OREGON: CITIZENS' INITIATIVE REVIEW

Healthy Democracy Oregon's Citizens' Initiative Review is aiding the Initiative & Referendum process in that state by giving citizens accurate information and unbiased analysis of measures on the ballot. Read the following from their website for mre information. - Editor

The Citizens' Initiative Review

For reference and review.
Source: http://healthydemocracyoregon.org/about_CIR

The Citizens' Initiative Review is a citizen-based review process for statewide ballot measures. Each Citizens' Initiative Review panel would hear arguments from the campaigns for and against the measure, along with background information and testimony from policy professionals and affected parties. Following this careful multi-day review, the panel would deliberate on the merits of the measure. The Citizens Initiative Review panel would determine if:

• the ballot measure will really do what its supporters claim it will; and

• if the ballot measure provides a good solution to a statewide problem.

The panel would then report their findings directly to every voter in Oregon through the statewide Voters’ Pamphlet. These findings would be highlighted next to the summary information about the ballot measure. By providing a trustworthy, balanced, and citizen-based source of information in the hands of every voter across Oregon, the Citizens Initiative Review has the potential to decrease the influence of political spin in our initiative process.

What happens?

Citizens panels are convened by the Citizens' Initiative Review Commission to review citizens' initiatives that qualify for the general election ballot. These citizens panels, comprised of 18 - 24 registered voters selected at random, are each tasked with deliberating for 3 - 5 days on one ballot measure. During the deliberation process, panelists hear from pro, con and background witnesses.
Panelists draft a report on the ballot measure outlining their findings and conclusions. The Citizens' Initiative Review report is summarized to one page and published in the Voters Pamphlet, providing the citizens of Oregon with a trustworthy, balanced, and investigative report on each ballot measure.

Who are the panelists?

The 18 - 24 citizen panelists are selected at random through a statewide survey.

They are stratified to be a microcosm of Oregon in terms such as age, education, partisan affiliation, and residence.

They will be paid a fair day’s wage for their participation.

How will this be run?

The CIR will be conducted as an independent state commission.

Overseen by an independent board composed of citizens.
There will be yearly evaluation by citizen panelists and moderators.
Why should I trust this?

• Allows the viewpoints of a microcosm of the state to be heard.
• Comes from ordinary citizens, not the proponents and opponents who each have their own agendas.
• No interest group has control.
• Process is designed to maintain neutrality and fairness.
• Based on tested methods.

Details:

The Citizens Initiative Review is intended to allow a microcosm of the people of Oregon, meeting in citizens panels, to take a close look at at ballot initiatives. They will spend three to five days doing this and then issue a report with their findings. A one-page summary of this report will be placed in the Voters Pamphlet, with the full report being available online, as well as in libraries around the state.

Each citizens panel consists of 18 to 24 Oregon citizens, 18 years of age or older, who reflect fairly the population of the state as a whole with regard to age, education, political attitude and geographic location. These people are contacted at random according to high standards of scientific random sampling. Several hundred names will be gathered in this way and placed in a “jury pool." Then a final selection of 18 to 24 for each citizens panel will be done to meet the demographic targets to create a microcosm of the state. This can be done in public to enhance trust of the process.

Each panel will review one initiative or referendum that has qualified for the statewide ballot. The review will be conducted over three to five days, during which time proponents and opponents of the initiative will testify about the reasons for and against passing the initiative. The citizen panelists will have an opportunity to question these witnesses, as well as to hear testimony from independent witnesses. On the final day, the panelists will divide up into those who favor the initiative and those who oppose it. They will list the main reasons why they favor or oppose the initiative and indicate information that helped them to make up their minds. They will also indicate how many of them favored and how many opposed the initiative.

The CIR is designed to help Oregon citizens make sound voting decisions and to strengthen the voice of average citizens in the initiative process. The CIR report in the Voters Pamphlet will be brief and clear, yet will provide evaluation and analysis that reflects in-depth consideration from different points of view. The mix of citizens from around the state will help the panelists focus on what is good for Oregon as a whole.

