The URL can be used to link to this page

1999-11-02 - Voters Pamphlet - County THIS COUNTY VOTERS' PAMPHLET BALLOT DROP SITE LOCATIONS DESCHUTES COUNTY LO 0 INCLUDES LOCAL MEASURES ONLY. Special drop sites are available at the follow- LO YOU WILL NOT VOTE ON EVERY MEA- ing locations.Be sure to note the times avail- VOTERS' PAMPHLET Q SURE IN THIS PAMPHLET. THERE able. I WILL BE A STATE VOTERS'PAMPHLET MAILED TO EVERY HOUSEHOLD THAT PROVIDES INFORMATION ON DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE l` CD 1340 N.W.Wall Street, Bend 0 THE NINE STATEWIDE BALLOT MEA- Available seven days a week.On Election SURES. Day, November 2nd, until 8:00 pm. ALL ELECTIONS ARE NOW BEING MIDSTATE ELECTRIC CO-OP CONDUCTED BY MAIL.THEREFORE, 51340 Hwy 97, La Pine From 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday, MANY PRECINCTS WERE CONSOLI- November 1st DATED OR DELETED TO REDUCE On November 2nd available PRINTING COSTS.ALSO,SOME PRE- 8:00 am to 8:00 pm. CINCT NUMBERS AND BORDERS WERE CHANGED TO REFLECT THE REDMOND CITY HALL NEW CITY OF BEND BOUNDARIES. 716 S.W. Evergreen, Redmond From 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday thru Friday up until Election Day. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS On November 2nd, available 8:00 am to SPECIAL ELECTION PLEASE CONTACTTHE DESCHUTES 8:00 pm. NOVEMBER 2, 1999 COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. SISTERS CITY HALL 150 N. Fir Street,Sisters Ballots must be returned to the From 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday thru Deschutes County Clerk's Office VOTING INSTRUCTIONS Friday up until Election Day. or drop sites by 8:00 PM, If you make an error on your ballot, spoil it On November 2nd, available 8:00 am to November 2, 1999 in any way or lose it, you may obtain a 8:00 pm. replacement ballot by contacting MARY SUE"SUSIE" PENHOLLOW SUNRIVER COMMUNITY CHURCH the Deschutes County Clerk's office at 388-6547. #1 Theater Drive,Sunriver DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK From 8:00 am to 8:00 pm, Election Day, 1340 N.W.Wall Street RETURNING YOUR VOTED BALLOT November 2nd only Bend, OR 97701 Vote your ballot. Fold the ballot and insert it into the secrecy envelope. Seal the se- Office Hours on November 2, 1999 crecy envelope and insert into return en- 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM velope. Seal the return envelope and sign the statement on the back of the envelope. YOUR BALLOT WILL NOT BE COUNTED IF YOUR ENVELOPE IS NOT SIGNED. CENTRAL OREGON PARK & EXPLANATORY STATEMENT RECREATION DISTRICT Central Oregon Park and Recreation District is VOTER REGISTRATION asking voters to approve the use of current tax 9-75 ADVISORY VOTE FOR revenues for parks and recreation programs, in INFORMATION PROPOSED EXPENDITURE OF addition to operating the Cascade Swim Center. PROPERTY No new taxes are being proposed. To be eligible to vote in the November 2nd TAX REVENUES The park district was formed to provide recreation election, a completed voter registration card programs for the community,however the tax base must be postmarked by October 12, 1999. QUESTION: Shall the District expend Cur- was approved only to operate and maintain the rent and future property tax collections for swim center. COPRD has grown along with the YOU MAY REGISTER TO VOTE IF: the purpose of supporting district wide peg- Redmond community and some income from the swim center has been used on the COPRD's rec grams? � 1. You are a citizen of the United States. reation programs and the High Desert Sports SUMMARY: This advisory vote is to deter- Complex. We are asking for your permission to 2. You will be 18 years of age or older on mine whether Central Oregon Park and Rec- use tax dollars for parks and recreation programs, election day. reation District should use its existing per- after first funding the operation of the Cascade 3. You are a resident of Oregon. manent property tax rate revenue,after first Swim Center. funding the operation of the Cascade Swim Center, for other park and recreation pro- YOU MUST UPDATE grams. No new taxes are being,proposed. (This information furnished by Katie Hammer, In 1982 voters approved a tax base to fund Central Oregon Park and Recreation District) YOUR REGISTRATION IF: the Cascade Swim Center. Ballot measure 1. Your residence or mailing address 50,approved by the voters in 1997, estab- lished apermanent tax rate for the district. changes. Revenues generated by the permanent tax 2. Your name changes. rate are proposed to be used to fund the 3. You wish to change party affiliation. swim center and other park and recreation programs. No Arguments IMPORTANT NOTE: IFYOU HAVE MOVED ORYOUR NAME HAS CHANGED ANDYOU HAVE NOT YET RE-REGISTERED, YOU for or against MAY STILL BE ABLE TO DO SO.CONTACT THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK'S OF- Meas u re 9-75 FICE,388-6546 FOR FURTHER INFORMA- TION. were filed 0 The printing of any argument does not constitute an en- dorsement by the County of R Deschutes, nor does the See other side for CD county warrant the accuracy or Cn truth of any statement made in Measure 9-74 Q the argument. G� City of Sisters CITY OF SISTERS EXPLANATORY STATEMENT ARGUMENT IN FAVOR Approval of this measure would provide elector- Annexation means equity. Development oc- 9-74 A MEASURE ate authorization to annex approximately 35 acres curring outside the city limits utilizes the public AUTMORONG ANNEXATION OF to the City of Sisters.Voter approval would autho- services provided by the city and paid for exclu- TAX LOT 15-1"4-103 rize the City to initiate proceedings to add the land sively by city residents. Fairness dictates that BARCLAY MEADOWS to the Sisters Urban Growth Boundary and then these costs be shared by all users. Annexation to annex it, all according to applicable statewide accomplishes this.This property will ultimately be planning goals and the City's Comprehensive developed as a business park with a portion dedi- QUESTION: Shall 35 acres located north Plan. If the proposed annexation and land use cated as a city park.Once the lots are platted,the of the existing City limits and identified as changes are successfully authorized and accom- owners of the vacant lots could pay over$70,000 tax lot 15-10-04-103 be annexed to Sisters? plished,zoning would be designated through the in property taxes.Upon development,the owners SUMMARY: Approval of this measure would process outlined in Sisters Urban Area Zoning Or- could pay almost $300,000 in property taxes. provide electorate authorization to annex ap- dinance and in accordance with City of Sisters Those taxes will be divided among the various proximately 35 acres to Sisters. Voter ap- Comprehensive Plan.This parcel is bordered by taxing jurisdictions. As the lots are developed, proval would authorize City to initiate pro- the current City of Sisters industrial park to the there will be system development charges which ceedings to add the land to the Sisters Ur- South,the Sisters City limits to the South, Camp will be used for development of infrastructure ben Growth Boundary and then to annex it, Polk Road on the East,the Trapper Point residen- throughout Sisters.Through the land use process, all developers will also pay for traffic facilities He- ad according o applicable statewide plan- tial subdivision to the North and the old Lundgren g p cessitated by the development.Vote yes on an- nn owls and the City's Comprehensive Mill site (which has received voter annexation g g Y p nexation to bring this money to Sisters rather than Plan. If the proposed annexation and land approval)to the West.Upon inclusion in the UGB p P use changes are successfully,authorized and annexation it is anticipated this property would the County. and accomplished,zoning would be desig- be rezoned Light Industrial (112') and developed Opponents, living outside the city limits, ar- nated through the process outlined In Sis- as a campus-style industrial park.If this measure gue that a business park is incompatible with sur- ters Urban Area Zoning Ordinance and in is approved,the taxes on this parcel will be added rounding uses and the property should remain accordance with Sisters Comprehensive to the tax base for the City of Sisters and increase agricultural. Annexation is not about how prop- Plan. Property to be annexed is located ad- revenue to the city.As the property is improved in the l should be used. That will on decided through jacent to the north of the existing industrial the future, the increased assessed value will be the land use process.Annexation it about whether ark and lies entire) within L?eschu es added to the total assessed value of the City of property is included a the city limits or remains in p Y the county.A yes vote gets the city its share of the County. Upon inclusion in the UGB and an, Sisters and create additional revenue for the City. tax revenue regardless of the ultimate develop- nexation,it is antilcipated the property Would Additionally,the owner of this property intends to ment. It's time Sisters received tax revenue from be rezoned Light Industrial "IV This dedicate approximately 3 acres of this property g } Prop- property owners to whom it provides services.The 8 is current) being considered for inclu- to the City of Sisters for a City park due to the �Y Y g properties on either side of the subject property Sion in the Urban'Growth Bounds "UGO" presence of the Airport Transitional Zone and the Boundary( ) have already received annexation approval.An ,as light industrial in the proposed Comore- associated building restrictions. nexation of this property will continue the orderly hensive Flan update. Benefit,to $isters and economic extension of the city limits, facili- would include additional industrial land, (This information furnished by Barbara J.Warren, ties and services. which is in short supply and an addition to City Administrator, This annexation provides the opportunity for CD the tax base, City of Sisters) all residents to plan and build toward an urban (Map of proposed annexation wilt accom- standard of which they can be proud. Vote yes parry ballCit) and enable the city to continue to provide stable The printing of any argument does services and address the needs of city residents not constitute an endorsement by with the least possible cost to all. the County of Deschutes, nor On SEE ANNEXATION MAP BELOW does the county warrant the ac- (This information furnished by Arnie Swarens) O curacy or truth of any statement _.J made in the argument. NO ARGUMENTS AGAINST THIS MEASURE WERE FILED 007 - 04OT Proposed Annexation to the City of Sisters- Meas u re 9-74 If 4� BARCLAY MEADOWS PROMSED TL 1510040000103 35.34 Acres Xv- �Jr F s i I � I t , fy �y F fi LL � w i,tai h z Of if t� y e a k i f h j A? 4 ai 2 i4 I 7 SRI � it I NE E a� ,� �i Ai I�PLii � i rvxerE� i a .a, IIy III L d g y,, : a Soo 1200 1800 Fe Parcel* Proposed Annexation Area DATE: August 3'1, 19 City Limits 1 urban Growth Boundary Produced fir: De hidu vlca Cow 8090 - 1. 00 vo ers' . mphlet � a gx S k �c e� 3 �p � � Q a� 3E �Y x +Nn a� �. � .�s wpm.Ea : � V " ••w.aaw.. F z "'��a` E E .g„ .�E •'' '�,,� ��3� E k��V99,�;r�d�.a£s :�E ��" W .. k' 3��`C'»T .1 � E ,,n � �&'' �a• E"T=�Y�.1Y R �'1 3 J� �V Y � `�� "��1'&fig'� �$ '��a,• .�'�x� .� R 8'E asy!.a��F ��[�xa f ax � � d' �' RR 44 a� STATE OF OREGON SPECIAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 Compiled and Distributed by F i) N 'Z Secretary of State , g9. This Voters'Pamphlet is provided for assistance in casting your vote-by-mail ballot. OF O PHIL. K E I S L.I N G �F STATE OF OREGON. SECRETARY OF STATE `,'- i p SECRETARY OF STATE SUZANNE TOWNSEND N Z 136 STATE CAPITOL DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE SALEM,OREGON 97310-0722 8 5 9 (503)986-1500 a i Dear Oregonian: On November 2, 1999, Oregon will conduct a special statewide election to decide nine ballot measures referred to voters by the 1999 Legislature. Ballots will be mailed to registered voters between October 13 and 15.This election is the eighth statewide election conducted by mail, continuing Oregon's tradition of innovation and service to its citizens. You will receive a ballot only if you are registered to vote in Oregon by October 12.To register to vote, or to update a registration, see the section of this Voters' Pamphlet entitled, "Voter Registration." In this Voters' Pamphlet, you will find information about each referred measure, including the complete text of the measure, an estimate of its direct financial effect on government revenues and expenditures, a short explanation written by a committee of Oregonians knowledgeable about the measure, and arguments for and against each measure. Space for arguments is sold to anyone who pays the $300 fee or submits the signatures of 1,000 registered voters. As you acquaint yourself with the measures, you will read fiscal impact statements that have been prepared by a committee of state officials. Under state law, the committee is allowed to estimate only the "direct impact" on state and local governments.These are estimates based on the best information readily available; indirect consequences or costs that are too conjectural are not included.Other potential impacts—to businesses, families, the economy, etc.—are not included in these estimates.You will need to derive that information from the arguments of the proponents and opponents and from your own calculations. If the committee cannot determine that the direct costs exceed $100,000 a year, state law requires the committee's financial impact statement to say"No financial effect on state or local government expenditures or revenues" The information contained in this Voters' Pamphlet is also available in the Online Voters'Guide published by the Secretary of State on the World Wide Web at: http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov299/nov299.htm Sight-impaired persons can obtain a tape copy of this Voters' Pamphlet by calling Independent Living Resources at (503) 232-7411. Please make sure you are registered to vote by October 12 and that your voted ballot is received by your county elections official by 8 p.m. November 2. Postmarks do not count. Best, l� Phil Keisling Secretary of State On the Cover:The Yaquina Bay Bridge is reflected in the tidal waters of Yaquina Bay, Newport, Oregon. Photo courtesy of Sally Grant Carr, Newport. Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—General Information . Information GENERAL Your official 1999 Special Election Voters'Pamphlet provides you Citizens or organizations may file arguments in favor of, or in with information about nine statewide measures referred by the opposition to, measures by purchasing space for$300 or by sub- Legislature.Additionally, you can find information about vote-by- mitting a petition signed by 1,000 voters.Arguments in favor of a mail and voter registration, as well as a list of addresses and measure appear first,followed by arguments in opposition to the phone numbers for county elections officials across the state. measure,and are printed in the order in which they are filed with For each of the nine measures in this voters'pamphlet, you will the Secretary of State's office. find the following information: The Voters' Pamphlet has been compiled by the Secretary of (1) the ballot title; State since 1903,when Oregon became one of the first states to provide for the printing and distribution of such a publication.One (2) estimate of financial impact; copy of the Voters'Pamphlet is mailed to every household in the 3 complete text of the proposed measure; state. Additional copies are available at the State Capitol, local ( ) p p p post offices,courthouses and all county election offices. I (4) explanatory statement;and (5) arguments filed by proponents and opponents of the measure. The ballot title for a legislative referral may be drafted by the Legislature. If the ballot title is not drafted by the Legislature it is drafted by the Attorney General's office.It is then distributed to a list of interested parties for public comment. After review of any comments submitted, the ballot title is certified by the Attorney General's office.The certified ballot title can usually be appealed and may be changed by the Oregon Supreme Court. The estimate of financial impact for each measure is prepared by a committee of state officials including the Secretary of State,the State Treasurer, the Director of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services and the Director of the Department of Revenue.The committee estimates only the direct impact on state and local governments. The explanatory statement is an impartial statement explaining the measure.Each measure's explanatory statement is written by a committee of five members, including two proponents of the I measure, two opponents of the measure and a fifth member appointed by the first four committee members, or, if they fail to agree on a fifth member, appointed by the Secretary of State. Explanatory statements can be appealed and may be changed by the Oregon Supreme Court. ATTENTION: The State of Oregon prints measure arguments as submitted by the author. The state does not correct punctuation, grammar, syntax errors or inaccurate informa- tion.The only changes made are attempts to correct spelling errors if the word as originally submitted is not in the dictionary. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Page County Elections Offices............................................... 55 State Measure No.73.................................................... 34 Disabled Voter Information............................................ 54 State Measure No.74.................................................... 38 State Measure No.68.................................................... 4 State Measure No.75.................................................... 42 State Measure No.69.................................................... 12 State Measure No.76.................................................... 47 State Measure No.70.................................................... 18 Vote-by-Mail Information................................................ 54 State Measure No.71.................................................... 24 Voter Registration Information....................................... 54 State Measure No.72.................................................... 29 ELECTION DAY IS TUESDAY,NOVEMBER 2, 1999 County Elections Offices are open from 7 a.m.to 8 p.m. 3 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 68 . MIAN U12 FP House Joint Resolution 82—Referred to the Electorate of Oregon any state,county or city corrections facility or institution.The Cor- by the 1999 Legislature to be voted on at the Special Election, rections director may reduce or exempt participation in work or November 2, 1999. training programs by those inmates deemed by corrections offi- cials as physically or mentally disabled, or as too dangerous to society to engage in such programs. BALLOT TITLE en(4) There shall be sufficient work and training programs to sure that every eligible inmate is productively involved in one or more programs.Where an inmate is drug and alcohol addicted so as to prevent the inmate from effectively participating in work or I! Awows P.I TINIA training programs, corrections officials shall provide appropriate 68 , $ OE tTAtN 0xOi/tI�t�li�Sl t R drug or alcohol treatment. (5)The intent of the people is that taxpayer-supported institu ROM PMOON WORK PROGRA tions and programs shall be free to benefit from inmate work. Prison work programs shall be designed and carried out so as to 3 111101, ea R JT I Y v st We, achieve [net cost] savings in [maintaining] government opera enterprise,gertaln ggvetttrnen#, rionpit ft) ogl r fTr rrt prisoft tions, [or]so as to achieve a net profit in private sector activities work program oorttl tltlon. or so as to benefit the community. FtE�aUt t O "* Cf�1tC1Tl*. o"vote retsiris prison work pt0grams" (6) The provisions of this section are mandatory for all state tatZreatricted:competit�on with pnvata entr�rfiriSe,government ancr• corrections institutions.The provisions of this section are permis- rtoiproflt prtgrams sive for county or city corrections facilities. No law, ordinance or charter shall prevent or restrict a county or city governing body A1714 MARY Amends canistittrtion: Gt? Stittttit n now mandates from implementing all or part of the provisions of this section. pristln Work;prggrarrss, whiot tt3ay Gerrtpiift with public, private' Compensation,if any,shall be determined and established by the star enterp rises'+vtthout restrlotlon try State,ho at,Iaw.;M9aSilrt : governing body of the county or city which chooses to engage in Would allow corractl6ns director to limit establishment, tpanstor prison work programs, and the governing body may choose to 4 16r-pro#it! prism woflt prtgtarttS ttrattuc[rt grtods, seryice9 adopt any power or exemption allowed in this section. offered for sale In private sector tcr•avt ld disp[aging or signlficant (7) The corrections director shall contact public and private t -reducing preexisting private'eAterprise;prison work programs' enterprises in this state and seek proposals to use inmate work. tit gild displacing rar signlffcantly r duclnr government or non. The corrections director may: (a) install and equip plants in any profit�frograms employlrlg"persr�ns wEth develtipt�iera I dtsablll= state corrections institution,or any other location,for the employ- taes Alto USS of lrtntate work to Support corttmunity ohantab[E) men t or training of any of the inmates therein; or {b) purchase, or e4zeationi.Other changes'.:., acquire, install, maintain and operate materials, machinery and i✓ 7"lltiA:t fll"r*At!I6ALfIi�P T-I�lotirian ial etteo on �lat�' appliances necessary to the conduct and operation of such or•l©cal government expenditures or revenues. giants.The corrections director shall use every effort to enter into contracts or agreements with private business concerns or gov- ernment agencies to accomplish the production or marketing of products or services produced or performed by inmates.The cor- rections director may carry out the director's powers and duties under this section by delegation to others. TEXT OF MEASURE (8) Compensation, if any, for inmates who engage in prison work programs shall be determined and established by the corrections director. Such compensation shall not be subject to Be It Resolved by the Legislative Assembly of the State of existing public or private sector minimum or prevailing wage laws, Oregon: except where required to comply with federal law. Inmate com- PARAGRAPH 1.Section 41,Article I of the Constitution of the pensation from enterprises entering into agreements with the State of Oregon, is amended to read: state shall be exempt from unemployment compensation taxes to Sec. 41. (1) Whereas the people of the state of Oregon find the extent allowed under federal law. Inmate injury or disease and declare that inmates who are confined in corrections institu- attributable to any inmate work shall be covered by a corrections tions should work as hard as the taxpayers who provide for their system inmate injury fund rather than the workers compensation upkeep; and whereas the people also find and declare that law. Except as otherwise required by federal law to permit trans- inmates confined within corrections institutions must be fully portation in interstate commerce of goods,wares or merchandise engaged in productive activity if they are to successfully re-enter manufactured,produced or mined,wholly or in part by inmates or society with practical skills and a viable work ethic;now,therefore, except as otherwise required by state law, any compensation the people declare: earned through prison work programs shall only be used for the (2)All inmates of state corrections institutions shall be actively following purposes: (a) reimbursement for all or a portion of the j engaged full-time in work or on-the-job training. The work or costs of the inmate's rehabilitation, housing, health care, and Ili on-the-job training programs shall be established and overseen living costs; (b) restitution or compensation to the victims of the by the corrections director,who shall ensure that such programs particular inmate's crime; (c) restitution or compensation to the are cost-effective and are designed to develop inmate motivation, victims of crime generally through a fund designed for that work capabilities and cooperation. Such programs may include purpose;(d)financial support for immediate family of the inmate boot camp prison programs. Education may be provided to outside the corrections institution;and(e)payment of fines,court inmates as part of work or on-the-job training so long as each costs,and applicable taxes. inmate is engaged at least half-time in hands-on training or work (9) All income generated from prison work programs shall be activity. kept[in a]separate [account)from general fund accounts and (3)Each inmate shall begin full-time work or on-the-job training shall only be used for implementing, maintaining and developing immediately upon admission to a corrections institution, allowing prison work programs. Prison industry work programs shall be for a short time for administrative intake and processing.The spe- exempt from statutory competitive bid and purchase require- cific quantity of hours per day to be spent in work or on-the-job ments. Expenditures for prison work programs shall be exempt training shall be determined by the corrections director, but the from the legislative appropriations process to the extent the pro- overall time spent in work or training shall be full-time. However, grams rely on income sources other than state taxes and fees. no inmate has a legally enforceable right to a job or to otherwise Where state taxes or fees are the source of capital or operating participate in work,on-the-job training or educational programs or expenditures,the appropriations shall be made by the legislative to compensation for work or labor performed while an inmate of assembly. The state programs shall be run in a businesslike 4 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 68 fashion and shall be subject to regulation by the[Prison Industries EXPLANATORY STATEMENT Board, consisting of the Governor, Secretary of State, and State Treasurer.The Board shall meet at least quarterly and shall act by vote of any two of the three members] corrections director. This measure amends section 41, Article I of the Oregon Expenditures from [the]income generated by state prison work Constitution, which requires prison inmates to spend a certain