2012-11-06 - Voters Pamphlet - StateVoters'
Pamphlet
Oreaon General Election
ler 6, 2012
1 aF o
Kate Brown
Oregon Secretary of State
This voters' pamphlet is provided for assistance
in casting your vote by mail ballot.
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
F
ELECTIONS DIVISION
KATE BROWN
�t�
STEPHEN N.TROUT
���
DIRECTOR
SECRETARY OF STATE
.10
255 CAPITOL ST NE, SUITE 501
BARRY PACK
SALEM, OREGON 97310
DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE
- _
'859
(503) 986-1518
Dear Oregon Voters,
Welcome to the 2012 General Election Voters' Pamphlet. Enclosed you will find valuable
information about candidates and issues. If you are not yet registered to vote, you have until
October 16, 2012 to do so. Here in Oregon we have made it easy for eligible Oregonians to
register, update your registration and track your ballot. Simply visit www.oregonvotes.gov.
Over the past four years, my office has made a number of improvements to Oregon's
elections process in order to increase access to the ballot. In addition to introducing online
voter registration in our state, my Elections Division replaced the old, cumbersome voting
machines formerly used by disabled voters with handheld tablet devices like Apple's iPad.
Oregon is the first state in the nation to use tablet technology to help voters with disabilities
mark their ballots.
Also, Oregon was recently recognized as an All -Star state by the national Military Voter
Protection Project for our extraordinary efforts to promote and protect the voting rights of
America's military service members and their families. The Secretary of State's Office now
offers electronic and web -based services ensuring those who put their lives on the line can
have their voice heard in every election.
As your Secretary of State, my goal is to engage all eligible Oregonians in the elections
process and encourage them to exercise their most fundamental right to vote. If you're
questioning how much of a difference your one vote can make, then consider this: I won
my first race for the state House by a mere seven votes. Every vote does count. Your vote is
your voice and every voice matters.
Please remember all ballots must be received by your county elections office by 8 p.m. on
November 6, 2012. Postmarks do not count. If you have questions please call our toll free
hotline at 1-866-ORE-VOTE, or visit our website at www.oregonvotes.gov.
Sincerely,
Kate Brown
Oregon Secretary of State
Voters' Pamphlet
General Election
November 6, 2012
Table of Contents
General Information
Voters' Pamphlet Information
4
List of Candidates & Measures
6
Oregon Voter Bill of Rights
11
Voters with Disabilities
128
Voter Registration Information
130
Candidates
Partisan Candidates
8
Nonpartisan Candidates
23
Political Party Statements
Constitution Party
27
Independent Party
28
Libertarian Party
29
Pacific Green Party
30
Progressive Party
31
Measures
Measure
77
32
Measure
78
36
Measure
79
38
Measure
80
49
Measure
81
59
Measure
82
76
Measure
83
87
Measure
84
102
Measure
85
117
Voting Information
Absentee Ballot Information
19
Vote by Mail
127
County Elections Officials
132
Additional Information Pages
Online Resources
5
Online Voters' Guide
15
Voting & Ballot Prohibitions
126
Election Results
134
Index
Index of Candidates 135
Voters' Pamphlet
Your official 2012 General Election Voters' Pamphlet provides
you with information about candidates who will appear on
your ballot.
It includes instructions for marking your ballot, a complete list
of federal and state candidates, as well as other information to
assist you through the voting process.
Candidate statements are printed as submitted.The state does
not correct punctuation, grammar, syntax errors or inaccurate
information. The only changes made are attempts to correct
spelling errors if the word as originally submitted is not in the
dictionary.
The voters' pamphlet has been compiled by the Secretary of
State since 1903, when Oregon became one of the first states to
provide for the printing and distribution of such a publication.
One copy of the voters' pamphlet is mailed to every household
in the state. Additional copies are available at the Secretary
of State's office, local post offices, courthouses and all county
elections offices. It can also be viewed at oregonvotes.gov.
Candidates
In the general election, candidates are divided into two
sections: partisan candidates and nonpartisan candidates.
Partisan candidates appear before nonpartisan candidates.
Candidates pay a fee, or submit signatures in lieu of paying the
fee, for space in the voters' pamphlet.The information required
by law —pertaining to occupation, occupational background,
educational background and prior governmental experience —
has been certified as true by each candidate.
Measures
For each of the measures in this voters' pamphlet you will find
the following information:
(1) the ballot title;
(2) the estimate of financial impact;
(3) an explanation of the estimate of financial impact, if deter-
mined to be necessary by the committee;
(4) the complete text of the proposed measure;
(5) an impartial statement explaining the measure (explanatory
statement);
(6) a legislative argument in support of the measure; and
(7) any arguments filed by proponents and opponents of the
measure.
The ballot title is generally 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 certi-
fied ballot title can be appealed and may be changed by the
Oregon Supreme Court.
The estimate of financial impact for each measure is generally
prepared by a committee of state officials including the Secre-
tary of State, the State Treasurer, the Director of the Department
of Administrative Services, the Director of the Department
of Revenue, and a local government representative selected
by the committee members.The committee estimates only
the direct impact on state and local governments, based on
information presented to the committee. In addition, the com-
mittee may choose to provide an explanation of the estimate of
financial impact statement.
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 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.
Citizens or organizations may file arguments in favor of, or in
opposition to, measures by purchasing space for $1,200 or by
submitting a petition signed by 500 voters. Arguments in favor
of a measure appear first, followed by arguments in opposition
to the measure, and are printed in a random order within each
category.
Random Alphabet
Oregon statute (ORS 254.155) requires the Secretary of State
to complete a random order of the letters of the alphabet to
determine the order in which the names of candidates appear
on the ballot.
The alphabet for the 2012 General Election is:
E,O,Y,S,I,N,W,D,K,A,P,H,F,J,T,M,B,L,V,R,X,U,Q,C,Z,G
Website
Most of the information contained in this voters' pamphlet is also
available in the Online Voters' Guide at www.oregonvotes.gov.
Espanol
Una version en espanol de algunas partes de la Guia del
Elector esta a su disposicion en el portal del Internet cuya
direccion aparece arriba. Conscientes de que este material en
linea podria no Ilegar adecuadamente a todos los electores que
necesitan este servicio, se invita a toda persona a imprimir la
version en linea y circularla a aquellos electores que no tengan
acceso a una computadora.
Important!
If your ballot is lost, destroyed, damaged or you make a
mistake in marking your ballot, you may call your county
elections office and request a replacement ballot. One will be
mailed to you as long as you request it by May 10. After that,
you may pick it up at the elections office. If you have already
mailed your original ballot before you realize you made a
mistake, you have cast your vote and will not be eligible for a
replacement ballot.
Your voted ballot must be returned to your county elections
office by 8pm election day,Tuesday, November 6, 2012.
Postmarks do not count!
County elections offices are open on election day from 7am
to 8pm.
Voter Information
For questions about voter registration, ballot delivery and
return, marking the ballot, requesting a replacement ballot,
absentee ballots, signature requirements, the voters'
pamphlet, when and where to vote, and other questions
about elections and voting, call the toll -free voter information
line at 1-866-ORE-VOTE (1-866-673-8683).
Voter information line representatives can provide services
in both English and Spanish.TTY services for the hearing
impaired are also available at 1-800-735-2900.
www.oregonvotes.gov
Register to vote
F-0779
1161 You must be registered by October 16
hJtl
to vote in the 2012 General Election
Find a dropsite
Your ballot must be received by 8 pm
on November 6, 2012
rf
jf
My Vote
Use this new online tool to check or update
your registration status and track your ballot.
M
for more information about voting in Oregon
oregonvotes.gov
1 866 673 VOTE / 1 866 673 8683
se habla espatV
TTY 1 800 735 2900
for the hearing impaired
Partisan Candidates
United States President
Barack Obama / Joe Biden*
Democrat
Jill Stein / Cheri Honkala*
Pacific Green
Ross C (Rocky) Anderson* /
Luis J Rodriguez*
Progressive
Gary Johnson / James P Gray*
Libertarian
Mitt Romney / Paul Ryan*
Republican
Will Christensen* / Kenneth L Gibbs*
Constitution
Representative in Congress
2nd District
Joyce B Segers
Democrat, Working Families
Greg Walden
Republican
Joe Tabor*
Libertarian
Secretary of State
Seth Woolley
Pacific Green
Robert Wolfe
Progressive
Bruce Alexander Knight*
Libertarian
Kate Brown
Democrat, Working Families
Knute Buehler
Republican, Independent
State Treasurer
Ted Wheeler
Democrat, Working Families
Cameron Whitten
Progressive
John F Mahler*
Libertarian
Michael Paul Marsh*
Constitution
Tom Cox
Republican
Attorney General
Chris Henry*
Progressive
James L Buchal
Republican
James E Leuenberger*
Constitution, Libertarian
Ellen Rosenblum
Democrat
State Senator
27th District
Tim Knopp
Republican, Independent
Geri Hauser
Democrat, Working Families, Libertarian
28th District
Douglas K Whitsett
Republican, Democrat
30th District
Ted Ferrioli
Republican, Democrat
State Representative
53rd District
Gene Whisnant
Republican, Democrat
54th District
Nathan R Hovekamp
Democrat, Working Families
Jason Conger
Republican, Independent
55th District
John Huddle
Democrat, Independent, Working Families
Mike McLane
Republican
59th District
Gary L 011erenshaw
Democrat
John E Huffman
Republican
Nonpartisan Candidates
Commissioner of the Bureau of
Labor and Industries
Bruce Starr
Brad Avakian
Judge of the Supreme Court
Position 3
Richard C Baldwin
Nena Cook
Judge of the Court of Appeals
Position 6
James C Egan
Tim Vol pert
Judge of the Circuit Court
11th District, Position 2
Andy Balyeat
Beth Bagley
11th District, Position 3
Roger DeHoog*
Measures
77
Amends Constitution: Governor may
declare "catastrophic disaster" (defined);
requires legislative session; authorizes
suspending specified constitutional
spending restrictions
78
Amends Constitution: Changes constitu-
tional language describing governmental
system of separation of powers; makes
grammatical and spelling changes
79
Amends Constitution: Prohibits real
estate transfer taxes, fees, other assess-
ments, except those operative on Decem-
ber 31, 2009
80
Allows personal marijuana, hemp cultiva-
tion/use without license; commission to
regulate commercial marijuana cultiva-
tion/sale
81
Prohibits commercial non -tribal fishing
with gillnets in Oregon "inland waters;'
allows use of seine nets
82
Amends Constitution: Authorizes estab-
lishment of privately -owned casinos;
mandates percentage of revenues
payable to dedicated state fund
83
Authorizes privately -owned Wood Village
casino; mandates percentage of revenues
payable to dedicated state fund
84
Phases out existing inheritance taxes on
large estates, and all taxes on intra-family
property transfers
85
Amends Constitution: Allocates corporate
income/excise tax "kicker" refund to
additionally fund K through 12 public
education
United States President
Barack
Obama
Democrat
Occupation: President of the
United States
Occupational Background: Civil
rights lawyer; constitutional
law professor; community
organizer.
Educational Background: Harvard Law School, J.D.; Columbia
University, B.A.
Prior Governmental Experience: State Senator (1997-2004);
U.S. Senator (2005-2008)
As President, I have dedicated myself to putting Americans
back to work and restoring economic security to middle-class
families. I have been driven by the basic values that make our
country great: America prospers when we're all in it together,
when hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded, and
when everyone —from Main Street to Wall Street —does their
fair share and plays by the same rules.
Think about the America within our reach: A country that
leads the world in educating its people. An America that
attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and
high -paying jobs. A future where we're in control of our own
energy, and our security and prosperity aren't so tied to
unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where
hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.
We will not settle for a country where a few people do really
well, and everyone else struggles to get by. We will not go
back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt, and
phony profits. We're fighting for an economy that's built to
last — one built on things like education, energy, manufactur-
ing things the rest of the world wants to buy, and restoring
the values that made this country great: Hard work. Fair play.
The opportunity to make it if you try. And the responsibility to
reach back and help someone else make it, too.
And we're going to keep fighting, right now, to make our
economy stronger; to put our friends and neighbors back to
work faster; to give our children opportunity even greater
than what we knew; to make sure the United States of
America remains the greatest nation on Earth.
(This information furnished by Obama for America.)
United States President
Jill
Stein
Pacific Green
Occupation: Physician
Occupational Background:
Physician
Educational Background:
Harvard Medical School, MD
Prior Governmental Experience: Lexington, MA Town
Meeting Representative
We must act to save our planet
The course we are on leads to irreversible climate change. Yet
the politicians in Washington are still doling out subsidies to
oil companies while much of our country burns.
We must change our economy
Almost half of Americans are living in or near poverty. The
rich are getting richer while wages are stagnating. Nothing
is being done because the financial elite that collapsed the
economy in 2008 are still calling the shots.
With your vote, I will implement an emergency program
called the Green New Deal.
The Green New Deal will create 25 million jobs, end unem-
ployment, and transition our country to a green economy.
It will guarantee public higher education and Medicare for all,
and offer debt relief to our college students. It will break up
the big banks and end corporate domination of elections.
I represent an end to business -as -usual in Washington.
I am a mother, physician, and teacher of internal medicine.
As an environmental health advocate in the 1990s, I saw how
corporate money stopped essential reforms from becom-
ing law. In response, I led the effort for publicly financed
elections in Massachusetts. After it passed, the Democratic
legislature repealed our clean elections law. That's when I
decided it was time to go Green.
My running mate, Cheri Honkala, is one of America's leading
advocates for the poor.
She was once a homeless mother who slept in abandoned
buildings with her son because they had no other place to
go. Since then she has dedicated her life to keeping people
in their homes, often standing between bankers and a
frightened family facing eviction. Cheri has a kind of courage
missing in Washington today.
We ask for your votes and we invite you to find out more
about the Green New Deal at JiliStein.org
(This information furnished by Jill Stein for President.)
The above information has not been verified for accuracy by The above information has not been verified for accuracy by
the State of Oregon. the State of Oregon.
United States President
Gary
Johnson
Libertarian
Occupation: Entrepreneur
Occupational Background:
Grew a one-man construction
business into one of New
Mexico's largest, employing
1000 people.
Educational Background: B.S., University of New Mexico
Prior Governmental Experience: New Mexico Governor,
1995-2003
You know that America's troubles didn't just happen. We
elected them, one politician at a time, and the solution is up
to us. We'll get the America we want when we show the cour-
age to elect different leaders.
You want to cut federal spending by trillions, now. The
U.S. borrows over 40 cents of every dollar it spends. We must
end bloated programs and earmarks, reassess our priorities,
and find ways to meet responsibilities more efficiently. I will
submit a balanced budget to Congress in 2013. When I was
governor of New Mexico I vetoed over 750 bills. I will do it
again. When I left office New Mexico had a $113 surplus. I will
do it again.
You know arresting 800,000 Americans per year for mari-
juana is insane. The War on Drugs has only made dangerous
people rich and powerful. As President I will immediately
remove cannabis from the classification under the Controlled
Substances Act that makes it illegal and expedite pardons for
those convicted of non-violent drug offenses.
You want the NDAA and PATRIOT Act repealed. They are a
direct threat to American citizens' civil liberties. I will charge
congress with repealing these punitive measures against our
own citizens. I will replace the leadership of any executive
branch agency who use the powers granted by these acts.
You know we should bring our troops home. We must
leave Afghanistan's challenges to the Afghan people and
avoid pointless foreign conflicts.
You want people to make personal decisions themselves.
All people have the right to their own body and what they do
with it is their choice.
You know marriage equality is the right answer. Let's end
bigotry together.
Vote Libertarian and we start now!
httD://www.aarviohnson20l2.com/
(This information furnished by Gary Johnson 2012.)
United States President
Mitt
Romney
Republican
Occupation: Former Governor
of Massachusetts
Occupational Background: I
1 titUs �ti , ��ziz4t am not a career politician. I
tt�f rtj. tstyt��i spent most of my life in the
private sector, where I helped
launch or rebuild more than
100 companies, including household names such as Staples,
Bright Horizons, and The Sports Authority. I also have a
record of accomplishment as a public servant, having served
as Governor of Massachusetts and CEO of the 2002 Winter
Olympic Games in Salt Lake City.
Educational Background: JD, Harvard Law School; MBA,
Harvard Business School; BA, Brigham Young University.
Prior Governmental Experience: As Governor of
Massachusetts, I cut taxes 19 times while balancing the
budget four years in a row. I cut red tape for small busi-
nesses, signed into lawjob-creatingincentives, and fought
hard to bring new businesses to the state. By the end of my
term, the state had amassed a $2 billion rainy day fund.
am running for president to get America back to work, pro-
tect our national security, and ensure our country remains
the leader of the free world.
In 1999, the Winter Olympics were on the verge of collapse
amid corruption allegations. I was asked to take over. I
revamped the organization's leadership, trimmed the budget,
and restored public confidence. In the end, we staged one of
the most successful games of all time.
As president, I will repeal the national healthcare law. I'll get
rid of job -killing regulations, open new markets for American
exports, and unlock America's energy resources. I'll reduce
taxes and bring an end to runaway spending and borrowing
in Washington. I'll make the federal government simpler,
smaller, and smarter.
I will reverse the defense cuts of the past three years, rebuild
our military, and ensure that this century will be another
American Century. Together we can create an Opportunity
Society where hard work, education, and risk -taking allow
people to achieve their dreams.
(This information furnished by Romney for President, Inc.)
The above information has not been verified for accuracy by The above information has not been verified for accuracy by
the State of Oregon. the State of Oregon.
Representative in Congress, 2nd District
Joyce B
Segers
Democrat
Working Families
Occupation: Property Manager,
Author
Occupational Background:
Medical Billing specialist, small
business owner 19 years
Educational Background: B.A. Sociology, City College of New
York; Masters Work in Communications, University of Central
Florida
Prior Governmental Experience: None
PUTTING CITIZENS FIRST
"What kind of country do we want to live in - a place that
caters to the wealthy or a land of opportunity that benefits
all? My opponent no longer fights for the security and rights
of women, children, seniors and minorities. He supports
legislation driven by the greed of the corporations that have
funded his campaigns and placed him in office.
"My mission is to strengthen our community and protect all
of our citizens with Medicare and Social Security, affordable
healthcare, good jobs and equal rights for all.
"Send me to D.C. and I will work tirelessly on your behalf."
Joyce B. Segers
"We need a Representative who provides the right balance
between the rights of the individual and the rights of "We the
People." We deserve a representative who understands busi-
ness and yet stands up to excessive use of power. We need
Joyce Segers in Congress."
Representative in Congress, 2nd District
Greg
Walden
Republican
Occupation: Small Business
Owner; U.S. Representative
Occupational Background:
Small Business Owner in
Oregon since 1986
Educational Background:
Graduate: University of Oregon; Hood River Valley High
Prior Governmental Experience: Oregon Legislator
Stability and Security for Small Business Owners and
Hardworking Taxpayers.
I was raised on a cherry orchard in The Dalles and have lived
most of my life in the Columbia Gorge. Since 1986, my wife
and I have owned a small business. We know the challenge of
building a business and growing jobs.
Failed policies out of Washington aren't helping. America's
in the longest streak of high unemployment since the Great
Depression. We need certainty, not the 3,000 new rules the
bureaucracy is churning out. We need access to America's
energy resources and better management of our forests.
We Must Prevent a Future Full of Debt, Doubt and Despair
Let's be realistic: We don't have deficits because Americans
are taxed too little. We have deficits because Washington
spends too much. It's time for government to tighten its belt
and balance its budget, just like families do every month.
It is immoral to keep passing along such debt to our children
and our grandchildren. Together we can solve these problems
and make sure the promises made to seniors for Medicare
and Social Security are kept.
Marcus Heritage, Ph.D, MBA, Time for a Fair Shake and Real Solutions.
Retired Business Development Executive
"Joyce stands for and acts on important issues that I have
stood up to and worked for many years, including women's
and LGBT rights and a strong U.S. military."
Beth F. Coye, Commander,
U.S. Navy (ret.), Author, Activist
"Joyce Segers gets it - we all prosper, we help our fellow
man, and everyone pays their fair share."
Mark S Kellenbeck, Businessman
"Joyce is the people's candidate. She represents the people
and speaks truth to power. She has earned our support and
above all our vote."
Ashland City Councilor, Carol Voisin
Also supporting Joyce:
David R. Gilmour, M.D.
Fmr. State Representative Suzanne VanOrman
State Representative Peter Buckley (D-Ashland)
Judy Stiegler, Former State Representative
Mike Dugan, Former Deschutes County District Attorney
www.segersforcongress.org
(This information furnished by Joyce B Segers.)
America must be a place where hard work is still rewarded. A
better solution exists for the challenges that face our country.
We can change forest policy and put people back to work,
improve rural health care, and promote Oregon's wonderful
agriculture. We can reform the tax code, eliminate loopholes,
lower rates, and create economic growth.
And as always, we must continue to strongly support our vet-
erans and active duty military. We owe our freedom to them.
Let's get America working again. I'd appreciate your support
in this effort.
(This information furnished by Walden for Congress.)
The above information has not been verified for accuracy by The above information has not been verified for accuracy by
the State of Oregon. the State of Oregon.
You have the right to 1
If you are a US citizen, live in Oregon, are 18 years old
and have registered to vote.
You have the rightto vote even if
you are homeless.
You have the rightto vote if you
have been convicted of a felony but
have been released from custody,
even if you are on probation or
parole.
You have the rightto vote even if
you have a guardian and even if
you need help reading or filling out
your ballot.
-� You have the rightto vote or cast
your ballot if you are in line by 8 PM
on Election Day.
You have the rightto know if you
are registered to vote.
You have the rightto choose
whether or not you want to register
as a member of a political party.
You have the rightto use a
signature stamp or other mark but
first you have to fill out a form. No
one can sign for you.
-� You have the rightto ask for help
from elections staff or from a friend
or family member. There are some
people who cannot help you vote,
for example, your boss or a union
officer from your job.
4 You have the rightto a secret
vote.You do not have to tell anyone
how you voted.
You have the rightto get a
"provisional ballot'; even if you are
told you are not registered to vote.
You have the rightto get a new
ballot if you make a mistake.
m
You have the rightto vote for the
M
person you want.You can write in
N o
someone else's name if you don't
o
like the choices on your ballot.
L6
N
You have the rightto vote "yes"
N
or "no" on any issue on your ballot.
M o
" o
You have the rightto leave some
Q o
choices blank on your ballot.The
choices you do mark will still count.
Q
00
You have the rightto use a voting
o
system for all Federal Elections that
N o
makes it equally possible for people
with disabilities to vote privately
and independently.
U
You have the rightto know if your
ballot, including a "provisional
Q
ballot; was accepted for counting.
_
-�
You have the rightto file a
o
complaint if you think your voting
rights have been denied.
for more information about voter rights:
1 866 673 VOTE / 1 866 673 8683
se habla espanol
TTY 1 800 735 2900
for the hearing impaired
Secretary of State
Seth
Woolley
Pacific Green
Occupation: Senior Software
Engineer
Occupational Background:
Software Engineer in High -
Performance, High -Capacity,
Distributed Supercomputing,
& Location -based Storage
Systems; Administrator, Systems & Networking; Auditor,
Computer Security & Quality Assurance
Educational Background: Northwest Public Schools;
Willamette University, Computer Science
Prior Governmental Experience: Secretary, Treasurer,
Co -Chair, and Elections Administrator of Green Party Local
and State Parties;
Elect Seth Woolley to
End Legalized Bribery, Save Native Forests,
Transparent Auditing and Elections
The Secretary of State administers our elections, audits our
government, manages files and archiving, and sits on the
Land Board. Seth has run grassroots campaigns for election
method and campaign finance reform, environmental action,
and transparency causes with thousands of small donors and
without special interest money.
Seth will end legalized bribery by enforcing
measure 47 (2006) which the voters enacted
You, the citizens of Oregon voted to enact reasonable limits
for campaign donations that would ensure broad support
for candidates. The current Democratic Secretary refuses to
enforce the law, despite no portion ever being overturned by
the courts.
Seth will protect native forests
by reversing the Democrat -approved lease
of state-owned forests for clear -cutting.
The State Land Board, composed of three Democrats, the
Governor, Secretary of State, and Treasurer, recently voted
to nearly double clear -cutting in the Elliott State Forest in a
Faustian bargain to provide a tiny sliver of revenue to public
schools. Oregon needs to set up a carbon -based fund to
purchase land out of the Common School Fund to be forever
preserved. Forest preservation is linked with economic
growth via increased quality of life. Schools preserve fund-
ing, no debt is incurred, and the increased economic vitality
leads to even more school funding.
Seth will open government to deep public oversight
Seth will use his software engineering experience to open up
access to our government. Seth created extensive donation
reports discussed by major media and will push for deeper
transparency to enable public auditing.
Secretary of State
Robert
Wolfe
Progressive
Occupation: Selling Oregon
wines worldwide (25 years)
Occupational Background:
Journalist, with investigative
reporting awards
Educational Background: College
Prior Governmental Experience: None (enough)
RECLAIM THE INITIATIVE PROCESS
Kate Brown's policies stop normal citizens from using
Oregon's initiative process. Her arbitrary and hyper -technical
requirements discard over 40% of all voter signatures, so only
big corporations and unions can afford to use the system.
2000-02 saw 13 progressive measures on the Oregon ballot,
including guaranteed school funding, single -payer health
care, and the nation's highest minimum wage.
2008-10, with Kate Brown's bad rules, saw only ONE pro-
gressive measure on the Oregon ballot (medical marijuana
dispensaries).
GET BIG MONEY OUT OF OREGON POLITICS
In 2006, Oregon voters enacted Measure 47 the nation's strict
est limits on campaign contributions, while requiring political
ads to disclose their funding sources and amounts.
Kate Brown refuses to enforce Measure 47, so campaign
spending on Oregon races has continued to skyrocket
from $4 million in 1998 to $57 million in 2010 (not including
Congress). Individual Legislative candidates spend up to
$1 million and more. Oregon politicians spend more on
legislative races, per capita, than in any state except
New Jersey. (Oregonian (4/6/2010))
Kate Brown "has been silent on campaign finance reform
and otherwise largely invisible," says Willamette Week
(5/25/2012). In 2008 she smashed the record for Secretary of
State campaign spending ($1.2 million), taking contributions
as high as $135,000 from a single union and over $116,000
from lawyers and lobbyists.
STOP GOVERNMENT INCOMPETENCE
As "Auditor in Chief," Kate Brown's accountants "audited"
the Oregon Department of Revenue 3 times in the past 2
years but failed to detect huge fraudulent tax refunds, includ-
ing a $2.1 million refund in 2012 to a woman who had never
reported significant income. TurboTax discovered this fraud
that Kate Brown missed. What else is out there?
SAVE THE STATE FORESTS FROM CLEAR -CUTTING
Kate Brown approved a 65% increase in clear -cutting in
Oregon's largest state forest (Elliott).
For native forests and clean, transparent government, (This information furnished by Robert Wolfe.)
Vote Seth Woolley
Learn more: http://www.seth4sos.org
(This information furnished by Seth Woolley.)
The above information has not been verified for accuracy by The above information has not been verified for accuracy by
the State of Oregon. the State of Oregon.
Secretary of State
Kate
Brown
Democrat
Working Families
Occupation: Secretary of State
Occupational Background:
Family, Juvenile Law Attorney,
Instructor at Portland State
University
Educational Background: University of Colorado, B.A.;
Northwestern School of Law, Lewis and Clark College, J.D.,
Environmental Law Certificate; Senior Executive Program,
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
Prior Governmental Experience: State Representative
1991-1996; State Senator 1997-2008; Secretary of State
2009-present
"While other public officials sat
on the sidelines, Brown acted...
Brown has been an effective secretary of state -
Statesman -Journal, April 11, 2012
Strong Leadership. The Right Experience.
Delivering Accountability for Our Tax Dollars.
As Secretary of State, Kate Brown protected the integ-
rity of our elections system. Kate Brown cut red tape to
provide better service for Oregon's small businesses and
entrepreneurs.
Most importantly, Kate Brown has been Oregon's account-
ability watchdog, finding ways to save tax dollars and make
government more efficient, effective and responsible.