If voters want more information about the panelists' review of an initiative, they will be able to review the testimony and proceedings of the panel through a new CIR Web site established by the board of commissioners. This Web site will bring together, in one place, the summaries of the positions of the opposing sides, independent information such as economic analysis, and the discussions of the panelists. Without having to spend excessive time and money on gathering relevant information and reviewing each initiative in depth, the general public will be able to access easily the reliable information they need to make their evaluations.

Each Oregon voter most likely will continue to use his or her own sources of information in making voting decisions; however, the CIR panel report will alert them to facts and perspectives that they would not have been given otherwise. The pro and con witnesses at the hearings will be forced to go beyond sound bites and to answer the panelists' questions in an honest and clear manner. This is an opportunity which citizens almost never get. The results of this analysis will be presented in a clear and simple way easily accessible to the voters of Oregon.

OREGON: A HIGHLY ACTIVE DIRECT DEMOCRACY

Is Direct Democracy in Oregon Too Much of a Good Thing?

By Steve Holgate
Source: http://newsblaze.com/story/20080925091217tsop.nb/topstory.html

Voters in Oregon's 1st Congressional District are taking the law into their own hands. In fact, so are voters throughout the state, and they have been doing it for years.

Oregon is one of 24 states that give voters the right to place proposed laws and constitutional amendments on the state ballot via petition.

Since 1902, Oregon voters have used the petition to change the state's political landscape. In 1908 they instituted the recall election, allowing citizens to remove elected officials from office before the expiration of their terms. Another early initiative authorized one of the nation's first open primaries, giving voters the power to choose their party's nominees for office.

In recent years, Oregon voters have placed on the ballot and passed several important measures, including limits on property taxes, increased rights for crime victims, term limits for legislators, and a controversial measure on physician-assisted suicide.

But many Oregonians are wondering if this long-respected institution has become too much of a good thing.

BALLOT INITIATIVES MUSHROOMED IN RECENT YEARS

The initiative process was used sparingly for its first 85 years, averaging about one measure per year. Since the 1990s, it has mushroomed, with 20 initiatives on the ballot in 2000. In 1996, more than 200 ballot measure petitions were circulated in the state, with only a small minority gaining enough support to appear on the ballot. The use of initiatives has dropped a bit since 2000, but there were still, on average, about eight initiatives each in 2002, 2004 and 2006.

Some recent citizen initiatives were judged unconstitutional and overturned by the courts. On other occasions, approved ballot measures contradicted each other or were worded so vaguely as to be unworkable.

A cloud over the process has been cast by the activities of a man named Bill Sizemore, who has sponsored more initiatives than anyone else in the state's history, including one with the greatest impact of any Oregon ballot initiative in decades: His 1996 ballot measure drastically restricted property tax increases. More recently, a court found he had used forged signatures and filed false financial reports during his initiative efforts. It ordered his organization to pay more than $3 million in damages. Although portions of that ruling were set aside by an appeals court, the litigation damaged Sizemore's credibility with some voters.

Despite these problems, most Oregonians know some recent ballot measures have proven successful and remain an important check on government officials. Voters are seeking reform, rather than abolition, of the initiative process. Reforms already enacted include a ban on paying petition circulators for each signature gathered. Perhaps ironically, this reform was achieved through a ballot initiative.

In 2007, the Oregon Legislature created further restrictions, including a requirement for registering and training petition circulators. Supporters of the reforms say they will give new relevance and life to a cherished example of direct democracy. Opponents call them unjustified restrictions on free speech.

The 2008 ballot will be the last before the new measures take effect.

MEASURES ON THE 2008 BALLOT

Eight measures - five sponsored by Sizemore - are on the upcoming ballot. One would limit bilingual classes in public schools. Others would reduce state revenues by increasing tax deductions, require teachers' pay increases to be based on student achievement rather than teacher seniority, require harsher sentences for criminals (two initiatives), dedicate more money to public safety, and harmonize voting eligibility for school board elections with eligibility requirements for other state and local elections.