programs(account]must be approved by the[Board]corrections amount of time in education or work programs. director. Agreements with private enterprise as to state prison Currently, prison work programs are regulated by the Prison work programs must be approved by the [Board] corrections Industries Board.The Board consists of the Governor, Secretary director. The corrections director shall make all state records of State and State Treasurer.This measure eliminates the Prison available for public scrutiny and the records shall be subject to Industries Board and shifts its responsibilities to the Director of audit by the Secretary of State. the Department of Corrections. (10)Prison work products or services shall be available to any public agency and to any private enterprise of any state, any This measure directs the Director of the Department of nation or any American Indian or Alaskan Native tribe without Corrections,to the extent possible,to avoid establishing for-profit restriction imposed by any state or local law,ordinance or regula- prison work programs that would displace or reduce: tion as to competition with other public or private sector enter- 1.Preexisting private jobs or businesses;or prises.The products and services of corrections work programs shall be provided on such terms as are [approved] set by the 2.Government or nonprofit programs that employ persons with corrections director.To the extent determined possible by the developmental disabilities. corrections director, the corrections director shall avoid This measure expands the allowable uses of inmate work to establishing or expanding for-profit prison work programs that produce goods or services offered for sale in the private include supporting community charitable organizations. sector if the establishment or expansion would displace or Currently, the Constitution requires that prison work programs significantly reduce preexisting private enterprise. To the must achieve net cost savings in maintaining government opera- extent determined possible by the corrections director,the tions or a net profit in private sector activities. This measure corrections director shall avoid establishing or expanding allows prison work programs to benefit the community without a prison work programs if the establishment or expansion requirement of net cost savings or net profit. would displace or significantly reduce government or non- profit programs that employ persons with developmental Committee Members: Appointed By: disabilities. However, the decision to establish, maintain, Senator Peter Courtney President of the Senate expand, reduce or terminate any prison work program Representative Dan Gardner Speaker of the House remains in the sole discretion of the corrections director. Representative Jerry Krummel Secretary of State (11) Inmate work shall be used as much as possible to help Senator Frank Shields Secretary of State operate the corrections institutions themselves, [and] to support Representative Lane Shetterly Members of the Committee other government operations and to support community chari- table organizations. This work includes, but is not limited to, (This committee was appointed to provide an impartial explanation of the institutional food production;maintenance and repair of buildings, ballot measure pursuant to ORS 251.215.) grounds,and equipment;office support services, including print- ing;prison clothing production and maintenance; prison medical services; training other inmates; agricultural and forestry work, especially in parks and public forest lands; and environmental clean-up projects. Every state agency shall cooperate with the corrections director in establishing inmate work programs. (12) As used throughout this section, unless the context requires otherwise: "full-time" means the equivalent of at least forty hours per seven day week, specifically including time spent by inmates as required by the Department of Corrections, while the inmate is participating in work or on-the-job training, to pro- vide for the safety and security of the public,correctional staff and inmates;"corrections director"means the person in charge of the state corrections system. (13)This section is self-implementing and supersedes all exist- ing inconsistent statutes.This section shall become effective April 1; 1995.If any part of this section or its application to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid for any reason, then the remaining parts or applications to any persons or circumstances shall not be affected but shall remain in full force and effect. PARAGRAPH 2.The amendment proposed by this resolu- tion shall be submitted to the people for their approval or rejection at a special election held throughout this state on the date specified in section 2,chapter ,Oregon Laws 1999 (Enrolled House Bill 2354). If a special election is not held throughout this state on the date specified in section 2, chapter ,Oregon Laws 1999(Enrolled House Bill 2354), the amendment proposed by this resolution shall be submit- ted to the people for their approval or rejection at a special election held throughout this state on the same date as the next biennial primary election. NOTE: Boldfaced type indicates new language; [brackets and italic]type indicates deletions or comments. NO ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THIS BALLOT [MEASURE WERE FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE. 5 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures I Measure No . 68 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR ARGUMENT IN FAVOR VOTE YES ON MEASURE 68 VOTE YES ON 68 – STOP CONVICTS FROM TAKING AWAY TO STRENGTHEN PRISON WORK REQUIREMENTS JOBS This measure improves the provisions of the Oregon Constitution The Plumbing and Mechanical Contractors Association urges you which require that state prisoners work full-time. to vote YES on Measure 68 to stop the practice of allowing prison labor to be used to compete with existing businesses. I was co-author and chief petitioner of the original Measure 17, We represent over 200 small businesses here in Oregon,most of + passed by an overwhelming margin in the November 1994 elec- tion. This was the original constitutional amendment requiring them having business n five o but w or do mind competing for honest job with less employees.We don't mind competition in state prisoners to work full-time and requiring that income from companies that employ prisoners. their work be used to pay for their incarceration,pay restitution to victims,pay fines,and provide for family support obligations. Oregon's current law allows companies, including ones from out- When Measure 17 passed,just over 20 percent of state prisoners of-state, to use cheaply paid prison labor to compete against were working full-time.Now over 70 percent of state prisoners are legitimate local businesses and take away jobs. working full-time. This is wrong.' Measure 68 improves the prison work system in two ways. First, Convicted felons like thieves, drug addicts and rapists, serving it eliminates the Prison Industries Board (composed of the time in prison shouldn't be used to compete with legitimate small Governor,Treasurer,and Secretary of State)and instead puts the businesses and deny law abiding workers a job. Director of Corrections in charge of prison work programs. Our small businesses and their skilled employees work hard to With the Director of Corrections in full command of prison work make an honest living.We invest countless hours and dollars in programs, we will have complete accountability through one training,safety,and community service.We are a positive part of person. our communities across the state and yet are being penalized by The second change to the constitutional provisions makes it clear the use of forced, taxpayer subsidized prison labor by less that the Director of Corrections may consider the impact of prison scrupulous competitors. work on the private sector and on programs employing persons Have the prisoners clean up graffiti and trash or other types of with developmental disabilities.There have been some interpre- work that doesn't compete with that of honest citizens. Don't tations that we cannot use common sense in considering these continue to reward prisoners and companies that use them at the factors. This measure makes it clear that the Director of expense of our families and communities. Corrections may apply common sense and discretion in setting up prison work programs. PLEASE VOTE YES ON MEASURE 68 This measure has strong bipartisan support from Democratic and William Sikora Republican members of the House and Senate.It has the strong Plumbing and Mechanical Contractors Association support of business and labor. It is a positive refinement of an (This information furnished by William Sikora,PMCA.) already successful program. Please vote yes on Measure 68. Kevin L.Mannix State Representative (This information furnished by Kevin L.Mannix,Justice For All.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 6 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures • � r Measure No . 68 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR ARGUMENT IN FAVOR YES ON 68-FOR OREGON'S SAKE STOP CHEAP FORCED LABOR BY CONVICTS FROM When I,and the majority of Oregonians,voted to require that HURTING HONEST BUSINESSES-VOTE YES ON 68 prisoners must work I never thought that it would result in Our current laws have a flaw that is hurting businesses in Oregon. law-abiding citizens losing skilled jobs.I never dreamed that Convicted criminals while in prison are now being allowed to take out of state contractors could hire cheap prison labor to directly compete with local Oregon businesses. I never away skilled jobs from honest, hard working, law abiding busi nesses and workers thought that by requiring criminals to work we would actual- ly hurt our neighbors and community.But that is just what is How can this be happening? happening. Unfortunately,the law voters approved requiring convicts to work The law currently allows companies to use prison labor to while they are in prison did not specify that this work was not to directly compete with law-abiding citizens and businesses. compete with existing businesses and skilled workers. We cannot allow this to continue. People in our local com- munities are losing out on job opportunities.They are being Most voters really meant for prisoners to do unskilled work for the displaced from jobs by convicted felons in prison-thieves, public good-things like cleaning up parks and roads.They didn't rapists,drug addicts. mean that prisoners should be used as cheap, taxpayer subsi- dized forced labor to compete against local businesses and dis- That's not what we wanted when we voted to require prison- place highly trained workers who have earned the right to do ers to work.We wanted convicted felons to do things like skilled family-wage jobs. cleaning up our roads,parks and forests. Competition in business is a good thing,but using incarcer- Ballot Measure 68 will fix the law to do what we intended. ated felons-like thieves,drug addicts and rapists-as a low Don't allow convicted criminals in prison to continue to harm cost way to compete shouldn't be allowed. Oregon! Voting yes on Measure 68 will stop prisoners from taking skilled Join me in voting yes on BM 68-for Oregon's Sake. jobs away from our local businesses and honest citizens. Matt Walters VOTE YES ON MEASURE 68! Business Manager UA Plumbers&Steamfitters Local 290 (This information furnished by Tim Gauthier, Oregon-Columbia Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors Association.) (This information furnished by Matt Walters,UA Local 290.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 7 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No. 68 Ems ARGUMENT IN FAVOR ARGUMENT IN FAVOR Letting convicts take away jobs is just plain wrong–Vote yes STOP CONVICTED PRISONERS FROM CONTINUING on 68 to stop it. TO HARM OREGON When Oregonians voted to require prisoners to work we didn't VOTE YES ON BALLOT MEASURE 68 mean for them to compete with law-abiding citizens and busi- After a criminal is convicted and locked up in one of our prisons nesses.But the law is flawed and is letting this happen. they can no longer hurt law abiding Oregonians–right? I represent over 3000 electricians and their families throughout Wrong! Oregon.We care about crime and our communities.I worked long and hard to earn the right to be a skilled Journeyman Electrician. The law we passed to require prisoners to work while in prison I did so after serving my country in the military, while raising a has backfired and needs fixed. Prisoners are now being used to family,and suffering through good economic times and bad–and provide cheap labor to directly compete with Oregon's workers all the while abiding by and respecting the laws of this country and businesses. and the state of Oregon. The result is convicted thieves, rapists,and drug dealers are tak- I firmly believe that if you commit a crime you go to jail.And I firm- ing jobs away from skilled workers and harming local economies. ly believe that convicted prisoners should work. But criminals This isn't right.This isn't what we had in mind when voted for pris- should not be used for work that directly competes with law abid- oners to work. ing workers and established businesses. We meant for them to clean up our roads and parks and do things Letting companies compete for business using cheap labor from that don't compete with established businesses and their loyal convicted criminals not only takes away jobs but also reduces employees. taxes paid to our state and local governments and hurts local businesses.This doesn't make sense.Out of state contractors are Vote yes on Measure 68 to fix the current law using this loophole to undermine our local workforce. Voting Yes on 68 will prohibit prison labor from displacing or sig- We need to fix the law by voting YES on MEASURE 68.Measure nificantly reducing preexisting private enterprise and workers. 68 will stop prison labor from competing with existing local work- Don't let convicted criminals continue to hurt our citizens and ers and businesses. communities from behind bars.Vote yes on measure 68 to keep Support Oregon's communities, workers, and businesses and Oregon safe and law-abiding citizens working. vote yes on measure 68. It's the right thing to do. (This information furnished by Bob Shiprack, Oregon State Building and Jerry Bruce, Business Manager Construction Trades Council.) International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 68 (This information furnished by Jerry Bruce,IBEW Local 48.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 8 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures 1 � Measure No . 68 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR ARGUMENT IN FAVOR AFSCME Council 75 For Oregon's Sake,Vote Yes on 68 Oregon voters did not expect convicts to take away jobs from the Do you know what is happening in your backyard? In your cities, general public when Ballot Measure 17 was passed in 199. in your towns and in your communities? All throughout Oregon? That's why we support Ballot Measure 68 this November. Criminals are taking family wage jobs away from hardworking,law Measure 68 doesn't do away with Measure 17, it just offers some abiding citizens.This does not make sense. important"fine-tuning"that Oregonians should support. It gets worse.The people leading the charge to take these jobs away are out of state contractors. That's right, your taxpayer Measure 17 said inmates must work, and we support that concept.We believe it's good for prison crews to be out cleaning money is subsidizing out of state contractors to hire convicts to roadsides, picking up litter, cleaning parks and repairing storm perform work for them. damage and doing other menial, manual labor. It's an important Criminals are in jail for a reason,they broke the law.Once behind aspect of having these people repay their debt to society. bars,why should they be ig ven the opportunity to take away our But supporters of Measure 17,we are sure,never meant for mur- jobs?The answer is common sense,they shouldn't be given this derers, rapists and others to be taking away good-paying jobs opportunity. from honest Oregonians who need them. Law-abiding citizens Please join me in the fight to keep Oregon's criminals and out of certainly should have first priority. state contractors from stealing jobs from honest, hard working Measure 68 will do just that.Measure 68 will instill some needed Oregonians! flexibility to the language contained in Measure 17.The law needs Support your community,Vote Yes on Measure 68. to be fixed so that the Oregon Department of Corrections can Mark Holliday properly focus on exactly which jobs prisoners can and cannot do. Operating Engineers.Local 701 Convicted criminals are already living off of taxpayer money;we don't need them to go out and"steal"our jobs on top of it! (This information furnished by Mark Holliday, Operating Engineers Local Let's be clear: inmates will still be working.They just won't have 701.) the ability to take good jobs away from the general public.That's an unintended consequence of Measure 17,and fixing that prob- lem is what Ballot Measure 68 is all about. Vote YES on 68! (This information furnished by Margaret Hughes,Oregon AFSCME Council 75.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 9 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 68 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR ARGUMENT IN FAVOR Vote Yes on 68 to stop murderers,rapists and molesters from Hard working Oregonians and local small businesses need taking family wage jobs from, hard-working, law abiding your help–Vote Yes on Ballot Measure 68 citizens. Out-of-state contractors are abusing a loophole here in Can this be true?Sadly,it is true and happening all over our great Oregon.They are using criminals in prison to take construction state of Oregon. jobs away from local contractors and hard-working, honest Currently, Oregon law allows companies to use prison labor to Oregonians. directly compete for family wage jobs that otherwise law abiding When we all voted to make Oregon prisoners work while they citizens would otherwise be hired to do.This puts people in our served time, we never imagined they, would be taking jobs communities out of work.Criminals are being put to work, while away from law-abiding Oregonians, but this is exactly what is honest, hard working citizens go unemployed. happening. Excuse me,but...........what? This measure would still require prisoners to work, but not at Putting criminals to work is a great idea,but not when it takes jobs the expense of Oregon families. The criminals would be doing away from law abiding citizens.These criminals are given the right what we originally imagined, picking up trash and painting over to perform technical jobs that honest, hard working citizens are graffiti. professionally trained for years to earn the right to work in our This measure would fix the problem and give Oregonians their industry. jobs back. For the sake of all the hard working, law-abiding When Oregonians voted for inmate labor, they intended it be for Oregonians,join me in voting Yes on Ballot Measure 68. cleaning roads,picking up litter,cleaning parks and manual labor. (This information furnished by Robert Blake, Columbia Chapter of the Not taking away family wage jobs of people who have been pro- Sheet Metal Air Conditioning National Association-SMACNA.) fessionally trained. Help save jobs for law abiding citizens. Vote Yes on 68. Paddy Barry Ironworkers Local 29 (This information furnished by Paddy Barry,Ironworkers Local 29.) 1 i (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 10 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 68 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR ARGUMENT IN FAVOR DO WHAT IS FAIR Oregon voters did not expect convicts to take away jobs from the LET COMMON SENSE PREVAIL general public when Ballot Measure 17 was passed.That's why we support Ballot Measure 68 this November. VOTE YES ON BALLOT MEASURE 68 Measure 68 doesn't do away with Measure 17,it just offers some BALLOT MEASURE 68 IS AN ISSUE OF FAIRNESS. important"fine-tuning"that Oregonians should support. THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO BELONG TO OUR UNION WORK Measure 17 said inmates must work, and we support that con- FOR YEARS TO BECOME EXPERTS AT THEIR JOBS TO BE cept.We believe it's good for prison crews to be out cleaning road- ABLE TO PROVIDE A STEADY FAMILY WAGE, HEALTH CARE sides, picking up litter, cleaning parks and doing other menial, AND RETIREMENT BENEFIT6 FOR THEIR FAMILIES AND manual labor. It's an important aspect of having these people THEIR FUTURE. THESE ARE HONEST PEOPLE. THEY repay their debt to society. DESERVE A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO WORK IN THEIR But supporters of Measure 17,we are sure,never meant for mur- PROFESSION. derers, rapists and others to be taking away good-paying jobs CONVICTS DO NOT DESERVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE from honest Oregonians who need them. Law-abiding citizens AWAY JOBS. THEY ARE CRIMINALS. THEY ARE BEHIND certainly should have first priority. BARS FOR A REASON.ALLOWING CRIMINALS TO TAKE OUR Measure 68 will do just that.Measure 68 will instill some needed JOBS PUTS HARDWORKING, PROFESSIONALLY TRAINED flexibility to the language contained in Measure 17.The law needs OREGONIANS AND THEIR FAMILIES AT RISK FOR LOSING to be fixed so that the Oregon Department of Corrections can JOBS. properly focus on exactly which jobs prisoners can and cannot do. I HAVE EXPERIENCED FIRSTHAND HOW DEVASTATING THIS Convicted criminals are already living off of taxpayer money;we LAW CAN BE. I HAVE SEEN HARDWORKING, HONEST INDI- don't need them to go out and"steal"our jobs on top of it! VIDUALS OUT-OF-WORK, WHILE CRIMINALS WERE BEING Let's be clear: Inmates will still be working.They just won't have USED TO PERFORM WORK WE ARE TRAINED TO DO. the right or the ability to take good jobs away from the general THIS IS NOT FAIR. public.That's an unintended consequence of Measure 17,and fix- WE CARE ABOUT OUR COMMUNITIES. WE CARE ABOUT ing that problem is what Ballot Measure 68 is all about. OUR FAMILIES.WE CARE ABOUT OUR JOBS. Vote YES on 68! FOR ALL OF THESE REASONS, PLEASE VOTE YES ON (This information furnished by Lawrence D. Taylor, Chair, Multnomah BALLOT MEASURE 68. County Democratic Central Committee.) THIS IS AN ISSUE OF FAIRNESS. (This information furnished by William S. Wilkerson, Linoleum, Carpet& Soft Tile Applicators Local Union No. 1236.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with DRS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 11 q Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 69 House Joint Resolution 87—Referred to the Electorate of Oregon acting on behalf of the criminal defendant provided,howev- by the 1999 Legislature to be voted on at the Special Election, er,that nothing in this paragraph shall restrict any other con- November 2, 1999. stitutional-right of the defendant to discovery against the state; (d)The right to receive prompt restitution from the con- victed criminal who caused the victim's loss or injury; BALLOT TITLE (e)The right to have a copy of a transcript of any court pro- ceeding in open court,if one is otherwise prepared; (f)The right to be consulted,upon request,regarding plea COIUTITTI#r ; CiRAfJI (� negotiations involving any violent felony;and (g)The right to be informed of these rights as soon as t (1f�atttillL Efti�S it+i CEtlli111i-� E practicable. C( IUr�S,;Jtlu�t-J COIJ�iI Off-( � (2)This section applies to all criminal and juvenile court P#£kCEEDIfdG6= delinquency proceedings pending or commenced on or after the effective date of this section. Nothing in this section �i '°� "liC?T Yes sent trantsulttJrris speified` reduces a criminal defendant's rights under the Constitution Jt�lt iitttts Jrt et(tnJrlal proseett(tns�juvnt oQtat.rlelln of the United States.Except as otherwise specifically provid- C#tt ldy(f e8tiings. ad, this section supersedes any conflicting section of this Constitution. Nothing in this section is intended to create f £�iw" O" Tlx''t Ito"vo# (eaveu(Gtiritswilh4lut�cif' any cause of action for compensation or damages nor may t�ltuttElrtt .nrtmttxal � � uuene this section be used to invalidate an accusatory instrument, ruling of a court,conviction or adjudication or otherwise sus- pend or terminate any criminal or juvenile delinquency pro- #,gr� �htstctriiJnorirf t€naJprs�sticuifflnrct�tnre ceedings at any point after the case is commenced or on t€ie;� ertquneY preatts,aJthotgtt t are statutrry appeal. #� � e plat; spst7c vtdtJit � tght trtrslaJutien, (3)As used in this section: tlEt t t g ttgfit to tte p>�zs rlt at, ot1 regtte;i tt:ac nano (a) "Convicted criminal" includes a youth offender in 3f tt 7 t owl#-prt�Cee llt vtlteY defettdatlt (14bai pg$ertl; juvenile court delinquency proceedings. f�atelfff te9easfTtt ;sendrtgtk#luveieOtttl!' (b)"Criminal defendant"includes an alleged youth offend- & s lreJttgrff c517tair#Jnf�rtrfJrih tstr+rBUest aJtt Ct3xt_ er in juvenile court delinquency proceedings. vt# n,slC4,Jrpcittmrtt t~rlm#rt ! ISfeJy Intl rl�;of (c)"Victim" means any person determined by the prose- outing attorney to have suffered direct financial, psycho- logical or physical harm as a result of a crime and, in the geirt pled r5agottatibt3 ,r+cere cetirt trartsrtpfs case of a victim who is a minor, the legal guardian of the j minor.In the event that no person has been determined to be JAT �AiJ # JP1CT Natftanc€ai effectors sta#e a victim of the crime,the people of Oregon, represented by � f �tvesrtlet7ertd�tcl] gtre� the prosecuting attorney,are considered to be the victims.In no event is it intended that the criminal defendant be considered the victim. (d) "Violent felony'; a felony in which there was actual or threatened serious physical injury to a victim or a TEXT OF MEASURE felony sexual offense. PARAGRAPH 2.The amendment proposed by this resolu- j Be It Resolved by the Legislative Assembly of the State of tion shall be submitted to the people for their approval or Oregon: rejection at a special election held throughout this state on the date specified in section 2,chapter ,Oregon Laws PARAGRAPH 1. The Constitution of the State of Oregon is 1999(Enrolled House Bill 2354). amended by creating a new section to be added to and made a part of Article I,such section to read: NOTE: Boldfaced type indicates new language; [brackets and (1)To preserve and protect the right of crime victims to italic]type indicates deletions or comments. justice,to ensure crime victims a meaningful role in the crim- inal and juvenile justice systems, to accord crime victims due dignity and respect and to ensure that criminal and juve- nile court delinquency proceedings are conducted to seek the truth as to the defendant's innocence or guilt,and also to ensure that a fair balance is struck between the rights of crime victims and the rights of criminal defendants in the course and conduct of criminal and juvenile court delin- quency proceedings,the following rights are hereby granted to victims in all prosecutions for crimes and in juvenile court delinquency proceedings: (a)The right to be present at and,upon specific request,to . be informed in advance of any critical stage of the proceed- ings held in open court when the defendant will be present, and to be heard at the pretrial release hearing and the sen- tencing or juvenile court delinquency disposition; (b)The right,upon request,to obtain information about the conviction, sentence, imprisonment, criminal history and future release from physical custody of the criminal defen- dant or convicted criminal and equivalent information regarding the alleged youth offender or youth offender; (c)The right to refuse an interview,deposition or other dis- covery request by the criminal defendant or other person 12 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures M 69 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT ARGUMENT IN FAVOR This measure amends the Bill of Rights in the Oregon VOTE YES ON MEASURE 69 Constitution by granting certain rights to victims of crimes and TO RE-AFFIRM THE WILL OF THE VOTERS acts of juvenile delinquency.If approved,this amendment will give victims: This referral from the Legislature reflects part of Measure 40, 1.The right to be informed of and present at certain stages of passed by a large margin in November 1996. The Oregon Supreme Court later ruled that Measure 40 could not be enacted the proceedings and to speak at pretrial release hearings and at ' sentencing or disposition proceedings. as a single amendment to the Oregon Constitution.The court said that each amendment must be voted on separately.Therefore,the 2.The right to obtain information about the person charged Legislature has split the original Measure 40 into seven separate with or convicted of the crime or act of juvenile delinquency.The amendments to the Oregon Constitution and referred these information includes information about the person's conviction, amendments to the voters.This measure reflects one part of the sentence, imprisonment,criminal history and future release from original Measure 40. custody or similar information if the person is a juvenile. This measure preserves and protects the right of crime victims to 3.The right to refuse an interview,deposition or other request justice, ensures crime victims a meaningful role in the criminal for information by the person accused of committing the crime or and juvenile justice systems, accords crime victims due dignity act of juvenile delinquency. and respect, and ensures that criminal and juvenile court delin- quency The right to receive prompt payment from the criminal or quency proceedings are conducted to seek the truth as to the youth offender for certain monetary damages caused by the crim- defendant's innocence or guilt. It ensures that a fair balance is final or youth offender's actions. struck between the rights of crime victims and the rights of crimi- Y nal defendants. 