Under Kate Brown, the Secretary of State's Office has
conducted 236 audits and examinations, cutting waste and
identifying over $180 million in savings that can go instead to
schools, public safety, services for seniors and health care:
• To address people and big corporations not paying their
fair share in taxes, Brown's audit of the Department of
Revenue found over $100 million in uncollected taxes in
one year alone.
• Thanks to Brown's audits, community colleges will be
better able to train students in the skills that Oregon
businesses need to succeed.
• Her audit of Oregon's Child Welfare Department recom-
mended better training, mentoring and regular evalu-
ations of case workers to protect children and help get
kids out of foster care.
An advocate for small business:
• Kate Brown created Oregon's first one -stop online
business portal that streamlines services, permitting and
cuts the red tape for business owners.
"Kate's hard work, integrity and energy assure Oregonians
get more for their tax dollars."
Congressman Peter DeFazio, US Senator Ron Wyden and
Governor Barbara Roberts
Learn about how Kate Brown's strong leadership has
saved us money and made government accountable at
Kate BrownforOregon.com
(This information furnished by Kate Brown Committee.)
Secretary of State
Knute
Buehler
Republican
Independent
Occupation: Physician; small
business owner; inventor
Occupational Background:
Orthopedic Surgeon; Medical
Product Design
Educational Background: Rhodes Scholar, Oxford University,
M.A., Politics and Economics; Johns Hopkins University, M.D.;
OSU; Roseburg High School
Prior Governmental Experience: none
Community Service: Board of Directors: St. Charles Health
Systems; Ford Family Foundation; Oregon League of Minority
Voters; OSU-Cascades
Family: Wife of 22 years, Patty; two teenage children, two dogs
KNUTE BUEHLER HAS CONCRETE PLANS
TO REFORM GOVERNMENT AND SOLVE PROBLEMS
www.GetOregonWorking.com
"Like other great independent leaders throughout Oregon's
history, Knute will solve problems in the pragmatic, common-
sense way we expect."
Dave Frohnmayer, Former Attorney General
WORK WITH SMALL BUSINESSES: CREATE JOBS
I've started businesses and run a medical practice with 170
employees. My plan will streamline the business
licensing process; remove outdated regulations; and
help small businesses navigate government bureaucracy
so we can get Oregonians working again.
"Knute's plan will reduce the red -tape small business owners
face and help create jobs."
John Miller, President, Salem Chamber of Commerce
ELIMINATE GOVERNMENT WASTE: DELIVER BETTER SERVICE
I'll hold government accountable and be the leader in cutting
waste —maximizing funding for schools, law enforcement,
and families in need. I'll be your government watchdog and
I have a 6-point plan to reform Oregon's Public Employee
Retirement System (PERS)—the $16 billion threat facing our
schools and other necessary programs.
"Knute's leadership will benefit PERS members, taxpayers,
and improve our schools."
LeeAnn Larsen, Beaverton School Board Chair
A NON -PARTISAN REFORMER: REDUCE MONEY IN POLITICS
I've worked for 20 years to reform campaign finance laws and
open primaries to independents. My plan will make
candidates list their largest donors on campaign ads
and I'll work to limit campaign spending.
"Knute's an independent thinker. He'll break down partisan
barriers and improve our elections."
Harry Lonsdale, Former Democratic Candidate, US Senate
BIPARTISAN ENDORSEMENTS
-Myrlie Evers -Williams, Activist
-Norma Paulus, Former Secretary of State
-Jack Roberts, Former Commissioner, Bureau of
Labor and Industries
-Congressman Greg Walden
-Independent Party of Oregon
The above information has not been verified for accuracy by
the State of Oregon.
(This information furnished by Knute Buehler for Secretary
of State.)
The above information has not been verified for accuracy by
the State of Oregon.
State Treasurer
Ted
Wheeler
Democrat
Working Families
Occupation: Oregon State
Treasurer
Occupational Background: Vice
President, Copper Mountain
Trust Co.
Educational Background: Portland Public Schools; Stanford
University (BA); Columbia University (MBA); Harvard
University (Masters, Public Policy).
Prior Governmental Experience: Chair, Board of County
Commissioners, Multnomah County, 2006-2010.
Community Involvement: Portland Mountain Rescue;
Neighborhood House.
Leadership Rooted in Oregon
A sixth generation Oregonian, Ted Wheeler shares Oregon's
values, providing experience that creates jobs, improves
services, promotes efficiency, and puts Oregon on stable
financial footing.
"Ted Wheeler is a leader who gets things done for our
communities and state. Our future depends on a
strong economy, and he can execute innovative economic
development strategies that will foster
a thriving business environment in Oregon."
- Governor John Kitzhaber, MD
Leadership that Delivers Results
Under Ted Wheeler's management, the Treasury:
• Saved taxpayers millions by holding the line on debt.
• Protected Oregon's finances through profitable
investments.
• Re -launched the Oregon College Savings Plan and cut
fees for families.
• Earned Oregon a credit rating upgrade.
• Pushed for corporate governance reforms to hold
Wall Street accountable to Main Street.
Leadership for Oregon's Future
Ted Wheeler has a long-term vision for Oregon, including:
• Accelerating job creation by providing strategic invest-
ments to businesses, streamlining bureaucracy, and
encouraging public -private partnerships.
• Focusing on the next generation by making universities,
community colleges, and technical training programs
more accessible and affordable.
• Investing in local and regional infrastructure projects
like transportation and water and sewer systems by
spearheading a multistate financing mechanism along
the West Coast.
Endorsed by People and Organizations We Trust:
Governor John Kitzhaber, MD; Governor Ted Kulongoski;
Governor Barbara Roberts; Governor Victor Atiyeh; AG -PAC;
Oregon AFL-CIO; Oregon AFSCME; Oregon State Council for
Retired Citizens; Oregon Building Trades Council; Oregon
Business Association; Oregon Education Association; Oregon
Nurses Association; Oregon State Fire Fighters Council; Oregon
Forest Industries Council; Oregon League of Conservation
Voters; Planned Parenthood PAC; SEIU Locals 503 & 49.
www.TedWheeler.com
(This information furnished by Friends of Ted Wheeler.)
State Treasurer
Cameron
Whitten
Progressive
Occupation: Student
Occupational Background:
Student
Educational Background:
Portland Community College
Prior Governmental Experience: None
Fellow Oregonians,
As a community, we pride ourselves in seeing the Big Picture.
Oregon's pioneering spirit has put us ahead of the nation,
time and time again.
$9.5 billion of Oregon's Short Term Funds are invested into
various financial firms, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs,
JP Morgan Chase, and Bank of America. The majority of these
funds go outside of Oregon.
Investment Officers travel the world to manage this portfolio,
often at the expense of the Oregon Treasury. While these
investments are intended to provide a rate of return, it strips
our local economy of capital that could be channeled into
housing, small business, and public works projects.
As a leader in our community, I am dedicated to seeing the
Big Picture.
A State Bank is a solution to Oregon's financial hardships.
Oregonians deserve a say over how our assets are managed,
rather than CEOs who make decisions miles away from
Oregon. Local governments pay expensive fees to financial
firms to secure loans, when Oregon could facilitate the
process at lower cost to taxpayers.
Small Businesses are the organs of Oregon's economy,
community banks are its lifeblood. A State Bank of Oregon
will partner with the private sector to lower interest on loans,
increase lending capacities, and help entrepreneurs and
farmers access the capital they need to grow our economy.
This fiscal policy is tailored to specifically benefit the citizens
of Oregon.
2012 is the right yearto build a coalition around the State
Bank of Oregon. As Treasurer, I will be at the Legislature to
encourage bipartisan support for a resilient economy, based
on resilient structures answerable to the democratic will of
the People.
With your vote, you can insure prosperity for generations
to come. It is time to restore our faith in hardworking
Oregonians.
I honor my commitment to serve. Call me directly, 503-890-5716,
or visit www.cameronwhitten.com and www.progparty.org.
(This information furnished by Cameron Whitten.)
The above information has not been verified for accuracy by The above information has not been verified for accuracy by
the State of Oregon. the State of Oregon.
State Treasurer
Tom
Cox
Republican
Occupation: Management
Consultant.
Occupational Background: Sr.
Consultant, Price Waterhouse
Coopers, Sr. Consultant,
IBM Global Services, Small
Business Owner.
Educational Background: BA, University of Chicago,
Behavioral Science.
Prior Governmental Experience: Former candidate for Oregon
governor and the state legislature.
When Things Aren't Working, It's Okay to Make a Change
www.thomasbcox.com
The State Treasurer can help to create a climate encouraging
job growth and investment. The current Treasurer has been
an adequate "caretaker" treasurer. But in these difficult times,
Oregon needs more.
Our Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) is under-
funded by over $16 billion - more than $11,000 for every
household in Oregon. Meanwhile, much of Oregon outside of
Portland has been twisting in the wind in part because state
lands have been so poorly managed over the years. Schools
have also suffered, since the Common School Fund depends
on the efficient management of state lands. It's time to make
a change.
On Managing PERS: We must keep our promises to retirees,
but I would fight to evolve PERS into a defined contribution
system similar to 401k plans which can never be under-
funded. The current $16 billion shortfall, for which we have
no money set aside, was caused by politicians who kicked
problems down the road rather than fix them. The problem
was made worse by politicians afraid to tell special interests
that the system is broken. I won't do that.
On State Lands: In the long run, no part of Oregon can
prosper unless all of Oregon does. It's time to recognize that
much of Oregon depends on the natural resource economy.
We must responsibly open up our resources to invigorate the
rural economies.
On Responsible Management: I've spent years helping busi-
nesses improve their leadership and management systems,
with dramatic results. I will apply this experience toward
making sure that state assets and the office of the State
Treasurer are managed well for the benefit of us all.
VOTE TOM COX FOR STATE TREASURER
(This information furnished by Tom Cox.)
The above information has not been verified for accuracy by
the State of Oregon.
Attorney General
James L
Buchal
Republican
Occupation: Attorney
Occupational Background:
Private practice since 1985.
Educational Background:
Harvard University, A.B; Yale
University, J.D. and M.B.A.
Prior Governmental Experience: None.
The Problem
We have a cancer of government. Out -of -control agencies
and rules are killing Oregon's prosperity. Years of litigating
against the government taught me what is wrong. History
teaches us that electing government employees backed by
government unions will not cure the problem. Real change
requires leaders with a new perspective.
Solution: Accountability
Oregonians are outraged that a few enormous financial insti-
tutions, operating through a corrupt Congress, mortgaged
America's future to pay their gambling debts. We should be
outraged that our last Democratic Attorney General let them
walk with minimal fines they could foist off on the taxpayers.
Oregon's agencies routinely waste untold millions of dollars
on projects that fail, yet enrich politically -connected insiders.
I am no one's puppet. I will follow the money trails wherever
they lead and fight for honest government.
Solution: Decentralization
Multiple agencies and layers of government in charge of
the same thing make no sense. Excessive federal powers
subvert Oregon's ability to protect Oregonians' interests.
Whether it is burning down our forests or micromanaging
Portland's water supply, we can't afford such nonsense. The
Constitution was designed to prevent these problems by lim-
iting federal authority. As your Attorney General, I will fight
to uphold the Constitution and restore a limited, functional
federal government.
Solution: Simplification
Oregon law requires agency rules to be "clear and simple,"
and I will make enforcing that law a priority to prune back the
layers of red tape that are strangling Oregon's businesses. As
the lawyer for Oregon's agencies, I will no longer bend the
law to support the bureaucrats, but protect the People from
excessive government by upholding the rule of law. Good
government means quick and decisive official action under
clear rules, not thousands of pages of regulations and reports.
PLEASE VOTE FOR JAMES BUCHAL FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL
Learn more at www.buchal.com
(This information furnished by James L Buchal.)
Attorney General
Ellen
Rosenblum
Democrat
Occupation: Oregon Attorney
General
Occupational Background: 36
years experience as appellate
and trial court judge; federal
prosecutor; private practice
attorney
Educational Background: University of Oregon, B.S., J.D.
Prior Governmental Experience: Oregon Court of Appeals;
Multnomah County Circuit and District Court
PROTECTING OREGON
As Attorney General, Ellen Rosenblum works to protect chil-
dren from sexual predators, fights against domestic abuse, is
a strong advocate for crime victims, and has established new
rules to protect Oregon homeowners from predatory lenders
and mortgage fraud.
Ellen is dedicated to preventing scammers from preying on
Oregon's seniors; ensuring our roads are free of drunk drivers;
and defending women's healthcare and reproductive freedoms.
LOOKING OUT FOR US
Rosenblum is committed to being the People's Attorney
General - advocating and standing up for Oregonians and
Oregon values.
'As your Attorney General, I'm working tirelessly to protect
Oregon from powerful special interests. I am focused on
standing up for Oregon's children, seniors and most vulner-
able citizens. I'm proud to be Oregon's Attorney General, and
will continue to fight on your behalf every day."
Ellen Rosenblum
CONCERNED ABOUT OUR SCHOOLS AND ENVIRONMENT
Ellen has made ensuring a bright future for our children a
priority by supporting Oregon's public schools and making
sure we protect our environment.
"I strongly support Ellen for Attorney General, because i know
we can count on her to stand up for the rights and safety of all
Oregonians."
Governor Barbara Roberts
TOUGH ON CRIME
ZERO TOLERANCE FOR PREDATORS AND ABUSERS
"During my32 years as District Attorney, I have observed Ellen
to be tough and fair as a prosecutor and a judge. She will work
hard to protect Oregonians from predators and abusers."
Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schrunk
Also supporting Ellen
Congressman Earl Blumenauer
Attorney General Hardy Myers
Oregon AFL-CIO
Emily's List
Oregon League of Conservation Voters
Oregon AFSCME
Oregon Education Association
OSEA
SEIU
Basic Rights Oregon PAC
NARAL ProChoice Oregon
MotherPAC
Violence Against Women PAC
Oregon Building Trades Council
(This information furnished by Ellen Rosenblum.)
The above information has not been verified for accuracy by The above information has not been verified for accuracy by
the State of Oregon. the State of Oregon.
State Senator, 27th District
Tim
Knopp
Republican
Independent
Occupation: Executive Vice
President, Non -Profit.
Occupational Background:
State Representative; Small
business owner; Insurance and
securities; Laborer; Logger.
Educational Background: Center for Professional Studies,
continuing education courses; York Community High School;
Bend public schools.
Prior Governmental Experience: State Representative; United
States Department of Labor; Precinct Committee Person.
TIM KNOPP... JOBS, THE FIRST PRIORITY
Tim has successfully created private sector jobs. He will
use his small business experience and leadership to pass
legislation that will create jobs and help get our economy
moving again. He consistently earned 100% ratings from
small business groups, including NFIB. He helped pass small
business tax relief and stopped damaging new regulations
that cost jobs.
TIM KNOPP... EDUCATIONAL SUCCESS
Tim was educated in our public schools and supports a
strong educational system that provides choices for parents
and students. He also helped bring the OSU-Cascades
Campus to Bend over a decade ago, improving our higher
education and economic development opportunities, while
enhancing Central Oregon Community College. Tim supports
a four-year University in Central Oregon that will give us a tre-
mendous opportunity to spur economic growth and provide
degree programs that produce career ready graduates for
today's jobs.
TIM KNOPP... PROTECTING TAXPAYERS
Tim led the successful efforts to save taxpayers billions of
dollars through tax relief and pension reforms. Tim trusts you
to spend your hard earned dollars.
TIM KNOPP... STRONGLY SUPPORTS SENIORS AND
VETERANS
Tim worked to successfully restore quality services for
seniors, cut by the Governor. Tim helped pass the patient's
bill of rights to improve healthcare for Oregonians. Tim
believes we must keep our commitment to our veterans who
paid for our freedom through their courage and sacrifice.
TIM KNOPP... PIERS REFORM
Tim believes new reforms to PERS are needed. He'll be a
leader to provide a sustainable, fair and affordable retirement
program for public employees. The current system has led
to fewer teachers, police officers, firefighters and healthcare
professionals providing the critical services our community
needs and values.
www.timknopp.com
(This information furnished by Tim Knopp for State Senate.)
State Senator, 27th District
Geri
Hauser
Democrat
Working Families
Libertarian
Occupation: Geographic
Information Systems Analyst,
Deschutes County
Occupational Background:
Engineering Assistant; Receptionist; Road Maintenance Crew
Educational Background: Lane Community College: General
Studies. University of Oregon: Anthropology. COCC: Forest
Technology, Computer Applications. Environmental Systems
Research Institute certifications.
Prior Governmental Experience: None
Community Service: League of Women Voters of Deschutes
County; Forest Wilderness Guard.
For Oregon's Future, For Oregon's Families
"I am a citizen concerned for the future of my community. My
focus will be on policies that support middle class and family
wage jobs, not big money special interests." -Geri Hauser
Geri is a native Oregonian, grandmother and wife. She is not
a career politician with obligations or pre -defined agenda.
Geri is a new leader for our community who will put Central
Oregon ahead of narrow partisan interests.
Getting Central Oregon's Economy Back on Track.
Geri's first priority will be to get our economy moving again.
Geri will work across the aisle to support policies bringing
family -wage jobs to Central Oregon. She'll stand up for small
businesses by cutting red tape, supporting growing industries
and providing practical education for the jobs of tomorrow.
Geri Hauser has the Right Priorities
Securing funding to establish a 4-year independent university
in Central Oregon.
-High quality education from start to finish -
Standing up for small businesses through incentives for
Oregon contracts.
-Buying local is key to a stronger economy -
Redirecting state funds invested overseas into local banks
and credit unions.
-Increasing capital for Oregon's small businesses -
Eliminating government waste and tax loopholes
that don't work.
-Reinvesting that money into essential services -
What People are Saying About Geri
"As a conservative registered Republican I strongly recom-
mend you vote Geri Hauser for the open Oregon State senate
seat... Please help return the Oregon Senate to its once proud
heritage of free thinking servants." —James Mayhill, Redmond
Endorsements:
Oregon School Employees Association, AFT Local 6732
Oregon League of Conservation Voters (OLCV)
Planned Parenthood PAC
The Mother PAC
www.gerihauser.com
Vote Geri Hauser for Oregon Senate.
(This information furnished by Geri Hauser for Oregon Senate.)
The above information has not been verified for accuracy by The above information has not been verified for accuracy by
the State of Oregon. the State of Oregon.
State Senator, 28th District
Douglas K
Whitsett
Republican
Democrat
Occupation: State Senator:
Veterinarian; farmer, small
business owner.
;'IM Occupational Background:
Principle owner and manager
Klamath Animal Clinic and Supply (retired), owns and man-
ages rental housing, owns and operates an equine breeding
and marketing operation.
Educational Background: Doctor of Veterinary Medicine,
Washington State University 1968; Associate of Arts, Central
Oregon College 1963; Crook County High School 1961.
Prior Governmental Experience: Oregon State Senate 2005
to present; Joint Ways and Means Committee, Emergency
Board, Senate Judiciary Committee, Court Facilities and
Technologies Committee, Office of Administrative Hearings
Oversight Committee.
FAMILY: three adult daughters and wife Gail
COMMUNITY SERVICE: Rotary; past president Oregon
Veterinary Medical Association, Water for Life, Klamath
County Cattlemen's Association; leader in State and local
water issues; lecturer at state and regional veterinary
conferences.
Doug Whitsett — A Leader We Can Depend On
ACCESSIBILITY: Effective government requires citizen par-
ticipation. Doug's weekly newsletter and radio commentary
serve to keep people informed.
EXPERIENCE: Doug has actively participated in our rural
communities for more than 35 years. He understands the
unique needs that are required for our area to thrive and for
our economies to grow.
COMMON SENSE approach to reaching meaningful solutions
through bipartisan work with political leaders: to know when
to reach agreement and when not to concede.
Putting Oregon's Economy Back on Track
JOB CREATION: Doug believes the best way to create strong,
thriving businesses across Oregon is for government to get
out of the way. Doug continues to fight government regula-
tion, red tape and bureaucracy and will work to create a
climate where small businesses can succeed.
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY: Doug has made it a mission to cur-
tail Oregon's spending addiction. He is a staunch opponent of
tax and fee increases, and is able to identify inefficiencies and
demand accountability in government spending.
I want to continue to work for you in Salem.
I am asking for your vote in the November election.
www.DO00WHITSETT.com
(This information furnished by Committee to Elect
Doug Whitsett.)
State Senator, 30th District
Ted
Ferrioli
Republican
Democrat
Occupation: Timber association
executive director (retired);
ranch owner
Occupational Background:
Association Director, Forest
products company general manager; rancher; small business
owner; Veteran's Affairs Loan Officer
Educational Background: BA, University of Oregon
Prior Governmental Experience: Oregon State Senator 1997 -
present; Senate President Pro-Tempore; Member, Task Force
on Federal Forest Payments and County Services; Vice -Chair,
Senate Rules Committee
Community Service: Co-founder, Oregon Lands Coalition;
President, Chamber of Commerce; Member, Oregon Hanford
Waste Board.
An outstanding record of service as rural Oregon's most
effective advocate
• Reduced taxes on small and family owned businesses by
more than $90 million
• Proposed a two-year moratorium on new agency rules
• Fought for tort reform and proposed a sweeping set of
PERS reforms
• Helped expand Charter School opportunities and choice
to Oregon's education system
• Successfully defended small and remote rural school
payments
• Successfully fought against proposals for higher taxes
and fees
• Championed legislation to give rural counties control of
their land use laws
• Protected the identities of Concealed Handgun License
holders from public disclosure
"It is an honorto serve the citizens of rural Oregon in the
State Legislature. I see my role as a watchdog, carefully
guarding our communities from government intrusion, over-
regulation and higher taxes. I strive to be a strong voice for
our communities and our way of life. It is a great privilege to
represent our part of the state." -- Senator Ted Ferrioli
Ted Ferrioli is endorsed by:
National Federation of Independent Business/Oregon (NFIB)
Associated Oregon Industries (AOI)
Oregon Small Business Coalition
Sheriffs of Oregon
Rod Harder, Oregon Consultant, National Rifle Association
of America Inc.
Paulette Pyle, Grassroots Director, Oregonians
for Food and Shelter
Roger Beyer, AG -PAC Chairman
Oregon Cattle PAC
(This information furnished by Friends of Ted Ferrioli.)
The above information has not been verified for accuracy by The above information has not been verified for accuracy by
the State of Oregon. the State of Oregon.
State Representative, 53rd District
Gene
Whisnant
Republican
Democrat
Occupation: State
Representative; Co -Chair
House General Government
& Consumer Protection
Committee
Occupational Background: Colonel, USAF; served in the
Pentagon on Air Staff and Office of Secretary of Defense;
served in command, leadership, staff, and diplomatic posi-
tions in Vietnam, Germany and Yugoslavia
Educational Background: MA International Affairs, University
of Arkansas; BA Journalism, University of North Carolina -
Chapel Hill
Prior Governmental Experience: State legislator since
2003 - Vice Chair of Judiciary & Education Committees;
Ways & Means Committee, Education & Public Safety
subcommittees; former Republican whip and deputy whip;
Education Commission of the States commissioner; Oregon
Commission on Asian & Pacific Islander Affairs member;
former State Commission on Children & Families member;
former chair of the Deschutes County Commission on
Children & Families and Deschutes County Republican Party
Community service: Homeless Leadership Council; military
veteran organizations; Sunriver Board of Directors; Sunriver
Christian Fellowship Church; former youth sports coach and
PTA officer
Family: Married to Josie Coffey, 4th generation Oregonian.
Son, Todd; his wife, Melissa; and grandson, Colby live in NC.
Gene Whisnant
Common Sense Leadership with Honesty & Integrity
I believe in:
Individual freedoms and a free market economy;
Effective, accountable, and frugal state government;
Protecting property owners' rights;
Lower taxes, job creation and economic development to
ensure state funding for our education system;
provide care for seniors, military veterans and vulner-
able citizens;
fund public safety programs to fight meth, hold crimi-
nals accountable;
address illegal immigration; and lock -up sexual
predators.
I advocate for seniors, families and all constituents. I believe
our students deserve a quality education. I support Oregon's
natural resource industries and protection of our environment.
I have a record of passing bi-partisan legislation resulting
from my legislative experience and professional relationships
with all members. I am proud to be an architect of Oregon's
"rainy -day' fund, "taxpayers' transparency' website,
Deschutes River Mitigation bill, and foreclosure bill to help
distressed homeowners.
Sincerely,
Gene Whisnant
(This information furnished by Gene Whisnant.)
111pdate your
registration if
you are away
from home
The post office will not forward
your ballot.
You can request an absentee
ballot if you will not be home
during an election.The ballot will
be sent to the alternate address
you provide.
for more information about
voting in Oregon
.A oregonvotes.gov
1 866 673 VOTE / 1 866 673 8683
se habla espanol
TFY 1 800 735 2900
for the hearing impaired
The above information has not been verified for accuracy by
the State of Oregon.
State Representative, 54th District
Nathan R
Hovekamp
Democrat
Working Families
Occupation: Biologist and
Educator
Occupational Background:
College biology instruction,
including twelve years at
COCC, and natural interpretation & resource management
Educational Background: Oregon State University, Ph.D. in
education; University of Wisconsin -Madison, M.S. in biology;
Kent State University, B.S. in biology
Prior Governmental Experience: Bend Planning Commission,
2004-12 (two years as Chair); Bend -La Pine School Board,
2004-08 (one year as Chair)
Personal: My wife and I have lived and worked in Bend since
1997 and have two sons who attend Bend -La Pine Schools.
Together we enjoy exploring Oregon's magnificent high
desert, mountains, and coast.
Nathan Hovekamp:
Good jobs, quality schools, vibrant community,
responsible government
Economic Strength
A more diversified economy is the key to more and better
jobs that support families and strengthen our community.
I will support partnerships between colleges and local
businesses that connect education to work, and I will
encourage the creation of quality jobs by building upon the
existing strengths and tremendous potential here in Bend.
Educational Excellence
Outstanding schools and colleges are essential investments
toward a stronger economy and a brighter future for our
communities and children. I will prioritize educational funding
needed to reduce class sizes and keep excellent teachers, and
I will strongly support expanded, affordable opportunities in
higher education.
Quality of Life
Parks, trails, and trees are important in building attractive,
prosperous communities where employers want to locate
and working people and families want to live. I will promote
well -planned development while maintaining the character
and beauty of our community.
Dedicated Leadership
We should demand leaders who share our priorities and
have demonstrated independence, integrity, and courage in
working toward real solutions on important issues. I have
been, and with your support will continue to be, an honest
and devoted leader in public service.
Thank you!
www.nathanhovekamp.com
Endorsed by:
Oregon League of Conservation Voters
American Federation of Teachers -Oregon
Oregon School Employees Association
Oregon AFL-CIO
SEIU 49 & 503
The Mother PAC
Planned Parenthood PAC
The Sierra Club
(This information furnished by Friends of Nathan Hovekamp.)
State Representative, 54th District
Jason
Conger
Republican
Independent
Occupation: Attorney, State
Representative
Occupational Background:
Small business owner, teacher,
Congressional Aide, carpenter
Educational Background: A.A., College of the Redwoods;
B.A., Humboldt State University; J.D., Harvard Law School
Prior Governmental Experience: Co -Vice Chair, House
Education Committee; Business and Labor Committee;
General Government and Consumer Protection Committee;
Health Care Committee; Law Clerk, US Department of Justice
JASON CONGER FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE
PROMISES KEPT
"I'm working hard to bring focus to the needs of Central
Oregon. From job creation and affordable health care to
responsible spending and better schools, I'm working to
make our state and local economy stronger."
-Jason Conger
FOCUSED ON JOB CREATION
Jason has fought to protect Central Oregon jobs and improve
our economy. Last year, he worked to extend Oregon's
successful Enterprise Zone program that will help Central
Oregon attract new jobs and companies like Facebook and
Apple, and put local families back to work.
OPPORTUNITY THROUGH EDUCATION
In addition to supporting over a dozen bipartisan educa-
tion reform proposals, Jason Conger is working to free up
additional resources for local classrooms. Working with
Bend -La Pine School District leaders, he developed his
"School Savings Act" which will allow Oregon schools to
save hundreds of million of dollars— and put money back in
the classroom.