The most far-reaching measure might be a proposal to eliminate the traditional party primaries, which were established by one of the first successful initiatives a century ago. Instead of holding a separate primary election for each party, Oregon would hold only one joint primary, with the top two nominees going forward to the November general election, regardless of party affiliation. Proponents say it would encourage more moderate candidates. Critics counter that one of the major parties could end up with no candidate on the November ballot.

Whatever the fate of this year's ballot initiatives, 2008 could be the last year that Oregon voters face such a range of petitions and ballot measures. Whether that is good or bad is still a subject of debate.

This article is part of America.gov's continuing coverage of seven of the 435 U.S. congressional districts during the 2008 campaign. Each offers a different prism from which to view U.S. politics. For more information, see U.S Elections - State and Local ( http://uspolitics.america.gov/uspolitics/elections/stateandlocal.html ).

Source: U.S. Department of State

OREGON: INITIATIVE PROCESS DOMINATED BY BIG MONEY

This is a perfect example of an issue we have continuously opposed and sought to expose. Direct democracy is a tool to be used equally by all people, not just a handful of elite who wish to dominate the political scene. When people are ambivalent or unaware of the power they have to change their community, city, or state, they leave themselves vulnerable to those who have the funding to usurp that power for their own special interests. This article reveals the situation in Oregon where the people are going to have to fight back against the oligarchs who believe democracy is under their control.

Also see the following website to see the various initiative and referendum efforts made in Oregon: http://egov.sos.state.or.us/elec/web_irr_search.search_form

-Editor

Checkbook Democracy

Process meant to empower citizens is used by a few

Published: July 9, 2008 12:00AM

Source: http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=123494&sid=5&fid=1

Oregon’s initiative process, the capstone of an era of progressive politics at the dawn of the 20th century, was meant to be an instrument of direct democracy. Yet in modern practice, the initiative looks more like the tool of an oligarchy.

Of the 10 initiatives likely to appear on the November ballot, nine are the work of three men. Eight of those had the financial support of just one person, and he gave more to this year’s signature gathering campaigns than all others combined.

All three initiative promoters are familiar: Bill Sizemore, the former candidate for governor and a prolific sponsor of previous anti-union and anti-tax proposals; Russ Walker, the Northwest director of FreedomWorks, a small-government organization founded by former U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey; and Kevin Mannix, the former legislator and candidate for governor and Congress who led the campaign for Measure 11, the 1994 initiative that imposed mandatory prison sentences for certain crimes.

Many of the trio’s proposals for 2008 are as familiar as the men behind them. Sizemore has a proposal to tie teachers’ pay to classroom performance and a measure to limit the use of union dues for political purposes. Sizemore and Walker teamed up on a proposal to make federal income taxes fully deductible for state income tax purposes. Mannix wants mandatory minimum prison terms for certain property crimes. These are all variations of initiatives Oregonians have voted on, and mostly rejected, in the past.

Other proposals are new.

Sizemore is sponsoring an initiative that would limit bilingual education in public schools, and another that would eliminate building permit requirements for projects costing $35,000 or less. Walker has a couple of proposals aimed at trial lawyers — one to cap contingency fees, another to allow punishments for frivolous lawsuits. Mannix proposes dedicating 15 percent of lottery proceeds to law enforcement.

All of these proposals are taken from the conservative shelves in the marketplace of ideas. That’s because Loren Parks, a businessman who divides his time between Oregon and Nevada and long has bankrolled conservative initiative campaigns, donated $1.1 million to finance the three activists’ signature gathering efforts. Parks bypassed the building permits measure, but provided half or more of the money behind the eight others.

The conservative flavor of this year’s measures stems in part from the fact that Democrats control state government, leaving the initiative as the only avenue by which conservative ideas can be advanced. Dan Meek, a progressive activist and lawyer in Portland, also has a point when he complains that tighter restrictions on signature gathering have made initiative campaigns harder for grass-roots organizations.

But the most common denominator is money — and more than ever before, money from a single source. Oregon’s initiative process has become an exercise in checkbook democracy.

Copyright © 2008 — The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------