5.The right to have a copy of the transcript of court proceed- While the rights of crime victims have been placed in some ings if one is otherwise prepared. statutes,those rights are not as strong as the ones in this mea- 6.The right to be consulted about plea negotiations involving sure. Also, when a crime victim's t is a utory rights are weighed violent felonies. against a criminal defendant's constitutional rights, the constitu- tional rights will prevail.This is why it is important to make sure 7.The right to be informed of these rights as soon as that the crime victim's rights are also in the Constitution. practicable. Referral of this measure to the voters was sought by the three The rights granted by the measure will apply to all criminal and largest, longest established victims' organizations in Oregon juvenile delinquency proceedings that are pending,or that begin, (Parents of Murdered Children; Mothers Against Drunk Driving; on or after the effective date of this measure. Crime Victims United)and by Oregon law enforcement organiza- Except as otherwise specifically provided,this measure super- tions(Association Chiefs of Police;District Attorneys Association; sedes any conflicting section of the Oregon Constitution. State Sheriffs Association;State Police;Federation of Parole and Probation Officers). Committee Members: Appointed By: Please vote yes on Measure 69. Senator Neil Bryant President of the Senate Kevin L.Mannix Representative Kevin Mannix Speaker of the House State Representative Senator Kate Brown Secretary of State Representative Floyd Prozanski Secretary of State (This information furnished by Kevin L.Mannix,Justice For All.) Representative Lane Shetterly Members of the Committee (This committee was appointed to provide an impartial explanation of the ballot measure pursuant to ORS 251.215.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 13 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures 1 � Measure No . 69 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR ARGUMENT IN FAVOR In 1996,Oregonians overwhelmingly voted to give crime victims In the last 4 or 5 decades law-abiding citizens of Oregon have lost at least as many rights as criminals. But the politicians on the many protections they formerly took for granted. As courts and Oregon Supreme Court came up with a never-before used tech- criminal defense oriented politicians continued to expand rights, nicality to throw out the voters'wishes. privileges and advantages for criminal defendants, law-abiding Measures 69 through 75 are virtually the same Crime Victims citizens found they had little chance of receiving just treatment Bill of Rights. when they fell victim to a crime. Measure 69 gives crime victims the following constitutional In response, crime victims and other concerned citizens spon- rights: sored a Constitutional Crime Victims Amendment known as Ballot Measure 40 in 1996, which passed, by a large majority of the -The right to be present. vote.We were Chief Petitioners on Measure 40. -The right to receive restitution from the criminal. In the 18 years we've been Crime Victims advocates we have' -The right to find out if the criminal was convicted and what become familiar with hundreds of cases.This knowledge let us sentence was imposed. contemplate how Measure 40 would have impacted these cases The right to find out if and when the criminal is going to be released. had it been in effect at the time the crime was committed.We felt The right to refuse an interview by the criminal or the criminal's great pride in our contribution towards Measure 40's passage.This pride was short lived.In 1998 Oregon's Supreme Court over- -The right to a transcript of the proceedings. attorney. turned Measure 40 in its entirety using newly interpreted techni- -The right to be consulted about plea negotiations for violent cal grounds. felonies. Once again Oregonians were denied treatment that would be While these rights may seem self evident,each year thousands afforded them in other states. of crime victims are shocked to learn that the focus of the Oregon The opponents of Crime Victims Rights, The Defense Bar, The criminal justice system is on the criminal-not justice! ACLU and like minded people have made many unfounded, Since its creation in 1982, Crime Victims United has worked to unprincipled claims in the past in an obvious attempt to manipu- return balance to the Oregon criminal justice system. late the voters.They would have you believe crime victims should have no concern in the case or its outcome.They have used the PLEASE VOTE YES ON MEASURES 69 THROUGH 75! naive,the parents of offenders and even an occasional confused SHOULDN'T THE CRIME VICTIM HAVE AT LEAST AS MANY and conflicted victim to further their apparent goal of demanding RIGHTS AS THE CRIMINAL? that offenders receive technical perfection. Measure 69 is the first of 7 measures including 70,71,72,73,74, (This information furnished by Steve Doell,Crime Victims United.) &75 containing most of Ballot Measure 40 already passed by the voters in Oregon in 1996.We urge its passage. Bob&Dee Dee Kouns Founders of Crime Victims United; Chief Petitioners of Ballot Measure 40 (This information furnished by Bob & Dee Dee Kouns, Crime Victims United.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 14 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 69 ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION We Are Survivors of Crime who object to being used Crime Victims Oppose Measures 69,70,71,72,73, in this blatant attempt to gut the Oregon Bill of Rights. 74 and 75. ` We urge you to VOTE NO ON MEASURES 69,70,71,72,73, 1 was paralyzed six years ago when my sister and Ir were hit by 74 and 75. a drunk driver. It gave me a new perspective on life... though I could do without the wheelchair. Here's why we oppose these measures. 1. If the Oregon Legislature really wanted to help victims of crime,these measures would force criminals to pay restitution to angered that victims I watch the debate over criminal justice in Oregon, I am victims. Even Measure 69 -- the so-called "victim's rights" mea- sure–does nothing to address the current inequities in the resti- Measures 69 through 75 do nothing to help victims of crime. tution system. The measures are merely smokescreens to increase the power of 2.Many of these measures allow the state to assume the role politicians and the government. of victim or choose the victim that most closely represent its I oppose all of these measures and hope that the citizens of views.The wishes of the real victim are often ignored in criminal Oregon can see through these cynical attempts to use crime vic- proceedings today...and Measure 69 would make it worse. tims to turn Oregon into a police state. 3. These measures give far too much power to the state to Vengeance may make some people feel better.But it does not arrest and convict innocent people.As crime victims,we know the reduce crime in our streets.This series of measures has nothing basic tenet of our judicial system is fair and impartial trials,where to do with keeping convicted criminals in jail.But they do eliminate the accused are innocent until proven guilty. Power in the court- significant protections from the Oregon Bill of Rights. room should rest with judges. Defendants and the state should As a crime victim, I believe it is wrong for the power in each have a fair chance to present their case.These measures tip our courtrooms to be shifted from the judge to government the balance of power to the government.That's wrong. prosecutors. 4.These measures could costs millions of dollars, dollars that As a crime survivor,I believe our efforts should be geared to could be better used to pay for police officers or to ensure that catching criminals, forcing them to pay restitution and requiring restitution is paid to victims.Instead,they will be wasted on cost- them to serve sentences in prisons where they are re-trained to ly and ineffective measures.This is truly government waste of our join society as taxpayers rather than law breakers." tax dollars. Please join us in voting No on Measures 69-75. Most of all, I believe in the Oregon Bill of Rights. Our Oregon Bill of Rights is designed to protect the innocent from Arwen Bird overzealous government prosecutors. Our history is rife with Michele Kohle abuses of government power. Jessie Willis Protect Oregonians from undue government power. Chip Shields Jo Anne Bird Protect the rights of the accused. Jill Williams Robin Shanafelt Don't be fooled by proponents of these measures who claim to Sierra Bird speak for victims of crime. Scott Talley Please join me-and many other victims of crime in voting No on Gail Meyer Measures 69 through 75. James Marston Morgan Thank you. (This information furnished by Arwen Bird, Survivors Advocating For an Effective System.) Arwen Bird Co-founder, Survivors Advocating for An Effective System (This information furnished by Arwen Bird, Survivors Advocating For an Effective System.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 15 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures 1 � Measure No . 69 ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION Benton County Sheriff Stan Robson urges you to vote No It is a parent's worst nightmare. on Measures 69,70,71,72,73,74 and 75. The knock on the door from the police comes in the middle of As Benton County Sheriff, I know most of these measures can the night.The officer tells me my child is dead."He was a pas- be accomplished without repealing the Oregon Bill of Rights.It is senger...his best friend was driving...the driver had been drink- not appropriate to abuse the constitution with issues already cov- ing°I heard it through a fog. ered by current law. Having suffered through this horror,we didn't relish the thought Measure 69 states no defendant can ever be considered a vic- of our friend's family being similarly torn.Sending our son's friend tim. Even in cases of domestic violence a woman charged for to prison wasn't going to bring our son back,but working with our defending herself against an abusive husband could never be friend in the wake of this tragedy could have been healing for all considered a victim.It's wrong to place that language in our Bill of of us. Rights. The prosecutor ignored our wishes. Measure 70 could cost local counties millions of dollars,while Measure 69 would lock this sort of prosecutorial callousness eliminating the right to choose how to be tried, a basic tenet of into our Constitution.One of the sneak things that Measure 69 Oregon's Bill of Rights. would do is give prosecutors the constitutional power to ignore Measure 71 would require our county, and many others with crime victims like us,because Measure 69 gives prosecutors the overcrowded jails, to release criminals to make room for those right to decide who is a victim and who isn't.On top of that, the awaiting trail.As sheriff, I want to protect my community from the Measure says crime victims have no recourse if the government most dangerous offenders, not release them early because of violates the rights that Measure 69 supposedly provides. Measure 71. That's the part that really upsets me. Measure 69 is sup- Measure 72. Oregon should take every precaution against posed to be for crime victims,but all I see in this measure are convicting innocent people of murder.Unanimous verdicts are the provisions to give prosecutors even more power. By law, best means of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.Innocent crime victims already have every right this measure supposedly people could be convicted if Measure 72 passes. provides.The only new rights are the ones for the government. Measure 73.Our Bill of Rights says a person cannot be forced Please Vote No on Measures 69,70,71,72,739 74 and 75. to testify against himself.As Sheriff, I know we either have a con- fession or we don't.This basic right must not be repealed. Measure 74: In our current system, law enforcement works (This information furnished by Janette Gail.) with prosecutors and judges to determine appropriate sentences, including work release, home detention and community service. This measure will increase overcrowding in our jails. And it will strip us of valuable alternative sanctions that often fit the crime better than jail time. Measure 75 could cost taxpayers millions.Our current jury sys- tem is fair and balanced.We should leave our Bill of Rights alone. Please join me in Voting No on Measures 69-75. Sheriff Stan Robson (This information furnished by Stan Robson,Benton County Sheriff.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 16 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 69 ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION MATCH THE MEASURES An index to Measures 69,70,71,72,73,74 and 75 ` Measure that says government gets to decide who is a victim and when...........................................Measure 69 Measure that gives Oregon prosecutors the same powers Kenneth Starr used..............................Measure 73 Measure that repeals significant sections of the Oregon Bill of Rights....................................................All of them Measure that could force background checks for all potential jurors..................................................Measure 75 Measure that says a defendant can never be a victim,even in cases of domestic abuse.................Measure 69 Measure that could cost taxpayers millions ofdollars.......................................................................All of them Measure that will lead to innocent people being convicted of murder....................................................Measure 72 Measure that forces a person to testify against himself and then be prosecuted.................................Measure 73 Measure that will cause early release of prisoners from county jails............................Measures 71 and 74 Measure that says people are Guilty Until Proven Innocent.......................................Measure 71 Measure that slaps voters in the face........................Measure 74 Measure that could force rape and incest victims to testify before juries against their will......................Measure 70 Measure opposed by Crime Victims For Justice..........All of them Measure that takes power from judges and gives it to government prosecutors................Measure 70 and 71 Measure that assumes every person arrested is guilty.........................................................Measure 71 Measure that could keep people caught fishing without a license off of juries..........................Measure 75 Measure giving the state power to demand jury trials even when victims don't want one.....................Measure 70 Measure that would allow those falsely accused to be held for months before trial...............................Measure 71 Best way to protect Oregon's Bill of Rights.....................................Vote No on Measures 69-75 (This information furnished by Martin Gonzalez,Crime Victims for Justice.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 17 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 70 House Joint Resolution 88—Referred to the Electorate of Oregon EXPLANATORY STATEMENT by the 1999 Legislature to be voted on at the Special Election, November 2, 1999. This measure amends the Bill of Rights in the Oregon Constitution by giving the people of Oregon,through a prosecut- BALLOTTITLE ing attorney,the right to demand a jury trial in criminal cases. Currently,the Oregon Constitution allows only the accused per- son the right to demand a jury trial in a criminal case. If the 'AMENDS.CpNSTfTUTION;QIYES€+UBLIC�! accused person does not want a jury to determine whether the THROUGH 00OSeCUTOR,RIGHTT bEfi�/1Ni person is guilty or not guilty,the accused person can waive a jury JURY TRIAL IN CRI MINAL CASES trial.If the judge consents to the person's waiver,the case is tried to the judge alone and the judge determines whether the person is guilty or not guilty. RESULT OF 4YES'441 E-"Yes"vote glues,public,through pros-: ecutor,right ft2 dernarjd jury trfai in criminal cases. " If this measure is approved, the prosecuting attorney could RESULT OF "Non" 1/� "Nd` vote retains' current ri ht of' demand a jury trial even if the accused person wanted a trial with - No" out a jury. If the prosecuting attorney demanded a jury trial, the accused person#o waive juty,with approval otjudge and leaves;' case would have to be tried to a jury. public without right to'dem d;jury trial'In,critnlriai mss. This measure does not create a right to a jury trial in a juvenile SUMMARY: onstltutitln.Oregon Oonstl n, tentty court delinquency proceeding. WWI s only accused person right to demand jury trial in Criminal prosecution.MeaSUra:grants pttbliC,thrtattgh,pr45cutor,ors inde=',. Except as otherwise specifically provided,this measure super- pet3dent constitutional right to demand jury trial in criminal canes.'' sedes any conflicting section of the Oregon Constitution. urren. y accused person can jwaiue jury#rial�wlth consent of trial'. coact'judge and have case tried to court alone, if measure is'' Committee Members: Appointed By: appt ed,prosecutor'could demand jury trial if ktiisiid person Senator Neil Bryant President of the Senate regtaasts trial without jury; prosecutor's dsmar}d would prevail Representative Kevin Mannix Speaker of the House pies riot require jury in juvertlCe Court, Senator Kate Brown Secretary of State E lMATE t F FINANCIAL IMPAfr7:Np.financlal affI t on state Representative Floyd Prozanski Secretary of State o teal govrnrnent expend€ttsCes or revenues. Representative Lane Shetterly Members of the Committee (This committee was appointed to provide an impartial explanation of the ballot measure pursuant to ORS 251.215.) TEXT OF MEASURE Be It Resolved by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon: PARAGRAPH 1. The Constitution of the State of Oregon is amended by creating a new section to be added to and made a part of Article I, such section to read: (1) The people of the State of Oregon have the right to a public trial by a jury, without delay, in any criminal prosecution. (2)This section applies to all criminal proceedings pend- ing or commenced on or after the effective date of this sec- tion except when a trial before a judge, without a jury, is already in progress upon the effective date of this section. Nothing in this section reduces a criminal defendant's rights under the Constitution of the United States.Except as other- wise specifically provided,this section supersedes any con- flicting section of this Constitution.Nothing in this section is intended to create any cause of action for compensation or damages nor may this section be used to invalidate an accusatory instrument,ruling of a court,conviction or adju- dication or otherwise suspend or terminate any criminal pro- ceeding at any point after the case is commenced or on appeal.Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a jury trial in any juvenile court proceeding. (3) The prosecuting attorney is the party authorized to assert or waive the right established by this section.Nothing in this section shall be construed as modifying or limiting the authority of the prosecuting attorney to enter into negotiated pleas and dispositions in criminal prosecutions. PARAGRAPH 2.The amendment proposed by this resolu- tion shall be submitted to the people for their approval or rejection at a special election held throughout this state on the date specified in section 2,chapter ,Oregon Laws 1999(Enrolled House Bill 2354). NOTE: Boldfaced type indicates new language; [brackets and italic]type indicates deletions or comments.. 18 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 70 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR ARGUMENT IN FAVOR VOTE YES ON MEASURE 70 In 1996,Oregonians overwhelmingly voted to give crime victims TO GIVE THE PEOPLE AND CRIME VICTIMS at least as many rights as criminals. But the politicians on the Oregon Supreme Court came up with a never-before used tech- THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL nicality to throw out the voters'wishes. In November 1996, a strong majority of voters passed Ballot Measures 69 through 75 are virtually the same Crime Victims Measure 40, which amended the Oregon Constitution to allow Bill of Rights. crime victims, and the people,the right to a jury trial,just as the What the court threw out would have put an end to the practice criminal defendant has the right to demand a jury trial. Ballot of criminal defendants manipulating the system to find a sympa- Measure 40 was set aside by the Oregon Supreme Court on the thetic judge to try their case without a jury! basis that Measure 40 contained more than one amendment to the Oregon Constitution, and each component needed to be On Mother's Day 1997, Danielle House shot to death Duane voted on separately.The Legislature has now referred this part of Hayes.At trial,the defendant attempted to have her case tried by original Measure 40 back to the voters. the judge without a jury.The prosecution objected. The Oregon Supreme Court has ruled that the criminal defendant Because the Supreme Court had not yet ruled on the voter- can demand a right to a trial by jury, but has not allowed the passed Crime Victims Bill of Rights,the judge was forced to let a people the same right if the defendant asks for a trial by the judge jury decide.Nevertheless,the judge submitted a secret verdict in without a jury. the event Measure 40 was overturned. This measure is designed to preserve and protect the right of The jury convicted Danielle House of first-degree manslaughter. crime victims, and the people, to justice by ensuring that the After the Crime Victims Bill of Rights was thrown out, the trial people also have a right to demand a jury trial. judge's verdict was revealed... Referral of this measure to the voters was sought by the three NOT GUILTY!SHE WALKED FREE! largest, longest established victims' organizations in Oregon (Parents of Murdered Children; Mothers Against Drunk Driving; Why allow a criminal to go judge shopping? Crime Victims United)and by Oregon law enforcement organiza- tions(Association Chiefs of Police;District Attorneys Association; State Sheriffs Association;State Police;Federation of Parole and SHOULDN'T THE CRIME VICTIM HAVE AT LEAST AS MANY Probation Officers). RIGHTS AS THE CRIMINAL? As chief petitioner of Ballot Measure 40, and as the originator of (This information furnished by Steve Doell,Crime victims United.) this referral to the voters, I urge your yes vote on Measure 70. Kevin L.Mannix State_Representative (This information furnished by Kevin L.Mannix,Justice For All.