HIGHER EDUCATION FOR CENTRAL OREGON
Jason championed efforts to secure OSU Cascades' new
graduate and research facility in Bend; a key step toward
establishing a four-year university in Central Oregon.
CONTROLLING SPENDING
For the first time in years, legislators enacted a budget that
funded schools first and created a large reserve — without
increasing our taxes. Jason will continue to advocate for
budgets that work within existing revenues, push for more
efficiency, and save for another rainy day.
ENDORSED BY
Oregon Small Business Coalition
Oregon Business Association
Bend -La Pine School Board Members Cheri Helt
and Peggy Kinkade
Deschutes County Commissioner Tammy Baney
Oregon Farm Bureau Federation
Oregon Health Care Association PAC
Stand for Children
(This information furnished by Jason Conger.)
The above information has not been verified for accuracy by The above information has not been verified for accuracy by
the State of Oregon. the State of Oregon.
State Representative, 55th District
John
Huddle
Democrat
Independent
Working Families
Occupation: Retired Educator
Occupational Background:
Adjunct Faculty, School
Psychologist, SPED Director,
Teacher
Educational Background: Ed.D, Vanderbilt University
Prior Governmental Experience: School Administrator;
Treasurer, Oregon School Psychologist's Association; Chair,
Subcommittee on Adoption Law, Arc -TN
Military: NCO E-5, US Army
John Huddle
Advocate for the People
We need government that is sensitive to us. If elected, I vow
to put you first and represent full-time!
"John successfully opposed the incumbent's land use bill
(HB3347). That bill would have forced a new layer of govern-
ment and bureaucracy on us without our vote!"
Martha Bauman
"John intervened when the government sprayed our proper-
ties with a harsh defoliant. Had he not, I firmly believe we
would still be battling state and county agencies."
Dan Harshbarger
"John stood up for the people in the La Pine Basin against
agency agendas, demonstrating conclusively that septic
system nitrates were not increasing and endangering our
wells." Ronald J Sharbaugh, Retired Scientist
"John is one of the best advocates for the rights of citizens
and veterans I've ever known." Pamela Cosmo, Navy
Veteran's Widow
"John is a tenacious advocate for the disabled."
Vincent Martin, School Psychologist
Jobs for working families
We need to leverage State resources for family farms and
businesses, creating local jobs.
Education
I will work to improve K-12 achievement, access to commu-
nity colleges, apprenticeships and vocational education for
rural Oregonians.
Poverty
Many are sliding into poverty, especially seniors. I pledge
to address issues that unfairly burden those with limited
financial means.
Veterans
We need a program that aggressively promotes federal vet-
eran's benefits and advocates for the veteran: employment,
health care, suicide prevention and end -of -life care.
Health Care
I pledge to work towards quality and affordable health care
for all rural Oregonians.
Public Safety
I will work to improve funding for our sheriff's departments.
Consumer Protection
I pledge to hold big banks and corporations accountable to
the same rules as consumers.
Endorsements
Oregon School Employees Association
Oregon League of Conservation Voters
(This information furnished by John Huddle.)
State Representative, 55th District
Mike
McLane
Republican
Occupation: State
Representative; Attorney;
Major, Oregon Air National
Guard.
Occupational Background:
Lawyer; Publishing Company
CEO.
Educational Background: J.D., Lewis and Clark Law School;
B.S., Agricultural Resource Economics, Oregon State
University; Condon High School.
Prior Governmental Experience: State Representative; Joint
Ways and Means Committee; Circuit Court Judge, pro tem,
Deschutes County; Law Clerk, Oregon Supreme Court, US
Attorney's Office.
MILITARY EXPERIENCE: Staff Judge Advocate, Kingsley
Field, 173rd Fighter Wing; Judge Advocate, 142nd Fighter
Wing, 41st Infantry Brigade.
ABOUT MIKE McLANE
Mike grew up in Condon, Oregon and was active in 4-H, FFA,
and sports. He worked wheat and cattle ranches and the
family alfalfa farm. Today, Mike lives with his wife and their
three children on a small farm in Crook County.
MIKE McLANE FOR STATE REPRESENTATIVE
BRINGING BACK OREGON
BRINGING BACK JOBS
Mike McLane is fighting for local jobs — and winning the fight.
When the Department of Revenue tried to circumvent an
enterprise zone agreement in Prineville, Mike pushed back. He
introduced legislation that fixed the problem. Mike was named
the 2012 Legislator of the Year by the Oregon Prosperity
Project for all he is doing to increase private sector jobs.
BRINGING BACK QUALITY SCHOOLS
Mike supported several reforms that are improving our
schools and helping school districts better plan their
budgets. From giving parents and students more choice to
encouraging innovation, Mike is giving us the tools we need
to strengthen our education system. As a member of the
Ways and Means Committee, Mike also ensured schools were
funded first — before any other budget.
BRINGING BACK FISCAL DISCIPLINE
As a first -term legislator Mike was selected to serve on the
important Ways and Means Committee where he is helping to
reign in spending and pushing for more budget
accountability. He's fighting to cut waste.
ENDORSEMENTS
Ron Holthusen, Mayor, Shady Cove
Ken Mulenex, Mayor, La Pine
Betty Roppe, Mayor, Prineville
Oregon Farm Bureau Federation
Oregon Small Business Coalition
Sheriffs of Oregon
Learn more:
www.VoteMcLane.com
(This information furnished by Committee to Elect
Mike McLane.)
The above information has not been verified for accuracy by The above information has not been verified for accuracy by
the State of Oregon. the State of Oregon.
State Representative, 59th District
Gary L
011erenshaw
Democrat
Occupation: Driver/Donation
Attendant
Occupational Background:
Retail Store Manager, Small
Business Owner, Local Census
Office Manager, and US Army
Educational Background: High School Graduate, some
College, and Small Business Management Program
Prior Governmental Experience: Budget Committee Redmond
Fire and Rescue, Board Member Redmond Fire and Rescue,
President Howell's Hilltop Acres Road District, and US Census
Community Commitment: Board member Redmond Chamber
of Commerce, Board member Redmond Kiwanis Foundation,
Redmond Kiwanis, Redmond Flag Committee, Co -facilitator
Opportunity Knocks, Deschutes County Sheriff's Office
Citizen volunteer, Child Safety Seat Advocate.
Personal: Married with three children and 9 grandchildren.
Central Oregon has been home since 1979.
1 am running because I believe we need a representative that
will be our voice, the voice of middle class families in Central
Oregon. As your elected official it is my duty and obligation
to represent the families of District 59 and Oregon. I promise
to make your priorities, my priorities. As your Representative
I will work on:
Jobs: Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, it
is important that Oregon is open for business. The govern-
ment needs to be a partner in economic development by
allowing Oregon businesses to grow and hire employees by
cutting red tape and making sure we don't increase taxes on
businesses that keep our economy going.
Control Spending: In order to protect services like education,
we need to control spending and ensure transparency and
accountability in government spending. We need account-
ability and full disclosure on all budgets, including reserves
and audit reports available to all.
Education: Stable funding for K-12 and higher education is a
must, as we need to be competitive in the global economy
and we need to prevent further teacher layoffs and bring
down class sizes.
I hope that I can earn your support.
Vote Gary 011erenshaw
Honor Veterans, Past, Present and Future: VOTE
(This information furnished by Gary L 011erenshaw.)
State Representative, 59th District
John E
Huffman
Republican
Occupation: State
Representative, Commercial
Property Developer/Owner,
Small Business Owner.
Occupational Background:
Legislator, Radio Station
Owner, Small Business
Developer/Owner, Ford Dealership Manager, Military Police
US Army.
Educational Background: High School Graduate, some
college, Military Police Training, Legislative Energy Institute
Certificate, NCSL Leadership Course.
Prior Governmental Experience: Chamber Economic
Development Committee; Oregon Investment Board; House
Committees on Education, Veterans Affairs, Information
Technology and Audits; Co -Chair Ways & Means Sub -
Committee on Transportation and Economic Development;
Oregon Workforce Investment Board; Hanford Cleanup Board;
and Deputy Whip.
Jobs and Economy
Private business has always been the economic engine. I'll
work toward removing government interference and over-
regulation to allow Oregon businesses and entrepreneurs
latitude to make Oregon vibrant again. With my small busi-
ness background, I understand what it takes to create jobs.
Fiscal Responsibility
We cannot spend and borrow our way to prosperity. We
must control, prioritize spending and reform our budgeting
process. I've consistently voted against wasteful spending
and the dangerous practice of over -borrowing. Our spending
level is unsustainable, not because we have too few taxes. It's
because government spends too much! We need to right -size
state government, work smarter and more efficiently.
Personal Freedoms
I believe you know what's best for you, your family and your
property, not lawmakers and agencies in Salem. We need to
put the money and power back in the hands of the people so
they can choose how to spend the money they have earned.
From educating your kids, choosing a vocation, or protecting
and planning for the future, the freedom to choose should be
yours.
Let's get Oregon working again! I would appreciate your
support.
Endorsed By: Roger Beyer, AG -PAC Chairman; Oregon Farm
Bureau Federation; Rod Harder, National Rifle Association
Of America Inc. Oregon Consultant, NRA/ILA; Oregon State
Police Officers Association or OSPOA; American Federation
of Teachers — Oregon (AFT -Oregon); Oregon Right to Life
PAC; Sheriffs of Oregon; Oregon AFSCME; Oregon Nurses
Association (ONA); National Federation of Independent
Business/Oregon (NFIB); and others.
(This information furnished by Committee to Elect
John E Huffman.)
The above information has not been verified for accuracy by The above information has not been verified for accuracy by
the State of Oregon. the State of Oregon.
Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries
Bruce
Starr
Nonpartisan
Occupation: Small Business
Owner
Occupational Background:
Contractor, Family Farming
Educational Background:
Portland State University,
Hillsboro High School
Prior Governmental Experience: State Senator, State
Representative, City Councilor
Community Involvement: Board member, Compassion First —
anti -trafficking organization
Family: Married to Rebecca Starr, two children
Bruce Starr will make creating Jobs Oregon's #1 Priority
Bruce's number one priority is to ensure the Labor
Commissioner becomes the Jobs Commissioner. We must
get state government out of the way of job creators so we can
get Oregonians working again.
Bruce Starr - Record of Creating Private Sector Jobs
In the legislature, Bruce worked with small business owners
and labor unions - Democrats and Republicans - to rebuild
our infrastructure and find common-sense solutions to the
problems facing our state.
Bruce Starr - Working to Increase Our Skilled Workforce
In order for Oregon workers to compete, we need to invest
in people. In the state legislature, Bruce worked with labor
and employers to rebuild and retool education and training
opportunities so Oregon is where employers want to locate
their businesses.
Bruce Starr will Protect Worker's Rights
Bruce knows we can't just train and educate workers— we
have to insure they are treated fairly when they go to work.
That means making sure workers earn an honest day's wage
and the workplace is safe.
Bruce Starr will cut red tan e freeing businesses to grow
Red tape, high taxes and lawsuits are killing good paying
family wage jobs. As Labor Commissioner, Bruce's first
priority is getting government off businesses backs and out
of their wallets.
Endorsements
Jack Roberts, Former Labor Commissioner
Beaverton Area Chamber of Commerce
Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce PAC
Oregon Small Business Coalition
AG -PAC
Oregon Business Association
Oregon Association of Plumbing, Heating,
Cooling Contractors
"The Washington County Farm Bureau overwhelmingly
supports Bruce Starr for Labor Commissioner
for the State of Oregon" Edmund Duyck
One Oregon - Prosperity for all - More jobs
www.BruceStarr.org
(This information furnished by Working Families for
Bruce Starr.)
Brad
Avakian
Nonpartisan
Occupation: Oregon
Commissioner of Labor and
Industries.
Occupational Background:
Civil rights attorney.
Educational Background:
Oregon State University, B.S.; Lewis and Clark Law School, J.D.
Prior Governmental Experience: State Senator, State
Representative.
PRIORITIES, NOT POLITICS
"I've always focused on your priorities, not politics. Putting
Oregon back to work. Protecting people from mistreatment
in the workplace. And attacking discrimination wherever it
occurs."
Democratic Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian
PROTECTING OREGONIANS FROM DISCRIMINATION
"Brad Avakian's leadership changing the corporate culture
to ensure equal pay for equal work and his prosecution of
corporations that tolerate sexual harassment makes him the
right choice."
Dawn Holt, Co -Chair Oregon Council on Civil Rights
OREGON JOBS, NOT OUTSOURCED JOBS
"Brad Avakian has helped over 6,200 Oregonians get
apprenticeships that lead to good jobs. Brad also wants to
stop shipping jobs overseas and subsidizing millionaires on
the backs of Oregon's workers."
Nelda Wilson, Operating Engineers Local 701
EVERYBODY SHOULD PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE
"Brad Avakian stands shoulder to shoulder with working people
who know that the top 1% take too much of our wealth without
paying their fair share. Brad Avakian will always oppose
handouts to Wall Street and tax loopholes for the wealthy."
Bill Bradbury, Former Oregon Secretary of State
RESTORING CAREER EDUCATION TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS
"Brad Avakian restored 21st Century shop classes in our
public schools, ensuring our economy has the skilled work-
force it needs."
Christine Chin Ryan, Chair, Oregon Small Business for
Responsible Leadership
HOLDING CORPORATIONS ACCOUNTABLE
"Brad Avakian returned over $15 million to workers cheated
out of their wages."
John Mohlis, Oregon State Building Trades Council
We're supporting Brad Avakian!
U.S. Senator Ron Wyden
U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley
Governor Ted Kulongoski
Governor Barbara Roberts
Oregon AFL-CIO
Oregon Working Families Party
Oregon Nurses Association (ONA)
Oregon Education Association
American Federation of Teachers — Oregon (AFT -Oregon)
Brad is also endorsed by both Planned Parenthood PAC and
NARAL Pro -Choice Oregon PAC.
www.bradavakian.com
(This information furnished by Committee to Elect
Brad Avakian.)
The above information has not been verified for accuracy by The above information has not been verified for accuracy by
the State of Oregon. the State of Oregon.
Judge of the Supreme Court, Position 3
Richard C
Baldwin
Nonpartisan
Occupation: Judge (2001
present, appointed by
Governor Kitzhaber)
Occupational Background:
Director, Oregon Law
Center (1996-2000) and
Legal Aid (1991-1995),
Attorney (1981-1990)
Educational Background: JD, Lewis and Clark Law School
Prior Governmental Experience: Multnomah County Judge,
elected 2002 and 2008.
BECAUSE EXPERIENCE AND INTEGRITY MATTER
Oregon's Governors Support Judge Baldwin
"Judge Baldwin's background in legal aid and extensive trial
experience, and his work with Drug Treatment and Mental
Health courts demonstrate his unwavering commitment to
strengthening our communities. I strongly believe Judge
Baldwin is the candidate that will serve the best interests of
all Oregonians." Governor Barbara Roberts
"For the Supreme Court we need an experienced judge we
can trust to make fair and independent decisions. Judge
Baldwin is that person." Governor Ted Kulongoski, Former
Supreme Court Justice and Attorney General
Working People Trust Judge Baldwin
"Judge Baldwin has proven to be fair and open to all, provid-
ing a level playing field for individuals to seek justice against
powerful interests. We are proud to support Judge Baldwin."
Kevin Jensen, Business Manager Ironworkers Local 29
Oregon Education Association Oregon AFL-CIO
Oregon AFSCME IBEW #48
Oregon State Fire Fighters Council SEIU Local 503
"Baldwin... smart and compassionate ... accessible and down-
to-earth." Willamette Week, 412012012
Award Winnina Judge
Oregon Women Lawyers, Mercedes Deiz Award
Metropolitan Human Rights Center, Peyton Award
Experience and Integrity Matter
"Judge Baldwin's exceptional judicial experience combined
with his commitment to integrity and fairness make him the
best choice." Justice Robert Durham, Oregon Supreme Court
"Judge Baldwin has presided over hundreds of criminal and
civil cases, including high profile murder trials, over the past
ten years." The Oregonian, 11/14/2011
"Oregonians can trust Judge Baldwin. And his years of
experience make him the best qualified candidate."
Judge Mary Deits, Former Chief Judge, Oregon Court of
Appeals
Additional Supporters Include:
Over 60 Oregon Judges
Former Attorney General Hardy Myers
OLCV
Dan Staton, Multnomah County Sheriff
More Information and Endorsements:
www.electiudgebaidwin.com
(This information furnished by Elect Judge Baldwin.)
Judge of the Supreme Court, Position 3
Nena
Cook
Nonpartisan
Occupation: Judge Pro Tem;
Attorney
Occupational Background:
Judge Pro Tem, Multnomah
County (2007-present); Private
practice attorney (1991-
present); Marion County
District Attorney's office (1990-1991)
Educational Background: Willamette University College of
Law, JD; Gonzaga University, BA; PSU, Masters in Business
Administration Graduate Program
Prior Governmental Experience: Oregon Commission on
Professionalism (2005); Oregon Commission for Women
(2007-2010)
OTHER EXPERIENCE: Oregon State Bar President (2005);
Federal Court's Pro Bono Representation Panel
(2006-present)
EXPERIENCE. DEDICATION. INTEGRITY.
"I pledge to bring integrity, a commitment to justice, and
accountability to the people of Oregon. I understand that
servina you on the Suareme Court is a areat resaonsibility.
The law not only impacts people's lives today,
but the course we chart for future generations. IT approach
every decision with that legacy in mind."
-Nena Cook
EXPERIENCE & DEDICATION
"With more than twenty years of real -world legal experience,
a record of public service, and an unmatched knowledge of
the law, Nena Cook is the best choice for Oregon's Supreme
Court."
Former Governor Vic Atiyeh
Former Secretary of State Norma Paulus
Former Attorney General Dave Frohnmayer
Congressman Kurt Schrader
• Named one of the Best Lawyers in America, Labor and
Employment Law (2011, 2012, 2013)
• One of Oregon's Top 25 Women Super Lawyers (2012)
• Voted "Best of the Bar" in Litigation and Dispute
Resolution by Tri-County area lawyers (2005)
INTEGRITY
"Her intelligence, integrity, fair-mindedness and work ethic
all make Nena Cook uniquely qualified to serve on Oregon's
Supreme Court."
Doug Robertson, Douglas County Commissioner
Dick Schouten, Washington County Commissioner
Serena Cruz Walsh, former Multnomah County Commissioner
TRUSTED BY THOSE WHO KEEP OUR FAMILIES SAFE
"Nena Cook's demonstrated commitment to fairness and
justice is needed in our next Supreme Court Justice. She has
earned our trust and respect."
District Attorneys in 26 counties support Nena, including:
John Foote, Clackamas Michael Schrunk, Multnomah
Alex Gardner, Lane Bob Hermann, Washington
Walt Beglau, Marion
Learn more: www.NenaCook.com.
(This information furnished by Nena Cook for Oregon
Supreme Court.)
The above information has not been verified for accuracy by The above information has not been verified for accuracy by
the State of Oregon. the State of Oregon.
Judge of the Court of Appeals, Position 6
James C
Egan
Nonpartisan
Occupation: Judge, Linn
County Circuit Court
Occupational Background:
�f. Judge, Linn County Circuit
Court (2010-present); Attorney/
Partner, Kryger, Alexander,
Egan, Elmer & Carlson (1985-
2010); U.S. Army Reserve (2006-present); Deputy Command
Judge Advocate, A.S.G. Kuwait (2008-2009); U.S. Marine
Corps Reserve (1983-1995); U.S. Marine Corps (1979-1982)
Educational Background: University of Oregon School of
Law, J.D. (1985); Willamette University, B.S. (1979); West
Albany High School, Diploma (1974)
Prior Governmental Experience: Linn County Planning
Commission (1986-1994); Tangent Fire Board (1996-2008)
Other Experience: Oregon State Bar House of Delegates
(2001-2005); Oregon State Bar (admitted 1985); U.S. District
Court Bar, District of Oregon (admitted 1996); Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals Bar (admitted 2000)
JUDGE JAMES C. EGAN FOR OREGON COURT OF APPEALS
INTEGRITY. EXPERIENCE. TRUST.
INTEGRITY
As a lawyer, judge and service member, Judge Egan's integ-
rity is unquestioned. He brings an unwavering sense of fair-
ness to his work as an attorney and a judge, and Oregonians
can trust that he will bring this integrity to the Oregon Court
of Appeals.
EXPERIENCE
A lawyer in private practice for 25 years, a Judge Advocate
in the U.S. Army in Kuwait, and a Circuit Court Judge in Linn
County, Judge Egan's experience makes him uniguely quali-
fied for a seat on the Oregon Court of Appeals.
TRUST
Oregonians can trust that Judge Egan knows the impact laws
have on our families. He raised his family in Oregon and
knows the opportunities and challenges in this great state. He
will bring Oregon values to the Court of Appeals.
"My philosophy is simple. A judge's role is to impose the rule
of law without bias or prejudice. I approach each case with
an open mind. I carefully consider the issues before me, and
I decide on the merits. I will uphold the Constitution and be
accountable to the people of Oregon."
-- Judge James Egan
For more information, please visit www.jamescegan20l2.com
(This information furnished by Committee to Elect Judge
James C Egan.)
Judge of the Court of Appeals, Position 6
Tim
Volpert
Nonpartisan
Occupation: Trial and Appellate
Attorney and Partner at Davis
Wright Tremaine
Occupational Background:
Trial attorney (1982-89);
Partner, appellate specialist
(1990-present)
Educational Background: Willamette University College of
Law, J.D. 1981; Earlham College, B.A. 1978
Prior Governmental Experience: Judicial Clerk for
Hon. W. Michael Gillette, Oregon Court of Appeals, 1981-82
Tim Volpert has decades of practical legal experience.
• Devoted 30 years to representing citizens, public bodies
and businesses in Oregon trial and appellate courts
• Handled over 100 appeals, including over 60 before the
Oregon Court of Appeals
• Successfully argued landmark case before the United
States Supreme Court, representing an Oregon public
school district
Tim has been recognized by his peers for his legal work.
• One of the "Best Lawyers in America" in appellate law
(Woodward/White, 2010-12)
• Oregon State Bar President's "Award for Public Service,"
2004
• Senior Law Project "Award for Outstanding Service"
As a volunteer, Tim has devoted thousands of hours to law -
related education and community service.
• Coached Portland's Grant High School Constitution Team
to seven top-10 national competition finishes
• Served on non-profit organizations, including Classroom
Law Project and Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon
• Served on professional organizations including
Multnomah Bar Association Foundation, Rules of
Appellate Procedure Committee and State Bar Appellate
Section Executive Committee
• Cooperating Attorney, ACLU of Oregon
• Represented Oregon clients pro bono in over 75 matters
TIM HAS EARNED SUPPORT FROM ACROSS OREGON
Governor Barbara Roberts
Former Oregon Supreme Court Justice W. Michael Gillette
Former Attorney General Hardy Myers
Earl Blumenauer, US Representative
Suzanne Bonamici, US Representative
Multnomah County District Attorney Michael D. Schrunk
John Henry Hingson III
Joint Council of Teamsters No. 37
Oregon Education Association
"I believe in a justice system that respects the rights of every
person, not special interests. And I believe it is a judge's
responsibility to treat all parties fairly, with equal respect, and
to be free of outside influence. It would be my great honor to
serve the people of Oregon." —Tim Volpert
www.timvolpert.com
(This information furnished by Tim Volpert for Court of
Appeals.)
The above information has not been verified for accuracy by The above information has not been verified for accuracy by
the State of Oregon. the State of Oregon.
Judge of the Circuit Court, 11th District, Position 2 Judge of the Circuit Court, 11th District, Position 2
Andy
Balyeat
Nonpartisan
Occupation: Senior Partner at
Balyeat & Eager, LLP.
Occupational Background:
Full-time practicing attorney
for more than 26 years. Former
Criminal Prosecutor. Admitted
to Oregon State Bar and U.S.
District Court, District of Oregon. Active trial and appellate
practice.
Educational Background: J.D., Ohio Northern University
Pettit College of Law, with honors 1985; B.A., University of
Cincinnati, Economics, 1982.
Prior Governmental Experience: Criminal Prosecutor,
Attorney for local governments.
Community Support:
Deschutes County attorneys overwhelmingly voted for
Andy Balyeat in the Judicial Preference Poll conducted by the
Oregon State Bar for the Circuit Court Judge position (Oregon
State Bar Judicial Preference Poll April 2012).
Andy Balyeat has been awarded the highest possible rating
in legal ability & ethical standards by his fellow attorneys.
"I support Andy Balyeat because of his well-balanced
background as a criminal prosecutor and civil trial attorney
which is essential to be an effective judge. He has the unique
perspective that comes with experience and will be an excel-
lent judge."
Les Stiles, Deschutes County Sheriff (Ret.)
"Andy Balyeat is deeply committed to the law and to our
community. It's clear why his candidacy for Circuit Court
Judge is overwhelmingly endorsed by his legal colleagues
and peers. Andy will serve the citizens of Deschutes County
with fairness, integrity and heart."
Ruth Williamson, Bend Park and Recreation District Board of
Directors
"Andy Balyeat is uniquely qualified to be the next Deschutes
County Circuit Court Judge. Andy is honest, hard working,
tough when he needs to be and fair."
Neil Bryant, shareholder, Bryant, Lovlien & Jarvis, LLP
Endorsements: Amy Tykeson; Dennis C. Karnopp;
Betsy Skovborg; Ken Mulenex; George Endicott; Ron Bryant,
Bryant, Emerson & Fitch, LLP; Norma Dubois; Lisa Bertalan;
Jeff Eager; Tamara MacLeod and Aaron Brenneman.
Community Service: Volunteer youth basketball coach for
the Bend Park & Recreation District; Mt. Bachelor Sports
Education Foundation; Bend Chamber of Commerce; long
term supporter/contributor of Magic in the Park and other
community non-profit events and organizations.
(This information furnished by Andy Balyeat.)
Beth
Bagley
Nonpartisan
Occupation: Supervising
Attorney; Prosecutor -
Deschutes County District
Attorney's Office
Occupational Background:
Trial attorney for 15 years in
Oregon
Educational Background: University of Minnesota -Law
School, J.D., cum laude; University of California -Santa
Barbara, B.A., High Honors, Phi Beta Kappa
Prior Governmental Experience: Bend -La Pine School Board
Member
ELECT BETH BAGLEY,
WINNER OF THE MAY 2012 PRIMARY ELECTION
FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
Beth Bagley's 15 years of experience in the courtroom in
Oregon, her commitment to public safety and families, her
connection to our community, and her reputation for fairness,
courage, and conviction, make her the right choice to serve the
people of Deschutes County as our next Circuit Court Judge.
"Bagley is thoughtful and well-spoken, and her passion for
community and her experience as a prosecutor would serve
her well on the bench."
-The Bulletin, April 15, 2012
BETH BAGLEY:
-Protects our most vulnerable citizens and handles our
courts' most serious cases
-Will make good decisions in the courtroom because she
understands the law and our community
-Saved taxpayer money by developing a court program that
cuts costs while ensuring accountability
-Will make our courts more efficient and effective with her
ideas, knowledge and experience
-Is a voter -elected Bend -La Pine School Board Member,
ensuring strong schools that benefit our economy and
promote safety
-Is a dedicated community volunteer supporting families,
children and public safety
BETH BAGLEY IS THE CANDIDATE ENDORSED BY JUDGES,
LAWYERS, POLICE, AND OTHER COMMUNITY LEADERS:
Deschutes County Sheriff's Employees Association; Bend
Police Association; Redmond Police Officers Association;
Angela Lee -Pro Tern Judge, Bend Municipal Court, Attorney;
Crime Victims United; Michael J. Gillespie -Circuit Court
Judge; Martin Stone -Circuit Court Judge; Richard L. Barron -
Circuit Court Judge; Sid Brockley-Retired Circuit Court
Judge, Mediator; S. Amanda Marshall -Attorney; Jodie
Barram-Bend City Councilor, Mayor Pro Tempore; Jane Evey
Teater-Retired Educator; Oregon Asian Pacific American Bar
Association; Linda Bra detich-President Central Oregon Labor
Council; John Rexford-ESD Superintendent; Cheryl Howard;
www.BaalevforJudae.com
(This information furnished by Bagley for Judge Committee.)
