by participating in initiative and ballot measure campaigns.

Oregon has an active initiative process that allows voters to change both state law and the state constitution. The ACLU of Oregon has led the way in Oregon courts in preserving the Oregon Constitution’s initiative process. For instance, in the ACLU case of Armatta v.Kitzhaber the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that amendments to the Oregon constitution be voted on separately, so that voters can pick and choose which changes they want, rather than being forced to accept or reject many changes in one measure.

The ACLU of Oregon works on all aspects of ballot measures that would impact civil liberties, including filing comments on initiative petitions, working on ballot measure campaigns, and engaging in pre and post-election challenges.

 

NOVEMBER 2006 ELECTION RESULTS

2006 Ballot Measures

After tracking more than 150 initiatives earlier this year, the ACLU of Oregon focused on five ballot measures for the November 2006 election -- Measures 40, 43, 45, 46 and 47 -- all of which we opposed. Voters agreed in four out of five cases. Here are the unofficial results provided by the Secretary of State:

Measure 40 - ACLU Recommendation:  No 

Independence of the Judiciary: Amends constitution to require Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Judges be elected by district

NOVEMBER VOTE ON MEASURE 40: 43.4% Yes; 56.6% No

Measure 43 - ACLU Recommendation: No

Reproductive Freedom: Amends statute to require government mandated notice to parents of older teens seeking abortions

NOVEMBER VOTE ON MEASURE 43: 45.2% Yes; 54.8% No

Measure 45 - ACLU Recommendation: No

Right to Vote: Amends constitution to impose term limits of 6 years on state representatives and 8 years on state senators

NOVEMBER VOTE ON MEASURE 45: 41.3% Yes; 58.7% No

Measure 46 - ACLU Recommendation: No

Free Speech & Association: Amends constitution to weaken Free Speech provision of Oregon constitution to allow for prohibitions and limitations on political campaign contributions and expenditures; allows changes or new laws by initiative or super-majority vote of Legislature

NOVEMBER VOTE ON MEASURE 46: 40.3% Yes; 59.7% No

Measure 47 - ACLU Recommendation: No

Free Speech & Association: Amends constitution to ban union and corporate contributions; places extreme limits on individual contributions; requires individuals to obtain tracking code from government prior to making political contributions

NOVEMBER VOTE ON MEASURE 47: 53% Yes; 47% No