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 19 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 70 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR ARGUMENT IN FAVOR We have been volunteer political activist and crime victims advo- Everyone in America has an absolute right to a jury trial. In cates since 1980 when-our daughter was murdered.We have Oregon,this is a trial by either 6 or 12 members of the communi- attended many many court proceedings for other victims& have ty, depending upon the seriousness of the crime. But Oregon is s seen first hand the great need for change.That is why we were one of a very small number of states that allow an accused crim- Chief Petitioners on Ballot Measure 40 in 1996. inal to bypass a jury and ask that a judge alone determine his/her We and many other concerned citizens, were elated by its pas- guilt. sage.We believed the law abiding would not be solely subject to Measure 70 would require agreement by both the defendant the will of criminal advocates any longer. and the prosecution in order to bypass the constitutional right to Our elation turned to sorrow however in 1998 when Oregon's a jury trial. Supreme Court overturned Ballot Measure 40 in its entirety by In most parts of the world the government insists that profes- using unprecedented technical grounds. sional judges decide the guilt or innocent of criminal defendants. The 1999 Legislature has by referral given us the opportunity to The American judicial system is unique,even in English-speaking nations, in its belief in the wisdom m the common person.The reestablish this much needed crime victims bill.Without the atten- system trusts that a slice of the community will almost always be tion and shared concern of 1999 voters it won't happen. able to determine the true facts of a situation. Measure 70 will allow both the criminal defendant and the crime The vast majority of judges operating in the American system victim, under advisement of the District Attorney, to request and are fair. But a few are known to be particularly lenient in some receive a jury trial.The need for this measure lies in the fact that kinds of cases or to certain lawyers.These judges tend to be well- many defense attorneys full well knowing the personal philosophy known to professional criminal defense lawyers, who then try to of the judges will delay the case with the aim of getting it into the steer their cases in to that judge's courtroom.Under Oregon's cur- court of a judge biased in support of criminal defense. rent system,a criminal defendant,and only a criminal defendant If a criminal defendant wishes a jury trial they are guaranteed that (never the prosecution) can waive a jury and ask the judge to right in the US Constitution.However they are not constitutionally decide the case.There is no guarantee of a"judge trial"in either guaranteed a trial before a judge.Measure 70 would allow the vic- the Oregon or federal constitution. tim a trial by jury if they wish even though the defendant is not in The Constitution guarantees many rights;the Right to be free agreement. from unreasonable searches, the Right to be represented by This is a common sense change eliminating some legal game counsel,and the Right to a fair and public trial. playing. Criminal Courts play an important role in our society. They may not be merely playgrounds for crafty attorneys. Just as the Right to Public Trial belongs to the community not just the accused cri minal–shouldn't the Right to a Jury Trial Criminals have enjoyed many constitutional guarantees.Their vic- belong to EVERYONE as well? tims must be afforded these few.The wishes of Oregon voters Give the community equal rights to criminals,and vote YES ON can't be ignored.Ballot Measure 70 along with Measures 69,71, Measure 70.. 72,73,74,&75 will reestablish most of Measure 40. Bob&Dee Dee Kouns (This information furnished by Joshua Marquis.) Founders of Crime Victims United Chief Petitioners of Ballot Measure 40 (This information furnished by Bob & Dee Dee Kouns, Crime Victims United.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 20 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 70 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION OUR CONSTITUTION allows defendants a right to a jury trial. Measure 70 attacks your rights.Measure 70 would allow the And this is a'Good Thing'. prosecution to insist on a jury trial in a criminal case, even if the Presently, under Oregon law,a defendant may choose to forgo a accused has requested a trial by the judge(called a"bench trial"). jury trial in favor of a court trial.A court trial simply means that a Measure 70 would turn the Oregon Constitution(Article I,Section Judge will decide the case. 11) on its head, protecting the"rights"of the government at the g expense of the defendant's rights. A victim,on the other hand,does not have the right to a jury trial The right to a jury trial belongs to the accused, under current Oregon law. not to the government WHY WOULD A VICTIM WANT OR NEED A JURY TRIAL? Under the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution and the While Judges are supposed to be unaffected by personal beliefs Oregon Constitution Article I,section 11,the accused is the sole and personal feelings,in reality they succumb to the same human holder of the right to trial by jury.The U.S. Supreme Court con- frailties as the rest of us. firmed in 1930 that"the framers of the Constitution simply were intent upon preserving the right of trial by jury primarily for the THIS MEASURE, IN NO WAY, IMPEDES THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL. protection of the accused:' Because the right to a jury trial is intended to protect the accused,the government has no business It would stop defense attorneys from SHOPPING for a judge invoking this right. who will rule in their favor. Prosecutors have no good reason to avoid a bench trial VICTIMS NEED to have their story told to a body that is impartial. It is difficult to imagine a valid reason why a prosecutor would Also, giving victims the opportunity to a jury trial is the only prefer to present his case to a jury rather than to a judge. One chance they have for a fair outcome.Our Oregon Constitution has possible explanation is that the prosecutor might wish to exploit expanded the rights of criminal defendants immeasurably. We the inflammatory nature of the evidence before the jury,recogniz- need to balance the scales. ing that in a bench trial,the judge would not be swayed by such LET US GIVE THE VICTIM THE RIGHT TO THE COLLECTIVE evidence. Another possibility is that the prosecutor may wish to WISDOM AND IMPARTIALITY OF A JURY. take advantage of jurors'lack of legal expertise and their natural prejudice about criminal defendants – considerations that are PLEASE JOIN ME IN VOTING YES ON MEASURE 70,as well as absent in a bench trial. Such gamesmanship should not be 69,71,72,73,74,and 75. allowed by the Oregon Constitution. (This information furnished by J L Hobgood,Crime Victims United.) Anyone can be charged with a crime, even you. If a prosecu- tor's case cannot withstand scrutiny by the trial judge--who is the most highly trained,experienced fact finder in the criminal justice system -- then perhaps the case shouldn't be filed in the first place. Concerns of judicial bias should be addressed through other means Prosecutors sometimes seek to sidestep bench trials on the ground that judges may be biased against the government. If such concerns exist, there are better means to address these concerns than Measure 70. For example, the judge's bias could be raised before the trial.The objections could be raised when the judges stand for reelection.The judges'rulings on certain issues could be challenged on appeal. Bench trials save time and resources Bench trials save time and money.There is no need for jury selection,jury instructions,or jury deliberations.Evidentiary mat- ters can be handled swiftly because it is unnecessary to remove the jury from the courtroom when evidentiary issues are argued. For these reasons, a bench trial is to be welcomed by the gov- ernment,not shunned. Vote"NO"on Measure 70. (This information furnished by Phil Barnhart, Democratic Party of Lane County.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 21 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures � r Measure No. 70 ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION Twenty-six years ago, my sister was murdered by a drug I am a rape survivor who knows firsthand about the danger dealer. It's one of the defining moments in my life that led me to of giving too much power to government prosecutors. become a prosecutor and a state representative. Following my assault, I reported my attacker within 24 hours, As both a victim of crime and an officer of the court, I but the police and prosecutor sat on this information.For a year, oppose Measures 70,71,72,73,74 and 75. they failed to follow through on my charges.In that time,he raped As a prosecutor,my conviction rate is over 90 percent.Most of three other women.Even after all of that,the prosecutor ignored I the state's district attorneys and municipal prosecutors have sim- my pleas and agreed to a bargain that netted my attacker a lousy ilar conviction rates. Prosecutors don't need more power than 60 days in jail.After release, he assaulted yet another woman! judges in our courtrooms, yet that's exactly what some of these Now prosecutors are asking us to give them even more powers measures do. in the name of protecting crime victims.Measure 70 gives prose- In fact, some of these measures will give government cutors complete control over whether a trial will be held or a plea prosecutors the same kind of power as Kenneth Starr.That's bargain entertained, because under Measure 70, the right to not the Oregon way demand a jury trial can be granted or waived only by the prose- cutor, not the real crime victim. As a prosecutor, I am sworn to uphold Oregon's Bill of Rights. If you couple that power with Measure 69, which gives prose- The Bill of Rights protects Oregon citizens from overzealous gov cutors the scary power to decide who is a victim and who isn't, v prosecutors,ensuring that our trials are fair and that both crime victims will be in trouble, not criminals.Even if the govern- ment decides you are a victim of crime, Measure 69 doesn't pro- Gutting Oregon's Bill of Rights will not help reduce crime. vide any recourse if the government prosecutor violates the rights While these measures are billed as helping victims of crime, this measure supposedly provides to crime victims. voters must remember they take rights away from every Oregon It makes me angry that all of these measures,69,70,71,72, citizen... rights granted to us under our Oregon Bill of Rights. 73,74 and 75,are being advertised as protections for people These measures won't do anything to reduce crime, but they will like me. It wasn't the system that failed me.It was the police and place innocent Oregonians at greater risk. prosecutors.I am totally opposed to giving them even more power These Measures Could Cost Taxpayers Millions of Dollars. to walk all over crime victims. The money we spend on these measures could be used to put Please vote No on Measures 69-75. more police on our streets or spend more money on educating Jessie Willis our children. Education reduces crime and victimization. We should reduce crime, not eliminate protections guaranteed all cit- (This information furnished by Jessie Willis.) izens under the Oregon Bill of Rights. As a crime victim and a prosecutor,I urge you to vote no on Measures 70-75. Thank you. Floyd Prozanski Municipal Prosecutor and State Representative (This information furnished by State Representative Floyd Prozanski.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 22 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 70 ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION PLEASE VOTE NO ON MEASURES 69-75 Ballot Measures 69-75 are being advertised as the re-making t of Ballot Measure 40, which was passed in 1996 and subse- quently thrown out by the Oregon Supreme Court.This is what Oregon's largest newspapers had to say about Measure 40: The Register-Guard. (October 8, 1996) "MEASURE LIMITS RIGHTS" "The measure goes several steps too far in the name of victims' rights and should be rejected:' "Oregonians should not adopt...measures that unduly restrict their own rights as citizens." "Most of the best ideas contained in the measure...were adopt- ed by Oregonians 10 years ago.There's no need to lock these existing provisions into the Constitution:" "While the good that Measure 40 would do is unnecessary,the bad would be disastrous.Too many of the measure's new provi- sions go too far beyond protecting victims' rights...Weakening Oregon's Bill of Rights is a poor way to serve the interests of crime victims.Measure 40 should be soundly rejected" The Bend Bulletin: (October 16, 1996) "VICTIMS'RIGHTS'INITIAI'IVE GOES TOO FAR" "Measure 40 tries to do too much...Some of these are...seri- ous intrusions on the constitutional rights of Oregonians" "Measure 40 has drawn the opposition of many Oregon lead- ers,including state attorney general candidates Hardy Myers and Victor Hofer, former AG Dave Frohnmayer and Gov. John Kitzhaber:' The Oregonian: ((Oct.14, 1996) "NO ON MEASURE 40" "Measure 40 comes to the general election ballot in the guise of a crime victims'rights provision,but its truly important parts are about something else.They're about such things as reducing Oregon's constitutional protection..." "The measure threatens to add constitutional confusion to the way convicted offenders are sentenced.It may even require far more arrested persons to be kept in already overcrowded jails before their trials:" "We recommend that voters turn down the measure" (This information furnished by Geoff Sugarman,Crime Victims for Justice.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 23 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 71 House Joint Resolution 90—Referred to the Electorate of Oregon appointed if indigent, testify, present witnesses, cross- by the 1999 Legislature to be voted on at the Special Election, examine witnesses or present information at the release November 2, 1999. hearing.Nothing in this section creates any cause of action for compensation or damages nor may this section be used to invalidate an accusatory instrument, ruling of a court, conviction or adjudication or otherwise suspend or termi- BALLOT TITLE nate any criminal or juvenile delinquency proceeding at any point after the case is commenced or on appeal. Except as otherwise specifically provided,this section supersedes any F:IN<` RV conflicting section of this Constitution. (3)As used in this section: 00ACCUSIk M� (a) "Victim" means any person determined by the + prosecuting attorney to have suffered direct financial, psychological or physical harm as a result of a crime and,in t }ftriitS pCaOW ref -se�s#pal- the case of a victim who is a minor,the legal guardian of the ti Gl d of vioC rti felonie :tQ prpt t�+�ctirns;#litblic.' minor. In the event no person has been determined to be a victim of the crime,the people of Oregon,represented by the tort ttta, rft ase; d bnstitdo'nal�tl prov iana uncktartged prosecuting attorney,are considered to be the victims.In no event is it intended that the criminal defendant be consid- W. AM trletxfs of titutlon,t^arant$v�flrri right to reascan�: ered the victim. abfa pr�crirorr person;pr oclwtedrtrTtitti (b) "Violent felony" means a felony in which there was thrc+dhcwt Crjtt[#rial is frprttit[ad "youth actual or threatened serious physical in to a victim or a offentter, or'•yt uther�det lfttttghaut jtvene dpi#tgerloy+ felony sexual offense. ptooess I im octitin parson•3oth3rtz t5 assert (4) The prosecuting attorney is the party authorized to rights of victim arrd pur5 at'reEaOSA.in Per ta►na+ a must assert the rights of the victim and the public established by s ttaseci p asttnata4e t3)s ion 0,#Vidgms aril p I lic:as we ! this section. a8 Ir#ttrcitl acouseCf jersprs ?tli a#lper for tr"iat• +t&lta otant PARAGRAPH 2.The amendment proposed by this resolu- � a tlot be►Tats art art fi(ttlS probabi muss tct;belteve lion shall be submitted to the people for their approval or tusecf t•Szr otrrl �l trrtrfe,"afld danger'€ s#S of pl�ytxicat rejection at a s urn or saxui Vtetimx tti tlm5€rr(it€k2lkoif itoGtiaod rsorf j special election held throughout this state on Least b+fcre trtaf the date specified in section 2,chapter ,Oregon Laws 1999(Enrolled House Bill 2354). it±csl goverr►rrtent experatli�es or rrtu NOTE: Boldfaced type indicates new language; [brackets and italic]type indicates deletions or comments. TEXT OF MEASURE EXPLANATORY STATEMENT Be It Resolved by the Legislative Assembly of the State of This measure amends the Bill of Rights in the Oregon Oregon: Constitution by granting victims of crimes or acts of juvenile delin- quency additional constitutional rights to be reasonably protected PARAGRAPH 1. The Constitution of the State of Oregon is from the accused person.The prosecuting attorney is the person amended by creating a new section to be added to and made a who can assert the rights granted by this measure. part of Article I,such section to read: This measure requires that a court consider the reasonable (1) To ensure that a fair balance is struck between the protection of the victim and public when deciding whether to rights of crime victims and the rights of criminal defendants release the accused person prior to trial.This measure would gro- in the course and conduct of criminal proceedings,the fol- hibit the pretrial release of persons accused of violent felonies if lowing rights are hereby granted to victims in all prosecu- the court determines that: tions for crimes: (a)The right to be reasonably protected from the criminal 1. It is more likely than not that the person committed the act defendant or the convicted criminal throughout the criminal the person is accused of committing;and justice process and from the alleged youth offender or youth 2.There is clear and convincing evidence that the person (b)The right to have decisions by the court regarding the offender throughout the juvenile delinquency proceedings. poses a danger le physical injury or sexual victimization to others pretrial release of a criminal defendant based upon the prin- if the person is released. ciple of reasonable protection of the victim and the public,as Under current constitutional provisions,other than for charges well as the likelihood that the criminal defendant will appear of aggravated murder, murder or treason,the primary considera- for trial.Murder,aggravated murder and treason shall not be tion in pretrial release decisions is the risk of the accused person bailable when the proof is evident or the presumption strong not appearing rather than the safety of the victim or the public. that the person is guilty. Other violent felonies shall not be bailable when a court has determined there is probable Except as otherwise specifically provided,this measure super- cause to believe the criminal defendant committed the crime, sedes any conflicting section of the Oregon Constitution. and the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence,that there is danger of physical injury or sexual victimization to Committee Members: Appointed By: the victim or members of the public by the criminal defen- Senator Neil Bryant President of the Senate dant while on release. Representative Kevin Mannix Speaker of the House (2)This section applies to proceedings pending or com- Senator Kate Brown Secretary of State menced on or after the effective date of this section.Nothing Representative Floyd Prozanski Secretary of State in this section abridges any right of the criminal defendant Representative Lane Shetterly Members of the Committee guaranteed by the Constitution of the United-States,includ- (This committee was appointed to provide an impartial explanation of the ing the rights to be represented by counsel, have counsel ballot measure pursuant to ORS 251.215.) 24 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 71 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR ARGUMENT IN FAVOR VOTE YES ON MEASURE 71 TO PROTECT VICTIMS AND In 1996,Oregonians overwhelmingly voted to give crime victims THE PUBLIC FROM PREDATORY CRIMINALS at least as many rights as criminals. Politicians on the Oregon Supreme Court devised a never-before-used technicality to throw The Legislature referred this measure to the voters so that anoth- out the voters'wishes. er part of the original Measure 40, adopted by the voters in Measures 69 through 75 are virtually the same Crime Victims November 1996,can be considered.The Oregon Supreme Court Bill of Rights. ruled that Measure 40 could not be enacted as a single amend- ment to the Oregon Constitution.The Court said each part must Except in cases involving Aggravated Murder and Murder criminal be voted on separately.Measure 71 generally reflects one part of defendants are usually held in pre-trial custody only if they are original Measure 40. considered a flight risk.Measure 71 amends the state constitution to give crime victims the right to have decisions by the court This measure establishes that crime victims have the right to have decisions by the court, regarding pre-trial release of a criminal regarding pre-trial release i be based upon the principle of p to defendant, be based upon the principle of reasonable protection better protection of the victim and the public.This will help to of the victim and the public.This measure will protect victims and better protect victims,and the public in cases where there is a danger involving physical injury or sexual victimization. the public where there is danger of physical injury or sexual vic- timization by the criminal defendant if the defendant is released The inadequacy of the current law is illustrated by the case of before trial. The court must determine that there is probable Sarah Beth Zimmerman. On September 26, 1998, Ms. cause to believe the criminal defendant committed the crime,and Zimmerman was attacked by a man she had been dating.A grand the court must find, by clear and convincing evidence,that there jury indicted the man for two counts of Attempted Murder, two is danger of physical injury or sexual victimization if the defendant counts of First-Degree Kidnapping, along with other counts of is released pre-trial. First-Degree Kidnapping and Second-Degree Assault. Ms. Zimmerman's attacker was released from jail, after posting bail. Currently,criminal defendants are held if they are thought to be a "flight risk"(will not show for trial)except in cases of Aggravated On December 8, 1998,the man attacked Sarah Zimmerman for a Murder, Murder, and Treason.This measure will apply to violent second time. On this occasion, the man shot both Ms. Zimmerman and her mother.Sarah Zimmerman lost an eye and criminal defendants who have been charged with crimes such as Rape, Manslaughter,Armed Robbery, Kidnap,Child Molestation, a finger.Her mother suffered severe internal injuries.Police were forced to shoot the suspect when he threatened an officer and Aggravated Assault. attempting to arrest him.He remains in police custody. Referral of this measure to the voters was sought by the three Following Ms.Zimmerman's first attack, the violent nature of her largest, longest established victims' organizations in Oregon attacker was obvious.Given the opportunity to post bail, he was (Parents of Murdered Children; Mothers Against Drunk Driving; free to viciously attack again. Crime Victims United)and by Oregon law enforcement organiza- tions(Association Chiefs of Police;District Attorneys Association; PLEASE VOTE YES ON MEASURES 69 THROUGH 75, State Sheriffs Association;State Police;Federation of Parole and SHOULDN'T THE CRIME VICTIM HAVE AT LEAST AS MANY Probation Officers). RIGHTS AS THE CRIMINAL? As chief petitioner on the original Measure 40, 1 urge you to vote (This information furnished by Steve Doell,Crime Victims United.) yes on Measure 71. Kevin L.Mannix State Representative (This information furnished by Kevin L.Mannix,Justice For All.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 25 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure* No . 71 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR ARGUMENT IN FAVOR If Ballot Measure 71 were already law,my younger brother would How would you feel if your child, spouse, sibling or parent were probably be alive today. assaulted,raped or murdered? On March 17, 1997, a man named Lee Knoch, who was out on Now,how would you feel if you learned that the person who com- bail,murdered my younger brother, Robert Holliday.At the time of mitted this crime was previously arrested for a seridus crime, the murder,Knoch was charged with torturing my brother through held in jail,and released by our criminal justice system? beating and burnings over a two-week period. After my brother Some of your fellow citizens know this feeling. escaped from the beatings, Knoch convinced my brother that a gang had a contract"hit"out on him, and extorted $20,000 from The family of Donna Louise Smith knows this feeling. She was my grandmother. My younger brother was gullible and passive, murdered by a person with a lengthy criminal record who was and did not know how to fight back and protect himself.When he released on bail awaiting trial for kidnapping, sodomy and escaped from Knoch, most of his ribs were broken, had internal rape! (The Oregonian, 10/26/96) bleeding and multiple burns. The family of Robert Holliday knows this feeling. He was kid- While out on bail, Knoch violated the conditions of his bail, with napped,tortured,and buried alive by a man who was released full knowledge of the bail department.Yet the department chose on bail awaiting trial for previously kidnapping and torturing not to inform the court.On March 19,1997,Knoch was scheduled him! (The Oregonian 3/27/98) to go to trial.Two days before that, he and his girlfriend, Julie Walker,kidnapped my younger brother,drugged him,transported The family of a 13 year-old Oregon girl knows this feeling. She him to the mountains,murdered him,and then buried him.Knoch was kidnapped, raped and sodomized by a person with 42 knew that without my brother,there was no case against him. rra ests and at least 15 convictions who was released on bail This Ballot Measure cannot bring my brother back,but it can keep awaiting trial on burglary! (The Oregonian,4/3/98) others alive and safe.By denying bail to certain violent offenders, Sarah Zimmerman knows this feeling.Her finger was shot off and we can prevent criminals from reattacking and silencing the her eye was shot out by a man who was released on bail await- victim.Currently,except in murder cases,the judge can only take ing trial for attempted murder in a previous attack on her! into account whether or not the offender has a risk of flight-not the (The Oregonian, 12/9/98) safety of the victim.This Ballot Measure would change that and These cases and many others like them constitute a disgraceful help protect victims. Iagse of our justice system. ASK YOU TO PLEASE VOTE YES ON MEASURES 69 Under our current law,except in the case of murder,the safety of THROUGH 751 victims and other innocent people is not a primary consideration (This information furnished by Bradley Holliday,Crime Victims United.) when setting bail.The primary consideration is whether the defen- dant is likely to appear for trial if released on bail. Please,to protect innocent people,change this law.Vote yes on Measure 71.And vote yes on the other victims'rights measures, 69,70,72,73,74,and 75. Howard Rodstein Crime Victims United (This information furnished by Howard Rodstein,Crime Victims United.