The above information has not been verified for accuracy by The above information has not been verified for accuracy by
the State of Oregon. the State of Oregon.
Constitution Party
Dear Voter,
The Constitution Party of Oregon asks you to join us in honoring God, defending the family, and seeking to restore our
Republic, by voting for our candidates appearing on your ballot:
Will Christensen for President (Ken Gibbs for Vice -President)
Bob Ekstrom, Raymond Baldwin, and Art Robinson for Congress
James Leuenberger for Attorney General
Michael Marsh for State Treasurer
Ken Hamlington for Lake County Commissioner
Barbara Gonzalez, Rick Hake, Lucian Blansett, Mark Callahan, Ray Biggs, and Jim Welsh for State Representative in their
respective districts.
Our candidates are pledged to the following seven principles:
Life: We believe in Divine Providence and recognize our Creator as the author of human life. Thus we believe in the absolute
sanctity of human life. The first duty of civil government is the protection of innocent human life from conception until natural
death, no exceptions. When government sanctions abortion, then all lives are at risk.
Liberty: Far from granting license to 'do whatever we want', true liberty comes from God and real freedom is born of self-
government. With James Madison, we assert the precious American ideal, which set our country apart from other nations...
"we have staked the whole future of American Civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the
whole future ...upon the capacity of each of us to govern ourselves, according to the ten commandments of God."
Family: Our Creator set in place the family as the first divinely instituted form of government. It is the duty of civil government
to recognize and protect the authority of the family unit. When the state usurps the family's authority, the hearts of the children
are turned to the state, rather than to the fathers. Such socialist actions deny the created order and harm our communities.
Property: We believe that the right of individuals to own and steward their property is God-given; established in such com-
mandments as "Thou shalt not steal." and "Thou shalt not covet." We encourage private generosity, but oppose the forced
transfer of one's wealth to others by the state. We believe that the loss of 'external' property rights leads to the loss of
'internal' rights of personal conscience. It was James Madison who said, "Conscience is the most sacred of all property."
The U.S. Constitution: In these United States, the Constitution established a representative federal republic — which represents
the sovereignty of the people under God over the state. Our founders purposed that the Constitution would uphold those ideals
expressed in our Declaration of Independence, as the law of the land, and limit the power and scope of the federal government.
Limited, Local Government: Our desire is to return the federal government to its constitutional boundaries. The 10th amend-
ment in our Bill of Rights strictly limits the federal government to those jurisdictions specifically stated within the Constitution.
As a principle, our founders sought to ensure the duties of civil government always be performed at the lowest possible level.
Local elected officials and clerks are more directly accountable to the people.
American Sovereignty: We are firmly committed to the protection of our borders, our trade and our common defense. We
believe that America is to be the friend of liberty everywhere, but the guarantor and provisioner of ours alone. We oppose
membership in the United Nations and any other treaty or affiliation that attempts to assert authority over our Constitution or
bypass our sovereign citizens' constitutionally elected representatives.
If you don't like being taxed to police the world while our own borders are unprotected, losing our jobs to other nations
because of environmentalist nonsense and government regulations, having your rights trampled and your property confis-
cated, or being exposed to God's wrath on our nation because it condones the shedding of innocent blood and rampant moral
perversion, vote for Constitution Party candidates.
You can't get what you don't vote for!
www.constitutionpartyoregon.org or call Jack Brown (541) 659-4313.
(This information furnished by Constitution Party of Oregon.)
Independent Party
INDEPENDENT PARTY OF OREGON
THE "TWO-PARTY SYSTEM" IS BROKEN. DON'T LET IT BREAK OUR
ECONOMY, OUR JOBS, OUR GOVERNMENT, AND OUR FUTURES.
GRIDLOCK IN WASHINGTON AND SALEM MEANS WE CAN'T GET
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM, EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT, AFFORDABLE
HEALTH CARE, REASONABLE UTILITY RATES, OR COMMON SENSE
SOLUTIONS FOR THE COMMON GOOD.
We need to get big money out of politics.
The Democratic and Republican parties are controlled by their "donors" who shovel tens of millions of dollars into Oregon
political campaigns every election year.
Campaign spending on state and local Oregon offices continues to skyrocket, from $4 million in 1996 to $57 million in 2010.
Winning a contested race for the Oregon Legislature now typically costs over $600,000, sometimes over $1 million.
Vote for candidates with "Independent" next to their names on the ballot.
If they win, they will know they need to pay attention to Independent voters,
not just their big donors.
We are Oregon's third largest party, with over 78,000 new members since 2007. We support candidates from across the politi-
cal spectrum who are committed to the principle that the basic instruments of our democracy -- the elections process, the
Legislature, and the initiative and referendum -- should not be controlled by the special interests that now run the government
in Oregon.
Hasso Hering, editor of the Albany Democrat -Herald, on June 10, 2010, described our platform:
[T]hey favor state politics in which the average citizens gain influence and the special interests --especially the interests
with lots of money --have less. The details are open to debate, but that's not a bad program for which to campaign.
NEW WAY OF CHOOSING CANDIDATES
Instead of a convention of insiders, our candidates are selected by online voting open to all members —a true grassroots
process. The members choose our nominees for up to 60 offices from candidates seeking our nominations, including
Independents, Democrats, Republicans, and others.
No minor party in Oregon has ever conducted a primary election before. No party of any description in Oregon, major
or minor, has conducted an election via the Internet. No Oregon party has every conducted a primary election at its
own expense. The Independent Party of Oregon is currently doing all three. The experiment could change both elections
and politics in the state and beyond.
Eugene Register Guard editorial, July 11, 2010
In some cases you'll see the "Independent" label along with the name of another party which nominated the same candidate.
Those with the "Independent" label won our primary election.
NEW WAY OF SETTING THE AGENDA IN SALEM
Our agenda is determined by our members and their answers to issue surveys. In the summer 2012 survey, they said Oregon
government should:
1. Promote job creation & economic development.
2. Reduce medical, prescription, hospital, and insurance costs.
3. Amend the Oregon Constitution to limit special interest money in election campaigns.
4. Reduce State spending.
5. Regulate banks and insurance companies to better protect consumers.
We led the fight to stop the 2011 Legislature from blowing a huge loophole in Oregon's campaign finance disclosure laws, even
after the Oregon Senate had passed the bill on a unanimous vote.
We also pursued bills to require all campaign ads to disclose who paid for them, to ban legislators from becoming lobbyists
for 2 years after leaving office, and requiring the State to give Oregon -based businesses a slight preference when bidding on
State contracts. None were passed.
NEW WAY OF DOING THE PEOPLE'S BUSINESS
If the Independent Party candidates do not work cooperatively to solve problems, free from special interests and corrupting
cash, then our members will reject them in our next primary election.
VOTE. THINK. BE. INDEPENDENT.
www.indparty.com
info@indparty.com
(This information furnished by Independent Party.)
Libertarian Party
Our Party
The Libertarian Party of Oregon was organized in 1971 and is affiliated with the third largest political party in America. For
forty years, Libertarian candidates have offered to end and oppose all foreign wars that have nothing to do with the interests
of the American people, and have offered a foreign policy that promotes peace and limits corporate control of our foreign
affairs. Libertarian candidates have fought to cut taxes by ending government agencies and policies that only exist to violate
your civil rights. Libertarian candidates have voted to cut spending and clear the national debt, restoring the possibility that
your children will have a retirement. Libertarian candidates advocate the rights of the individual to make their own personal
choices for their own life, body, and property.
The Libertarian Party Statement of Principles:
We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives and have the right to live in whatever
manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they
choose. Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the state has the right to
dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our
own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must
not violate the rights of the individual; namely, (1) the right to life - accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of
physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action - accordingly we oppose all attempts by government
to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; (3) the right to property - accord-
ingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain,
and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation. Since governments, where instituted, must not
violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among
individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free
by government to deal with one another as free traders, and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the
protection of individual rights, is the free market.
Please join us!
If you are already registered as a Libertarian in Oregon, you are a voting member of our party. If you are not, and believe as we
do, please register as "Libertarian." Members receive mail ballots for our primary elections and also receive ballots for choos-
ing party leadership and setting rules. To get involved, visit our website, http://www.lporegon.org, and click on the
"Get Involved" link to get connected with Oregon Libertarian activists.
www.lporegon.org
(This information furnished by The Libertarian Party of Oregon.)
Pacific Green Party
PACIFIC GREEN PARTY OF OREGON
If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results,
then Oregon voters who support Democrats and Republicans must be crazy.
THE TWO BIG POLITICAL PARTIES HAVE GOTTEN US INTO THE MESS WE'RE IN:
A STAGNANT ECONOMY, PERSISTENT UNEMPLOYMENT, LOW -WAGE JOBS, A HEALTH CARE CRISIS,
PEOPLE BEING DRIVEN OUT OF THEIR HOMES, GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE,
AND A FOREIGN POLICY BASED ON EXPENSIVE, SENSELESS AND ENDLESS WARS.
WHY WOULD YOU EXPECT THE PARTIES WHO CREATED THESE PROBLEMS TO SOLVE THEM?
The Pacific Green Party offers sensible forward -looking solutions to the many problems we face.
YOU probably agree with us on most issues. NOW is the time to stand with us.
Our economy is a mess. Our foreign policy is an embarrassment. We rely on war and oil to drive our cars and our economy.
We spend more on war than anything else and now we can't afford to fix the problems we face at home. If we want a healthy
society and a healthy economy, if we want to educate our kids for the challenges of the future, then we need to invest wisely.
We need to re -direct the massive amounts of money currently going to Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Israel and elsewhere and
bring it home.
We need to re-claim the American Dream.
Middle-class families struggle to provide their families with housing, health care, a college education for their kids and savings
for retirement. Poorer families have an even harder time getting their basic needs met.
We propose shifting the military budget —by far and away the world's largest —to domestic needs.
The U.S. "defense" budget is over $700 billion. By comparison, the budget of the U.S. Department of Education is only $70
billion! If we cut the military budget in half, we could finance a Green Jobs program to eliminate unemployment, protect the
environment, jump-start the economy and provide a free college education for all citizens. And, a military budget of "just"
$350 billion would still be the biggest in the world.
Investing in Green Jobs, renewable energy, conservation and mass transportation will provide work, economic
security and environmental protection.
The Pacific Green Party of Oregon supports:
• Universal health care for all
• Protection of our native forests
• Ending student debt and home foreclosures
• Gender and inter -generational equality
• Instant runoff voting
• Public financing of campaigns and donor limits
• Ending cannabis prohibition
• Transparent and accountable government
One reason our problems persist is the corporate control of our elections and government. We must get private money out of
public elections. Money is not speech. We support constitutional amendments to protect free speech and strip corporations of
rights which belong only to individual citizens.
Taking control of our future requires the courage to vote your conscience and wrestle control of our government
back from the corporations who have seized it.
Another reason we're in crisis is because voters too often vote out of fear rather than voting for a candidate they believe in.
Voting for the lesser of two evils means that evil still wins.
Invest your vote —don't throw it away on professional politicians and hucksters.
Do you really trust the people who got us into this mess to fix it?
Register Green at www.oregonvotes.org and Vote Green
Learn more: www.pacificgreens.org facebook.com/pacificgreens twitter.com/pacificgreens
Support our candidates:
Dr. Jill Stein & Cheri Honkala, President and Vice President Christina Lugo, 5th Congressional District
Seth Woolley, Secretary of State Steven Reynolds, 1st Congressional District
Woody Broadnax, 3rd Congressional District Tim Dehne, Benton County Commissioner
Mike Beilstein, 4th Congressional District Alex Polikoff, 23rd District Oregon House
The future is Green. Be part of the Green Future.
Start now! Vote Green!
(This information furnished by Pacific Green Party of Oregon.)
Progressive Party
PROGRESSIVE PARTY CANDIDATES
Rocky Anderson President of the United States
Robert Wolfe
Secretary of State, Oregon
Cameron Whitten
State Treasurer, Oregon
Chris Henry
Attorney General, Oregon
Steven Reynolds
U.S. House of Representatives, 1st District
Woody Broadnax
U.S. House of Representatives, 3rd District
Peter DeFazio
U.S. House of Representatives, 4th District
We fight for economic justice, human rights, environmental protection, and grassroots democracy. Unlike the Democratic
and Republican parties, WE OPPOSE: the corruption of elections by big money, Wall Street bailouts, the war in Afghanistan,
"corporate personhood," and the NAFTA & WTO "free trade" agreements. WE SUPPORT: real campaign finance reform,
Medicare for All, equal rights (including same -sex marriage), and much higher minimum wages.
We are very different from the Establishment parties
Democrat Republican Progressive
Real campaign finance reform
NO
NO
YES
"Medicare for All" comprehensive health care
NO
NO
YES
Oppose cuts in Social Security & Medicare benefits
NO
NO
YES
End Bush's federal income tax cuts for the rich
NO
NO
YES
Oppose Wall Street bailouts and corruption
NO
NO
YES
Employment for All (public works projects, WPA style)
NO
NO
YES
Increase minimum wages to living wage ($10 or more)
NO
NO
YES
Repair, improve infrastructure (transportation, water systems, etc.)
NO
NO
YES
Oppose NAFTA & WTO "free trade"; support purchase of local products & services
NO
NO
YES
Oppose wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; bring troops home now
NO
NO
YES
Slash military spending
NO
NO
YES
End occupation of Palestine
NO
NO
YES
Oppose spying on Americans, including drones
NO
NO
YES
Equal rights for all; same -sex marriage
NO
NO
YES
Clean energy; no nuclear subsidies
NO
NO
YES
Oppose shipping coal for export through Columbia Gorge
NO
NO
YES
Oppose offshore oil & gas drilling
NO
NO
YES
Decriminalize marijuana possession and use
NO
NO
YES
End "corporate personhood"
NO
NO
YES
End the U.S. Senate filibuster; restore majority rule
NO
NO
YES
OREGON ISSUES
1. We have worked for real campaign finance reform. Oregon Democrats and Republicans have never enacted limits on
political campaign contributions. Democrats in state office right now are refusing to enforce the campaign finance reform
Measure 47 enacted by Oregon voters in 2006. Campaign spending for Oregon state offices has skyrocketed from
$4 million in 1996 to $57 million in 2010. Candidates for the Legislature now typically spend over $600,000 to win a
contested seat, sometimes over $1 million.
2. We want to make the initiative and referendum again available to grass -roots efforts. The Democrat Secretary of State
is now discarding over 40% of all voter signatures on petitions due to arbitrary, hyper -technical, and unnecessary rules,
raising the cost of petition drives so high that only corporations, unions and the very wealthy can afford to use it.
3. We want the State Treasurer to direct part of Oregon's $73 billion of investment funds to invest in local public works and
jobs for Oregonians instead of vulture capitalists, corporate raiders, and leveraged buyout artists.
4. We want fair taxation. Oregon has the 4th highest income taxes of any state on lower -income working families and is still
at the bottom in taxes on corporations.
5. We want to stop government promotion of gambling, including video poker, video slots, and approval of private casinos.
6. We oppose installation of police "spy cameras" and use of drones (like model airplanes and helicopters) to spy on
Oregon citizens.
OREGON BALLOT MEASURE RECOMMENDATIONS:
Vote NO on Measures 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, and 84.
Vote YES on Measures 80, 81, and 85.
(This information furnished by Progressive Party.)
House Joint Resolution 7—Referred to the Electorate of Oregon by the Legislative Assembly of the 2011 Regular Session to be
voted on at the General Election, November 6, 2012.
Result of "Yes" Vote
"Yes" vote grants Governor constitutional authority to
declare "catastrophic disaster" (defined); requires legislative
session; legislature may suspend specified constitutional
spending restrictions to aid response, recovery.
Result of "No" Vote
"No" vote retains Governor's statutory authority to declare
state of emergency; retains constitutional spending restric-
tions and constitutional restrictions on legislative authority
without exception for emergency.
Summary
Amends Constitution. Currently, Governor has statutory, but
not constitutional, authority to declare state of emergency
and direct response to emergency. Measure grants Governor
constitutional authority to declare and respond to natural or
human -caused "catastrophic disaster" (defined). Authorizes
Governor to redirect previously allocated General Fund and
lottery monies to disaster response. Requires legislative
session (under emergency conditions, if necessary) to enact
implementing legislation; legislation may include temporarily
suspending specified constitutional spending restrictions.
Terminates Governor's disaster spending authority upon
enactment of law specifying purposes for which funds may
be used. Limits disaster authority of Governor and legislature
to 30 days unless legislature acts to shorten/lengthen period;
such legislation may include any provision legislature deems
necessary to provide "orderly transition" (undefined) to
normal conditions. Other provisions.
Estimate of Financial Impact
Referral 401 allows for government action in the event of
a catastrophic disaster. It grants the Governor temporary
authority to redirect certain state monies from legislatively -
approved purposes to disaster response. It requires the
Governor to convene the legislature unless the Legislative
Assembly is already in session or scheduled to convene
within 30 days.
The financial effect of the measure is indeterminate.
Explanation of Estimate of Financial Impact
The financial impact of the measure is indeterminate. The
actual cost will depend on the frequency or occurrence of
catastrophic event(s); whether it is necessary to call the
legislature into special session; and the length of the special
session. The length of special legislative sessions can only be
determined by Legislative Assembly members at the time of
the session.
The measure will have no financial impact on local
government spending.
Committee Members:
Secretary of State Kate Brown
State Treasurer Ted Wheeler
Michael Jordan, Director, Dept. of Administrative Services
James Bucholz, Director, Dept. of Revenue
Debra Guzman, Local Government Representative
(The estimate of financial impact and explanation was
provided by the above committee pursuant to ORS 250.127.)
Text of Measure
Be It Resolved by the Legislative Assembly of the State
of Oregon, two-thirds of all the members of each house
concurring:
PARAGRAPH 1. The Constitution of the State of Oregon is
revised by creating a new Article to be known as Article X-A,
such Article to read:
ARTICLE X-A
SECTION 1. (1) As used in this Article, "catastrophic disas-
ter" means a natural or human -caused event that:
(a) Results in extraordinary levels of death, injury, prop-
erty damage or disruption of daily life in this state; and
(b) Severely affects the population, infrastructure, environ-
ment, economy or government functioning of this state.
(2) As used in this Article, "catastrophic disaster" includes,
but is not limited to, any of the following events if the event
meets the criteria listed in subsection (1) of this section:
(a) Act of terrorism.
(b) Earthquake.
(c) Flood.
(d) Public health emergency.
(e) Tsunami.
(f) Volcanic eruption.
(g) War.
(3) The Governor may invoke the provisions of this Article
if the Governor finds and declares that a catastrophic disas-
ter has occurred. A finding required by this subsection shall
specify the nature of the catastrophic disaster.
(4) At the time the Governor invokes the provisions of this
Article under subsection (3) of this section, the Governor
shall issue a proclamation convening the Legislative
Assembly under section 12, Article V of this Constitution,
unless:
(a) The Legislative Assembly is in session at the time the
catastrophic disaster is declared; or
(b) The Legislative Assembly is scheduled to convene
in regular session within 30 days after the date the cata-
strophic disaster is declared.
(5) If the Governor declares that a catastrophic disaster
has occurred, the Governor shall manage the immediate
response to the disaster. The actions of the Legislative
Assembly under sections 3 and 4 of this Article are limited
to actions necessary to implement the Governor's immedi-
ate response to the disaster and to actions necessary to aid
recovery from the disaster.
SECTION 2. (1) If the Governor declares that a catastrophic
disaster has occurred, the Governor may:
(a) Use moneys appropriated from the General Fund to
executive agencies for the current biennium to respond to
the catastrophic disaster, regardless of the legislatively
expressed purpose of the appropriation at the time the
appropriation was made.
(b) Use lottery funds allocated to executive agencies for
the current biennium to respond to the catastrophic disaster,
regardless of the legislatively expressed purpose of the
allocation at the time the allocation was made. The Governor
may not reallocate lottery funds under this paragraph for
purposes not authorized by section 4, Article XV of this
Constitution.
(2) The authority granted to the Governor by this section
terminates upon the taking effect of a law enacted after the
declaration of a catastrophic disaster that specifies purposes
for which appropriated General Fund moneys or allocated
lottery funds may be used, or upon the date on which the
provisions of sections 1 to 5 of this Article cease to be
operative as provided in section 6 of this Article, whichever
is sooner.
SECTION 3. If the Governor declares that a catastrophic
disaster has occurred:
(1) Notwithstanding sections 10 and 10a, Article IV of
this Constitution, the Legislative Assembly may convene in
a place other than the Capitol of the State if the Governor
or the Legislative Assembly determines that the Capitol is
inaccessible.
(2) Notwithstanding section 12, Article IV of this
Constitution, during any period of time when members of
the Legislative Assembly are unable to compel the atten-
dance of two-thirds of the members of each house because
the catastrophic disaster has made it impossible to locate
members or impossible for them to attend, two-thirds of
the members of each house who are able to attend shall
constitute a quorum to do business.
(3) In a session of the Legislative Assembly that is called
because of the catastrophic disaster or that was imminent or
ongoing at the time the catastrophic disaster was declared,
the number of members of each house that constitutes a
quorum under subsection (2) of this section may suspend the
rule regarding reading of bills under the same circumstances
and in the same manner that two-thirds of the members
may suspend the rule under section 19, Article IV of this
Constitution.
(4) Notwithstanding section 25, Article IV of this
Constitution, during any period of time when members of
the Legislative Assembly are unable to compel the atten-
dance of two-thirds of the members of each house because
the catastrophic disaster has made it impossible to locate
members or impossible for them to attend, three -fifths of
the members of each house who are able to attend a session
described in subsection (3) of this section shall be necessary
to pass every bill or joint resolution.
(5) Notwithstanding section la, Article IX of this
Constitution, the Legislative Assembly may declare an
emergency in any bill regulating taxation or exemption,
including but not limited to any bill that decreases or
suspends taxes or postpones the due date of taxes, if the
Legislative Assembly determines that the enactment of the
bill is necessary to provide an adequate response to the
catastrophic disaster.
SECTION 4. (1) If the Governor declares that a catastrophic
disaster has occurred:
(a) The Legislative Assembly may enact laws authorizing
the use of revenue described in section 3a, Article IX of this
Constitution, for purposes other than those described in that
section.
(b) The Legislative Assembly may, by a vote of the number
of members of each house that constitutes a quorum under
subsection (2) of section 3 of this Article, appropriate
moneys that would otherwise be returned to taxpayers
under section 14, Article IX of this Constitution, to state
agencies for the purpose of responding to the catastrophic
disaster.
(c) Notwithstanding section 7, Article XI of this
Constitution, the Legislative Assembly may lend the credit
of the state or create debts or liabilities in an amount the
Legislative Assembly considers necessary to provide an
adequate response to the catastrophic disaster.
(d) The provisions of section 15, Article XI of this
Constitution, do not apply to any law that is approved by
three -fifths of the members of each house who are able to
attend a session described in subsection (3) of section 3 of
this Article.
(e) The Legislative Assembly may take action described in
subsection (6) of section 15, Article XI of this Constitution,
upon approval by three -fifths of the members of each house
who are able to attend a session described in subsection (3)
of section 3 of this Article.
(f) Notwithstanding section 4, Article XV of this
Constitution, the Legislative Assembly may allocate pro-
ceeds from the State Lottery for any purpose and in any ratio
the Legislative Assembly determines necessary to provide
an adequate response to the catastrophic disaster.
(2) Nothing in this section overrides or otherwise affects
the provisions of section 15b, Article V of this Constitution.
SECTION 5. For purposes of sections 3 and 4 of this Article,
a member of the Legislative Assembly who cannot be physi-
cally present at a session convened under section 1 of this
Article shall be considered in attendance if the member is
able to participate in the session through electronic or other
means that enable the member to hear or read the proceed-
ings as the proceedings are occurring and enable others to
hear or read the member's votes or other contributions as
the votes or other contributions are occurring.
SECTION 6. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this
section, the provisions of sections 1 to 5 of this Article, once
invoked, shall cease to be operative not later than 30 days
following the date the Governor invoked the provisions of
sections 1 to 5 of this Article, or on an earlier date recom-
mended by the Governor and determined by the Legislative
Assembly. The Governor may not recommend a date under
this subsection unless the Governor finds and declares that
the immediate response to the catastrophic disaster has
ended.
(2) Prior to expiration of the 30-day limit established in
subsection (1) of this section, the Legislative Assembly may
extend the operation of sections 1 to 5 of this Article beyond
the 30-day limit upon the approval of three -fifths of the
members of each house who are able to attend a session
described in subsection (3) of section 3 of this Article.
(3) The determination by the Legislative Assembly
required by subsection (1) of this section or an extension
described in subsection (2) of this section shall take the form
of a bill. A bill that extends the operation of sections 1 to 5 of
this Article shall establish a date upon which the provisions
of sections 1 to 5 of this Article shall cease to be operative.
A bill described in this subsection shall be presented to the
Governor for action in accordance with section 15b, Article V
of this Constitution.
(4) A bill described in subsection (3) of this section may
include any provisions the Legislative Assembly considers
necessary to provide an orderly transition to compliance
with the requirements of this Constitution that have been
overridden under this Article because of the Governor's
declaration of a catastrophic disaster.
(5) The Governor may not invoke the provisions of sections
1 to 5 of this Article more than one time with respect to the
same catastrophic disaster. A determination under subsec-
tion (1) of this section or an extension described in subsec-
tion (2) of this section that establishes a date upon which
the provisions of sections 1 to 5 of this Article shall cease
to be operative does not prevent invoking the provisions of
sections 1 to 5 of this Article in response to a new declara-
tion by the Governor that a different catastrophic disaster
has occurred.
PARAGRAPH 2. The revision proposed by this resolution
shall be submitted to the people for their approval or rejec-
tion at a special election held on the same date as the next
general election.
Note: Boldfaced type indicates new language; [brackets and
italic] type indicates deletions or comments.
Explanatory Statement
Ballot Measure 77 is a constitutional revision relating to state
governmental responses to catastrophic disasters.
The measure allows the Governor to declare that a cata-
strophic disaster has occurred. Upon such declaration, the
Governor and Legislature are granted new temporary powers
not available under certain constitutional provisions and
statutes:
• The Governor may override laws allocating moneys to
state agencies in order to respond to the disaster.
• The Legislature may override constitutional provisions
relating to legislative procedures and legislative powers.
A "catastrophic disaster" is a natural or human -caused event
resulting in extraordinary levels of death, injury, property
damage or disruption of daily life and severely affecting
the population, infrastructure, environment, economy or
government of Oregon. The terms "extraordinary levels" and
"severely affects" are not defined. Examples include, but are
not limited to, acts of terrorism, earthquakes, floods, public
health emergencies, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions and war.
If the Governor declares that a catastrophic disaster has
occurred, the Governor may manage immediate response to
the disaster by:
• Redirecting general fund moneys for state agencies.
• Using only lottery funds allocated to state agencies.
If the Governor declares that a catastrophic disaster has
occurred, the Governor also must convene the Legislature
within 30 days. The Legislature may:
• Meet at a place other than the Capitol or by electronic
means.
• Conduct business and suspend rules with two-thirds of
the members able to attend, instead of two-thirds of all
members.
• Pass bills with three -fifths of the members who are able
to attend, instead of a majority of all members.
• Pass tax bills that take effect upon passage instead of 90
days after the Legislature adjourns.
The Legislature may take additional actions otherwise pro-
hibited by the Oregon Constitution and are limited to actions
necessary to implement immediate response and aid in
recovery. The Legislature may:
• Spend State Highway Fund moneys (gas taxes) for any
purpose.
• Spend moneys that otherwise would go to individual and
corporate tax "kicker" refunds by vote of 2/3 of members
able to attend.
• Exceed the state debt limit.
• Override funding of local mandate provisions
• Spend any lottery funds.
The powers granted by Measure 77 end 30 days after the
Governor declares the catastrophic disaster or at an earlier
date determined by the Legislature. The Legislature by law
may extend the 30-day limit but must set an ending date.
Committee Members:
Senator Brian Boquist
Representative Jean Cowan
Representative Tim Freeman
Representative Kim Thatcher
Jim Nass
Appointed by:
President of the Senate
Speaker of the House
Secretary of State
Secretary of State
Members of the Committee
(This committee was appointed to provide an impartial
explanation of the ballot measure pursuant to ORS 251.215.)