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 26 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 71 ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION I am a survivor of domestic violence who was forced to As Oregonians who have worked for and with victims of defend myself against the person who was beating me. crime,we urge you to vote NO on Measures 69,70,71,72, With that experience under my belt, I am scared to death for 73,74 and 75. other battered women if voters pass Measures 69,70,71,72,73, This series of measures would gut the Oregon Bill of Rights, 74 and 75. repealing entire sections of the constitutional protections guaran- One of the things that Measure 69 says is that a defendant teed to every Oregon citizen. can NEVER be a victim,even in cases of self-defense or domes- MEASURES 69 THROUGH 75 COULD COST TAXPAYERS tic violence.That means battered women who defend themselves MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. will never be afforded any of the rights that this measure claims to At a recent fiscal impact hearing on these measures, a state provide. financial analyst testified that while there would be costs to these Measure 70 gives prosecutors the unprecedented right to measures,those costs are indeterminate.But instead of acknowl- demand a jury trial,and this right is granted ONLY to the pros- edging the cost to taxpayers, the state has issued fiscal impact ecutor, not to the real crime victim.This means that even in statements that say there is "No Fiscal Impact" to these mea- cases of rape and incest – where the victim may not want to sures.That's just plain wrong. testify before a jury or may want to avoid a trial altogether–crime We believe these measures will cost Oregon taxpayers millions victims are at the mercy of the prosecutor.How is that a right for of dollars... dollars that could be better spent on putting more crime victims? police on the streets or instituting effective programs to re-train It sounds to me like the police and prosecutors are using crime and rehabilitate criminals. We believe these dollars would be victims in a cynical campaign to grant themselves more power. much better spent on ensuring restitution for victims of crime. Measure 71,for instance,undermines the presumption of inho- Measures 69-75 certainly don't protect victims,but they do cence and assumes every person arrested is guilty. take constitutional protections away from you and me and Measure 72 makes it more likely innocent people will be our families. convicted. Every Oregon citizen receives protections from government Measure 73 would let prosecutors force people into testifying intrusion and wrongful arrest granted under the Oregon Bill of against themselves, something our Bill of Rights has never Rights.These measures would remove those protections. allowed. Instead of truly helping victims of crimes, these measures Measure 74 ties the hands of judges, voters and the place tremendous power in the hands of government prosecutors. These measures would even allow the state prosecutor to Legislature...but not prosecutors. assume the role of victim or to choose the victim that prosecutor Measure 75 is just an expensive boondoggle that gets rid of believes will best help his case. jurors who may have had a minor scrape with the law–such as We Support True Victims'Rights Legislation. Measures 69 traffic court. through 75 are not about the rights of victims.They are merely Crime victims aren't the ones being served here. It's the attempts to give prosecutors and the state more power over our government. citizens. Please Vote No on Measures 69-75. PLEASE JOIN US IN VOTING NO ON MEASURES 69 THROUGH 75. Thank you. THE RISKS ARE TOO HIGH. Jill Williams THE COSTS ARE TOO GREAT. (This information furnished by Jill Williams.) Former Governor Barbara Roberts Multnomah County Chair Beverly Stein Oregon Sen.Avel Gordly Oregon Rep.Jo Ann Bowman (This information furnished by State Rep.Jo Ann Bowman.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 27 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 71 ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION To Protect Your Rights,Vote No on Measure 71 If you are accused of a crime(other than murder or treason),the Oregon Bill of Rights guarantees you the right to bail.That right has been Oregon law for 140 years. This proposed measure would abandon that basic right. It would allow preventive detention even if you are innocent. An accusation does not prove guilt.Guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a trial by jury.This measure would allow a judge to jail you for months while you wait for trial.Public anger at some crimes will demand that judges lock up a person accused of the crime,even if the charges are later dropped or the accused is acquitted. For 140 years, Oregon has successfully prosecuted and convict- ed offenders under its existing Bill of Rights.Nothing new requires sacrificing the constitutional right to bail.Vote against Measure 71. Hans Linde Former Oregon Supreme Court Justice Betty Roberts Former Oregon Supreme Court Justice Jacob Tanier Former Oregon Supreme Court Justice Claudia Burton Professor of Law (This information furnished by Andrea R.Meyer,Crime Victims for Justice.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 28 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures I Measure No . 72 L 71 House Joint Resolution 92—Referred to the Electorate of Oregon EXPLANATORY STATEMENT by the 1999 Legislature to be voted on at the Special Election, November 2, 1999. This measure amends the Bill of Rights in the Oregon Constitution to provide that a person can be convicted of murder if 11 members of a 12-person jury vote to convict.Currently, the BALLOT TITLE Oregon Constitution requires that all 12 members of a 12-person jury vote to convict in order to convict a person of murder.The change made by this measure would not apply to those murder cases for which the death penalty or life imprisonment without the �� iil�Clf�ICk©W NF1�1f�RER possibility of release is a possible sentence.Those types of mur ifs t1'� .UtYYE> Dfit �; der, called aggravated murder, would still require a unanimous verdict of a 12-person jury.This measure does not change the 'j ( $�� ice' ' urste: Eitaws tet nits be cm current constitutional provision for other crimes, which allows a 1E5 1} y$f 10 to 2 verdict for conviction or acquittal. 1j - `�" ." q"� 4�t in Cttn8ltttegttir Mont of Except as otherwise specifically provided,this measure super- sedes any conflicting section of the Oregon Constitution. � I� tt p►�Ct#tttrf 8t)vn Crstlstitutton currently Committee Members: Appointed By: f �� Eutl only rttt ttrtar}emou Werclict of Senator Neil Br ant President of the Senate 1 �) � w� xerrrr t nm tton for ruurctO if, Y � �) ,vC7fe oonvtct. CVfaure retains Representative Kevin Mannix Speaker of the House on 1.0 Senator Kate Brown Secretary of State �f � dttfcf i lfrd tgenvit oRepresentative Floyd Prozanski Secretary of State a eftf18 S1tt1C is pibfB.Applies Representative Lane Shetterly Members of the Committee � � Or CneS5Cre5 (This committee was appointed to provide an impartial explanation of the SreYfCt ^y men �� ballot measure pursuant to ORS 251.215.) :r m ;} y5�y pat, �y/t}}i.}�,�c��j,y �Oy Y1r tai ii e�4 yha state TEXT OF MEASURE Be It Resolved by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon: PARAGRAPH 1. The Constitution of the State of Oregon is amended by creating a new section to be added to and made a part of Article I,such section to read: (1)Notwithstanding section 11 of this Article,11 members of a 12-person jury may render a verdict of guilty for murder but all 12 jurors must render a verdict of guilty for aggravat- ed murder. (2)This section applies to all criminal proceedings pend- ing or commenced on or after the effective date of this sec- tion,except a criminal proceeding in which a jury has been impaneled and sworn on the effective date of this section. Nothing in this section reduces a criminal defendant's rights under the Constitution of the United States.Except as other- wise specifically provided,this section supersedes any con- flicting section of this Constitution. PARAGRAPH 2.The amendment proposed by this resolu- tion shall be submitted to the people for their approval or rejection at a special election held throughout this state on the date specified in section 2,chapter ,Oregon Laws 1999(Enrolled House Bill 2354). NOTE: Boldfaced type indicates new language; [brackets and italic]type indicates deletions or comments. 29 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 72 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR I ARGUMENT IN FAVOR VOTE YES ON MEASURE 72 TO BRING BALANCE My personal experience is illustrative of how a single rogue juror TO THE JURY PROCESS IN MURDER CASES can subvert justice. This measure reflects part of what was originally passed by the On October 21, 1992,my life was shattered forever.On that after- voters as Measure 40 in November 1996.The Oregon Supreme noon,a car drove onto the shoulder of a Lake Oswego street and Court ruled that Measure 40 contained several amendments to struck my 12-year old daughter, Lisa, as she was walking to her the Oregon Constitution, and that they needed to be voted on grandparents'house after school.The force of the impact hurled Lisa's little body into a nearby tree.Rather than stop and call for separately. So, the Legislature has split the original Ballot Measure 40 into sections and has referred those sections to the help,the driver fled the scene.Lisa,my darling child,was already voters as separate measures.This is one of those measures. dead when a passing motorist discovered her mangled body.The only clue as to the identity of Lisa's killer was a license plate found The Oregon Constitution already provides that a jury can acquit nearby. or convict a person for any crime, except Murder or Aggravated The police quickly traced the license plate to Andrew Whitaker. Murder,by a ten to two vote.This system has worked well. When confronted with the physical evidence, Whitaker admitted The current constitutional provision requires a unanimous jury that Lisa's death was not an accident. Whitaker confessed he verdict of guilty both for Aggravated Murder (where the death killed Lisa"on purpose:' penalty or life imprisonment may be applied), as well as for What initially appeared to be and open and shut case,turned into Murder.This measure would not change the unanimous jury ver- anything but that.After a year of legal wrangling,Andrew Whitaker dict requirement for a guilty verdict in Aggravated Murder cases. was finally brought to trial. During the trial, the jury heard It will not change the current provision that allows a jury to acquit Whitaker's confession as well as evidence that Lisa was on the a defendant in Aggravated Murder and Murder cases by a ten to shoulder of the street when struck by Whitaker's car.The jury also two vote.What this measure will change is the unanimous verdict learned that prior to Lisa's murder,Whitaker shared with friends requirement for a verdict of guilty in ordinary Murder cases.This his fantasy of killing someone.To everyone's amazement,howev measure will allow an eleven to one jury verdict of guilt in Murder er, the jury did not convict Whitaker of murder! Luckily for Whitaker,one of the jurors refused to vote for murder because her Referral of this measure to the voters was sought by the three son had been involved in a traffic accident involving a child.To largest, longest established victims' organizations in Oregon their disgust, the other jurors were forced to settle for a lesser (Parents of Murdered Children; Mothers Against Drunk Driving; crime of second-degree manslaughter in order to avoid the case Crime Victims United)and by Oregon law enforcement organiza- ending in a hung jury. As a result,Whitaker served only 28 tions(Association Chiefs of Police;District Attorneys Association; months in prison! State Sheriffs Association;State Police;Federation of Parole and I ASK YOU TO PLEASE VOTE YES ON MEASURES 69 Probation Officers). THROUGH 75! The voters enacted this measure as part of Measure 40.We now SHOULDN'T THE CRIME VICTIM HAVE AT LEAST AS MANY have a chance to enact it again.Please vote yes. RIGHTS AS THE CRIMINAL? Kevin L.Mannix State Representative (This information furnished by Steve Doell,Crime Victims United.) (This information furnished by Kevin L.Mannix,Justice For All.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 30 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 72 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR ARGUMENT IN FAVOR Oregon is proud of being an innovative leader in America.For Since 1934 the Oregon Constitution has allowed juries to convict more than twenty years it has taken 10 out of 12 jurors to convict and to acquit people of the most serious crimes,other than mur- or acquit a defendant in a felony case (all 6 jurors must agree in der, on a less than unanimous verdict.We as Oregonians have less serious misdemeanors).Under current law all 12 jurors must long understood that a fair verdict could be rendered by less unanimously agree to convict a defendant of murder. But in too than a unanimous vote. many murder cases jurors have complained that a single"rogue" One of the primary reasons our law requires a unanimous verdict juror has prevented them from rendering a just verdict.The over- on murder cases today is because in 1934 murder in the first whelming majority of jurors take their oath very seriously, but degree carried the possibility of a death sentence.That is not true occasionally someone with a hidden agenda will get themselves today.Today murder conviction will result in a 25-year minimum onto a jury deciding a murder charge. sentence.It is only upon a conviction of aggravated murde r that a Measure 72 would allow 11 to 1 verdicts to convict in murder person could be eligible for the death penalty.Measure 72 would trials.It would still require unanimous 12-person verdicts for any not change that law.For death penalty cases a unanimous verdict aggravated (capital) murder case – in which either the death would still be required. penalty or life in prison without possibility of parole is the penalty. When juries convict people of the most serious crimes,other than Measure 72 would retain Oregon's unusual rule that allows a murder, there are no requirements of unanimity. For the conduct NOT GUILTY verdict with just a 10 to 2 vote.This change in the in some of those cases it is not unusual that a court imposes what law recognizes that in too many murder cases juries have amounts to a true-life sentence. For instance, the case of brutal returned compromise verdicts of much lesser charges because a sex offenders.We see instances where these people are given a single juror refuses to follow the judge's instructions.The United sentence of more than 100 years.The law did not require a unan- States Supreme Court has ruled more than once that there is NO imous verdict, but that person may well serve the rest of their life constitutional requirement of unanimous juries. in jail. One juror in Eugene recently wrote a letter in which expressed It is particularly unfair to require a unanimous vote for conviction great frustration and remarked that"it is only natural to wonder of murder when a defendant can be found not guilty by a about the weird susceptibility of a system that requires unanimity 10-2 vote,This is the current law in Oregon. among a group of jurors.One couldn't help noting that the time Since 1934 Oregonians have understood that one juror, who and expense of the judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, and wit- because of prejudices or pre-conceived ideas, would never con- nesses were all for naught when the'each must follow the instruc- vict or acquit anyone regardless of the law or the evidence,should tions of the court' rule was not followed. Perhaps there is some not stand in the way of justice.This reasoning is still true today. room for improvement..." Let us make our laws consistent and fair. A yes vote on Measure 72 would bring non-capital murder Please Vote YES on Measure 72. cases into line with the spirit of Oregon's existing jury system. Please Vote YES on Measure 69,70,71,72, 73,74,75. (This information furnished by Joshua Marquis.) (This information furnished by Deborah Bergh,Crime Victims United.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 31 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 72 ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION Unanimous conviction by a jury is one of the cornerstones of the Former Oregon Supreme Court Justice Betty Roberts judicial system of the United States. Measure 72 does not give Urges You To Protect the Oregon Bill of Rights. new rights to victims.Rather, measure 72 will cause Oregonians Vote No on Measures 69,70,71,72,73,74 and 75. to give up their right to be convicted by unanimous juries.There is no justification for Oregonians to forfeit this right. As a former Supreme Court Justice, I have worked to protect Measure 72 is especially dangerous to the minority communities Oregon's Bill of Rights.Oregonians should never take lightly any in Oregon,where innocent defendants would otherwise be saved attempt to weaken our Bill of Rights. Measures 69-75 would from conviction by a twelfth juror. repeal entire sections of the Oregon Bill of Rights, discarding more than 140 years of protections enjoyed by all Oregonians. Vote no against Measure 72, and leave the jury system alone. I urge you to vote no on Measures 69-75. (This information furnished by Lawrence D. Taylor, Chair, Multnomah Oregonians Value Our Constitutional Rights County Democratic Central Committee.) From the time our state was a distant frontier,our Bill of Rights and our elected judges have protected the rights of every Oregonian. Now, under the guise of victims' rights, a faction of our state government wants to strip those rights from Oregonians. The effect of these sweeping changes to the Oregon Bill of Rights would be to denythese rights to every person accused of a crime, whether they are guilty or not. Measures 69-75 are Expensive and May Cause the Early Release of Criminals Between eliminating bail and restricting options like work release and home detention, these measures will cause our already overcrowded jails to swell. People merely accused of crimes will be locked up while convicted criminals walk. This will cost us millions for prisons that should instead be going to schools or hiring police. * Do we as Oregon voters want to take away our own rights? * Do we as Oregon voters want to strip power from judges and place it in the hands of government prosecutors? * Do we as Oregon voters want to repeal the very sections of the Oregon Bill of Rights that have protected our citizens against undue government intrusion? Measures 69-75 will cost Oregonians the independence we have cherished for decades. Please Join me in voting No on Measures 69-75. Betty Roberts. Former Oregon Supreme Court Justice (This information furnished by Betty Roberts.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 32 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 72 ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION "Innocent until proven guilty."This simple phrase reminds us of the fear and knowledge that the government will at times convict inno- cent persons, and motivates us to ensure that Justice is done in our courts. As an attorney I can attest to the fact that wrongful convictions can and do occur throughout the United States,and even here in Oregon. I recently represented two men who despite their claims of inno- cence were convicted in Oregon of Aggravated Murder,and sen- tenced to life in prison. After spending eight years behind bars, new evidence was discovered which led the police to learn anoth- er individual had pulled the trigger and committed the murder for which my clients were convicted.Secretly made tape recordings captured the new suspect confessing to the murder. My clients were soon released from prison, and all charges against them were dropped! Recently in Chicago, over two dozen men who had been sentenced in various states to die,but who later proved their inno- cence, came together to share their tragic stories of mistaken identities, falsified evidence, and inaccurate lab work. Their purpose was to alert Americans that even though guilty people should be convicted, we must continue to protect against the horror of innocent people being imprisoned. In the former Soviet Union, prisons were filled with people who were actually innocent of crimes.In the United States such horri- ble mistakes occur infrequently because we have procedures and requirements of law that greatly minimize the risk of wrongful con- viction. Unfortunately, Ballot Measure 72 would significantly weaken those procedures and requirements, and would allow mistakes to happen more often, would allow more innocent people to be convicted. On behalf of those who are wrongly accused, and on behalf of those who will in the future be wrongly accused,I urge you to vote NO on Measure 72. Elden Rosenthal (This information furnished by Elden Rosenthal.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 33 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 73 House Joint Resolution 93--Referred to the Electorate of Oregon EXPLANATORY STATEMENT by the 1999 Legislature to be voted on at the Special Election, November 2, 1999. This measure amends the Bill of Rights in the Oregon Constitution to change the effect of compelling a person to testify BALLOTTITLE about a crime that the person is suspected of having committed. Currently, a person may be ordered to give testimony about a crime the person is suspected of committing only if the person is given complete immunity from prosecution for that crime. Under A{4� it3FjSI ltUTICyN;i LIMITS Mplhll the grant of complete immunity,the person cannot be prosecuted tQM CRIMINAL PRO SECUTION C?F P"EtiSON for the crime even if the state obtains evidence from a source t�RDI�REE3TOTE51IPY A13l3UT HIS OR independent of the person's testimony.Unless the state grants the �?f+1tiUCT person complete immunity,the person can refuse to testify. This measure would eliminate the complete immunity. Under es�vote limits immunity:1 ur€m€- this measure,a person could be made to testify about a crime the Ill prosec€�tion t1f person ordered to testify about N or hsr person is suspected of committing and could be prosecuted for cra€tduet the crime.However,the state would be prohibited from using the person's testimony or any information derived from that testimony i W"T#1`>"Pftwl"4rQTEt"t+f€ vote€stains MMunity fr4rtt'rimr against the person in the prosecution. t3t¢ uti7tt 4f person t3rderst! to to bout #�€s or,bier• Except as otherwise specifically provided,this measure super- sedes any conflicting section of the Oregon Constitution. tUIIIRYs Amends:taonstitt t€on. Curn rrtfy, z person may be rsiered to give testimony afou#`a prime the person is suspected: Committee Members: Appointed By: committing onty if given camplte imrrtunity horn prosecution fir fti8t crlrne.Measure wruid eliminate complete imrntinjty and Senator Neil Bryant President of the Senate &tit p�ersart"to be ordered td test€ty,abbot crilrte the person is,' Representative Kevin Mannix Speaker of the House S&ts a stt'ti# C#±ttmitk Senator Kate Brown Secretary of State as�jt�•tts pers% t that is#Irrlpny, and informati Representative Floyd Prozanski Secretary of State thanes#irttrnr,would"€e excluded from evidence and could not be Representative Lane Shetterly Members of the Committee kffi Qt�attfst't}#e person.A person wno dtsol3eyad an order tf teS (This committee was appointed to provide an impartial explanation of the t[ ! utci t}e•}rosecuted for contempt.;Measur$apples to er[mt ballot measure pursuant to ORS 251.215.) rtzf prectirt€ rts and juvenile court iieinciusrscy proceedrngs. ��l`�iNllPfCiAI�IMPAG' IVo financial eftect:an state i�vvenrent.spend€tins or,rerrer�uss, TEXT OF MEASURE Be It Resolved by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon: PARAGRAPH 1. The Constitution of the State of Oregon is amended by creating a new section to be added to and made a part of Article I,such section to read: (1) A person may be compelled to testify concerning a criminal offense the person may have committed provided that in any prosecution of the person for that offense neither that testimony nor any evidence derived from that testimony may be admitted against the person. (2)This section applies to all criminal and juvenile court delinquency proceedings pending or commenced on or after the effective date of this section. Nothing in this section reduces a criminal defendant's rights under the Constitution of the United States.Except as otherwise specifically provid- ed, this section supersedes any conflicting section of this Constitution. (3)As used in this section,"criminal defendant"includes an alleged youth offender in juvenile court delinquency proceedings. PARAGRAPH 2.The amendment proposed by this resolu- tion shall be submitted to the people for their approval or rejection at a special election held throughout this state on the date specified in section 2,chapter ,Oregon Laws 1999(Enrolled House Bill 2354). NOTE: Boldfaced type indicates new language; [brackets and italic]type indicates deletions or comments. 34 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 73 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR ARGUMENT IN FAVOR VOTE YES ON MEASURE 73 In 1996,Oregonians overwhelmingly voted to give crime victims TO HOLD CRIMINALS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS at least as many rights as criminals. But the politicians on the Oregon Supreme Court came up with a never-before used tech- This measure reflects part of what was originally passed by the nicality to throw out the voters'wishes. voters as Measure 40 in November 1996.The Oregon Supreme Measures 69 through 75 are virtually the same Crime Victims Court has ruled that Measure 40 could not be enacted as a sin- Bill of Rights. gle amendment to the Oregon Constitution,and that each portion should have been voted on separately.The Legislature has split In the fight against organized crime and large sophisticated crim- the original Ballot Measure 40 into separate amendments to the inal enterprises,one of the greatest tools the federal government Constitution and has referred them to the voters. Measure 73 is has is the ability to grant "limited immunity" to underlings and one of those referrals. witnesses within the organization. Many states in this country When a person is ordered to testify about a crime,the person is have similar laws. given protection from the use of this testimony against the person. In Oregon,up until 1984,it was believed that the prosecution had However,there is a difference between guaranteeing that the per- this ability. But that idea evaporated as a result of the Oregon son will not be prosecuted at all for the crime,no matter where the Supreme Court's expansion of criminal rights that began in 1982. evidence comes from, and guaranteeing that the person's own How real is this problem?It is real and it is big! If Oregon pros- testimony will not be used against him. ecutors have to give immunity it must be"absolute immunity,"i.e. This measure maintains the guarantee that a person who is the person can never be prosecuted ordered to testify will not have that testimony used against him. Is it possible to penetrate large-scale criminal organizations with However, it allows the use of evidence which is gathered sepa- (absolute immunity?"No. If no one talks,the prosecutor is in the rately, without any connection with the person's own testimony. dark. If the prosecutor gives the wrong person immunity, the This common sense modification parallels the system used at the results can be catastrophic. federal level and in many other states. Referral of this measure to the voters was sought by the three Take the case of the person who was the so-called "murder mmuni,"who said he would only testify if he was given"absolute largest, longest established victims' organizations in Oregon i (Parents of Murdered Children; Mothers Against Drunk Driving; mmunity."His attorney only wanted to protect his client's rights. The "witness" was given immunity. Crime Victims United)and by Oregon law enforcement organiza- Unfortunately, was the tions(Association Chiefs of Police;District Attorneys Association; murderer and as a result t the Oregon law, he coulld d never be State Sheriffs Association;State Police;Federation of Parole and prosecuted.That would not have happened if Measure 73 had been enacted. Probation Officers). TO FIGHT BACK! As chief petitioner of the original Measure 40,and as originator of LET'S GIVE THE GOOD GUYS THE TOOLS this referral in the Legislature, I urge your yes vote on Measure PLEASE VOTE YES ON MEASURES 69 THROUGH 751 73' SHOULDN'T THE CRIME VICTIM HAVE AT LEAST AS MANY Kevin L.Mannix RIGHTS AS THE CRIMINAL? State Representative (This information furnished by Steve Doell,Crime Victims United.) (This information furnished by Kevin L.Mannix,Justice For All.) s (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 35 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 73 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION Oregon is one of only a handful of states with what is called Measure 73 attacks your constitutional rights. Measure 73 "transactional"immunity.Most other states have a"use"immunity could force you to testify against yourself without complete immu- system, most notable in the prosecutions in the Watergate and nity.That's unfair,unconstitutional,and unprecedented in Oregon. Iran-Contra prosecutions by federal prosecutors. The right against self-incrimination The difference is simple,but drastic. Measure 73 would erode and reduce the rights that citizens The Fifth Amendment provides everyone in America, whether have had under English and American law for over 600 years.The a citizen or not, with the absolute right not to give testimony Oregon Constitution has a perfectly workable provision against him/herself.Police and prosecutors sometimes may try to adopted in 1859(Article I, Section 12)which states"No person solve a perplexing crime by offering a person who may have shall be [...] compelled in any criminal prosecution to testify knowledge of the crime "immunity" if that person will tell what against himself."The United States Constitution contains a similar he/she knows. Of course police and prosecutors don't want to provision in the Fifth Amendment adopted over 200 years ago. give such immunity to the main evil-doer, who could then fully This simple rule means the government cannot compel aper- confess and avoid any responsibility. son to say that he is guilty.The privilege against self-incrimination "Transactional"immunity is an all-or-nothing proposition.Under has ensured that confessions must be free of coercion--whether Oregon's current scheme, a person given immunity to testify can by the medieval rack, the eighteenth-century lash, the modern never be prosecuted for any crime related to his/her testimony,no rubber hose or jailing for judicial contempt, matter what he/she has said or admitted.One typical situation is Use of compelled testimony in trials of other defendants a rape case in which two men in a group of six are suspected of the sexual assault.None of the men are willing to speak and it is Often the police investigate crimes committed by more than unclear who actually raped the victim and who may have actively one person.The police may ask one suspect to testify about his helped.Under Oregon's"transactional"immunity,anyone made to involvement with other suspects. If this first suspect asserts his testify can never be charged with anything relating to the rape, right against self-incrimination, the government may still require even if other evidence or eyewitnesses later become available. the witness to testify or be jailed for contempt of court.Of course, Under Measure 73, nothing the person given immunity has the witness must receive immunity to protect his right against said could ever be used again him/her, but he/She could still be self-incrimination. Under current law in Oregon, the government prosecuted if other evidence unrelated to their testimony became cannot prosecute the witness for the crime that he is required to available. discuss in his testimony. As early as 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a witness who gives compelled testimony should Measure 73 would protect Fifth Amendment rights but pre- receive "absolute immunity against future prosecution for the vent criminals from using immunity as a shield from rightful offense"that is the subject of the testimony.Oregon courts have prosecution. made similar rulings under the Oregon Constitution. Vote YES on Measure 73 to unlock the handcuffs on our law "Immunity"under Measure 73 enforcement officers! Measure 73 would greatly limit the protection for the (This information furnished by Joshua Marquis.) witness who is compelled to testify. Under Measure 73, the government COULD prosecute the witness for the crime that he is required to discuss, so long as the government does not use the compelled testimony,itself,in investigating or prosecuting the witness. Why Measure 73 is a bad idea in the real world The American Bar Association has opposed proposals such as Measure 73 because the sort of immunity it offers is often an illu- sion.You should oppose it too. Measure 73 immunity is supposed to prevent officers from relying on compelled testimony,but the police could use the infor- mation to find other witnesses,and then could claim that the other witnesses were an"independent source"of the information.The police could not forget the testimony,and it would naturally affect how they collected and considered evidence from other sources in the investigation of the witness. Measure 73 is like handing the witness,compelled t4 tes- tify by the state, a shovel and ordering him to dig his own grave.Your rights as a citizen are under attack in Measure 73. Vote"NO"on Measure 73. (This information furnished by Phil Barnhart, Democratic Party of Lane County.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument, accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 36 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 73 ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION Oregon's Bill of Rights Has Protected Our Citizens Save the Oregon Bill of Rights. for over 140 years. Vote No on Measures 69-75. Please protect Oregon's Bill of Rights by Voting No on My name is Enver Bozgoz. Measures 69 through 75 I came to America from Russia as a young man. Measures 69,70,71,72,73,74 and 75 Would Dangerously Today I live in Klamath Falls. Weaken Our Bill of Rights This series of measures to amend the Oregon Bill of Rights As a former US Attorney and a former Dean of Lewis and Clark reminds me of my childhood days in Stalin's Russia. Law School,we have studied the law and the rights of individuals KGB agents would come to an innocent person's home, always for many years. Measures 69-75 would dramatically weaken our Bill of Rights. after midnight in a black van. They would arrest the heads of household for a "crime." The accused would waste away in We support victims' rights and have championed laws to Siberia, waiting for a trial with no right of release.And because increase restitution, provide firm trial dates and provide dignified the government controlled the courts... because judges were treatment of victims.Sadly none of these provisions are included mere figureheads required to do the bidding of the state prosecu- in these measures. Instead, Oregonians are being sold a bill of tors... because the police were always rights... innocent people goods under a misleading label. spent years in jail We have a proud history of effective prosecution and strong The Oregon Bill of Rights has served us well for over 140 protection in our state Bill of Rights for all Oregonians. Don't years. undermine that tradition. Today, Oregon's law strikes the delicate balance between the Measures 69-75 Would Give Government Prosecutors Too rights of victims and rights of the accused.We agree that convict- Much Power. ed criminals should do their time... and that the rights of victims Remember Prosecutor Kenneth Starr? Remember how should be considered in courtroom proceedings. But that's not Starr abused his power to compel people to testify? Remember what these measures are about. how Starr trampled on people's rights to get the information he These measures strip power away from judges and tip the scales wanted with little regard for the rights of those citizens? of justice to the state and their prosecutors. These measures Measures 69-75 would open the doors to those same types of repeal significant protections provided to all citizens by the abuses in Oregon.They allow prosecutors to assume the role of Oregon Bill of Rights. victim; to choose the victim that best serves their own agenda; Oregonians don't want a police state. and broaden the power of prosecutors to compel people to testi- They don't want a criminal justice system that erodes the fy against themselves. presumption of innocence. Measures 69 75 Take Power Away from Judges And they don't want to gut the Oregon Bill of Rights. Please join me in voting NO on Measures 69-75. Our judicial system is grounded in the simple premise that an Thank you. impartial judge rules in a courtroom.Defendants and prosecutors get a fair chance to present their case.These measures shift the Enver Bozgoz balance of power from judges to government prosecutors.That's Klamath Falls a dangerous precedent for Oregon's future. (This information furnished by Geoff Sugerman,Crime Victims for Justice.) Don't Weaken Oregon's Cherished Bill of Rights. Please Join Us in Voting No on Measures 69-75 Sid Lezak,US Attorney for Oregon (ret.1961-1982) Stephen Kanter, Former Dean, Lewis&Clark Law School (This information furnished by Stephen Kanter and Sid Lezak.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 37 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 74 House Joint Resolution 94—Referred to the Electorate of Oregon direct financial,psychological or physical harm as a result of by the 1999 Legislature to be voted on at the Special Election, a crime and,in the case of a victim who is a minor,the legal November 2, 1999. guardian of the minor.In the event no person has been deter- mined to be a victim of the crime,the people of Oregon,rep- resented by the prosecuting attorney, are considered to be the victims.In no event is it intended that the criminal defen- BALLOT TITLE dant be considered the victim. PARAGRAPH 2.The amendment proposed by this resolu- tion shall be submitted to the people for their approval or A PI S+CONS"MT 1UTION:REQUItROS MRIUIS pF rejection at a special election held throughout this state on M fait ISCNO t) NTANNOUNC j jN,( g the date specified in section 2,chapter Oregon Laws R'U1120,# I`fH 0C I .Dk 1999(Enrolled House Bill 2354). requires farm$of imprison- NOTE: Boldfaced type indicates new language; [brackets and msrtt anrtduncl in art"twwfly Sarvd,yylthicceptions>guar italic]type indicates deletions or comments. anises onn tiv non ng au r . I~7 "I±tC7!"Y4� "Mr„v©te rt Ins IegislatUre' taower to lairs a tt�n , tde or, t dl�9 .'- m f irnprisdnmertt EXPLANATORY STATEMENT ,t�nl�r coctat Bird to Irrtlt cdrtstcwflve setrterrcing authority> Lids t 0ASt`t#utfo.n, Measuft requires firm fsf This measure amends the Bill of Rights in the Oregon itprrlrrlrtt P0001 bytIEiEe in open COUrt tp t?o*fU9f1r Setveri.! Constitution by imposing a requirement that terms of imprison- fttlstteIlItaterr�fcata; rgccndpctarrrtharreasons ment imposed by ajudge in open court be fully served.The effect fitesa auth it sd, k3y!sentencing 0 rt and permitted bi taw of this measure is to eliminate reductions in prison terms based Pf xu[de ec ptl r Iar:topnBves, tam ttta#[orjs tsr parcEtans.by, on good conduct or other reasons unless: v rittTr'rslt a#front Appsllate,�rr pDat-cxrrivtctrort court.•MSasur 1.The judge has specifically authorized the reduction; of bar rry arge teduc9rtg trttprt j tnrnettt' already l�s 'auto !S(7 bars lAW-0 tirliiting eon"butt'iae 48tterlc s 2.The Governor grants a reprieve,commutation or pardon;or fpr crrtes ains�certn y+�trms: flnss"vtcttrrl"to�r�ludrr.pecr- ple tai QrB or>Ie(res;;jriW t y prosecutlny attorney,when rto per 3.A court has granted relief in an appeal of the case or in a ebn Isae ber#rj determined o bs victim.PersoncCUStd of crime` post conviction proceeding. cant tt be, rrtsldered,Ytc#rm. 4p,lies to aftenses'cornrriWe on xsr! This measure also prohibits laws that would limit a court's after measure's eftctiue date. authority to sentence a person consecutively for crimes com- �"tI INANCIAL IMPAMN6.financial effac#errs state milted against different victims. qtr°fol govertlrrent 9xlrendituft5.of revenues. This measure bars any statutory change by the Legislature which reduces the term of a sentence already imposed by a judge. Except as otherwise specifically provided,this measure super- TEXT OF MEASURE sedes any conflicting section of the Oregon Constitution. Committee Members: Appointed By: Be It Resolved by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Senator Neil Bryant President of the Senate Oregon: Representative Kevin Mannix Speaker of the House PARAGRAPH 1. The Constitution of the State of Oregon is Senator Kate Brown Secretary of State amended by creating a new.section to be added to and made a Representative Floyd Prozanski Secretary of State part of Article I,such section to read: Representative Lane Shetterly Members of the Committee (1)(a)A term of imprisonment imposed by a judge in open (This committee was appointed to provide an impartial explanation of the court may not be set aside or otherwise not carried out, ballot measure pursuant to ORS 251.215.) except as authorized by the sentencing court or through the subsequent exercise of: (A)The power of the Governor to grant reprieves,commu- tations and pardons;or (B)Judicial authority to grant appellate or post-conviction relief. (b)No law shall limit a court's authority to sentence a crim- inal defendant consecutively for crimes against different victims. (2)This section applies to all offenses committed on or after the effective date of this section.Nothing in this section reduces a criminal defendant's rights under the Constitution of the United States.Except as otherwise specifically provid- ed,this section supersedes any conflicting section of this Constitution. Nothing in this section creates any cause of action for compensation or damages nor may this section be used to invalidate an accusatory instrument, ruling of a court, conviction or adjudication or otherwise suspend or terminate any criminal or juvenile delinquency proceedings at any point after the case is commenced or on appeal. (3) As used in this section, "victim" means any person determined by the prosecuting attorney to have suffered 38 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures IOWA,F Measure No . * 74 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR ARGUMENT IN FAVOR MEASURE 74 MEANS THAT SENTENCES In 1996,Oregonians overwhelmingly voted to give crime victims IMPOSED BY JUDGES at least as many rights as criminals. But the politicians on the Oregon Supreme Court came up with a never-before used tech- WILL ACTUALLY BE CARRIED OUT nicality to throw out the voters'wishes. Measure 74 reflects part of what was originally passed by the Measures 69 through 75 are virtually the same Crime Victims voters as Measure 40 in November 1996. Measure 40 was set Bill of Rights. aside by the Oregon Supreme Court because it amended more Measure 74 amends the state constitution to guarantee that sen- than one part of the Oregon Constitution,and the Court said each tences imposed by trial judges in open court will be carried out. amendment must be voted on separately.So,the Legislature has Except for the Governor's historic power to grant reprieves,com- split the original.Measure 40 into separate amendments for con- mutations,and pardons,Measure 74 prohibits a later reduction of sideration by the voters.This is one of those amendments. a criminal defendant's sentence without the concurrence of the This measure helps guarantee that sentencing laws will be sentencing judge.This will prevent the parole board or other cor- enforced,and that sentences imposed by judges will be respect- rectional agencies from releasing a convicted criminal early out- ed. It prevents the subsequent reduction of these sentences side the scope of public scrutiny. Measure 74 also prohibits the unless the reduction has occurred through judicial proceedings or Legislature from passing laws that limit that authority of the sen- the sentencing court has agreed to the reduction, or unless the tencing judge from imposing consecutive sentences from crimes reduction has occurred through the traditional power of the committed against different people. In other words, there will be Governor to grant a reprieve,commutation,or pardon. no"freebies"for criminals who go on a crime spree.Criminals will It is important for offenders to understand that the sentence be subject to a more severe sentence for each victim they injure. imposed by the judge will be carried out.If the Legislature estab- PLEASE VOTE YES ON MEASURES 69 THROUGH 751 lishes more liberal sentencing policies, and tries to apply them SHOULDN'T THE CRIME VICTIM HAVE AT LEAST AS MANY retroactively,the sentencing court must agree to the liberalization RIGHTS AS THE CRIMINAL? of the sentence,or the original sentence will stay in place. This measure helps preserve and protect the right of crime vic- (This information furnished by Steve Doell,Crime Victims United.) tims to justice,and to ensure that a fair balance is struck between the rights of crime victims and the rights of criminal defendants in the course and conduct of court proceedings. Referral of this measure to the voters was sought by the three largest, longest established victims' organizations in Oregon (Parents of Murdered Children; Mothers Against Drunk Driving,; Crime Victims United)and by Oregon law enforcement organiza- tions(Association Chiefs of Police;District Attorneys Association; State Sheriffs Association;State Police;Federation of Parole and Probation Officers). Please vote yes on Measure 74 to ensure that "truth in sent- encing"will really apply in Oregon. Kevin L.Mannix State Representative (This information furnished by Kevin L.Mannix,Justice For All.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 39 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure .No . 74 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR ARGUMENT IN FAVOR Measures 69 thru 75 are part of Ballot Measure 40"The Victims Over the last few years Oregonians have made it clear they Bill of Rights"passed by the people with nearly a 60%yes vote in want "Truth in Sentencing" in criminal cases. For too many 1996.This measure was part of that"Bill of Rights:' years convicted felons who were sentenced to terms of 20 years Oregon's Supreme Court overturned Measure 40 in its entirety were routinely after serving less than half their original sentence. Judges had no control over when a felon would released. using newly interpreted technical grounds.Consequently,the leg- islators divided Ballot Measure 40 into seven separate parts, Measure now makes sure that murderers would actually serve which included most of Measure 40 and referred these seven years for "life"sentence" instead of the 8 years that many m measures to the people to be voted on again. murderers actually served. Measure 74 is a "Truth in Sentencing" proposal. It prohibits an But the shortage of prison beds and financial pressures on the Corrections system has resulted in many criminals convicted of administratively reduced sentence once that sentence has been lesser,but still serious felonies,getting out much sooner than the pronounced in open court by the judge.The only exceptions are the Governor's power of reprieve, commutation and pardons sentence imposed by the judge.Felons convicted of attempting to along with Judicial authority to grant appellate and post conviction seriously injure their victims with a weapon have found loopholes relief. that permit their release after they have served half,or even less of their sentence. The measure requires the sentencing judge to explain in open Measure 74 would mandate real "Truth in Sentencing" in court what programs, rules and procedures may alter the time to Oregon's criminal courts.It is only fair to ALL concerned that the be served. sentence a judge hands down in open court be the actual sen- The intent here is that the victim, the press and the public are tence served by the convicted criminal. Everyone in the system, entitled to know the REALITY of the imposed sentence rather victims and defendants alike should be able to know what a than believing some announced number of months that may have sentence actually means when they are in court. little connection to what is actually served. Judges are the people we trust to make the decision about In case after case we have seen criminals sentenced only to find what sentence a convict should receive.The sentencing hearing later that through some mysterious, little understood procedure, is often the ONLY time the victim or their family can even speak the criminal was back out far short of the announced sentence. to the court. -Victims and families of victims of all type of crimes, particularly Measure 74 makes it clear that unless a judge specifically those of sexual assault are frequently stunned to find that their approves a reduction in sentence or an appeals court alters a victimizer is not only out but back in their community. The sentence that the term of imprisonment could not be altered. psychological effect on victims and their families is devastating; Measure 74 would NOT interfere with the wide-ranging power of communities become outraged and general respect for law and g g p government suffer. the Governor to grant pardons(completely wipe out a conviction) or commutations(reductions in prison sentences). Please Vote YES on Measure 74. Vote YES on Measure 74 to insure when a judge says 3 years Please Vote YES for"Truth in Sentencing". in prison it really MEANS 3 years. Bob&Dee Dee Kouns (This information furnished by Joshua Marquis.) Founders of Crime Victims United Chief Petitioners of Ballot Measure 40 (This information furnished by Bob & Dee Dee Kouns, Crime Victims United.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 40 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 74 ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION My father was murdered during a jewelry store robbery. Benton County Sheriff Stan Robson urges you to vote No As a victim of crime,I am keenly aware of the short-comings in on Measures 69,70,71,72,73,74 and 75. our criminal justice system. As Benton County Sheriff, I know most of these measures can I am appalled, however, by the measures we are being asked be accomplished without repealing the Oregon Bill of Rights.It is not appropriate to abuse the constitution with issues already to approve in the name of crime victims'rights, Measures 69,70, covered by current law. 