Legislative Argument in Support
The Oregon State Constitution does not provide state gov-
ernment the flexibility to respond quickly and appropriately
to aid Oregon's citizens should catastrophic disasters strike.
We are at risk of severe natural disasters (volcanic eruptions,
major flooding, earthquakes or tsunamis); wars and terrorism
are also possible. Currently our state government lacks the
constitutional authority to efficiently and effectively meet the
critical needs after such an event.
Existing state constitutional limitations restrict the
Governor's ability to immediately implement and fund criti-
cally needed recovery efforts.
Existing state constitutional limitations restrict the
Governor's ability to call the Legislature into session outside
of the Capitol building in Salem.
Existing state constitutional limitations prevent the
Legislature from meeting in session if some of the legislators
do not survive the event, are incapacitated, or are unable to
travel to Salem.
Measure 77 will allow the Governor and the Legislature
to play a critical role in directing the recovery effort. The
measure retains the Governor's responsibility to oversee
immediate response efforts, maintaining his/her role in the
process of disaster declaration and deployment of an incident
command structure. It grants the Governor temporary access
to a defined and limited portion of otherwise budgeted funds
to cover critical, urgent needs.
Measure 77 will allow the Legislature to convene quickly in
order to pass laws in an alternative location, or by electronic
means; and to do so with only those members who are well
enough and able to take part.
Measure 77 allows the Legislature to repurpose addi-
tional recovery funding from certain delineated budget
components.
Measure 77 will maintain our system of checks and balances,
allowing state government to effectively react to a critical and
tragically challenging event.
Measure 77 assures that the Governor and the Legislature
will be able to work as a team to meet the urgent needs
of Oregonians who have been subjected to a catastrophic
disaster.
We urge your "YES" vote on Measure 77.
Committee Members: Appointed by:
Senator Brian Boquist President of the Senate
Representative Jean Cowan Speaker of the House
Representative Gene Whisnant Speaker of the House
A law that ends or extends operation of the measure may (This Joint Legislative Committee was appointed to provide
include provisions necessary for an orderly transition to com- the legislative argument in support of the ballot measure
pliance with constitutional provisions overridden during the pursuant to ORS 251.245.)
catastrophic disaster.
The Governor may not invoke the provisions of the measure
more than once for the same catastrophic disaster.
House Joint Resolution 44—Referred to the Electorate of Oregon by the Legislative Assembly of the 2011 Regular Session to be
voted on at the General Election, November 6, 2012.
Result of "Yes" Vote
"Yes" vote changes constitutional language describing sepa-
ration of powers to refer to three "branches" (instead of three
"departments") of government; makes other grammatical,
spelling changes.
Result of "No" Vote
"No" vote retains existing constitutional language describ-
ing separation of powers between three "departments" of
government (rather than three "branches" of government);
retains misspelled, other language.
Summary
Amends constitution. Measure makes nonsubstantive
changes to wording now contained in the Oregon constitu-
tion. Current state constitutional language describes the
governmental separation of powers to be divided into three
separate "departments": Legislative, Executive (including
Administrative), and Judicial. Measure revises this consti-
tutional phrasing by changing it to refer to three separate
"branches" of government, which conforms to more con-
temporary, commonly -used designations for these separate
divisions of government. Measure changes the description of
the two houses of the Legislature to two "chambers" of the
Legislature (rather than two "branches" of the Legislature),
which also reflects more modern designations for them.
Measure additionally modernizes spelling and makes
grammatical changes to replace existing references to the
Secretary of State as "he," "him," and "his" with gender -
neutral wording.
Estimate of Financial Impact
The measure will have no financial impact on state or local
government revenues or expenditures.
Text of Measure
Be It Resolved by the Legislative Assembly of the State of
Oregon:
PARAGRAPH 1. Section 1, Article III, section 17, Article IV,
and section 2, Article VI of the Constitution of the State of
Oregon, are amended to read:
Sec. 1. The powers of the Government shall be divided
into three [seperate departments] separate branches, the
Legislative, the Executive, including the administrative, and
the Judicial; and no person charged with official duties under
one of these [departments] branches, shall exercise any of the
functions of another, except as in this Constitution expressly
provided.[-]
Sec. 17. Each house shall have all powers necessary for a
[branch] chamber of the Legislative [Department] Branch, of a
free, and [independant] independent State.[-]
Sec. 2. The Secretary of State shall keep a fair record of
the official acts of the Legislative Assembly, and Executive
[Department of the State] Branch; and shall when required
lay the same, and all matters relative thereto before either
[branch] chamber of the Legislative Assembly. [He] The
Secretary of State shall be by virtue of [his] holding the
office, Auditor of [public] Public Accounts, and shall perform
such other duties as shall be assigned [him] to the Secretary
of State by law.[-]
PARAGRAPH 2. The amendment proposed by this
resolution shall be submitted to the people for their
approval or rejection at the next regular general election
held throughout this state.
Note: Boldfaced type indicates new language; [brackets and
italic] type indicates deletions or comments.
Explanatory Statement
The Oregon Constitution currently refers to three "depart-
ments" of government: the Legislative Department, the
Executive Department and the Judicial Department. Ballot
Measure 78 amends the Oregon Constitution to replace
the term "department" with the term "branch" for all three
branches of government. The measure changes "branch"
to "chamber" when granting powers to either house of the
Legislature.
The measure further replaces existing Constitutional refer-
ences to the Secretary of State as "he," "him," and "his" with
gender -neutral wording.
Committee Members:
Appointed by:
Senator Ginny Burdick
President of the Senate
Representative Wally Hicks
Speaker of the House
Kathleen Beaufait
Secretary of State
Kappy Eaton
Secretary of State
Fred Neal
Members of the Committee
(This committee was appointed to provide an impartial
explanation of the ballot measure pursuant to ORS 251.215.)
Legislative Argument in Support
The American system of government is designed to be
understandable, balanced and effective. Schools teach that
the government is divided into three "branches," which are
then subdivided into "departments" and "chambers." In
Oregon, however, that is not the case.
Oregon's naming system is confusing and out of line with
what people learn in school because the Constitution refers
to the Legislative, Judicial and Executive "departments"
instead of branches. This ballot measure will align Oregon's
Constitution with Oregonians' common understanding by
describing the state government as having an Executive
Branch, a Judicial Branch and a Legislative Branch —which
will in turn be divided into the Senate Chamber and the House
of Representatives Chamber.
Having three separate and equal branches of government
with two legislative chambers is essential for protecting lib-
erty. Each branch within the government is designed to check
and balance the other two. The Legislative Branch passes
laws, the Executive Branch enforces laws and the Judicial
Branch interprets laws. Oregon's system mirrors that of the
Federal Government and most state governments in all ways
except in name. Having Oregon's Constitution state plainly
that the state government is divided into three branches will
more accurately reflect the system of checks and balances
that was intended by the founders.
Measure 78 makes other changes to improve the
Constitution's effectiveness by making it more readable
and accurate. For example, this measure updates language
that currently refers to the Secretary of State exclusively as
"he" and "his." This change is consistent with the removal
of gender requirements for holding office and is reflective of
contemporary Oregon. The most effective Constitution is one
that says exactly what it means.
Vote "Yes" on Measure 78.
Committee Members: Appointed by:
Senator Ginny Burdick President of the Senate
Representative Wally Hicks Speaker of the House
Representative Dave Hunt Speaker of the House
(This Joint Legislative Committee was appointed to provide
the legislative argument in support of the ballot measure
pursuant to ORS 251.245.)
Proposed by initiative petition to be voted on at the General Election, November 6, 2012.
Result of "Yes" Vote
"Yes" vote prohibits state/local governments from imposing
taxes, fees, assessments on transfer of any interest in real
property, except those operative December 31, 2009.
Result of "No" Vote
"No" vote retains existing law prohibiting local governments
from imposing real estate transfer taxes/fees (with excep-
tions), allowing state legislature to impose such taxes/fees.
Summary
Amends constitution. Current statutory law prohibits a city,
county, district, or other political subdivision or municipal
corporation from imposing taxes or fees on the transfer
of real estate (with certain exceptions). However, the state
legislature has the authority, subject to Governor approval,
to impose such taxes and fees or to change current statutory
law. Measure prohibits the state and any city, county, district,
or other political subdivision or municipal corporation from
imposing taxes, fees, or other assessments based upon the
transfer of any interest in real property or measured by the
consideration paid or received upon the transfer of any inter-
est in real property. Measure exempts from the prohibition
any taxes, fees, or other assessments in effect and operative
on December 31, 2009. Other provisions.
Estimate of Financial Impact
There is no financial impact on state or local government
expenditures or revenues.
Text of Measure
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
ARTICLE IX of the Constitution of the State or Oregon is
hereby amended by adding the following section:
The state, a city, county, district or other political subdivi-
sion or municipal corporation of this state shall not impose,
by ordinance or other law, a tax, fee or other assessment
upon the transfer of any interest in real property, or mea-
sured by the consideration paid or received upon the transfer
of any interest in real property. This section does not apply
to any tax, fee or other assessment in effect and operative
on December 31, 2009.
Note: Boldfaced type indicates new language; [brackets and
italic] type indicates deletions or comments.
Explanatory Statement
Ballot Measure 79 amends the Oregon Constitution to
prohibit governments from imposing new real estate transfer
taxes. This includes either a tax, fee or other assessment
imposed on the sale or transfer of real property or a tax
based on the value of the real estate.
Current state law prohibits local governments from impos-
ing a new tax or fee on real estate transfers, but does allow
the Legislature to impose a tax with a three -fifths vote. The
Legislature also currently has the authority to remove the
prohibition with a simple majority vote. This measure would
eliminate that authority.
This ballot measure does not apply to a tax, fee or other
assessment that was in effect and operative on December
31, 2009. There are several statewide and local fees that
would remain in effect, as well as a real estate transfer tax in
Washington County.
Committee Members:
Appointed by:
John DiLorenzo
Chief Petitioners
Shaun Jillions
Chief Petitioners
Janet Byrd
Secretary of State
Deborah Kafoury
Secretary of State
Marilyn Worrix
Members of the Committee
(This committee was appointed to provide an impartial
explanation of the ballot measure pursuant to ORS 251.215.)
Argument in Favor
PLEASE JOIN THE BENTON COUNTY FARM BUREAU
IN SUPPORTING MEASURE 79
Growing food and bringing agricultural products to market is
an economic staple of Benton County. The land and property
at the base of such agricultural activity is not only valuable in
its own right, but also meaningful to generations— both past
and future — of local families.
The last thing we need is another tax on our property.
MEASURE 79 IS THE ONLY WAY TO ENSURE THAT
OUR FAMILY FARMS AND PROPERTY
ARE NOT TARGETED WITH A NEW TAX.
In recent years, there have been nine attempts made by
government taxing authorities to enact a real estate transfer
tax on Oregon property owners. Enough is enough. Vote Yes
on 79 to protect your land from a new tax at the point of sale.
Real estate transfer taxes are assessed on the sale of prop-
erty — or even the handing down of a family from one family
member to another. With property values declining, it is
unfair to impose additional taxes on struggling middle class
families and Oregon businesses.
VOTING YES ON MEASURE 79 IS THE ONLY WAY TO
ENSURE THAT REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAXATION DOESN'T
CONTINUE TO THREATEN BENTON COUNTY FARMS
Please join with the Benton County Farm Bureau and vote
"YES" on Ballot Measure 79.
Help us keep working farms and agriculture production alive
and well in Benton County.
(This information furnished by Paul Kovash, Benton County
Farm Bureau.)
Argument in Favor
The health of our Salem area housing market has a direct
bearing on the overall economic climate. As business owners
and homeowners, we are very concerned about anything that
would make a terrible housing situation even worse. That's
why we support Ballot Measure 79. The initiative, if approved,
would prevent local governments from enacting new real
estate taxes on homes that are sold or purchased.
Here's why we support this measure:
• After years of steady decline in the value of homes
around Salem, the worst is not over. This year, home
values are projected to drop another 10% (Housing
Predictor, 2012 forecast). If local governments place a
new tax on the sale of homes, people will be paying
taxes to politicians at the same time they're paying
money to creditors on their underwater mortgage.
• It's not fair to place a new tax on homeowners at a time
when the value of their home has already been devas-
tated. Our economy can't take a new tax that would take
more money away from homeowners when they've
suffered enough.
• Homeowners already pay an annual property tax to fund
our teachers, police, and firefighters. We support that. But
many of us have experienced the frustration of seeing our
property taxes go up while our home values are going
down. Adding another tax on homes is simply a way for
politicians to get more money out of homeowners.
Local business owners around Salem support Ballot
Measure 79 because we don't want to see another tax on
homeowners. Our government needs to be fostering a
climate for housing to recover, not thinking up new ways to
tax homeowners who are already hurting.
(This information furnished by Jason Brandt, CEO, Salem Area
Chamber of Commerce.)
Argument in Favor
Construction Contractors Support Measure 79
The construction industry has been one of the hardest hit by
the Great Recession. As a result, thousands of jobs have been
lost and many in our industry continue to struggle.
Increasing the cost of buying or selling homes or commercial
real estate in Oregon through a new real estate transfer tax
is a bad idea. That's why Oregonians should support Ballot
Measure 79.
A Yes vote will stop new taxes targeting real estate.
Homeowners are already struggling
With so many Oregonians out of work and selling their homes
for less than they paid — adding a tax to a distressed sale is
unfair.
We should encourage home ownership
A new transfer tax would put home ownership out of reach
for many, especially first-time homebuyers who are so impor-
tant to a healthy housing market.
Measure 79 protects Oregonians from a double tax
Since Oregon families and businesses already pay property
taxes, new real estate transfer taxes would be a double tax.
Please Join with Us and Vote YES on 79
Associated Builders and Contractors
Pacific Northwest Chapter
SMACNA Columbia Chapter
Independent Electrical Contractors of Oregon
(This information furnished by Paul Rainey, Yes on 79.)
Argument in Favor
Last year we paid more than $5000 in property taxes. This
year, even though our home hasn't increased in value, our
property tax bill will still increase. It's very frustrating.
We support funding schools and public safety but when we
heard of proposals in the legislature to authorize a real estate
tax on the sale of our home, we couldn't believe it!
To us it sounds like more like another tax or a sales tax we'd
be required to pay.
We strongly support Ballot Measure 79 as a permanent stop
to these ridiculous attempts to keep taking more and more
money from taxpayers. Measure 79 would remove the threat
of a second tax on our homes once and for all.
People might not realize if a transfer tax is allowed, ALL local
governments would be authorized to levy a tax. In other
words, you could end up paying a transfer tax to your city, to
your county, to the state and to whatever local taxing district
wants to pile on. One percent here, another half percent
there, and pretty soon you have a huge tax bill.
For first-time home buyers for example, a two percent real
estate transfer tax would add $4,000 to the closing costs
on the sale of a $200,000 home. That's $4000 on top of the
closing costs and any other fees or costs they would have
in order to buy a home which might make the difference of
whether they could make the down -payment or not.
We can't afford a second tax on our home and we don't think
many other people can either so please join us in VOTING
YES ON MEASURE 79.
Shane and Laurie Phelps, Homeowners, Salem, Oregon
Yes on Measure 79
(This information furnished by Paul Rainey, Yes on 79.)
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Argument in Favor
The Alliance of Minority Chambers urges you to join us in
voting YES on Measure 79.
The housing sector generates a huge number of jobs in
Oregon — everything from architects to carpenters to
electricians to painters — even heavy equipment operators.
And the list of workers and jobs grows when commercial
construction gets under way.
Those jobs are an essential building block to bringing
Oregon's economy back.
And we believe that jobs aren't just a 9-to-5 exercise with a
paycheck. For us, jobs are an essential part of our community.
Local jobs help people stay in communities —they send their
kids to local schools and shop in local stores and keep main -
streets humming along.
In Oregon, property owners already pay property taxes every
year — even as their home values fall and their property taxes
go up. Voting Yes on Measure 79 would protect homeowners
for a second tax on their property.
Our organization works closely with local government
agencies to make sure that they are supported in their role
to fund schools, roads, law enforcement and public health.
We can confidently say that Measure 79 will not pull any
money out of schools, roads or any local government's ability
to keep police on the street.
But Measure 79 does protect all of us from new
real estate transfer taxes — the very kind of taxation that
could prevent home sales from going through and thus
keeping many out -of -work contractors, builders and
service people on the sidelines.
We are urging you to join us in voting YES on Measure 79 — it
will send a signal that we are serious about strengthening the
real estate market so Oregonians can get back to work.
Please join the Alliance of Minority Chambers
in voting YES on Measure 79.
(This information furnished by Roy Jay, Alliance of Minority
Chambers.)
Argument in Favor
Boardman Chamber of Commerce
Diane L. Wolfe, Executive Director
Supports Measure 79
In Eastern Oregon, we strive to create and promote an
environment in which current and future businesses thrive
and where our members connect for the benefit of the
community.
Our chamber is comprised of small businesses, large
industries, nonprofit organizations, area merchants, and
individuals who recognize the importance of our growing city
After careful research and due diligence, we are strongly
supporting passage of Ballot Measure 79. A real estate
transfer tax would have a negative effect on the businesses
and families in our community.
For starters, like many communities, our housing industry is
struggling to get back on its feet afterthe recent economic
storm. Why would we make this recovery more difficult by
adding a new tax to this important sector of our economy?
While there exists a state prohibition on real estate transfer
tax authority, legislators have been introducing legislation for
a decade to repeal it. The only way to permanently prohibit
this tax is with a constitutional protection.
it would be poor public policy to impose another tax on the
same property. It would not only be poor policy, it would be
unfair.
It's important to our members to support schools and local
government — and we do. This measure will not take a single
dollar from schools or any government program. The state
Legislative Revenue Office has determined this measure will
have no fiscal impact at all.
Therefore we are asking Oregonians to take a thoughtful look
at this measure and eliminate the potential for unfair, double -
taxation - by voting Yes on Measure 79.
(This information furnished by Paul Rainey, Yes on 79.)
Argument in Favor
Oregon Home Builders Association Supports Measure 79
As businesses that provide affordable housing options to
Oregonians, we are motivated to ensure that the purchase of a
home is attainable for every family. What we provide to fami-
lies is more than a collection of lumber, windows, and doors.
It's a place where children will create memories and parents
will create a valuable asset. In recent years, however, the
promise of home ownership has faded as the recession devas-
tated the equity that so many families had worked to build.
That's why the Oregon Home Builders Association supports
Ballot Measure 79, which would prohibit the state and local
governments from imposing new taxes on the home you're
selling or buying.
Homeowners are hurting
Now is not the time to be creating new taxes on homes. Many
homes in Oregon are worth less than what is owed on their
mortgage, making the sale of a home an even bigger financial
hardship. Paying a new tax on a home that has already lost
money is adding insult to injury. This is really true for families
who have lost jobs and have been forced to sell their homes.
Forcing people in these financial hardships to pay a tax on a
home they've lost money on is simply unfair.
Homeowners already pay property taxes
Local governments already receive money from homeowners
through annual property taxes. In fact, many homeowners
have experienced rapidly diminishing home values and
increasing property tax bills at the same time. Now, local
governments want to place another tax on your home?
This simply isn't fair. Local governments have property tax
revenue to fund important local services. They don't need
another tax on homeowners, who are already hurting.
We urge you to Vote Yes on Measure 79
(This information furnished by Jon A. Chandler, Oregon Home
Builders Association.)
Argument in Favor
Measure 79 is Essential for Small Business Success
The Oregon Small Business Coalition strongly urges you to
vote YES on Measure 79
Oregon currently has the highest capital gains tax rate in the
nation. That's bad for business. Things will only get worse
with a new tax on real estate and commercial property sales
— essentially pushing our already high national property tax
burden even higher.
Real estate and commercial property sales can lead our state
out of tough economic times. But in order to do so we need
investments in business -generating properties, not new
taxes on them.
All property owners are assessed an annual tax. We believe
Voting YES on Measure 79 is the only way to guarantee that.
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
In this economic downturn, it has been difficult for local busi-
nesses to create the jobs that Oregonians depend on. To get
our economy back on track, we need to invest in a business
friendly environment.
Voting Yes on Measure 79 will do that by preventing
new taxes on property owners in Oregon (agricultural,
commercial and residential) and protecting you from a
second or 'double' tax on your property.
In the past five sessions of the Oregon Legislature, there
have been nine attempts to impose a real estate transfer tax
at the state or local level. Vote Yes to stop local and state
governments from targeting Oregon's small businesses
with a new tax.
Voting Yes on Measure 79 is the only way to say
"Enough is enough."
A new tax on real estate would make Oregon an even more
difficult place for small businesses to start and create jobs.
Oregon's small businesses are struggling. Loans are tougher
to get. A new tax at the point of sale or transfer of property
will make it more expensive to buy, sell and lease real estate.
Please vote Yes on Measure 79 to
ciet small businesses moving aaain in Oregon
(This information furnished by Darrell Fuller, Oregon Small
Business Coalition.)
Argument in Favor
Associated Oregon Industries Support Measure 79
Homeowners have been targeted with a new tax on the sale
or transfer of real estate, a new tax that some cities have
made a top legislative priority. In the last decade, politicians
have proposed imposing multiple layers of real estate trans-
fer taxes — at the city, county and state level.
Adding the cost of a sales tax to the price of a home, in addi-
tion to a property tax, would preclude many Oregonians from
being able to buy a home and would deal a blow to a vital
industry that is still struggling to regain its footing in Oregon.
Voting "YES" on Measure 79 will stop governments from
being able to impose real estate transfer taxes on your home.
NOW IS NOT THE TIME FOR A NEW TAX. In this economy,
many families are forced to sell their homes because of a job
loss or pay cut. Property values are down, but property taxes
keep going up. It's unfair to impose additional taxes on strug-
gling middle class families.
WE SHOULD ENCOURAGE HOME OWNERSHIP. A new trans-
fer tax would put home ownership out of reach for many,
especially first-time homebuyers who are so important to a
healthy housing market.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Oregonians value our quality of life
and pay high property taxes to make it possible, but piling a
new tax on homeowners who are struggling just isn't right.
It's time we protect real estate and invest in our economy.
Protect our homes and economic future, please vote "YES"
on Measure 79.
Join the Associated Oregon Industries and protect home-
owners and our businesses by voting Yes on Measure 79.
For more information, go to www.yesonmeasure79.com.
(This information furnished by J.L. Wilson, Associated Oregon
Industries.)
Argument in Favor
Commercial Brokers Support Measure 79
It's no surprise to anyone that Oregon's economy is strug-
gling, and a YES vote on Measure 79 is necessary to make
sure we are able to get back on track. The real estate industry
plays a critical role in the economic health of our state, and
an additional tax on real estate will cause further damage.
With unemployment once again rising, now is not the time for
additional taxes!
VOTE YES on Measure 79 to make sure that governments
don't further stifle job creation and that our small businesses
can remain competitive. A real estate transfer tax would
apply to ALL property, and would further drive up costs for
small businesses across the state.
Property owners and small businesses already pay significant
property taxes to support their local communities, and are
more than willing to pay their fair share. Our communities are
strong because of the investment that property owners and
small businesses make, but piling an additional tax will hurt
us all.
As we emerge from this recession, we see businesses
wanting to expand or relocate to Oregon, bringing much -
needed middle-class jobs to our state; a real estate transfer
tax would stop this progress in its tracks. VOTE YES ON 79
TO PROTECT OUR ECONOMY.
The Commercial Association of Brokers of Oregon/SW
Washington urge a YES vote on Measure 79.
(This information furnished by Michael Tharp, Commercial
Association of Brokers of Oregon/SW Washington.)
Argument in Favor
The Wilsonville Area Chamber of Commerce
& Chehalem Valley Chamber of Commerce
Support Measure 79
In the past few years, we have watched the housing sector
struggle in a terrible economy. It is still struggling. And we
believe the worst thing we could do at this point is to enact a
new tax on housing.
Have you ever thought about the number of jobs created in
the housing sector?
Just to build a home you will likely need architects, drafters,
carpenters, carpet layers, drywall hangers, drywall finishers,
electricians, HVAC technicians, heavy equipment operators,
insulation workers, masons, painters, plumbers, roofers,
inspectors and loan officers. This list gets even longer when
you consider the jobs needed in commercial construction.
We need those jobs back.
We're also concerned about our community. Home prices
have fallen sharply in the last four years — and they haven't
recovered. When people In Wilsonville or Newberg sell their
home, they are often selling at a loss. It would be unfair to tax
families who are already struggling financially.
It's important for our community to support schools, roads
and local government.
But property owners already pay property taxes every year
— even as their home values fall and their property taxes go
up. It would be unfair to tax the same property a second time.
This would amount to a double tax.
We have studied the impact of this measure very carefully. It
will have no fiscal impact on schools, roads or local govern-
ment. All it does is give taxpayers an extra layer of protection
from a real estate transfer tax.
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
We are urging the citizens of our great state to keep our tax
code fair, to stop the threat of a double tax and to restore
those housing jobs that have been lost. Let's put those people
back to work.
Join us in support of Ballot Measure 79
(This information furnished by Steve Gilmore, Wilsonville
Area Chamber of Commerce.)
Argument in Favor
Albany Area Chamber of Commerce
Please Vote Yes on Measure 79
The Albany Area Chamber of Commerce is dedicated to
taking a pro -active community leadership approach to
strengthen our neighborhoods. That is why we support
Measure 79, a pre-emptive solution that protects the dream
of homeownership and our economic future.
Measure 79 will stop state and local governments from tar-
geting our homes and businesses with a double tax on prop-
erty. Oregonians already pay property taxes to funds schools
and important community services. A second tax on property
at the point of sale or transfer is unfair.
In Oregon, more than 42.8% of homeowners are spending
30% or more of their household income on housing (mort-
gage or home equity loans, taxes, insurance, utility and fuel
costs). Oregon ranks at the bottom, 45th nationally, and many
families are classified as "cost burden" and are at risk of fore-
closure (Corporation for Enterprise Development, 2012 Assets
& Opportunity Scorecard).
A Yes vote on Measure 79 will protect the struggling housing
market from becoming more unaffordable by stopping new
taxes at the point of sale. Instead of making it more difficult to
attain homeownership, we need to find ways to help families
buy their first home and to protect existing homeowners
who owe more than their house is worth. It would be unfair
to target seniors and families facing difficult times for a new
local or state government tax.
Finally, we need to create jobs and strengthen our local
economy. A new tax that targets the workforce and busi-
nesses is a bad idea. Measure 79 is the right solution to
protect a fragile housing market and economy so that we can
focus on what's important— getting Oregonians back to work
to provide a stable foundation to succeed.
Join us in protecting the qualify life in our community and sta-
bility of our real estate market by voting Yes on Measure 79.
(This information furnished by Janet Steele, Albany Area
Chamber of Commerce.)
Argument in Favor
As a small business owner, I strongly support Ballot Measure
79, which would remove the threat from another tax on our
homes. We have a child in the Portland Public School system
and we're very supportive of our schools. We love our schools
But a second, or third, or fourth tax on the same property?
That just doesn't seem right to me. It would be a multiple tax
With the housing market so dismal right now, it would be the
last place anyone would want to tax again.
I have a lot of friends in the construction industry who need
work. They need help. We can help them — and the housing
industry — by stopping the potential for a new sales tax on
housing.
This measure will not affect public services. All it does is
remove the threat of another tax on the same property.
Yes, I support our schools. And yes, I also support a new layer
of protection that makes it certain we won't have to worry
about a new real estate transfer tax on our homes.
Vote Yes on Ballot Measure 79
Larry Dennis, Jr. NE Portland
(This information furnished by Paul Rainey, Yes on 79.)
Argument in Favor
AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE
FROM THE OREGON FARM BUREAU
Oregon voters have an opportunity to VOTE YES ON
MEASURE 79 and help protect our family farms from yet
anothertax.
A YES vote on Measure 79 will prevent lawmakers from
imposing what is commonly called a "real estate transfer
tax." That is fancy wording for - a new tax on your home,
farm, ranch or other natural resource properties.
THE OREGON FARM BUREAU SUPPORTS MEASURE 79
HERE ARE FOUR IMPORTANT REASONS WHY:
A Real -Estate Transfer Tax is a DOUBLE TAX: You already pay
a property tax on your home and farm. Why should you be
taxed again for services you've already paid for?
Succession planning would be even more costly! Remember,
we are talking about a tax on sales and transfers. Every time
the property is transferred, be it a gift, part of a living trust, or
a transfer to your son or daughter there could be a tax due!
More acreage means more taxes. It is bad enough to pay a
second tax on your home or property. Imagine the impact a
new tax at the point of sale would have on an 80 acre farm,
ranch or woodlot.
Now is not the time. Many families are struggling to make
ends meet. In the past five legislative sessions there have
been nine attempts to authorize such a tax at the state or
local level. And even in a downturn economy our property
taxes have gone up! Another tax is not the answer!
Oregonians can take great pride in the number of family
farms in Oregon. But unless we continue to stand together
our farms and ranches are in jeopardy.
PLEASE JOIN WITH THE OREGON FARM BUREAU
AND VOTE YES ON BALLOT 79.
(This information furnished by Barry Bushue, President,
Oregon Farm Bureau Federation.)
Argument in Favor
OREGON REALTORS URGE A YES VOTE ON MEASURE 79
Voting "YES" on Measure 79 will stop governments from
being able to impose real estate transfer taxes on your home.
These taxes are an additional tax that is charged each and
every time property is sold or transferred. Voting "YES" is the
only way to truly ensure that governments will not impose
these double taxes on our homes.
• Oregonians already pay significant property taxes for
services in their communities, and adding an additional
tax on homeowners in these difficult economic times
would be unfair.
• Every day we see our neighbors and friends selling their
Home prices have fallen since 2006. And they haven't homes at a loss due to a job loss or pay cut, yet a transfer
bounced back. When people sell at a loss, it would be unfair tax would still be charged on them when they are losing
to also force them to pay a real estate transfer tax. money.
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
• Enough is enough; we Oregonians value our quality of
life and pay high property taxes to make it possible,
but piling on a whole new tax on homeowners who are
struggling just isn't right.
• Voting "YES" on Measure 79 does not take away any cur-
rent funding for schools, fire fighters or police officers.
• As we see every day, achieving the American Dream of
homeownership is becoming more and more difficult,
and adding on multiple layers of additional taxes on
homes will put the dream further out of reach.
• Our economy and the real estate industry can't with-
stand yet another new tax being piled on homeowners.
• Politicians have considered the idea of charging or
allowing multiple layers of transfer taxes each and every
legislative session for the last decade, and in fact one of
the state's largest governments made charging this tax
one of their top priorities just this year.
Existing law does not prevent state politicians from imposing
this tax on your home. The only way to truly protect us all
from the damaging impacts of this tax is to vote "YES" on
Measure 79.
(This information furnished by Shaun Jillions, Oregon
Association of Realtors.)
Argument in Favor
The Brookings -Harbor Chamber of Commerce
strongly recommends a Yes vote on Ballot Measure 79.
After studying this proposal thoroughly, it's clear this
measure will protect homeowners and businesses from what
could be one of the most unfair taxes anywhere.
We believe a real estate transfer tax would be unfair simply
because homeowners already pay a property tax. It would be
unfair to those taxpayers to ask them to pay a second tax on
the same property.
At first we were confused by this measure because we
weren't sure how much of a threat there is to the enactment
of a real estate transfer tax in Oregon. But some simple
checking found that legislation to allow a real estate property
tax has been introduced in every regular session of the
Oregon legislature since 2001.
For those of you who have lived in states where real estate
taxes exist, you know how expensive this can be if you're
trying to buy or sell a house. For example, a 2-percent real
estate tax on a $200,000 home will add $4,000 to your closing
costs. That's enough to keep many families from moving
ahead with the purchase.
Furthermore, the industry that has been hammered the worst
in our economic downturn has been housing. Why would we
want to kick the housing sector with a new tax?
It's important to us that this measure would not take away
any existing revenue from schools or local governments. It
simply prohibits local and state governments from imposing
what we believe would be an extremely unfair tax on prop-
erty owners.
We believe this is a solid protection for Oregon property
owners. It's fair. It has zero fiscal impact. We would urge all
fair-minded Oregonians to support this measure with a strong
Yes vote.
(This information furnished by Les Cohen, CEO, Brookings -
Harbor Chamber of Commerce.)
Argument in Favor
Oregon Ranchers and the Oregon Family Farm Association
PAC ask for your support for Measure 79.
Agriculture relies on land — it's our business. For that reason,
Oregon ranchers and farmers buy and sell land frequently, as
farms and ranches expand or shift production.
That's why a real estate transfer tax hits our industry espe-
cially hard. The potential of adding thousands of dollars of
cost to our operations is frightening. Each dollar of new cost
affects our ability to provide you with Oregon raised beef and
fresh farm produce.
We also like the fact that Measure 79 won't impact the current
state or local budgets. Since Oregon does not currently
have a real estate transfer tax, and the measure exempts the
one Oregon county that does charge a transfer tax, we can
support this Measure knowing that it will not have an impact
on our schools or other vital services.
We know, however, that in the last few years, the Oregon leg-
islature has tried repeatedly to impose a real estate transfer
tax, or allow local governments to create their own tax. That
threat hangs over our industry's head each year.
What Measure 79 will do is ensure that we can continue our
ranching and farming operations without fear that we will be
forced to pay another new tax when farmland is bought and
sold.
That's why we support Measure 79. We hope you will as well
(This information furnished by David J. Hunnicutt, Oregon
Family Farm Association PAC.)
Argument in Favor
Oregonians In Action, Oregon's property owners association,
asks you to protect middle class and working Oregon families
by voting YES on Measure 79.
Measure 79 asks Oregon voters to ban real estate transfer
taxes. These taxes are imposed on homeowners at the time
they sell their home, whether or not the home is sold for a
profit or a loss.
In the past five years, the average value of homes in Oregon
has steadily declined. In most cases, a home purchased in
2007 is worth less today than its purchase price.
But that doesn't matter for purposes of the real estate trans-
fer tax. A family that is forced to sell their home for a loss,
due to a job loss or other unexpected crisis, is forced to pay
a real estate transfer tax, regardless of the sales price of the
home, the family income, or other unforeseen circumstances.
This isn't fair.
Real estate transfer taxes are truly a tax on middle class and
working families. At the current average national rates and the
current average home value for an Oregon home, a real estate
transfer tax would total nearly $3,800, regardless of whether
the homeowner had a profit or loss on the sale of their home.
Most middle class families can't afford a $3,800 tax when
they sell their home.
There is only one Oregon county that currently has a real
estate transfer tax, and state law currently bans any more
new taxes. But in the last decade, there have been 9 attempts
by Oregon politicians to repeal the current ban. Measure 79
would keep the ban in place.
Measure 79 has no effect on Oregon's current budget, but would
ensure that current Oregon homeowners won't have to worry
about another new tax during a time of a major life change.
Protect Oregon homeowners. Vote YES on Measure 79.
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
(This information furnished by David J. Hunnicutt, Oregonians
In Action.)
Argument in Favor
Oregon's Small and Independent Businesses Support
Measure 79
The National Federation of Business/Oregon (NFIB/OR)
uraes a YES vote on Measure 79
It's no secret that the economic slowdown has made it dif-
ficult for local businesses to create the jobs that Oregonians
depend on. To get our economy back on track, we need to
invest in a business friendly environment that will create jobs
and opportunities for our families and children to succeed.
A "Yes" vote on Measure 79 will stop new taxes and protect
all property owners in Oregon (agricultural, commercial and
residential) from a second or 'double' tax on their property.
In the past five legislative sessions, there have been nine
attempts to impose a real estate transfer tax at the state or
local level. Vote Yes to stop local and state governments
from targeting Oregon homeowners and small businesses
with a new tax.
Enough is enough. Protect Oregon's Small and Independent
Businesses:
Oregon's businesses are struggling and loans are tougher
to get. A new tax at the point of sale or transfer of property
will make it more expensive to buy, sell and lease real
estate.
A new tax on real estate would make Oregon even less
attractive to companies considering locating here, creating
jobs and investing in our economy.
Oregon currently has the highest capital gains tax rate in the
nation and the 15th highest property tax burden. Things will
only get worse with a new tax on real estate. The real estate
industry has historically led our state out of challenging
economic times. They can do that again, but to do so we need
investments in real estate, not new taxes.
Join the National Federation of Independent Business/
Oregon and vote Yes to stop another tax on businesses in
Oreoon.
A nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, the National
Federation of Independent Business/Oregon promotes the
opportunity for small businesses to own, operate and grow
their businesses.
(This information furnished by Jan Meekcoms, State Director,
National Federation of Independent Business/OR (NFIB/OR).)
Argument in Favor
Taxpayer Association of Oregon is a not -for -profit organiza-
tion dedicated to protecting taxpayers from politicians who
are constantly dreaming up new ways to tax Oregonians. We
have been anxiously watching the efforts of local govern-
ments to enact new real estate transfer taxes on the sale of
homes as a way to raise even more money from home-
owners. Now, we're glad that taxpayers and homeowners
are fighting back. We strongly recommend a "YES" vote on
Measure 79.
Measure 79, if enacted, would amend the Oregon
Constitution to prohibit local governments from enacting a
tax on the transfer of property, either through sale, transfer,
or exchange. We support passage for a number of reasons.
NO DOUBLE TAXATION
Homeowners in Oregon already pay an annual tax on their
property, which goes to pay for things like schools, police,
and other services. Yet, local politicians have never been sat-
isfied with what they receive through property taxes. The real
estate transfer tax is just another new tax on property when
homeowners already pay an annual tax to local governments.
We don't think it's necessary or appropriate to tax the same
property twice.
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IS NECESSARY
We have heard from many people that they support prohibit-
ing a tax on home sales but it shouldn't be done through the
Oregon Constitution. We disagree; It must be done through
the Constitution. Any prohibition that is simply written into
state law can be changed anytime the state legislature meets.
That gives us no confidence. Besides, if protecting property
and enumerating government taxing powers aren't valid sub-
jects for a Constitution, what are? Property and taxation are
foundational principles in a republic. This prohibition on real
estate transfer taxes belongs in the Constitution.
Taxpayer Association of Oregon strongly supports
Measure 79 and urges a "YES" vote. A new real estate trans-
fer tax on homes is an inappropriate, unnecessary form of
double taxation. This constitutional amendment will guaran-
tee that homeowners are protected from it in perpetuity.
(This information furnished by Jason Williams, Taxpayer
Association of Oregon.)
Argument in Favor
The Chamber of Medford/Jackson County Board of
Directors enthusiastically supports passage of Measure
79. Homeowners and businesses need this protection. As
Oregon's largest Chamber of Commerce, we are extremely
concerned about the health of our Rogue Valley economy.
One of the most important elements of a strong economy is a
healthy residential and commercial real estate market, which
would be put in jeopardy if local governments are permitted
to impose new taxes on the sale of homes and businesses.
Residents of southern Oregon have seen their home values
plummet over recent years as the economy stalled and fore-
closures soared. According to the Oregon Office of Economic
Analysis, home prices in Medford have dropped 39% since
their peak (Josh Lehner, Oregon Office of Economic Analysis,
May 23, 2012). This represents one of the worst declines
in the country, let alone the state. At the same time, there
doesn't seem to be any relief to escalating property taxes.
The double impact of declining home values and increas-
ing property taxes have devastated savings and consumer
confidence.
It's unfair for local governments to impose new taxes on
our member's homes and businesses at a time when many
of them already owe more on their property than it's worth.
A real estate transfer tax, which is a sales tax on property,
would simply take even more money away from home-
owners at a time when their home values have been battered.
We need home values to increase and our economy to create
jobs, and a new tax on homes would be devastating.
The Chamber of Medford / Jackson County strongly urges a
yes vote on Measure 79. We don't need another tax on our
homes and businesses.
(This information furnished by Brad S. Hicks, CCE, The
Chamber of Medford/Jackson County.)
Argument in Favor
THE MARION COUNTY FARM BUREAU
URGES YOU TO VOTE YES ON MEASURE 79
Measure 79 protects your legacy to your children
A YES vote on Measure 79 will prevent state and local lawmak-
ers from imposing what is known as a "real estate transfer tax."
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
You are already paying property taxes to fund local govern-
ment. Areal estate transfer tax would be nothing more than
double taxation. And with a state -level real estate transfer
tax and with many cities, counties and special districts also
looking for revenue, such a taxing system could easily turn
into triple or even quadruple taxation on your property!
Real estate transfer taxes aren't just levied during property
sales —they are levied every time the property is transferred,
be it a gift, part of a living trust, or a transfer to your son or
daughter. Every time that happens, a tax would be owed!
We are asking you to join our local farmers and our families to
VOTE YES ON MEASURE 79 and help protect Marion County
family farms.
Measure 79 is the ONLY way to ensure that this kind of
taxation protects struggling families and businesses from a
second tax.
Real estate transfer taxes are based on property value. That
means the more acreage or dwellings you transfer, the more
taxes you'd pay — even if it's just handed down from one
generation to another. Imagine the impact on your family that
a new tax would have from a simple transfer of a 100 acre
farm or working ranch? It could put that farm or ranch out of
business.
Residents of Marion County take great pride in our local
family farms. That's why we need to stand
together and protect our farms and way of life.
VOTE YES ON MEASURE 79.
(This information furnished by John Zielinski, Marion County
Farm Bureau.)
Argument in Opposition
Vote No on Measure 79.
The language in Measure 79 is already the law. And that law
has worked effectively, because there has been no move
to create a real estate transfer tax in Oregon for years. Yet
Measure 79 proponents want to create special rights for one
industry and insert this language into our CONSTITUTION!
The Oregon Constitution is the supreme legal document of
our state. It outlines our basic framework of government.
It protects our free speech. It is not the place to prohibit
real estate transfer taxes, fees and other assessments —
especially when that language is already is the Oregon
Revised Statutes, which is exactly where it belongs.
There is no need to clutter the Oregon Constitution with
this confusing and unnecessary measure — you can't make
something twice as illegal.
This measure adds one more restriction on local govern-
ments. Local governments should be able to decide what
is right for their own local jurisdiction without the Oregon
Constitution restricting their decision. Local control means
that local citizens get to make their own decisions whenever
possible. Moreover, we should not give one particular indus-
try special rights in our Constitution.
This measure has too many question marks. Read the "Yes"
and "No" statements — they essentially say the same thing
because this measure doesn't change anything, it only stuffs
more words in our Constitution.
People's pet issues do not belong in our Constitution. Vote
NO on Measure 79.
(This information furnished by Don Loving, Oregon AFSCME
Council 75.)
Argument in Opposition
Neighborhood Partnerships urges you to
Vote NO on Constitutional Amendment 79
Constitutional Amendment 79 would amend the Oregon
Constitution. This proposed amendment of the Oregon
Constitution is a bad idea.
• Constitutional Amendment 79 is not necessary — and it
goes too far
Oregon law already prohibits new real estate transfer
taxes.
• Constitutional Amendment 79 does not address any of
the real needs our communities face
Oregon needs real solutions to the housing and other
needs our communities face. Constitutional Amendment
79 will not solve anything. We should focus instead on
working together to re -build a strong housing market.
• Constitutional Amendment 79 limits our rights for no
reason. It deserves your NO vote
We deserve real solutions, not unnecessary amend-
ments to our Constitution.
The Constitution is too important for amendments like this
one. Don't give up a constitutional right — we urge you to
VOTE NO on Constitutional Amendment 79.
The Constitution is a document designed for Oregon's long
term future. Let's protect it by voting no on this proposal.
Oregon has a long history of finding innovative solutions to
make our communities stronger. Together, we can do positive
things for Oregon communities and build a foundation for
prosperity.
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Neighborhood Partnerships urges your NO vote on
Constitutional Amendment 79.
Neighborhood Partnerships is an Oregon non-profit organiza-
tion dedicated to creating opportunity for all Oregonians. We
are joined in opposition by community leaders and partners all
across the state, including:
Bill Hall, of Newport Oregon
Sharon Miller, of Bend Oregon
(This information furnished by Janet Byrd, Executive Director,
of Neighborhood Partnerships.)
Argument in Opposition
Oregon Community Leaders Urge You to Vote NO on
Constitutional Amendment 79
Constitutional Amendment 79 is confusing and unnecessary,
and could create unintended consequences that would harm
Oregon's vulnerable citizens if passed.
Let's not take the extreme step of changing the Constitution
with this amendment.
The Oregon Opportunity Network is an association of 45 com-
munity nonprofits from around the state — from Gold Beach
to La Grande, from Medford to St. Helens, and all points in
between. Every day we see the impact of the economic crisis
and the housing market on hardworking Oregon families.
As leaders of community organizations, we know first-hand
about housing needs in our state, for both new homeowners
and renters. Constitutional Amendment 79 does nothing that
will address housing needs.
Constitutional Amendment 79 is not a solution to problems
that Oregonians are struggling with.
Oregon law already prohibits new real estate transfer taxes. It
doesn't make sense to amend the Constitution to ban some-
thing that is already prohibited by law.
Let's focus our energy on positive solutions to real problems.
Let's not clutter up our Constitution.
Please vote NO on Constitutional Amendment 79.
John Miller, Executive Director, Oregon Opportunity Network
(statewide)
Martha McLennan, Executive Director, Northwest Housing
Alternatives (statewide)
Jim Moorefield (Corvallis)
Chuck Fisher (Keizer)
Marybeth Beall (Salem)
Adolph "Val" Valfre, Jr. (Forest Grove)
Sheila Greenlaw-Fink (Portland)
Richard A. Herman (Eugene)
Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC) (Gold Beach)
Nick Sauvie, Executive Director, ROSE Community
Development (Portland)
Anne M. Williams (Eugene)
Dee Walsh, Executive Director, REACH Community
Development, Inc. (Portland)
Peg Malloy (Portland)
Farrnworker Housing Development Corporation (Woodburn)
Karen B. Shawcross (Hillsboro)
Peter Hainley, Executive Director, Community and Shelter
Assistance Corp. dba CASA of Oregon (statewide)
Find out more about Oregon Opportunity Network members
and the work we do in your community at www.OreaonON.org.
(This information furnished by John Miller, Oregon
Opportunity Network.)
Argument in Opposition
Economic Fairness Oregon Urges a No Vote on this
Corporate Power Grab
Measure 79 is on the ballot because special interest money
from a single industry came flooding into the state.
The corporate lobbyists behind the measure are trying to
amend the Oregon Constitution to give themselves a special
tax protection that no one else can get.
It'd be nice if we all had high -paid lobbyists who could spend
hundreds of thousands of dollars to get us special deals. But
in the meantime, we at Economic Fairness Oregon believe
that the Oregon Constitution should safeguard fairness and
help keep a level playing field. It shouldn't be used to grant
special tax protections for big industries.
This measure is confusing and unnecessary, and deserves
your No vote.
Economic Fairness Oregon is a consumer advocacy nonprofit
fighting for the financial security of all Oregonians by calling
for an end to the business practices that have drained our
bank accounts and ravaged our economy.
Angela Martin
Executive Director
Economic Fairness Oregon
(This information furnished by Angela Martin, Economic
Fairness Oregon.)
Argument in Opposition
Oregon REALTOR Against Measure 79
As a REALTOR and Principal Broker who has been practicing
Real Estate in Oregon for over 20 years, I am opposed to the
Constitutional Amendment Measure 79.
In the past two decades, I have worked with hundreds of folks
to help them find their first home. It has been my passion to
help them achieve home ownership and financial stability. I
have seen first-hand what buyers and sellers in Oregon are
facing, and Measure 79 is not the answer.
There are already prohibitions in place for Real Estate
Transfer fees, and this Constitutional Amendment will not
help us solve any of the current problems we face.
Let's work together as Oregonians to address the concerns
about housing, and not change our constitution based on the
agenda of a national trade organization.
Please join me in voting No on Constitutional Amendment 79
(This information furnished by Chris Bonner.)
Argument in Opposition
Community Alliance of Tenants, Street Roots, JOIN, and the
Human Services Coalition of Oregon
Urge a No Vote on Constitutional Amendment 79
The Community Alliance of Tenants, Street Roots, JOIN,
and the Human Services Coalition of Oregon are commit-
ted to expanding housing and economic opportunity for all
Oregonians.
Constitutional Amendment 79 is confusing and unnecessary,
and could produce unintended consequences that would hurt
Oregon's most vulnerable citizens.
Our state Constitution is no place for issues that should be
under local control.
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Oregon law already prohibits real estate transfer taxes. By
banning something that is already banned, this Constitutional
Amendment is only making things more confusing.
Say no to this confusing, unnecessary
Constitutional Amendment.
Let's focus on the real issues that affect
Oregon families and communities.
Join us in Voting No on Constitutional Amendment 79.
Street Roots (www.streetroots.org)
Community Alliance of Tenants (www.oregoncat.org)
JOIN (www.JOINpdx.org)
Human Services Coalition of Oregon (www.oregonhsco.org)
(This information furnished by Elisa Harrigan, Community
Alliance of Tenants.)
Argument in Opposition
The Housing Alliance urges your NO Vote
on Constitutional Amendment 79
Constitutional Amendment 79 would unnecessarily amend
the Oregon Constitution. This amendment to the Oregon
Constitution is an extreme solution in search of a problem.
The Oregon Housing Alliance believes that:
• Constitutional Amendment 79 does not make positive
change for Oregon Communities.
Oregon's communities have many housing needs, and
we know that Oregon needs real solutions. Constitutional
Amendment 79 will not solve anything. We should focus
on doing real work to re -build a strong housing market in
our communities.
• Constitutional Amendment 79 is not necessary and goes
too far.
Oregon law already prohibits new real estate transfer
taxes by local governments and schools.
• Constitutional Amendment 79 limits our rights, and it
deserves your NO vote.
Constitutional Amendment 79 limits future flexibility
without solving any of our current problems. We deserve
real change, not diversions.
The Constitution is too important for unnecessary amend-
ments. Don't give up a constitutional right -We urge your NO
vote on Constitutional Amendment 79.
Oregon has a long history of creating innovative solutions to
improve our state. Together, we can do positive things for our
communities and build a foundation for prosperity. We need
to focus on re -building a strong housing market that will meet
Oregon's needs.
Constitutional Amendment 79 is not a positive solution. It
doesn't solve any of our real problems, and it doesn't belong
in the Constitution. It will only limit options and clutter up our
Constitution - a document designed for Oregon's long term
future. It deserves better than to become a list of limitations.
The Housing Alliance urges your NO vote on Constitutional
Amendment 79.
The Oregon Housing Alliance is a statewide coalition of over
fifty non-profit organizations, non-profit housing providers,
and jurisdictions who work to make sure every Oregonian has
a safe, stable, and affordable place to call home.
(This information furnished by Alison McIntosh, Oregon
Housing Alliance.)
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Proposed by initiative petition to be voted on at the General Election, November 6, 2012.
Result of "Yes" Vote
"Yes" vote allows commercial marijuana (cannabis)
cultivation/sale to adults through state -licensed stores;
allows unlicensed adult personal cultivation/use; prohibits
restrictions on hemp (defined).
Result of "No" Vote
"No" vote retains existing civil and criminal laws
prohibiting cultivation, possession and delivery of
marijuana; retains current statutes that permit regulated
medical use of marijuana.
Summary
Currently, marijuana cultivation, possession and delivery
are prohibited; regulated medical marijuana use permitted.
Measure replaces state, local marijuana laws except medical
marijuana and driving under the influence laws; distinguishes
"hemp" from "marijuana"; prohibits regulation of hemp.
Creates commission to license marijuana cultivation by quali-
fied persons and to purchase entire crop. Commission sells
marijuana at cost to pharmacies, medical research facilities
and to qualified adults for profit through state -licensed stores.
Ninety percent of net proceeds goes to state general fund,
remainder to drug education, treatment, hemp promotion.
Bans sales to, possession by minors. Bans public consump-
tion except where signs permit, minors barred. Commission
regulates use, sets prices, other duties; Attorney General to
defend against federal challenges/prosecutions. Provides
penalties. Effective January 1, 2013; other provisions.
Estimate of Financial Impact
This measure legalizes the private manufacture, possession
and use of cannabis in Oregon. Investigations and prosecu-
tions for related offenses would no longer take place after the
effective date of this measure. State and local expenditures
and revenues will be impacted by passage of this measure.
The measure creates the Oregon Cannabis Commission,
appointed by the Governor, to carry out the provisions of
the measure. The state's Chief Financial Office believes the
appointment of the commission will not add noteworthy cost
to state expenditures.
The cost of operating the Commission may be similar to
the cost of operating the existing Oregon Liquor Control
Commission, which is about $22 million per year, excluding
the variable expenses related to compensating liquor store
owners and paying bank card fees. Total additional revenues
to state government are indeterminate, but revenues are likely
to be sufficient to offset the expenditures of the Commission.
The measure requires the Oregon Cannabis Commission to
consult with the Board of Pharmacy on various issues and,
if practicable, to establish certain rules. As the Commission
is not granted rule -making authority, the Board of Pharmacy
may be called upon to establish those rules. The Board of
Pharmacy estimates the need for one half-time pharmacist, at
a cost of approximately $75,000 per year, to carry out these
additional duties.
State expenditures would be reduced by the amount that the
state pays for felony offenders with related convictions in
prison and on probation. The savings to the state as a result
of the passage of this measure is estimated to be between
$1.4 million and $2.4 million a year.
The measure prohibits the disclosure of names and addresses
of applicants, licensees, and purchasers of cannabis except
upon the person's request. The Oregon Judicial Department
estimates additional expenditures of between $1.6 million
and $3.3 million per year to ensure court case files do not
contain such names or addresses prior to allowing them to be
viewed by parties to a case, the public, or the media.
The amount of the impact for local law enforcement, district
attorneys, and the courts is indeterminate.
Impact on Impact on
Expenditures Revenue
Operation of the May increase Indeterminate,
Commission $22 million but likely
per year sufficient
to cover
expenditures
Board of Pharmacy Increase $75,000 None
per year
Felony convictions Decrease of None
$1.4 - $2.4 million
per year
State Courts Increase of None
$1.6 - $3.3 million
per year
Total Impact May increase Indeterminate,
to the State: $22.3 - $23 million but likely
per year sufficient to
cover
expenditures
Impact to Local Indeterminate Indeterminate
Government:
Explanation of Estimate of Financial Impact
The measure replaces the state's existing laws relating to
cannabis, except those relating to operating a motor vehicle
while intoxicated and the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act
(OMMA). The OMMA is administered by the Oregon Health
Authority, which expects the measure's legalization of canna-
bis to reduce OMMA revenues from application and renewal
fees, slightly more than half of which support other public
health programs. The magnitude of this reduction in OMMA
fee revenues is indeterminate.
Under the measure, additional revenues to the state would
result from the value of sales of cannabis in excess of expen-
ditures to operate the Oregon Cannabis Commission (OCC).
It would also compensate OCC contractors and provide legal
defense of the provisions enacted by the measure and of
persons prosecuted for acts licensed under the measure. The
value of gross sales of marijuana by the OCC depends on
several variables, each of which has a large degree of uncer-
tainty: (1) the amount of cannabis sold per year through OCC
stores; and (2) the proportion of those sales that would be
"at cost" for medicinal use and research (provided for in the
measure's language for ORS 474.045) or at a profit (provided
for in the measure's language for 474.055). The uncertainty of
these variables results in an indeterminate value of additional
revenues to the state.
The measure outlines the distribution of revenues to a variety
of programs, including two new hemp -related state commit-
tees. Because the amount of revenue generated is unknown,
any related increase of expenditures is also indeterminate.
The Judicial Department has identified potential indetermi-
nate financial impacts of the measure on the state's court
system including:
• Motions to determine which laws the measure repeals
• Additional cases in the Court of Appeals to address OCC
rulemaking and licensing authority
• Additional state court time required to resolve unclear or
conflicting provisions of the measure
• Additional cases filed under new misdemeanors and
felonies created in the measure
• Additional cases of DUII offenses, child endangerment,
and juvenile dependency
• Additional court time taken to impose a fine to deprive a
defendant of profits.