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75.These measures are a fraud perpetrated upon us as protecting crime victims,but which do nothing but pro- Measure 69 states no defendant can ever be considered a vide empty promises. victim.Even in cases of domestic violence a woman charged for They have, instead, everything to do with giving the defending herself against an abusive husband could never be government the same kind of unbridled powers that considered a victim.It's wrong to place that language in our Bill of Rights. allowed Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr to run amok in Washington,D.C. Measure 70 could cost local counties millions of dollars,while Like most Oregonians,I am in favor of protecting crime victims, eliminating the right to choose how to be tried, a basic tenet of and if these measures did so I would urge your support.But crime Oregon's Bill of Rights. victims like me and my family are being used in a cynical ploy to Measure 71 would require our county, and many others with gain your vote.Don't let them use our pain to their advantage. overcrowded jails, to release criminals to make room for those Please Vote No on Measures 69,70,71,72,73,74 and 75. awaiting trial.As sheriff, I want to protect my community from the most dangerous offenders, not release them early because of Michele Kohler Measure 71. (This information furnished by Michele Kohler.) Measure 72, Oregon should take every precaution against convicting innocent people of murder.Unanimous verdicts are the best means of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.Innocent people could be convicted if Measure 72 passes. Measure 73.Our Bill of Rights says a person cannot be forced to testify against himself.As Sheriff, I know we either have a con- fession or we don't.This basic right must not be repealed. Measure 74: In our current system, law enforcement works with prosecutors and judges to determine appropriate sentences, including work release, home detention and community service. This measure will increase overcrowding in our jails. And it will strip us of valuable alternative sanctions that often fit the crime better than jail time. Measure 75 could cost taxpayers millions.Our current jury sys- tem is fair and balanced.We should leave our Bill of Rights alone. Please join me in Voting No on Measures 69-75. Sheriff Stan Robson (This information furnished by Stan Robson,Benton County Sheriff) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 41 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 75 House Joint Resolution 89—Referred to the Electorate of Oregon conviction or adjudication or otherwise suspend or termi- by the 1999 Legislature to be voted on at the Special Election, nate any criminal proceeding at any point after a jury is November 2, 1999. impaneled and sworn or on appeal. PARAGRAPH 2.The amendment proposed by this resolu- tion shall be submitted to the people for their approval or BALI OT TITLE[ rejection at a special election held throughout this state on LOT the date Specified in section 2,chapter ,Oregon Laws 1999(Enrolled House Bill 2354). AANI ^a G1tuTiQN;PFtSOhIS Gt7ENl+Ci NOTE: Boldfaced type indicates new language; [brackets and OtlrttilN�tlidE Ct0.f+lItyf ON.GRANO' italic]type indicates deletions or comments. WAVES;I RIM[I��TR1AL lt)R�S, � , res�v�tCr3Stituffunai,ban EXPLANATORY STATEMENT lns tcsnsticted tJf oartaln Brims serving tstf3r5d jitrte5, �r�rrl�te)trrej j�rtes , i { '"`f+1�3" 41=t mil "vote Isays Oonetattttic�n wtFiout This measure amends the Bill of Rights in the Oregon fStF�txttivtcletf ctf crimes sertrl ' at3 rand c�ris Grim-: Constitution by imposing constitutional restrictions on who can 1 act as a juror on a grand jury or on a jury in a criminal case. jttaf }lily. � � Aixaartlfsartsiion N[eaure ben tvkdn;; This measure provides that a person cannot serve as a juror on pe Cam � rtah lades a grand jury or on a jury in a criminal case if the person: rsons Ctu3otetltf felony or 1 3 Bets d fatic y A01101Ca within f5 years lmmedistt ly pMMM, ' 1. Has been convicted of a felony or has served a felony sen- ln ., fta data=the persrsrts ars rega lrsd.to report'ittr jury tf ty. tence within the 15 years immediately preceding the date the per- oft...grand•jl r e , crirrNVI ErieV son is required to report for jury duty;or fttrr��parsor#s cat rioted of rraisdenaarufrs i�nr�ivi�g�rlc�lenc� prdttest flr wfto'sarvdd sentences for suelk rrtisdehseanors 2. Has been convicted of a misdemeanor involving violence or arraFttsdiataly preCdine the date the eons are". dishonesty within the five years immediately preceding the date stttlk r. rt for'ur d Gun'ar#fl ; r ste#utary ban ort trial the person is required to report for jury duty. ..a I Y jUtr%iaff?iti�€mists•N+ nStittltifiilel;ff8rtonj>ryservit ,; Currently, there is no constitutional ban that would prevent a ttYi felarn ar a persr�n raravlcted taf a rnisdernecanor exits.CM[eS person who has been convicted of a crime from serving on a jury. ns�t IPeatl Anse ofCtiort ft3r!ccsmper(sataon©r damages ides �flbt �YV dtscfua#rlyErt juty,"nulltfrttt verdtet gar rttllctrrtaClt,tr3rCrti-' Except as otherwise specifically provided,this measure super ttaffit cxamart l j3roseoutiort after jury irspartefad and Sw+arn.Do is' sedes any conflicting section of the Oregon Constitution. rtc# y tia'orrmitaal pro�dhgs•1asn fury irnpaateleti,Prior.:o ifecv da Committee Members: Appointed By: �► ll' f INAWfAL tWAM,Nct fltanGiat gift on State Senator Neil Bryant President of the Senate or Itl gctftrxjsnf eX000 ureOW 01,revenues Representative Kevin Mannix Speaker of the House Senator Kate Brown Secretary of State Representative Floyd Prozanski Secretary of State Representative Lane Shetterly Members of the Committee (This committee was appointed to provide an impartial explanation of the TEXT OF MEASURE ballot measure pursuant to ORS 251.215.) Be It Resolved by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon: PARAGRAPH 1. The Constitution of the State of Oregon is amended by creating a new section to be added to and made a part of Article I, such section to read: (1) In all grand juries and in all prosecutions for crimes tried to a jury,the jury shall be composed of persons who have not been convicted: (a)Of a felony or served a felony sentence within the 15 years immediately preceding the date the persons are required to report for jury duty;or (b)Of a misdemeanor involving violence or dishonesty or served a sentence for a misdemeanor involving violence or dishonesty within the five years immediately preceding the date the persons are required to report for jury duty. (2)This section applies to all criminal proceedings pend- ing or commenced on or after the effective date of this section, except a criminal proceeding in which a jury has been impaneled and sworn on the effective date of this sec- tion. Nothing in this section reduces a criminal defendant's rights under the Constitution of the United States.Except as otherwise specifically provided,this section supersedes any conflicting section of this Constitution. Nothing in this sec- tion is intended to create any cause of action for compensa- tion or damages nor may this section be used to disqualify a jury, invalidate an accusatory instrument, ruling of a court, 42 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 75 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR ARGUMENT IN FAVOR VOTE YES ON MEASURE 75 TO KEEP CRIMINALS OFF In 1996,Oregonians overwhelmingly voted to give crime victims CRIMINAL JURIES at least as many rights as criminals. But the politicians on the Oregon Supreme Court came up with a never-before used tech- It is hard to believe, but criminals can serve on criminal juries in nicality to throw out the voters'wishes. Oregon. There is a statute which prevents felons (higher level Measures 69 through 75 are virtually the same Crime Victims criminals)from serving on juries,but this is not in the Constitution, gill of Rights. and there is no provision which prevents violent or dishonest misdemeanants(lower level criminals)from serving on juries.This If you were a crime victim, would you want a jury of fair-minded is particularly disturbing in regard to grand juries, where the citizens?Or instead,would you like to have a jury full of felons, prosecutor has no opportunity to object to the persons who sit on sex offenders,and thieves? the grand jury. Imagine this: criminals sitting on a grand jury, The Oregon Constitution currently allows convicted felons and deciding whether a criminal defendant should be indicted or not. person convicted of crimes like shoplifting, forgery, or assault to This measure needs to be made a part of the Constitution;other- wise,the Legislature can change the statute at any time. serve on juries. This measure is a referral from the Legislature. It closely reflects In one recent example, a grand juror with a criminal history part of what was originally passed by the voters by a wide margin refused to vote in favor of any indictment involving a violent felony, within Measure 40 in November 1996. The Oregon Supreme because her boyfriend had been imprisoned for conviction of a Court later ruled that Ballot Measure 40 could not be enacted as violent felony.Her response was that this was her way of"getting a single amendment to the Oregon Constitution, because it had back"at the system.Another example occurred when a convicted several provisions which should be voted on separately.So, the felon refused to disclose his criminal history,was placed on a jury, Legislature has split the original Measure 40 into separate and tied proceedings up so long that the jury hung,and the crim- amendments.This measure reflects one of those amendments. inal went free. Referral of this measure to the voters was sought by the three Regardless of your perspective, juries have an important job: largest, longest established victims' organizations in Oregon listening to both sides, and deciding what is fair and just.This is (Parents of Murdered Children; Mothers Against Drunk Driving; too important to leave up to convicted felons, petty thieves, and Crime Victims United)and by Oregon law enforcement organiza- other violent offenders. tions(Association Chiefs of Police;District Attorneys Association; LET'S KEEP CONVICTED CRIMINALS FROM SERVING ON State Sheriffs Association;State Police;Federation of Parole and OREGON JURIES! Probation Officers). PLEASE VOTE YES ON MEASURES 69 THROUGH 75! This measure guarantees that convicted felons, and convicted misdemeanants in crimes involving dishonesty or violence, are SHOULDN'T THE CRIME VICTIM HAVE AT LEAST AS MANY prevented from serving on criminal juries. Please vote yes on RIGHTS AS THE CRIMINAL? Measure 75. (This information furnished by Steve Doell,Crime Victims United.) Kevin L.Mannix State Representative (This information furnished by Kevin L.Mannix,Justice For All.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the,state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 43 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures I Measure No . 75 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR ARGUMENT IN FAVOR Measures 69 thru 75 are part of Ballot Measure 40"The Victims It is time to balance the scales of justice. Bill of Rights"passed by the people with nearly a 60%yes vote in . We need a'usi tice system and not just a legal system. 1996.This measure was part of that"Bill of Rights" Oregon's Supreme Court overturned Measure 40 in its entirety One of the ways to achieve this is to vote yes on Ballot Measure using newly interpreted technical grounds. Consequently, the 75.The scales of justice have always leaned toward the perpe- legislators divided Ballot Measure 40 into seven separate parts, trators of crime.It is time that the innocent victims of crime have which included most of Measure 40 and referred these seven equitable rights. measures to the people to be voted on again. • If someone is not responsible enough to follow the law, Some try to make people believe that a jury decision only affects how can they be responsible enough to decide guilt or the person being tried. If you or your family become a victim of a innocence. criminal,the finding of the jury in your case may likely be one of The jurors mission is to be finder of fact and to be able to base the most important decisions affecting you for the rest of your life. their decision based on the evidence presented to them.They Was the jury fair,just,impartial,thorough and honest in their con- should not rely on preconceived biases that would affect that deci- sideration of the evidence? Did they follow the law? sion.Most criminals feel that somehow they are the victim.That a These characteristics are not usually associated with people who wrong was committed against them. How can a person in this have been convicted of felony crimes and have served time in jail situation be fair and objective. or prison. Some criminals are clever, manipulative people with • If you were a victim of crime would you want the alleged powerful personalities. They revel in making a mockery of our. perpetrator's fate decided by a criminal? criminal justice system. Such people should never be on a jury because the damage they can do to society in general and the My father was murdered on June 25, 1996. Paul Rivenes was a victims in particular is enormous. father,grandfather,husband,brother,uncle,friend and communi- ty leader.He was the innocent victim of violent crime.He owned Where our constitution speaks of our right to be tried by a jury of a grocery store and 3 men decided that they wanted money. He our peers, it does not mean a criminal gets to be tried by a jury was stabbed 16 times. If his murderers guilt or innocence had of criminals. been decided by convicted criminal's, there is a possibility that This measure ultimately offers respectability to those who have they would be out on the street today generating more and more committed a felony. They can demonstrate their worthiness for victims.Butchering more innocent people. jury duty by leading a crime free life for 15 years after conviction Guilt or innocence should not be decided by criminals but and release from prison or jail. by responsible law abiding citizens. We don't need criminals making life-altering decisions that can Please vote yes on Measure 75. profoundly affect innocent lives. Julie Hedden Please Vote YES on Measure 75. Daughter of Murder Victim Paul Rivenes Please Vote YES to prohibit criminals on juries. (This information furnished by Julie Hedden,Crime Victims United.) Bob&Dee Dee Kouns Founders of Crime Victims United Chief Petitioners of Ballot Measure 40 (This information furnished by Bob & Dee Dee Kouns, Crime Victims United.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nbr does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 44 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 75 ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION Follow The Money The seven initiatives, Measures 69,70,71,72,73,74 and 75, As a long-time journalist and former Statehouse reporter in seem to be designed to more closely involve the victims of crime Salem, I've learned to ask two questions whenever the govern- in punishing the perpetrator with the objective of satisfying the ment wants some new program or power:"How much will it cost?" victims'desire for justice–defined as revenge. and"What aren't they telling us?" This does nothing to right the wrong– rehabilitate the wrong- In the case of Measures 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75, the doer – or insure that the wrongdoer provides the victim with answers are"A lot"and"A lot.' adequate restitution. The first clue that we better hold onto our wallets is the These measures would erode our protections under cost estimate. By law, a committee of bureaucrats must deter- Oregon's Bill of Rights,granting additional power to prosecutors mine the"fiscal impact"of ballot measures so voters know how already more interested in obtaining conviction than in promoting much they'll cost. State officials tried to estimate the costs of justice. Measures 69-75, but they couldn't figure it out."There are costs, Simply using the power of the criminal justice system to send but they are indeterminate,"a state official testified. perpetrators to prison for a postgraduate course in wrongdoing, But rather than putting"indeterminate"in the Voters'Pamphlet, and then releasing them into society, does nothing to promote the bureaucrats voted to use these misleading words instead:"No public safety. fiscal impact." When our daughter died in a crash caused by a drunken young Since when does"indeterminate"mean"no cost?"In my expe- woman, our family and our daughteFs husband chose to work " directly with this young woman to help her become truly rience with government,"indeterminate"means"millions conscious of the devastation her behavior had caused, and to What else aren't they telling us?A lot. motivate her to change her life and avoid killing someone else. Take Measure 75 as an example.What this misleading Ballot Please vote No on Measures 69-75. Title doesn't tell you is that felons are already excluded from serv- Peter Serrell ing on criminal juries in Oregon. The only thing new about Measure 75 is that is excludes people from juries who have been (This information furnished by Peter V.H.Serrell.) convicted of "certain" misdemeanors involving dishonesty or violence."Certain" hasn't been defined, but could involve things like fishing without a license or missing a date in traffic court.They also aren't telling us that they don't have a system for tracking misdemeanor convictions from all the different counties. A system of background checks for all prospective jurors will cost millions. To get around this problem,state officials are recommending a self-reporting system.They want to ask jurors, "Have you been convicted of a misdemeanor involving dishonesty.Please tell the truth this time." I wonder if misleading voters in the Voters'Pamphlet would bar state officials from jury duty. "No fiscal impact?"Yeah, right. (This information furnished by David Smigelski,Crime Victims for Justice.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 45 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 75 ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION MATCH THE MEASURES An index to Measures 69,70,71,72,73,74 and 75 Measure that says government gets to decide who is a victim and when...........................................Measure 69 Measure that gives Oregon prosecutors the same powers Kenneth Starr used..............................Measure 73 Measure that repeals significant sections of the Oregon Bill of Rights....................................................All of them Measure that could force background checks for all potential jurors..................................................Measure 75 Measure that says a defendant can never be a victim,even in cases of domestic abuse.................Measure 69 Measure that could cost taxpayers millions of dollars.......................................................................All of them Measure that will lead to innocent people being convicted of murder....................................................Measure 72 Measure that forces a person to testify against himself and then be prosecuted.................................Measure 73 Measure that will cause early release of prisoners from county jails............................Measures 71 and 74 Measure that says people are Guilty Until Proven Innocent...................................,...Measure 71 Measure that slaps voters in the face........................Measure 74 Measure that could force rape and incest victims to testify before juries against their will......................Measure 70 Measure opposed by Crime Victims For Justice..........All of them Measure that takes power from judges and gives it to government prosecutors................Measure 70 and 71 Measure that assumes every person arrested is guilty.........................................................Measure 71 Measure that could keep people caught fishing without a license off of juries..........................Measure 75 Measure giving the state power to demand jury trials even when victims don't want one.....................Measure 70 Measure that would allow those falsely accused to be held for months before trial...............................Measure 71 Best way to protect Oregon's Bill of Rights.....................................Vote No on Measures 69-75 (This information furnished by Martin Gonzalez,Crime Victims for Justice.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 46 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 76 Senate Joint Resolution 44—Referred to the Electorate of Oregon revenues paid for the use of light vehicles, including cars, by the 1999 Legislature to be voted on at the Special Election, and the share of revenues paid for the use of heavy vehicles, November 2, 1999. including trucks, is fair and proportionate to the costs incurred for the highway system because of each class of vehicle.The Legislative Assembly shall provide for a bienni- BALLOTTITLE al review and, if necessary,adjustment,of revenue sources to ensure fairness and proportionality. PARAGRAPH 2.The amendment proposed by this resolu- tion shall be submitted to the people for their approval or A11 NRS C ONSITTV 0N.f 910JUlA UGHT, rejection at a special election held throughout this state on H (VK)TfFi iTkftGLlr �$ l�Rtf�t3R- the date specified in section 2,chapter ,Oregon Laws 1lE7fYplELY IaAR IHIGt#WAY O�},gr 1999 (Enrolled House Bill 2354). If a special election is not held throughout this state on the date specified in section 2, hsay, 'ft chapter ,Oregon Laws 1999(Enrolled House Bill 2354), � ( trttsft �ffifte�z-: the amendment proposed by this resolution shall be submit- ted to the people for their approval or rejection at a special �r election held throughout this state on the same date as the OF Vbt6 r rqutrfng t[ght,•heav> :' next biennial primary election. vt hi les ► ir�na#e€y shire ftighw fists Ihragglt fens; ttael; tom• NOTE: Boldfaced type indicates new language; [brackets and Ai Y: Af@nd5 cbri ituat',n O sns'kff<ttti�zzn naw•,s��@� � italic]type indicates deletions or comments. ii0pe txify.thaf ftt00t vet icl fuet Wand vahi a fle as fir r a 11lp,, ,use, I)8)�rtr�rltt�r tta cr�s#s of�drt�#rue�rlf mein-; VI , lgf ' ' � ''" ° ' � ` '�' ' EXPLANATORY STATEMENT lriurt lust €ff@rent• _..,1!@asiare?tiger€red., that;Ohara a frenuis psis! fpr s@:of;flh#vhlcls fas};and' h @aYy V @@strsialt ) la@titl�tt #@'.t@•c4sts•€n@iCt3d fcC This measure amends section 3a, Article IX of the Oregon hfghwsy �t5@ s�veFI@ gtilr@s ht @nCr: Constitution to require that revenue from a tax or excise imposed aiaf ':� r BdJultfcttt n#.reverrua sAtrces9 rtessary by the state on motor vehicle fuel or on a motor vehicle be tsf a . 4108,}rttpoit€stri,llty generated in a manner that is fair and proportionate to costs for � tMpdC Ni}finaal fin ,; highways incurred from use of the highways by light vehicles and t37 kLirtftrtf expndltures s7r races. heavy vehicles. Light vehicles include cars and heavy vehicles include trucks. The measure requires the Legislative Assembly, every two years,to review and, if necessary,to adjust the taxes and excis- es to ensure that the taxes and excises on motor vehicle fuel and TEXT OF MEASURE motor vehicles are fair and proportionate as between costs for• highways incurred from use by light vehicles and by heavy vehicles. Be It Resolved by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Section 3a,Article IX,currently requires that revenue from any Oregon: tax or excise levied on motor vehicle fuel and the ownership or PARAGRAPH 1. Section 3a, Article IX of the Constitution of operation or use of a motor vehicle be used primarily for: the State of Oregon, is amended to read: 1.Construction, reconstruction, improvement, repair, mainte- Sec.3a. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this sec- nance,operation and use of public highways, roads, streets tion, revenue from the following shall be used exclusively for the and roadside rest areas; construction, reconstruction, improvement, repair, maintenance, operation and use of public highways,roads,streets and roadside 2.Cost of administration and refunds or credits authorized by rest areas in this state: law;and (a)Any tax levied on,with respect to,or measured by the stor- age, withdrawal, use, sale, distribution, importation or receipt of 3. Retirement of bonds for which the revenues have been motor vehicle fuel or any other product used for the propulsion of pledged. motor vehicles;and (b)Any tax or excise levied on the ownership,operation or use Committee Members: Appointed By: of motor vehicles. Senator Lee Beyer President of the Senate (2) Revenues described in subsection (1)of this section: Representative Bruce Starr Speaker of the House (a) May also be used for the cost of administration and any Representative Roger Beyer Secretary of State refunds or credits authorized by law. Senator Tony Corcoran Secretary of State (b)May also be used for the retirement of bonds for which such Kathleen Beaufait Members of the Committee revenues have been pledged. (c) If from levies under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this (This committee was appointed to provide an impartial explanation of the section on campers, mobile homes, motor homes, travel trailers, ballot measure pursuant to ORS 251.215.) snowmobiles, or like vehicles, may also be used for the acquisi- tion, development, maintenance or care of parks or recreation areas. (d) If from levies under paragraph (b) of subsection (1)of this section on vehicles used or held out for use for commercial pur- poses, may also be used for enforcement of commercial vehicle weight,size,load,conformation and equipment regulation. (3) Revenues described in subsection (1) of this section NO ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THIS BALLOT that are generated by taxes or excises imposed by the state MEASURE WERE FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE. shall be generated in a manner that ensures that the share of 47 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 76 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR ARGUMENT IN FAVOR_ MEASURE 76 IS FAIR OREGON'S CONSTRUCTION WORKERS SUPPORT Submitted by Fred.D.Duckwall MEASURE 76! President All vehicles, cars and trucks alike, should pay their fair share for the damage they do to our roads.That's why Measure 76 is so Duckwall Pooley important. Fruit Company • It guarantees that the costs for road and bridge repairs and improvements be split fairly and proportionately between As a fresh fruit packer who moves apples and pears across trucks and cars. Oregon's local and state roads,highways and bridges, I urge you to vote YES on Measure 76. • It requires the state to conduct a cost responsibility study every two years to' accurately assess how transportation Without the measure, heavy out-of-state trucks could pay less costs should be shared by cars and trucks. than their fair share of the cost of damage they do to Oregon high- ways. Measure 76 will correct that by guaranteeing that all • If necessary, the measure requires the state to adjust rev- motorists pay their fair share. enue sources to guarantee that cars and trucks pay a fair and proportionate share of the costs incurred to upgrade Measure 76 ensures that nobody and repair roads and bridges. –including out-of-state trucks– gets a break when it comes to paying Today,there is no constitutional requirement that cars and trucks for Oregon's roads and bridges. pay their fair share of the cost of Oregon's highways.Measure 76 fixes that by requiring the legislature to maintain cost responsibil- There is no higher priority for me than getting my goods from my ity between cars and trucks. packaging facility to my customers.Without good roads,highways and bridges, I'm out of business and my employees are out of a Vote YES on 76. job. It's only fair that the motorists whose driving damages the roads pay for the repairs and improvements. (This information furnished by Bob R.Shiprack,Oregon State Building and Construction Trades Council.) However, there currently is no constitutional requirement that trucks pay their fair share of the costs of our highways.Measure 76 would guarantee that the state examine highway costs every two years and allocate them fairly and proportionately to cars and trucks. We need to guarantee cost responsibility. Vote YES on 76. (This information furnished by Fred D. Duckwall, Fair Funding for Better Roads.