The measure requires the state's Attorney General to vigor-
ously defend the provisions of the measure and any person
prosecuted for acts licensed under the measure. The Oregon
Department of Justice is not able to predict the number and
difficulty of such legal defenses and therefore this potential
expenditure impact is indeterminate.
The Oregon Department of Revenue and Legislative Revenue
Office have indicated that the measure's impact on personal
income tax is indeterminate.
The Association of Oregon Counties has indicated that the
potential costs and savings of county operations would be
indeterminate.
Committee Members:
Secretary of State Kate Brown
State Treasurer Ted Wheeler
Michael Jordan, Director, Dept. of Administrative Services
James Bucholz, Director, Dept. of Revenue
Debra Guzman, Local Government Representative
(The estimate of financial impact and explanation was
provided by the above committee pursuant to ORS 250.127.)
Text of Measure
Whereas the people of the State of Oregon find that Cannabis
hemp is an environmentally beneficial crop that:
(a) Yields several times more fiber, for paper and textiles, than
any other plant;
(b) Yields cloth and paper of superior strength and durabil-
ity without the application of pesticides during cultivation
and without producing cancer -causing pollutants during
processing;
(c) Yields more seed oil and protein, for prodigious and eco
logical biodiesel fuel, plastics and nutritious food, than any
other plant;
(d) Yields more biomass than any other plant outside the
tropics, though it grows well in the tropics too, and grows
faster than any other plant on earth in the temperate and
cooler climates;
(e) Yields a substance that relieves the suffering of many ill
people without life -threatening side effects; and,
Whereas the people find that federal and corporate misinfor-
mation campaigns that economically benefit small groups of
people have suppressed the information above and the fact
that:
(a) George Washington grew cannabis for more than 30 years
and, while he was President, said, "the artificial preparation
of hemp is really a curiosity" and told his Secretary of the
Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, that he was, "suggesting the
policy of encouraging the growth of Hemp";
(b) Thomas Jefferson invented a device to process cannabis,
and cannabis fiber was used for most clothing and paper
production until the invention of the cotton gin;
(c) Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who spoke at the U.S.
Constitutional Convention in 1787 more than any other del-
egate and of whom James Madison said, "the style and finish
of the Constitution properly belongs to the pen of Gouverneur
Morris," wrote a paper he sent to Thomas Jefferson called,
"Notes Respecting Tobacco" that compared cannabis and
tobacco and concluded that cannabis "is to be preferred";
and.
Whereas the people find that cannabis is Oregon's largest
cash crop, indicating that cannabis prohibition has failed; and,
Whereas the people find that, despite misinformation con-
cocted to justify cannabis prohibition, the courts of Alaska,
Hawaii and Michigan have noted presidential commission
findings, scientific studies, and learned treatises which:
(a) Characterize cannabis as a relatively nonaddictive and
comparatively harmless euphoriant used and cultivated for
more than 10,000 years without a single lethal overdose;
(b) Demonstrate that moderate cannabis use causes very little
impairment of psychomotor functions; reveal no significant
physical, biochemical, or mental abnormalities attributable
solely to cannabis use; and that long-term, heavy cannabis
users do not deviate significantly from their social peers in
terms of mental function;
(c) Disprove the "stepping stone" or "gateway drug" argument
that cannabis use leads to other drugs; rather, that lies taught
about cannabis, once discovered, destroy the credibility of
valid educational messages about moderate and responsible
use and valid warnings against other truly dangerous drugs;
(d) Indicate that cannabis users are less likely to commit
violent acts than alcohol users, refute the argument that can-
nabis causes criminal behavior, and suggest that most users
avoid aggressive behavior, even in the face of provocation;
and
(e) Declare that cannabis use does not constitute a public
health problem of any significant dimension; finds no rational
basis for treating cannabis as more dangerous than alcohol;
and
Whereas the people of the State of Oregon find that cannabis
does not cause the social ills that its prohibition was intended
to guard against; rather, that most of the social ills attributed
to cannabis result from its unreasonable prohibition which:
(a) Provides incentives to traffic in marijuana instead of limit-
ing its prevalence, since almost all cannabis users evade the
prohibition, even though drastically expanding public safety
budgets have reduced funding for other vital services such as
education;
(b) Fosters a black market that exploits children, provides an
economic subsidy for gangs, and sells cannabis of question-
able purity and uncertain potency;
(c) Generates enormous, untaxed, illicit profits that debase
our economy and corrupt our justice system; and,
(d) Wastes police resources, clogs our courts, and drains the
public budget to no good effect; and, Whereas, the people
recall that alcohol prohibition had caused many of the same
social ills before being replaced by regulatory laws which,
ever since, have granted alcohol users the privilege of buying
alcohol from state licensees, imposed strict penalties protect-
ing children, delivered alcohol of sure potency, and generated
substantial public revenues; and,
Whereas the people hold that cannabis prohibition is a sump-
tuary law of a nature repugnant to our constitution's framers
and which is so unreasonable and liberticidal as to:
(a) Arbitrarily violate the rights of cannabis users to be secure
against unreasonable search and seizure as guaranteed to
them by Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution;
(b) Unreasonably impose felony burdens on the cannabis
users while the state grants special privileges to alcohol
users, which violates Article 1, Section 20 of the Oregon
Constitution;
(c) Unnecessarily proscribe consumption of a "herb bearing
seed" given to humanity in Genesis 1:29, thereby violating
their unqualified religious rights under Article I, Section 3 and
their Natural Rights under Article 1, Section 33 of the Oregon
Constitution;
(d) Violates the individual's right to privacy and numer-
ous other Natural and Constitutional Rights reserved to the
people under Article 1, Section 33 of the Oregon Constitution;
(e) Violates the state's right to regulate and tax commerce
within the state, as reserved to states under the 10th
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, thereby abdicating
control to illicit markets; and,
(f) Irrationally subvert the ends to which, in its Preamble,
the Oregon Constitution was ordained and the purposes, in
Article 1, Section 1, for which our government was instituted;
now, Therefore, the people find that the constitutional ends of
justice, order, and the perpetuation of liberty; the governmen-
tal purposes of preserving the peace, safety, and happiness
of the people; and the vitality of the other constitutional
provisions cited above, demand the replacement of a costly,
self-defeating prohibition with regulatory laws controlling
cannabis cultivation, potency, sale, and use; defining and pro-
hibiting cannabis abuse; protecting children with a compre-
hensive drug education program and strict penalties for the
sale or provision of cannabis to minors; funding state drug
abuse treatment programs; promoting Oregon hemp for fuel,
fiber and food; and raising substantial revenue for public use.
Wherefore, be it enacted by the people of the state of Oregon,
the laws relating to cannabis are revised as follows:
Section 1. This Act shall operate uniformly throughout Oregon
and fully replace and supersede all statutes, municipal charter
enactments, and local ordinances relating to cannabis, except
those relating to operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated
and the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act. This Act is a scientific
experiment by the people of the state of Oregon to lower the
misuse of, illicit traffic in and harm associated with cannabis
and will set up voluntary studies of cannabis users under ORS
474.045 (b) and other studies.
Section 2. A new state commission is hereby created and
shall be named the Oregon Cannabis Commission, or the
OCC. The OCC shall regulate the sale of cannabis and cultiva-
tion of cannabis for sale and shall assure the high quality of
cannabis grown and processed under this Act. The OCC shall
consist of seven commissioners. Initially, seven commission-
ers shall be appointed by the Governor before December 31,
2012 for a term of one year and they shall promulgate admin-
istrative rules, create systems and begin licensing applicants
by February 28, 2013. Thereafter, five commissioners shall be
elected at large by growers and processors licensed under
ORS 474.035 for a term of one year, and two commissioners
shall be appointed by the Governor for a term of two years.
The OCC shall workto promote Oregon cannabis products in
all legal national and international markets.
Section 3. This Act, in Section 4, creates an ORS chapter 474
titled the "Oregon Cannabis Tax Act." Legislative Counsel
shall move and renumber existing provisions of chapter 474.
Section 4.474.005 Definitions. As used in this chapter:
(1) "Abuse" means repetitive or excessive drug use such that
the individual fails to fulfill a statutory or common law duty,
including but not limited to the duties owed by parents to
children, by motorists to pedestrians and other motorists,
and by employees to employers, fellow employees, and the
public.
(2) "Cannabis" means the flowering tops and all parts, deriva-
tives, or preparations of the cannabis plant, also known as
"marijuana," containing cannabinoids in concentrations
established by the commission to be psychoactive, but does
not include "hemp" as defined by ORS 474.005(5).
(3) "Commission" means the the Oregon Cannabis
Commission, or OCC.
(4) "Cultivation" means growing the cannabis plant.
(5) "Hemp" means the seeds, stems, and stalks of the canna-
bis plant, and all other parts, products, and byproducts of the
cannabis plant not containing cannabinoids in concentrations
established by the commission to be psychoactive. Seeds and
starts of all varieties of cannabis shall be considered hemp.
474.015 Short Title. This chapter may be cited as the "Oregon
Cannabis Tax Act."
474.025 Purpose of the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act. This chapter
shall be liberally construed so as to minimize the misuse and
abuse of cannabis; to prevent the illicit sale or provision of
cannabis to minors; and to protect the peace, safety, and hap-
piness of Oregonians while preserving the largest measure of
liberty consistent with the above purposes.
474.035 Powers and duties of the commission, licenses
for cultivation and processing. Hemp fiber, protein, oil not
regulated.
(1) The commission shall have the powers necessary to carry
out the provisions of this chapter. It shall make such rules and
regulations as will discourage and minimize the diversion
of cannabis to illicit sale or use within the state, the illicit
importation and sale of cannabis cultivated or processed
outside the state, and the illicit export or removal of cannabis
from the state. The commission's jurisdiction shall extend to
any person licensed under this chapter to cultivate or process
cannabis, but shall not extend to any person who manufac-
tures products from hemp. Hemp production for fiber, protein
and oil shall be allowed without regulation, license nor fee.
No federal license shall be required to cultivate hemp in
Oregon.
(2) The commission shall issue to any qualified applicant a
license to cultivate cannabis for sale to the commission. The
license shall specify the areas, plots, and extent of lands to
be cultivated. The commission shall equitably apportion the
purchase of cannabis among all licensees. The commission
shall purchase and sell cannabis products of the quality and
grade set by market demand.
(3) The commission shall issue licenses to process cannabis
to qualified applicants who submit successful bids. Licensed
processors shall, as specified by the commission, contract,
cure, extract, refine, mix, and package the entire cannabis
crop and deliver it to the commission's physical possession
as soon as possible, but not later than four months after
harvest.
474.045 Commission to sell cannabis at cost for medical pur-
poses. The Commission shall sell cannabis at cost, including
OCC expenses:
(a) To Oregon and other states' pharmacies and OCC stores
for use under a physician's order for glaucoma, nausea
related to chemotherapy, AIDS, or any other condition for
which a physician finds cannabis to be an effective treatment;
and,
(b) To recognized Oregon medical research facilities for use in
research directed toward expanding medical and sociological
knowledge of the composition, effects, uses, and abuse of
cannabis, to include studies of cannabis purchasers volun-
tarily participating through OCC stores under ORS 474.055.
474.055 Commission to set price and sell through OCC stores.
The commission shall sell cannabis through OCC stores and
shall set the retail price of cannabis to generate profits for
revenue to be applied to the purposes noted in ORS chapter
474 and to minimize incentives to purchase cannabis else-
where or to purchase cannabis for resale or for removal to
other states.
474.065 Qualifications of purchasers and licensees, effect of
conviction.
(1) To be qualified to purchase, cultivate, or process cannabis,
a person must be over 21 years of age and not have been con-
victed of sale of cannabis to minors or convicted under this
chapter of unlicensed cultivation or sale of cannabis.
(2) Conviction for cultivation or sale of cannabis to other than
minors, when committed prior to the effective date of this
chapter, shall not be grounds for denial of an application for a
license under this chapter.
(3) The cultivation and possession of cannabis for personal,
noncommercial use by an adult shall not require a license nor
registration.
474.075 Disposition of license fees and profits from sale of
cannabis by state.
(1) The commission shall collect license fees which shall
be calculated and continually appropriated to defray the
commission's administrative costs of issuing licenses under
this chapter and the Attorney General's costs of litigation
in defense of the validity of this chapter's provisions and in
defense of persons subjected to criminal or civil liability for
actions licensed or required under this chapter.
(2) All money from the sale of cannabis shall be remitted to
the State Treasurer for credit to a cannabis account, from
which sufficient money shall be continually appropriated:
(a) To reimburse the commission for the costs of purchasing,
processing, testing, grading, shipping, and selling cannabis;
of regulating, inspecting, and auditing licensees; and of
research studies required by this chapter; and,
(b) To reimburse the Attorney General's office for costs of
enforcing this chapter's criminal provisions.
(c) To reimburse OCC contractors for their expenses and labor
with 15 percent of gross sales.
(3) All money remaining in the cannabis account after reim-
bursement of the related commission and Attorney General
costs shall be profits which the State Treasurer shall distrib-
ute quarterly as follows:
(a) Ninety percent shall be credited to the state's general fund
to finance state programs.
(b) Seven percent shall be credited to the Department of
Human Resources and shall be continually appropriated to
fund various drug abuse treatment programs on demand.
(c) One percent shall be credited to create and fund an agri-
cultural state committee for the promotion of Oregon hemp
fiber, protein and oil crops and associated industries. This
new state committee shall be named the "Oregon Hemp Fiber
and Food Committee."
(d) One percent shall be credited to create and fund an agri-
cultural state committee to develop and promote biodiesel
fuel production from hemp seeds. This new state committee
shall be named the "Oregon Hemp Biodiesel Committee."
(e) One percent shall be distributed to the state's school
districts, appropriated by enrollment, and shall be continually
appropriated to fund a drug education program which shall:
(1) Emphasize a citizen's rights and duties under our social
compact and to explain to students how drug abusers might
injure the rights of others by failing to fulfill such duties;
(11) Persuade students to decline to consume psychoactive
substances by providing them with accurate information
about the threat these drugs pose to their mental and physi-
cal development; and,
(III) Persuade students that if, as adults, they choose to
consume psychoactive substances, they must nevertheless
responsibly fulfill all duties they owe others.
474.085 Commission to establish psychoactive concentra-
tions of cannabinoids. The commission, based on findings
made in consultation with the Board of Pharmacy and can-
nabis and hemp farmers to cannabinoid concentrations which
produce psychoactivity, the economics of residual cannabis
extraction, and strains of hemp that produce better quality
and quantity of fiber, protein and oil, shall establish reason-
able concentrations of cannabinoids deemed psychoactive
under this chapter.
474.095 Commission to set standards, test purity, grade
potency of cannabis, label contents.
(1) The commission, in consultation with the State Board of
Pharmacy, shall set standards which the commission shall
apply:
(a) To test and reject cannabis containing adulterants in con
centrations known to harm people; and,
(b) To grade cannabis potency by measuring the concentra-
tions of psychoactive cannabinoids it contains.
(2) The commission shall affix to cannabis packages a label
which shall bear the state seal, a certification of purity, a
grade of potency, the date of harvest, a warning as to the
potential for abuse, and notice of laws prohibiting resale,
removal from the state, public consumption, and provision
and sale to minors.
474.105 Commission may limit purchases. The commission
may limit the quantity of cannabis purchased by a person at
one time or over any length of time and may refuse to sell
cannabis to any person who violates this chapter's provisions
or abuses cannabis within the meaning of ORS 474.005(1).
474.115 Unlicensed cultivation for sale, removal from the
state, penalties. Cultivation for sale, removal from the state
for sale, and sale of cannabis, without commission authority,
shall be Class C felonies, and removal from the state of can-
nabis for other than sale shall be a Class A misdemeanor.
474.125 Sale or provision to minors, penalties, exception.
The sale of cannabis to minors shall be a Class B felony, and
gratuitous provision of cannabis to minors shall be a Class A
misdemeanor, except when to a minor over 18 years of age
under the same conditions provided by ORS 471.030(1) for
alcohol.
474.135 Fine as additional penalty. In addition to other penal-
ties and in lieu of any civil remedy, conviction of sale or unli-
censed cultivation for sale under ORS 474.115 or 474.125 shall
be punishable by a fine which the court shall determine will
deprive an offender of any profits from the criminal activity.
474.145 Acquisition by minors, penalty. Except as provided by
ORS 474.125, the purchase, attempt to purchase, possession,
or acquisition of cannabis by a person under 21 years of age
shall be a violation punishable by a fine of not more than $250.
474.155 Public consumption prohibited, penalty, exception.
Except where prominent signs permit and minors are neither
admitted nor employed, public consumption of cannabis shall
be a violation punishable by a fine of not more than $250.
474.205 Commission to study methods of use, potential for
abuse, establish cannabis levels for presumption of impair-
ment. The commission, in consultation with the Board of
Pharmacy and by grants to accredited research facilities,
shall:
(a) Study methods of use and the potential for, and ill effects
of, abuse of cannabis, the possible damage of throat and
lungs from inhaling cannabis smoke, less harmful methods of
administration, including but not limited to filtration of smoke
and non -combustive vaporization of the psychoactive agents
in cannabis, and shall report its findings in pamphlets distrib-
uted at OCC stores; and,
(b) Study cannabis impairment and, if practicable, shall estab-
lish by rule levels of cannabinoids and impairment above
which a person shall be presumed impaired.
474.215 Presumption of negligence. In civil cases, a rebut-
table presumption of negligence shall arise upon clear and
convincing evidence that a person is found to be impaired by
cannabis at the time of an accident and if the person's actions
materially contributed to the cause of injury.
474.305 Disclosure of names and addresses prohibited.
Information on applicants, licensees, and purchasers under
this chapter shall not be disclosed except upon the person's
request.
474.315 Attorney General's duties. The Attorney General
shall vigorously defend this Act and any person prosecuted
for acts licensed under this chapter, propose a federal and/
or international act to remove impediments to this chapter,
deliver the proposed federal and/or international act to each
member of Congress and/or international organization, and
urge adoption of the proposed federal and/or international act
through all legal and appropriate means.
474.325 Effect. This Act shall take effect on January 1, 2013.
Any section of this Act being held invalid as to any person
or circumstance shall not affect the application of any other
section of this Act that can be given full or partial effect
without the invalid section or application.
If any law or entity of any type whatsoever is held to impede
this chapter's full effect, unimpeded provisions shall remain
in effect and the impeded provisions shall regain effect upon
the impediments removal.
Explanatory Statement
Currently Oregon law prohibits the cultivation, distribution
and use of marijuana (cannabis), except as permitted pursu-
ant to the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act. The passage of
Ballot Measure 80 would replace and supersede all existing
state and local laws relating to marijuana, except those that
pertain to medical marijuana and driving under the influence
of intoxicants.
The measure creates new criminal penalties for illegal sale
of marijuana, removal of marijuana out of the state and
unlawful distribution of marijuana to minors. It bans public
consumption of marijuana, except where permitted by signs
and where minors are excluded. Personal use of marijuana
and cultivation of marijuana for personal use are authorized
by the measure.
The measure distinguishes "hemp" from "marijuana" and
prohibits regulation of hemp.
The measure creates the Oregon Cannabis Commission
(Commission). The duties of the Commission include:
1. Licensing qualified marijuana growers;
2. Licensing qualified persons to process and package
marijuana;
3. Licensing stores to sell marijuana to persons having a
physician's order stating that marijuana is an effective
treatment for that person's medical condition;
4. Purchasing marijuana from licensed growers for sale at
state -licensed stores;
5. Selling processed marijuana at cost to state -licensed
stores, pharmacies in Oregon and other states, and to
Oregon medical research facilities;
6. Setting the retail price of marijuana sold for profit at
state -licensed stores;
7. Collecting fees for licenses issued;
8. Setting standards for quality and potency of marijuana
sold at state -licensed stores;
9. Establishing psychoactive concentrations of marijuana
and hemp;
10. May limit the quantity of marijuana sold at state -
licensed stores and may prohibit the sale of marijuana
to persons who violate the provision of the measure or
who abuse marijuana; and
11. Promoting Oregon cannabis products in all legal
national and international markets.
The measure sets qualifications for persons who purchase
marijuana at state -licensed stores, and for persons licensed
to cultivate or process marijuana for purchase by these
stores. Money from licenses and the sale of marijuana at
state -licensed stores shall be used to:
1. Reimburse the Commission for expenses;
2. Reimburse the Attorney General's office for the costs
of enforcing the criminal provisions created by the
measure and defending the validity of the measure; and
3. Reimburse Commission -licensed retailers by paying
them 15% of gross sales at Commission -licensed stores.
Money remaining from the sales of marijuana after reim-
bursements have been paid shall be distributed as follows:
1. 90%to the state general fund to finance state programs;
2. 7% to the Department of Human Resources to fund drug
treatment programs;
3. 1%to create and fund a new state committee for
the promotion of Oregon hemp fiber and associated
industries;
4. 1%to create and fund a new state committee to develop
and promote biodiesel fuel production from hemp
seeds; and
5. 1%to state school districts to fund drug education
programs.
Ballot Measure 80 would take effect on January 1, 2013.
Committee Members: Appointed by:
D. Paul Stanford Chief Petitioners
Ann Witte Chief Petitioners
Marc Adams Secretary of State
Mark Huddleston Secretary of State
Lane Shetterly Members of the Committee
(This committee was appointed to provide an impartial
explanation of the ballot measure pursuant to ORS 251.215.)
Argument in Favor
OREGON LAWYERS SUPPORT MEASURE 80
We are Oregon lawyers who represent people accused of
marijuana related crimes. We see first-hand the harm caused
by the war on drugs on families and especially those of color.
Violation of the marijuana laws keep children separated from
their parents, jobs and housing lost, and students denied
aid all because of marijuana prohibition. Prohibition has not
limited the availability of marijuana to our children but has
instead made all of us less safe because limited law enforce-
ment resources are diverted from investigating property and
violent crime.
The notion that marijuana is a gateway drug has long been
debunked. Furthermore, the addition of marijuana as legal
substance will provide a healthier alternative for those
whose alcohol consumption produces negative, often
violent, behavior.
Measure 80 would regulate the sale of marijuana similarly to
how we regulate the sale of alcohol. It would not change the
laws criminalizing Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants.
The State's Financial Impact Estimate concludes that the
Cannabis Control Commission will at least pay for itself. We
believe the new taxes and revenue will create a significant
income stream for the state, create new jobs and refocus law
enforcement priorities in favor of increased public safety.
We urge you to vote Yes on Measure 80, for jobs, for public
safety and for justice.
Leland R. Berger, Portland
Claudia Browne, Grants Pass
Pete Castleberry, Portland
Thomas K. Coan, Portland
Richard Cremer, Roseburg
John Henry Hingson III, Oregon City
Rosalind Lee, Eugene
Brian Michaels, P.C., Attorney at Law, Eugene
Eve Lyn Oldenkamp, Attorney at Law, Klamath Falls
Michael E. Rose, Portland
Phil Studenberg, Attorney at Law, Klamath Falls
Neal Weingart, Attorney at Law, LLC, Portland
(This information furnished by Leland R. Berger.)
Argument in Favor
As a parent and a voter, I want our laws to make sense. I
want law enforcement to keep us safe. And I want a strong
economy to help pay for schools, parks and social services
For all those reasons, I'm voting yes on Measure 80.
Measure 80 will regulate marijuana the way we currently
regulate liquor. With store -owners asking for I.D. and facing
penalties and prison for selling to minors, it'll be tougher for
kids to get access to marijuana.
Regulating marijuana will also drive drug -dealers and
pushers out of business and off the streets, which makes our
kids and our communities safer.
Some say that marijuana is a gateway drug that needs to be
suppressed. But really, marijuana is not a gateway to other
drugs, it is a gateway to the black market, where unscrupu-
lous drug dealers don't ask for ID.
According to the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of
Medicine's 1999 report, Marivana and Medicine: Assessing
the Science Base:
"There is no evidence that marijuana serves as a stepping
stone on the basis of its particular physiological effect ...
Instead, the legal status of marijuana makes it a gateway drug.
Measure 80 will close the black-market gateway by taxing
and regulating marijuana for adults.
Measure 80 will also generate tens of millions of dollars in
new tax revenue for our state, with 9 out of every 10 dollars
going to the General Fund, which pays for schools and col-
leges in Oregon. And, with only marijuana consumers paying
that tax, it's better for everyone than increases in our prop-
erty, income and other taxes.
I know from studying history that all alcohol prohibition did
was put good people in jail and make organized crime rich
and powerful. Marijuana prohibition is just as big a failure.
Measure 80 makes sense to me. It's common sense policy
and it'll benefit Oregon's families and communities. I'm
voting yes on 80.1 hope you will too.
(This information furnished by Douglas Paul Stanford, Yes
on 80.)
Argument in Favor
It's your choice as an Oregon voter: we can prioritize our
extremely limited public safety budgets to focus on real
criminals and dangerous substances like meth and heroin,
or we can continue to waste tens of millions of dollars every
year pursuing, arresting, trying and incarcerating otherwise
law-abiding adult marijuana consumers.
Measure 80 recognizes that marijuana prohibition, like
alcohol prohibition nearly a century ago, has failed. But regu-
lation — taxing, licensing, and managing an industry — works.
Measure 80 will regulate marijuana similar to how we regu-
late liquor. That means adults 21 and older will be able to
choose whether to consume cannabis.
Regulating marijuana legally for adults will allow Oregon's
state and local governments to concentrate our limited
public safety resources more wisely, on those who steal,
hurt and kill. According to Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron,
Oregon spends more than $60 million each year enforcing
existing marijuana laws. Passage of Measure 80 will free
that money to be used on capturing dangerous criminals and
keeping them behind bars.
Driving under the influence will continue to be a punishable
crime.
Providing marijuana to a minor will be a crime.
Selling marijuana to minors will be a felony.
Replacing failed prohibition with effective regulation of mari-
juana will make Oregon SAFER.
Oregon, Colorado and Washington are all voting this
November on various initiatives to legally tax and regulate
marijuana sales to adults.
If any of these states pass marijuana law reform, it will be the
beginning of the end of these 75 years of marijuana prohibi-
tion. Alcohol prohibition ended in 1933 when a number of
states, like Oregon's 1932 initiative vote, led the way.
Oregon can lead the way to restore common sense on drug
policy to our criminal justice system.
Vote Yes on Measure 80!
(This information furnished by Douglas Paul Stanford, Yes
on 80.)
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Argument in Favor
Hemp is one of the most versatile plants on Earth. A member
of the cannabis sativa family, industrial hemp is related to
other cannabis varieties including the plant now known as
marijuana.
America's most important commodity crop from the days of
George Washington until the early 20th century, hemp was
used to make everything from ropes on our battleships to
canvas for our flags. Hemp is patriotic.
customers and positive attention. When we end marijuana
prohibition and regulate marijuana like we do liquor, Oregon's
marijuana and hemp industry entrepreneurs will create good,
safe, family -wage jobs across our state.
Whether you're a small-business owner in Washington
County or a grass -seed farmer in Linn County or a retiree in
Jackson County, voting yes on Measure 80 is good, common
sense. It's time to regulate, tax and manage marijuana like we
do liquor. For the sake of our economy, and our communities.
Please join us in voting yes on Measure 80. It just makes
Hemp is also effectively illegal to grow in the United States,
sense.
which makes the U.S. the only industrialized nation on Earth
to prohibit the farming of agricultural hemp.
Dan Clay
President, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 555
But Measure 80 will change that in Oregon. Measure 80 will
give Oregon farmers the legal backing of the state to grow,
(This information furnished by Dan Clay, United Food and
process and sell agricultural hemp, creating thousands of
Commercial Workers Local 555.)
jobs, keeping money in local communities and exporting
products and know-how around the world.
Oregon farmers will be able to sustainably grow hemp and
produce fuel using its seed oil, which makes over 300 gallons
of oil per acre, and can be immediately used in modern diesel
engines.
When hemp seeds are pressed for oil, the byproduct is 6,000
pounds of high -protein hemp seed meal. Hemp seed protein
is the most nutritious protein, with all 8 amino acids that
people need in the perfect balance for our nutrition.
Hemp, per land area cultivated, produces more fuel, fiber,
food and medicine than any other plant on our planet. Hemp
fiber and seed oil can be used too make tens of thousands of
different products, from plastics and polymers to bio-fuel,
from paper to sustainable construction materials.