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 48 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 76 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR ARGUMENT IN FAVOR YOUR CITIES SUPPORT MEASURE 76 VOTE YES ON 76 Funding Responsibility Measure Guarantees All Drivers GUARANTEE THAT ALL MOTORISTS Pay Their Fair Share PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE Mayor Joanne Verger,Coos Bay Submitted By Henry Hewitt President, League of Oregon Cities Chairman Commissioner Charlie Hales, Portland Oregon Transportation Commission Vice President, League of Oregon Cities , Mayor Susan Roberts, Enterprise I urge you to vote YES on Measure 76, the cost responsibility Treasurer, League of Oregon Cities measure. As representatives of Oregon's cities,we urge you to vote Measure 76 puts a requirement in the state constitution that rev- YES on 76. enues for roads are collected in a manner that ensures cars and heavy vehicles, including commercial trucks, pay a fair and The membership of the League of Oregon Cities includes 238 of proportionate share of the costs incurred for the highway Oregon's 240 incorporated cities, representing more than 2 system. million Oregonians.We know quite a bit about the wear and tear Measure 76 promotes fair funding for better roads. on local roads and bridges. Measure 76 guarantees that all motorists, cars and trucks alike, pay their fair share for the Oregon has a long history of requiring the people who use our damage their driving causes. roads to pay for road repairs and improvements.User fees are a It just makes good sense that the cars and trucks that drive on fair method of funding transportation needs.Those who benefit Oregon's roads pay a fair and proportional share of the costs to from the services pay for them. repair, maintain and improve the roads.That's what Measure 76 Measure 76 requires that Oregon examine road costs every two does. years and, based on that examination, allocate costs fairly and The measure would require a review of road costs every two proportionately between trucks and cars. Right now, there is no years and would determine how those costs should be shared. requirement that transportation costs be shared fairly between Right now, there is no requirement–either in law or in the con- different classes of vehicles. stitution–that a cost responsibility study be completed. That's why we need to pass Measure 76. Oregon needs Measure 76 to guarantee road funding fairness. Measure 76 guarantees that trucks and cars will pay a Vote yes on 76! proportionate share for the damage their driving causes to (This information furnished by Joanne Verger, Charlie Hales and Susan our roads. Roberts.League of Oregon Cities.) We need a constitutional requirement that all motorists,cars and trucks alike, pay their fair share for the damage they do to Oregon's roads and bridges. Mark your ballot YES on 76 and mail it back today. (This information furnished by Henry H. Hewitt, Oregon Transportation Commission.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 49 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 76 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OREGON NEEDS A FAIR FUNDING SYSTEM OREGON FARMERS SUPPORT MEASURE 76 FOR TRANSPORTATION Submitted by John Rossner Submitted by Craig Honeyman, Executive Director President Associated General Contractors Vote YES on Measure 76. It will ensure all vehicles, cars and OREGON FARM BUREAU FEDERATION trucks alike, continue to pay their fair share as Oregon's roads Farmers in Oregon rely on common sense. And it only makes and bridges are maintained and improved. sense that all motorists pay their fair share for the costs of our Associated General Contractors is a trade association represent- roads. , ing the commercial construction industry in Oregon.We represent That's why we support Measure 76. approximately 1,200 members throughout the state.We're con- cerned that right now,there is no constitutional requirement that Oregon farmers depend on good roads throughout the state to the costs of Oregon's road repairs and improvements are shared get our goods from farms to processors, and from processors to fairly and proportionately between cars and trucks. ports. It is especially important for us to have adequate and dependable roads at the county level throughout rural Oregon. Measure 76 fixes that by guaranteeing that all motorists– both cars and trucks – will pay their fair share of construction and Currently there is no constitutional requirement that trucks – maintenance of Oregon's highway system. especially heavy out-of-state trucks–pay their fair share of the damage they do to Oregon's roads and highways. In fact, in the Measure 76 would set up a mechanism to examine how Oregon's 62 years since 1937,the state has conducted a cost responsibil- transportation costs should be shared and to allocate the costs ity study only 10 more times.Measure 76 would require a study for road repairs and improvements.It's the best way to ensure that of how transportation costs should be shared every two years. nobody–especially heavy,out-of-state trucks–is getting a break. Measure 76 guarantees that all drivers pay their fair share for the In recent years, inflating costs have pinched road construction state's transportation system. It is important to guarantee the crews, while population growth and a thriving economy burden funds to pay for road repairs and improvements are allocated fair- roads with more traffic. Needed road repairs have been shuffled ly and proportionately to the cars and trucks that cause the wear aside and safety has been compromised.The result has been a and tear to our transportation system. rapidly deteriorating transportation system in Oregon that often puts motorists in danger. It's common sense. Oregon needs good local streets and state highways for all of us Vote YES on 76 to guarantee Oregon's transportation to use.Vote YES on 76 to ensure that all drivers–large and small funding is fair. –continue to pay their share. (This information furnished by John Rossner, Oregon Farm Bureau (This information furnished by Craig Honeyman, Executive Director, Federation.) Associated General Contractors,Oregon-Columbia Chapter.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 50 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 76 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR ARGUMENT IN FAVOR STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY FRED MILLER THE 19,000 BUSINESS MEMBERS OF FORMER DIRECTOR ASSOCIATED OREGON INDUSTRIES OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUPPORT MEASURE 76 As a former director of the Oregon Department of Transportation, By Richard Butrick I urge you to vote YES on 76.It will require that all drivers,includ- President ing heavy out-of-state trucks, continue to pay their fair share for Associated Oregon Industries the damage their driving causes to Oregon's roads. Oregon's business community urges you to vote YES on OREGON ROADS NEED ATTENTION NOW Measure 76, the cost responsibility measure. It guarantees that For years,the condition of Oregon's roads has been deteriorating all motorists, including trucks, pay their fair share for due to inadequate funding.Traffic congestion is worsening in our Oregon's transportation system. urban areas. Across the state, road conditions are a factor in For many years, Oregon has been dedicated philosophically to a many traffic fatalities.This is a serious problem that touches the user-based approach to road finance.To have users fund road lives of every Oregonian. repairs and improvements, Oregon introduced the nation's first Thankfully, the Oregon legislature had the vision this year to fix fuel tax on gas in 1919.The state completed its first study of how the problem. They adopted a transportation plan that provides road costs should be allocated in 1937. needed revenues to improve and repair local and state roads, However, in the 62 years since that first cost responsibility study, highways and bridges. The funding comes from those whose only 10 more studies have been completed. The practice of driving stresses the system--trucks and cars alike. determining how road costs should be shared often has been THE RESULT WILL BE SAFER ROADS overlooked. AND REDUCED CONGESTION Measure 76 is needed to guarantee that studying cost Measure 76 will guarantee cars and trucks fairly and proportion- responsibility isn't overlooked again. ately share the cost of funding the transportation plan. Trucks Cost responsibility determines the fair share that each class of currently pay 36 percent of highway costs and cars pay 64 per- road users should pay for road maintenance, operation and cent. Under Measure 76,the Oregon legislature will be required improvement.It also recommends adjustments,when necessary, to adjust these percentages--as necessary--every two years to to existing revenue sources to match payments and responsibili- ensure both cars and trucks pay their fair share. ties for each class of vehicle. Without the measure, heavy out-of-state trucks could pay less Measure 76,the cost responsibility measure, requires lawmakers than their fair share of the cost of damage they do to Oregon's to examine road costs every two years.The measure would guar- highways. antee that costs are fairly and proportionately allocated between Measure 76 is fair for Oregon's motorists and it's good for cars and trucks.Today,there is no requirement that transportation Oregon's local and state roads and highways. costs be shared fairly.Measure 76 is needed to fix that. Vote YES on 76. Please mark your ballot YES on 76 and mail it in today. Your vote will help guarantee that all drivers pay their fair share (This information furnished by Fred Miller,Portland General Electric.) and it will require lawmakers to make sure this important task is not ignored. (This information furnished by Richard M.Butrick, President, Associated Oregon Industries.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 51 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 76 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR ARGUMENT IN FAVOR PAYING OUR FAIR SHARE MAKES SENSE OREGON'S COUNTY OFFICIALS URGE YOU TO Submitted by VOTE YES ON 76 Larry B.Draper, President,Silver Eagle Company Submitted by County Judge Mike McArthur President & Association of Oregon Counties Ken Celorie,Celorie Bros.Dump Trucking, Inc. It's up to you to ensure that all vehicles, cars and trucks alike, As owners and operators of small trucking companies here in pay their share Oregon, we support amending the constitution to ensure all of the costs of damage they do drivers pay their fair share for road improvements.That's why we to our roads and highways! support Measure 76. It's really very simple:Measure 76 would guarantee that everyone Measure 76 establishes a means to ensure that the motorists who drives on Oregon roads pays their fair share for mainte- whose driving strains our roads and bridges continue to pay for nance, repair and preservation. the damage they cause.The measure is particularly important for making sure large-out-of-state trucks don't get a break as Oregon It's about fairness. implements a new way of taxing trucks. For 50 years,Oregon has followed a"user pays"rule in collecting Our companies are small, but together we still provide hundreds state taxes to pay for road maintenance, repairs, and preserva- of jobs to hard-working men and women. Oregon's economy tion. It's always been the best way for those who use our roads relies on moving people and goods over our local and state roads the most to share equitably in the costs of keeping those roads and bridges.The jobs of six out of every ten Oregon workers are safe. tied directly to transportation.The state's wholesale and distribu- For example, under Oregon's system, the heavier a tuck is— tion industries provide high-wage jobs. and therefore,the more wear-and-tear it causes our roads—the Passing Measure 76 establishes a fair way of sharing the costs of more it pays for repairs. Our system of cost-respongibility has Oregon's transportation system.It sets us on a course to improve worked for decades. and maintain Oregon's transportation system in order to improve For years,Oregon's county officials have done their best to main- safety, reduce congestion and protect the economy. tain deteriorating roads and bridges.They've dealt with deterio- Measure 76 guarantees that the costs of road improvements and rating roads and safety hazards that put the lives of motorists in repairs continue to be shared fairly by all drivers,including heavy, danger, and they've been frustrated by the lack of necessary out-of-state trucks. resources. Vote YES on Measure 76. Now Oregon needs a Constitutional guarantee that our fair and balanced system will continue County officials need your helIto (This information furnished by Larry B. Draper, President, Silver Eagle MAINTAIN OUR ROADS AND BRIDGES to IMPROVE ROAD Company and Ken Celorie,Celorie Bros.Dump Trucking Inc.) SAFETY and to REDUCE CONGESTION. That's why Measure 76 is so important. It guarantees that the costs of financing our road repairs and improvements are shared equitably by the drivers and vehicles that use the roads. PLEASE VOTE YES ON 76. (This information furnished by County Judge Mike McArthur, President, Association of Oregon Counties.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 52 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—Statewide Measures Measure No . 76 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR For many years,Oregon has required those who use our roads to pay for road repairs, maintenance and improvements. User fees are a fair method of funding transportation services.Those who benefit from the roads and bridges pay for them.The more they use the services,the more they pay. But Oregon hasn't stopped there. Long ago, the state made a commitment to determine the share that each class of road users should pay and to ensure cars and trucks pay a fair and proportional share. Oregon's first cost responsibility study was completed in 1937, through which the state examined road costs and determined how those costs would be shared between cars and trucks.The purpose was to ensure that all motorists paid their fair and pro- portionate share for the benefits they derived by using the roads. Over the years, similar studies have been completed, but they have never been statutorily or constitutionally required. This year, Oregon legislators responded to concerns that changes in the method of taxing trucks could create a funding imbalance between cars and trucks.The concern was that trucks may no longer pay their fair share for the damage they do to Oregon's roads. Legislators referred Measure 76 to the ballot to address those concerns.The measure would amend the Oregon constitution to do the following: • Require all vehicles, cars and trucks alike, to pay their fair and proportional share for the damage their driving causes. • Require the state to complete a cost responsibility study every two years.This is a major improvement because the studies have not been completed on a regular basis in the past. In fact, since the first study was completed in 1937, only 10 more have been done. • If necessary–require the state to adjust revenue sources to ensure fairness and proportionality between cars and trucks. Measure 76 will ensure that cost responsibility in transportation funding remains a central focus in Oregon. (This information furnished by State Senator Lee Beyer.) (This space purchased for$300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorse- ment by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument. 53 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—General Information Information VOTER REGISTRATION What if I make a mistake or need a new ballot? If your ballot is lost,destroyed, damaged or you make a mistake Who May Register To Vote in marking your ballot, you may call your county elections office and request a replacement ballot. One will be mailed to you as You may register to vote for the November 2, 1999, Special long as you request it by October 28.After that,you may pick it up Election if: at the elections office.If you have already mailed your original bal- l.You are a citizen of the United States; lot before you realize you made a mistake, you have cast your 2.You will be at least 18 years old by November 2, 1999;and vote and will not be eligible for a replacement ballot. 3.You are a resident of Oregon. What if my ballot doesn't come? How To Register To Vote If you are registered to vote and do not receive a ballot,call your To register to vote in the November 2, 1999, election, your com- county elections office.They will check that your voter registration pleted voter registration card must be either: is current.If it is,they will mail you a replacement ballot. • Postmarked by October 12, 1999; What if I have moved and have not updated my registration? • Delivered to a county elections office by October 12, 1999;or If you were registered to vote by October 12 but now have a dif- • Delivered to any voter registration agency(i.e., DMV)by ferent address,call your county elections office for instructions on October 12, 1999. how to vote. If Your Name, Mailing Address or Political Party Aff iliation Do I have to mail my ballot back? Has Changed If you are currently registered to vote in Oregon but your name, You have the choice of mailing your ballot or returning it to any designated drop site in the state.The times and locations of drop mailing address or party affiliation has changed since you last sites are available at your county elections office. completed a voter registration card, complete a new voter regis- tration card and mail it to your county elections office. How much postage is required to mail the ballot back? If Your Residence Address Has Changed Your voted.ballot can be returned using a single 33¢ stamp, If you are currently registered to vote in Oregon but your resi- unless otherwise noted by your county elections office. dence address has changed since you last completed a voter reg- istration card, complete a new voter registration card and mail it When must the voted ballot be returned? to your county elections office. The voted ballot must be received in any county elections office If you notify your county elections office of your change of resi- or designated drop site by 8:00 p.m.on election night.Postmarks dence address after October 12, 1999, you must request that a do not count! ballot be mailed to you or go to your county elections office to vote. What if I forget to sign the return envelope? Generally,your elections office will either return it to you for sign- Where to Obtain a Voter Registration Card ing or they will contact you, if possible, to come to the elections Voter registration cards can be obtained from any county elec- office to sign it.If the return envelope does not get signed before tions office, most banks and post offices, many state agencies, 8:00 p.m.on November 2,the ballot will not be counted. and are also found in some telephone books. Can the public watch the election process? All steps of the process are open to observation by the public. VOTE-BY-MAIL Contact your county elections official to make arrangements. What is Vote-by-Mail? When will election results be known? Vote-by-Mail is a method of conducting elections.Instead of using Ballot counting will not begin until election day.The results that traditional polling places where voters go to cast ballots on elec- are released at 8:00 p.m.election night will include the majority of tion day,a ballot is automatically mailed to each registered voter. all the ballots cast. Results will continue to be updated through The ballot is then voted and returned to the county clerk to be election night until all ballots have been counted. counted. When are the ballots mailed to the voters? VOTERS WITH DISABILITIES In Oregon, ballots can legally be mailed any time between the 18th and 14th days before the election. If you are unable to vote your ballot without assistance, because of a physical disability or because you are unable to read or write, Who will get ballots? contact your county elections official.They will provide two per- Each active registered Oregon voter will receive a November sons to assist you in voting.In order to assure the county receives election ballot containing the nine statewide measures and any your voted ballot by Election Day, contact your county elections local measures which have been placed on the ballot. office early to arrange for assistance.You may also select some- one else of your own choice to assist you. The list of county offices is on page 55 of this Voters'Pamphlet. As a voter,what do I have to do? Your ballot packet will automatically be mailed to you. Inside the packet you will find the ballot, a secrecy envelope and a return envelope.Once you vote the ballot, place it in the secrecy enve- lope and seal it in the pre-addressed return envelope.Be sure you sign the return envelope on the appropriate line. After that just return the ballot either by mail or at a designated drop site. 54 Official 1999 November Special Election Voters'Pamphlet—General Information County Elections Offices Baker Harney Morrow Julia Woods Maria Iturriaga Barbara Bloodsworth Baker County Clerk Harney County Clerk Morrow County Clerk 1995 3rd St.Suite 150 Courthouse,450 N.Buena Vista PO Box 338 Baker City,OR 97814-3398 Burns, OR 97720 Heppner, OR 97836-0338 541-523-8207 TTY 541-523-8208 541-573-6641 541-676-9061 TTY 541-676-9061 Benton Hood River Multnomah James Morales Sandra Berry Director of Elections Elections Division Dir.Assess/Rec. 1040 SE Morrison 120 NW 4th St. Courthouse,309 State St. Portland,OR 97214-2495 Corvallis,OR 97330 Hood River,OR 97031-2093 503-248-3720 541-766-6756 TTY 541-766-6080 541-386-1442 Fax 503-248-3719 Clackamas Jackson Polk John Kauffman Kathy Beckett Linda Dawson Clackamas County Clerk Jackson County Clerk Polk County Clerk Elections Division Courthouse, 10 S.Oakdale Ave. Courthouse, Room 201 825 Portland Ave. Medford,OR 97501-2902 Dallas,OR 97338-3179 Gladstone,OR 97027-2195 541-774-6148 TTY 541-774-6719 503-623-9217 TTY 503-623-7557 503-655-8510 TTY 541-655-1685 Jefferson Sherman Clatsop Kathy Marston Linda Cornie Allen Black&Debbie Kraske Jefferson County Clerk Sherman County Clerk Co-Acting Clatsop County Clerks Courthouse,75 SE"C"St. PO Box 365 PO Box 178,749 Commercial Madras,OR 97741 Moro,OR 97039-0365 Astoria,OR 97103-0178 541-4754451 TTY 541-475-4451 541-565-3606 503-325-8511 TTY 503-325-9307 Fax 541-565-3312 Josephine Columbia Georgette Brown Tillamook Elizabeth(Betty) Huser Josephine County Clerk Josephine Veltri Columbia County Clerk PO Box 69 Tillamook County Clerk Courthouse Grants Pass, OR 97528-0203 201 Laurel Ave. St.Helens, OR 97051-2089 541-474-5243 Tillamook,OR 97141 503-397-7214, Ext.8444 TTY 1-800-735-2900 503-842-3402 TTY 503-397-7246 Klamath Umatilla Coos Linda Smith Patti Chapman Terri Turi Klamath County Clerk Director of Elections Coos County Clerk 305 Main St. PO Box 1227 Courthouse Klamath Falls,OR 97601 Pendleton,OR 97801 Coquille,OR 97423-1899 541-883-5134 or 800-377-6094 541-278-6254 TTY 541-278-6257 541-396-3121, Ext 301 TTY 1-800-735-2900 Lake Union Shirley Olsen R.Nellie Bogue-Hibbert Crook Lake County Clerk Union County Clerk Deanna(Dee)Berman 513 Center St. 1001 4th St.Ste"D" Crook County Clerk Lakeview, OR 97630-1539 LaGrande,OR 97850 300 NE.Third, Room 23 541-947-6006 TTY 541-947-6007 541-963-1006 Prineville,OR 97754-1919 541-447-6553 TTY 541-416-4963 Lane Wallowa Annette Newingham Charlotte McIver Curry Chief Deputy County Clerk Wallowa County Clerk Renee Kolen 135 E.6th Ave. 101 S.River St., Rm 100, Door 16 Curry County Clerk Eugene,OR 97401-2671 Enterprise,OR 97828-1335 PO Box 746 541-682-4234 TTY 541-682-4320 541-426-4543, Ext.15 Gold Beach,OR 97444 541-247-7011, Ext.223 TTY 541-247-6440 Lincoln Wasco Dana Jenkins Karen LeBreton Deschutes Lincoln County Clerk Wasco County Clerk Mary Sue(Susie) Penhollow 225 W.Olive St., Room 201 Courthouse, 511 Washington St. Deschutes County Clerk Newport,OR 97365 The Dalles,OR 97058 Deschutes Services Bldg. 541-265-4131 TTY 541-265-4193 541-296-6159 TTY 541-296-6159 1340 NW Wall St. Bend,OR 97701 Linn Washington 541-388-6546 TTY 541-385-3203 Steven Druckenmiller Ginny Kingsley Linn County Clerk Elections Division Douglas 300 SW 4th 150 N.1st Ave., MS3 Doyle Shaver,Jr. Albany,OR 97321 Hillsboro,OR 97124 Douglas County Clerk 541-967-3831 TTY 541-967-3833 503-846-8670 TTY 503-693-4598 PO Box 10 Roseburg, OR 97470-0004 Malheur Wheeler 541-440-4252 TTY 541-440-6092 Deborah R.DeLong Marilyn Garcia Malheur County Clerk Wheeler County Clerk Gilliam 251 "B"St.W.,Suite 4 PO Box 327 Rena Kennedy Vale,OR 97918 Fossil,OR 97830-0327 Gilliam County Clerk 541-473-5151 TTY 541-473-5157 541-763-2400 TTY 541-763-2401 PO Box 427 Condon,OR 97823-0427 Marion Yamhill 541-384-2311 Alan H.Davidson Charles Stern Marion County Clerk Yamhill County Clerk Grant Elections Division Courthouse, 535 NE 5th St. Kathy McKinnon 4263 Commercial St.SE,#300 McMinnville, OR 97128-4593 Grant County Clerk Salem,OR 97302-3987 503-434-7518 TTY 800-735-2900 201 S.Humbolt St.#290 503-588-5041 /1-800-655-5388 M Canyon City,OR 97820 TTY 503-588-5610 541-575 71675 TTY 541-575-1675 55 SECRETARY OF STATE BULK RATE Phil Keisling CAR-RT SORT State Capitol Building U.S.Postage PAID Salem, Oregon 97310-0722 Portland,OR Permit No.815. RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER voter P MP hiet of H * * 1859 STATE OF OREGON SPECIAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 Please RECYCLE this pamphlet with your newspapers