Hemp can help turn Oregon's economy around, by giving our
farmers, our engineers and our entrepreneurs access to a
versatile, sustainable crop.
Let's leverage Oregon's sustainable industry leadership. Let's
put Oregon back to work. Let's use common sense and join
the rest of the industrialized world in building a vibrant, legal,
industrial hemp economy.
Vote YES on Measure 80!
(This information furnished by William N Appel.)
Argument in Favor
When we vote yes on Measure 80, we're voting yes on creat-
ing thousands of new jobs. We're voting yes on rebuilding,
sustainably, the industries Oregon used to rely on, industries
like our pulp and paper mills, our timber industries, our textile
mills. And we're supporting emerging Oregon super -
industries, like biofuel and green -building, because Measure
80 gives Oregon farmers and business -owners the right to
grow agricultural hemp, which can be used to make thou-
sands of products we use here in Oregon and export around
the world.
When we vote yes on Measure 80, we're voting yes to pri-
oritizing our very limited police budgets, because right now
we waste more than $60 million a year fighting marijuana
growers when we could be using that money to keep police
officers on duty and focused on dangerous criminals.
When we vote yes on Measure 80, we're voting to regulate
and tax Oregon's marijuana industry so it can become
transparent, legitimate and safe. In 1930, wine and beer were
illegal under prohibition. In 2010, Oregon's wine and beer
industries had a total economic impact of nearly $5 BILLION,
and employed more than 10,000 Oregonians. From farmers to
engineers to small-town business -owners, our wine and beer
industries bring Oregon national and international visitors,
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Argument in Opposition
SHERIFF'S SAY NO
The Oregon Sheriff's Political Action Committee is in opposi-
tion to Measure 80. We want to educate voters about the
negative impact marijuana already has on our children and
families. Oregon voters should carefully consider their vote
on this issue and its effect on our communities.
Anticipated Tax Revenue will NOT Cover the Costs
Marijuana is part of a $115 million annual cost for prevention,
treatment, and recovery services in Oregon, according to the
Governor's Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs.
In one of our most densely populated counties, 70% of those
entering the jail system tested positive for marijuana and
report participating unsuccessfully in treatment programs.
Also, the Oregon Health Authority reports that underage
marijuana use increases risks of alcohol abuse and cigarette
smoking in our children.
Marijuana Use is Strongly Associated with Criminal Behavior
Over half of those arrested for violent crimes in Oregon test
positive for marijuana at the time of arrest. Currently, nearly
three out of four arrestees under the age of 21 test positive
for marijuana. As a result, we are seeing the same problems
we see in underage alcohol and tobacco use. Worse yet,
children report being used to deliver marijuana to elementary
schools, neighborhoods, and playgrounds.
Marijuana Production Negatively Impacts Communities
In -home marijuana "grows" are often the target of violent
home invasion robberies and other property crimes.
Cultivators of marijuana are frequently armed and present
risks to their community. To increase "crop" production, toxic
and sometimes explosive levels of fertilization chemicals are
present; creating additional hazards to the home owner and
the community they live in.
Medical marijuana production in Oregon has already created
a criminal market in other states, as hundreds of pounds of
marijuana, bought cheaply in Oregon, are sold at a profit in
states where voters have chosen not to support such laws.
The right vote for Oregon is NO.
(This information furnished by Sheriff Diana Simpson, Chair,
Sheriffs of Oregon PAC.)
Argument in Opposition
Oregon Chiefs of Police urge a NO vote on Measure 80
As law enforcement leaders, we are deeply concerned by the
drug legalization strategy established by Ballot Measure 80.
Our duty to protect and serve our communities compels us
to take a strong stand against this measure. This Measure
will have a negative impact on our state, and will hamper our
ability to keep our communities safe.
RISK TO YOUTH
If this Measure passes, MARIJUANA USE AMONG YOUTH
WILL INCREASE because of expanded availability and per-
ceived social acceptability. Oregon currently has the nation's
third highest rate of marijuana use among youth, ages 12 —
17. The percentage of kids in drug counseling for marijuana
addiction has been increasing annually, placing our youth's
development at risk.
RISK TO MOTORISTS
If this Measure passes, "DRUGGED DRIVING" incidents on
Oregon roads will significantly increase, causing greater
risks to motorists. Enforcement of drugged driving is dif-
ficult and expensive. Unlike alcohol, where officers can
measure impairment based on a blood/urine test, marijuana
impairment must be established by a limited number of spe-
cially trained "Drug Recognition Experts". Oregon lacks laws
to deter drugged driving and officers will lack the tools neces-
sary to keep Oregon roads safe if Measure 80 passes.
RISK TO PUBLIC SAFETY
Proponents claim that BLACK MARKETS will not exist if this
measure passes. The truth is, Measure 80 is likely to create
a greatly expanded marijuana marketplace for violent drug
cartels. Significant reductions in the cost of marijuana will
attract criminal organizations to Oregon where they can buy
marijuana to resell in their own states. In effect, Measure 80
will make Oregon a launching pad for illicit marijuana dealing
across the country. Far from freeing up law enforcement to
deal with serious crime, as proponents claim, Measure 80
would expose Oregon to international drug cartels that use
violence to protect their lucrative markets.
VOTE NO ON MEASURE 80!
(This information furnished by Kevin Campbell, Oregon Chiefs
of Police Association.)
Argument in Opposition
YOU CAN'T REGULATE DRUG DEALER'S
It's Federally Illegal!
Advocates don't want the government telling them what to
do, yet they have created a measure to form a seven member
State Agency that would regulatethe cultivation and selling
of unlimited amounts of marijuana in government stores,
which could be located by neighborhoods, schools, day-
care's, libraries, churches, parks, and in shopping centers.
• They leave UNREGULATED the amount that anyone over
21 can grow, potentially growing fields of marijuana next
to your home. Growing endangers others because of
toxic materials, overloads of electricity, and fires.
• Measure 80 says the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program
will remain, which allows cardholders to grow 6 mature
plants and 18 immature plants. If everyone over 21 can
legally buy or grow, why would there be a need for
this program, if not for the questionable cardholders,
caregivers, and growers being able to hide under the
current UNREGULATED program so they can divert their
extra illegally.
Measure 80 requires public schools to teach our children how
to use marijuana responsibly. This is not a function of schools.
• Permits UNREGULATED growing of hemp, which is
federally illegal, potentially buying up acres of rural
farmland.
Revenue generated won't cover costs such as: increased
treatment, emergency room visits, crime, traffic accidents,
child abuse, teen pregnancies, animal maltreatment, work-
place costs, and school 'drop-outs'related to marijuana use
Measure does not address security requirement's, THC
impaired driving guidelines, prevention of sales to minors,
advertising restrictions, civil penalties for violations, or
impact on abilities of employers, schools, hospitals, or prop-
erty owners to restrict using, possessing, growing, manufac
taring, or selling of pot on their properties.
The marijuana advocates do not like any mention of
California's chaos with respect to pot shops because what
California has realized is that
DRUG DEALER'S CAN'T BE REGULATED!
California discovered that drug dealers stretch or simply
ignore any regulations!
NOT SAFE FOR OREGON! VOTE NO!
(This information furnished by Shirley Morgan, Oregonians
Against Legalization of Marijuana.)
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Argument in Opposition
Measure 80 is More Needless Government
Measure 80 would create a new government bureaucracy
called the "Oregon Cannabis Commission," supposedly to
regulate a drug that is illegal under federal law. Measure
80 would set up a legal confrontation that will cost Oregon
taxpayers, and accomplish nothing. Worse yet, a majority of
the Commission members would be from the very industry
that is supposedly regulated by the Commission!
False Claims about Revenues and Savings
The Oregon District Attorney's Association wants voters to
know that claims of major tax revenues, and freeing up law
enforcement resources, are false.
The claim that millions will be gained from taxes is fantasy.
It's called "weed" for a reason: It is very easy to grow - in
basements, homes, forests, and often with very little garden-
ing. Since federal law trumps state law, it defies logic to think
that someone would expose themselves to federal prosecu-
tion in order to be taxed for committing a federal crime.
With the support of the Oregon District Attorney's
Association, possession of less than an ounce of marijuana,
a personal use quantity, has not been a crime under Oregon
law for nearly 40 years. No jail, no criminal record, and only
the possibility of a fine. Even people convicted of possessing
much larger amounts of marijuana get probation. No one is in
an Oregon prison for simple possession of marijuana.
Measure 80 is Bad for Oregon
Marijuana is a drug, as one sponsor of Measure 80 admits
It can be, and is, abused. Every other legal intoxicant, from
tobacco, to alcohol, to opiates, requires expensive and heav-
ily regulated production facilities to protect the people that
consume those drugs. Marijuana cannot be regulated in that
manner, and will continue to grow as an illegal crop, with or
without Measure 80.
Even if you support the legalization of marijuana, this is
the wrong measure for Oregon.
Vote "No" on Measure 80.
(This information furnished by Eric Nisley, President, Oregon
District Attorney's Association.)
The printing of these arguments does not constitute anon dorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Proposed by initiative petition to be voted on at the General Election, November 6, 2012.
Result of "Yes" Vote
"Yes" vote changes commercial non -tribal fishing in Oregon
"inland waters" (defined) by banning gillnets, adopting other
regulatory changes; recreational salmon fishers ensured their
recent share.
Result of "No" Vote
"No" vote continues current commercial fishing practices,
retains laws allowing gillnets, leaves other current regula-
tions in place; continues annual adjustment of recreational
salmon harvest share.
Summary
Current law allows commercial salmon fishing in Columbia
River only with gillnets; requires recreational salmon fishers'
percentage share of overall salmon catch to be readjusted
annually; allows issuing of gillnet permits within limit of 200;
recognizes gillnet licenses as valid in Columbia River in both
Oregon and Washington waters. Measure bans commercial
gillnet fishing by non -tribal fishers in Oregon "inland waters"
(defined); requires Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission to
permit use of "seine nets" (defined) instead; ensures that rec-
reational salmon fishers' percentage of overall salmon catch
remains at 2007-2011 levels; prohibits purchase of salmon
caught by gillnet by non -tribal fishers in Oregon inland
waters; prohibits issuing of additional gillnet permits; repeals
statute recognizing validity of gillnet licenses in Oregon and
Washington waters. Other provisions.
Estimate of Financial Impact
This measure eliminates commercial non -tribal gillnet fishing,
establishes the legal use of seine fishing, and may allow fixed
fishing gear on the Columbia River. The measure requires the
state to evaluate mortality associated with seine and fixed
fishing gear as it relates to endangered salmon, steelhead,
and other species. The measure will increase state govern-
ment expenditures by $150,000 per year for staff and supplies
to perform ongoing required research and monitoring, and
will decrease state government revenues by $551,654 to
$749,144 per year from state income taxes, permits, licenses,
and surcharges received from the current non -tribal gillnet
and tangle net fisheries, boats and licensees. The amount
of state government revenue that will result in the future
from the transition to seine net fishing and commercial
harvest and resultant state income taxes, permits, licenses
and surcharges on a seine net based fishing industry on the
Columbia River or other inland waters is indeterminate.
This measure does not affect local government.
Explanation of Estimate of Financial Impact
This measure eliminates commercial non -tribal gillnet fishing,
establishes the legal use of seine fishing, and may allow fixed
fishing gear on the Columbia River. The measure is estimated
to cause:
Additional expenditures of $150,000 per year during the first
four years to pay for employees at the Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and supplies to monitor and
research seine characteristics, season length, gear- and
species -specific mortality rates, and other aspects of permit-
ted fishing.
Decreased state government revenue arising from:
1. Reduced income tax. The Pacific Fishery Management
Council's "Review of 2011 Ocean Salmon Fisheries"
estimated local personal income impacts of non -tribal
gillnet salmon fishing on Oregon's Columbia River
communities. The average annual personal income
impact for the 2007-2011 period was $5,236,800. Adding
non -salmon species would increase this to $5,808,534.
The low estimate of the state income tax loss uses the
rate of 5.6 percent, which is the state's average personal
income tax rate. The high estimate uses 9.0 percent,
the state's marginal personal income tax rate. The state
corporate excise tax rate of 6.6 percent falls within this
range. Using the low and high tax rates results in a
range of annual state income tax reductions between
$325,278 and $522,768.
2. Reduced Commercial Fish Fund fee revenue from
Columbia River gillnet fishing. ODFW receives
3.15 percent of the value of salmon landed and
2.25 percent of the value of all other fish species landed.
Between 2007 and 2011, the annual landed value of
non -tribal gillnetting averaged $2,782,200 for salmon
and $303,750 for all other fish species. The average loss
estimated equals the annual ODFW revenue from this
gillnetting source, which is $94,474.
3. Reduced Restoration and Enhancement surcharge
($0.05 per pound) on salmon landings. Between 2007
and 2011, the annual landed weight of salmon taken
by non -tribal gillnetting averaged 1,262,200 pounds.
The estimated loss equals the surcharge generated.
At $0.05 per pound, the loss amounts to an average of
$63,110 per year.
4. Reduced sales of fishing boat licenses. ODFW expects
a reduction of 100 fishing boat licenses, for a revenue
reduction of $33,500.
5. Elimination of non -tribal gillnet permit annual renewal
fees. Projected 2012 permit fee revenue loss is $32,592.
6. Reduced sales of commercial fishing licenses. ODFW
expects a reduction of 30 commercial fishing licenses,
for a revenue reduction of $2,700 per year.
The following table summarizes the low and high estimates
of revenue losses from these seven gillnet fishing sources,
resulting in the total estimated revenue impact of $551,654 to
$749,144:
Source
Low
High
1. State income tax
$325,278
$522,768
2. Commercial Fish Fund
94,474
94,474
3. Restoration & Enhancement —
landings surcharge
63,110
63,110
4. Fishing boat licenses
33,500
33,500
5. Gillnet permits
32,592
32,592
6. Commercial fishing licenses
2,700
2,700
Total $551,654 $749,144
Committee Members:
Secretary of State Kate Brown
State Treasurer Ted Wheeler
Michael Jordan, Director, Dept. of Administrative Services
James Bucholz, Director, Dept. of Revenue
Debra Guzman, Local Government Representative
(The estimate of financial impact and explanation was
provided by the above committee pursuant to ORS 250.127.)
Text of Measure
Be it enacted by the people of the state of Oregon:
SECTION 1. The people of Oregon find that:
(1) Wild salmon and steelhead runs, a vital natural resource,
have dramatically declined and many runs are either extinct
or endangered. Despite the continued threat of extinction
facing our remaining wild salmon populations and the bil-
lions of dollars spent to recover them, the state still permits
the use of commercial fishing nets that indiscriminately
kill or injure large numbers of endangered wild salmon and
other non -target fish and wildlife species.
(2) Gillnets and tangle nets are specifically designed to snare
fish by the gills or head and lead to the injury, suffocation
and death of large numbers of endangered wild salmon and
steelhead and other species that become entangled in the
mesh. Gillnets have been banned in numerous states due to
their destructive and non -selective nature and are inconsis-
tent with Oregon's continued commitment to sustainable
practices.
(3) Commercial fishing practices must be reformed to allow
for the unharmed release of endangered wild salmon and
steelhead while selectively harvesting returning hatchery -
reared salmon, which are often specifically produced for the
purpose of commercial and recreational harvests. Due to the
widespread external marking of hatchery -reared salmon it is
possible to differentiate between marked hatchery fish and
unmarked wild fish. While gillnets are unable to selectively
target returning hatchery -reared salmon, other commercial
fishing methods are capable of selectively harvesting hatch-
ery fish and releasing wild salmon and steelhead unharmed.
(4) Alternative, selective commercial harvest methods were
effectively used historically and several of these methods
have again proven successful at selectively harvesting
salmon during recent uses in both the lower and upper
Columbia River. Transitioning to this alternative, selective
commercial fishing gear will provide for continued sustain-
able fisheries and better protect endangered wild salmon
and steelhead populations.
(5) By selectively harvesting marked hatchery -reared
salmon and avoiding harvest of unmarked endangered wild
salmon, steelhead and other species, substantial progress
can be made towards recovering Oregon's wild salmon and
steelhead runs. It will also provide a greater return on the
investments being made to restore habitat and improve
hydroelectric dam operations, while ensuring consistency
with Oregon's commitment to the responsible and sustain-
able use of the state's natural resources.
SECTION 2. ORS 508.775 is amended to read:
508.775. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of the
commercial fishing laws, it is unlawful for an individual [to
operate a vessel in the Columbia River gillnet salmon fishery
without first obtaining a vessel permit issued pursuant to ORS
508.775 to 508.796. However, an individual who holds valid
commercial fishing licenses and vessel permits required by
and issued pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington
for commercial salmon fishing in the Columbia River may
land salmon in this state that were taken in the Columbia
River gillnet salmon fishery without the permit otherwise
required by this subsection] to use a gillnet or tangle net to
take salmon, steelhead, or other fish in the inland waters of
the state of Oregon.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of the commercial
fishing laws, it is unlawful for a wholesaler, canner or buyer
to buy or receive salmon, steelhead, or other fish taken by a
gillnet or tangle net from the inland waters of the state of
Oregon [in the Columbia River gillnet fishery from an indi-
vidual who does not have the permit required by subsection
(1) of this section.]
(3) [The permit required by subsection (1) of this section is in
addition to and not in lieu of the boat license required by ORS
508.260.] Subsections (1) and (2) of this section do not apply
to the use of gillnets or tangle nets pursuant to tribal fishing
rights or salmon, steelhead or other fish taken by gillnet or
tangle net pursuant to any tribal fishing rights in the inland
waters of the state of Oregon.
SECTION 3. ORS 509.216 is amended to read:
509.216. (1) Except as provided in [subsection] subsections (2)
or (3) of this section, it is unlawful to take food fish by means
of fixed fishing gear or seines in any of the waters of this
state.
(2)(a) The State Fish and Wildlife Commission by rule may
permit fixed fishing gear or seines for the taking of certain
species of food fish other than salmon or steelhead from the
waters of this state.
(b) In [enacting] adopting any [such] rule under this sub-
section, the commission shall give due consideration to
[insuring] ensuring that the [use of such] fishing gear [will
not restrict the free migration or impair the ultimate supply of
salmon or steelhead] is designed and used to minimize the
mortality to salmon, steelhead and other nontarget species
through:
(A) Avoidance of capture; or
(B) Live capture, sorting and release of salmon, steelhead
and other nontarget species with minimal mortality.
(c) Any salmon, [or] steelhead or other nontarget species
taken as incidental catch in operation of [such] the gear or
seines shall immediately, with care and the least possible
injury [to the salmon or steelhead], be released and trans-
ferred to the water without violence.
(3)(a) The commission shall by rule permit the use of seines
for the taking of salmon for commercial purposes from the
Columbia River by a person who holds a vessel permit under
the Columbia River gillnet salmon fishery pursuant to ORS
508.775 to 508.796 on the effective date of this 2012 Act.
(b) The commission may by rule permit fixed fishing gear
for the taking of salmon for commercial purposes from the
Columbia River by a person who holds a vessel permit under
the Columbia River gillnet salmon fishery pursuant to ORS
508.775 to 508.796 on the effective date of this 2012 Act.
(c) Under this subsection the commission may only issue
one permit per Columbia River gillnet salmon fishery vessel
permit issued pursuant to ORS 508.775 to 508.796 on the
effective date of this 2012 Act.
(d) An individual who obtains a permit under this subsection
may renew the permit in a subsequent calendar year upon
application and payment of the fees for the permit by the
date specified by rule of the commission.
(4) A permit authorized by subsection (3) of this section is
transferable:
(a) To a replacement vessel of the permit holder.
(b) To the purchaser of the permit holder's vessel when the
vessel is sold.
(c) To another individual upon written request by the permit
holder. However, any transfer of a permit away from a vessel
without the written consent of each person holding a secu-
rity interest in such vessel is void.
(5) The commission shall by rule establish fees for permits
authorized by subsections (3) and (4) of this section.
(6) A person dissatisfied with the commission's order on the
person's application may seek judicial review of the order
under ORS 183.484.
(7) When adopting a rule to implement this section, the
commission shall consider whether the design and use of
approved seines or fixed fishing gear will minimize the mor-
tality to endangered salmon, steelhead and other nontarget
species listed under federal law from commercial fishing
operations through avoidance of capture or through live
capture, sorting and release with minimal mortality.
(8) In adopting commercial fisheries authorized under this
section, the Commission shall:
(a) Comply with the terms of Columbia River fisheries man-
agement agreements between the United States, Indian
tribes and states.
(b) Ensure that the percentages of the total state, non -tribal
Columbia River salmon harvests, including off channel
fishery enhancement areas, that are landed in recreational
fisheries in the Columbia River and its tributaries are not
reduced below the averages of the 2007-2011 fisheries.
SECTION 4. This 2012 Act does not affect:
(1) The Columbia River Compact or fishing management
agreements between the United States, Indian tribes and
states.
(2) Any tribal fishing rights, or the right to use any fishing
gear in furtherance of tribal fishing rights, in the inland
waters of Oregon.
SECTION 5. ORS 506.006 is amended to read
506.006. As used in the commercial fishing laws, unless the
context requires otherwise:
(1) "Angling" means fishing for personal use with one line
attached to a pole held in hand while landing the fish, or with
a hand -operated line without rod or reel, to which may be
attached not to exceed three hooks, except on floating bass
plugs.
(2) "Boat" means any vessel, any floating craft, powered,
towed, rowed or otherwise propelled which is used for
landing or taking food fish.
(3) "Buy" includes offer to buy, barter, exchange or trade.
(4) "Commercial purposes" means taking food fish with any
gear unlawful for angling, or taking or possessing food fish
in excess of the limits permitted for personal use, or taking,
fishing for, handling, processing, or otherwise disposing of or
dealing in food fish with the intent of disposing of such food
fish or parts thereof for profit, or by sale, barter or trade, in
commercial channels.
(5) "Commission" means the State Fish and Wildlife
Commission created by ORS 496.090.
(6) "Department" means the State Department of Fish and
Wildlife.
(7) "Director" means the State Fish and Wildlife Director
appointed pursuant to ORS 496.112.
(8) "Fishing gear" means any appliance or device intended for
or capable of being used to take food fish except by angling.
(9) "Fixed fishing gear" includes but is not limited to
stationary gear operated at a fixed location
(10) "Gillnet" means a net, whether drift, floater or diver,
that:
(a) Is a monofilament or multifilament mesh net with a cork
and lead line;
(b) Drifts with the tide or current while it is being fished; and
(c) Has one or more walls of netting that captures fish by
ensnaring or entangling the fish in the meshes of the net by
the gills.
(11) "Inland waters" means the waters of this state that
lie east of a line drawn between the ends of jetties and/or
shorelines at high tide at the mouths of rivers and streams
except the Columbia River where they lie east of a line drawn
between the knuckle of the south jetty and the in -shore end
of the north jetty.
[(10)] (12) "Personal use" means taking or fishing for food
fish by angling or by such other means and with such gear as
the commission may authorize for fishing for personal use,
or possessing the same for the use of the person fishing for,
taking or possessing the same and not for sale or barter.
(13) "Seine" means any nonfixed net other than a trawl net,
gillnet or tangle net.
[(11)] (14) "Sell" includes offer or possess for sale, barter,
exchange or trade.
[(12)](15) "Take" means fish for, hunt, pursue, catch, capture or
kill or attempt to fish for, hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill.
(16) "Tangle net' means a net that is:
(a) A monofilament or multifilament mesh net with a cork
and lead line; and
(b) Constructed for the purpose of causing all or parts of the
head, teeth or other body part of a fish to become entangled
or ensnared in the meshes or pockets of the net.
[03)] (17) "Transport" means transport by any means, and
includes offer or receive for transportation.
(18) "Trawl net' means a cone- or funnel -shaped net that is
towed or drawn through the water by one or two vessels.
[(14)] (19) "Waters of this state" means all waters over which
the State of Oregon has jurisdiction, or joint or other jurisdic-
tion with any other state or government, including waters
of the Pacific Ocean and all bays, inlets, lakes, rivers and
streams within or forming the boundaries of this state.
SECTION 6. ORS 508.755 is amended to read
508.755. (1) There is established within the State Department
of Fish and Wildlife the Commercial Fishery Permit Board.
The board shall consist of members appointed by the State
Fish and Wildlife Commission as follows:
[(a] Three members shall be chosen to represent the Columbia
River gillnet salmon fishing industry.]
[(b)] (a) Three members shall be chosen to represent the
ocean troll salmon fishing industry.
[(c)] (b) Three members shall be chosen to represent the
ocean pink shrimp fishing industry.
[(d] (c) Three members shall be chosen to represent the
YaquinaBay roe -herring fishing industry.
[(e) ](d) Three members shall be chosen to represent the sea
urchin commercial fishery.
[(f)] (e) Three members shall be chosen to represent the ocean
Dungeness crab fishing industry.
[(g)] (f) Three members shall be chosen to represent the black
rockfish and blue rockfish fishing industry and the nearshore
fish fishing industry.
[(h)] (g) Three members shall be chosen to represent develop-
mental fisheries as described in ORS 506.450 to 506.465.
[(i)] (h) Three members shall be chosen to represent each
restricted participation system or restricted vessel permit
system established by rule of the commission under ORS
506.462.
[(])] (i) Two members shall be chosen to represent the public
(2) A member of the board shall receive no compensation for
services as a member. However, subject to any applicable
law regulating travel and other expenses of state officers
and employees, a member shall be reimbursed for travel and
other expenses incurred in the performance of official duties.
(3) The board shall select such officers, for such terms and
with such duties and powers, as the board considers neces
saryfor the performance of those offices.
(4) A majority of the members of the board constitutes a
quorum for the transaction of business.
(5) The board shall meet at such times and places as may
be determined by the chairperson or by a majority of the
members of the board.
(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of law:
[(a) Members of the board representing the Columbia River
gillnet salmon fishing industry shall participate in actions of
the board only on matters arising under ORS 508.285, 508.470
and 508.775 to 508.796.]
[(b)] (a) Members of the board representing the ocean troll
salmon fishing industry shall participate in actions of the
board only on matters arising under ORS 508.801 to 508.825.
[(c)] (b) Members of the board representing the ocean pink
shrimp fishing industry shall participate in actions of the
board only on matters arising under ORS 508.880, 508.883
and 508.889 to 508.910.
[(d)] (c) Members of the board representing the YaquinaBay
roe -herring fishing industry shall participate in actions of the
board only on matters arising under ORS 508.765.
[(e)] (d) Members of the board representing the sea urchin
commercial fishery shall participate in actions of the board
only on matters arising under ORS 508.760.
[(f)] (e) Members of the board representing the ocean
Dungeness crab fishing industry shall participate in actions of
the board only on matters arising under ORS 508.921.
[(g)] (f) Members of the board representing the black rockfish
and blue rockfish fishing industry and the nearshore fish
fishing industry shall participate in actions of the board only
on matters arising under ORS 508.947, 508.957 or 508.960.
[(h)] (g) Members of the board representing developmental
fisheries shall participate in actions of the board only on
matters arising under ORS 506.450 to 506.465.
[(i)] (h) Members of the board representing a restricted par-
ticipation system or a restricted vessel permit system estab-
lished by rule of the commission under ORS 506.462 shall
participate in actions of the board only on matters related to
that system.
SECTION T. ORS 508.867 is amended to read:
508.867. (1) Notwithstanding ORS 508.755 [(6)(b) and (c)] (6)
(a) and (b), an individual whose application for renewal of
the permit required by ORS 508.840 is denied by the State
Department of Fish and Wildlife may make written request to
the Commercial Fishery Permit Board for review of the
denial. The review provided in this subsection is in lieu of any
such review by the department orthe State Fish and Wildlife
Commission. The request shall be in such form and shall
contain such information as the board considers appropriate.
The request shall be accompanied by a nonrefundable fee of
$75. Such fee shall apply toward the permit fee of successful
applicants.
(2) In accordance with any applicable provision of ORS
chapter 183, the board shall review denials of applications
for renewal of permits. Orders issued by the board are not
subject to review by the commission, but may be appealed
as provided in ORS 183.480 to 183.540. The board may waive
requirements for renewal of permits if the board finds that
the individual for personal or economic reasons chooses to
actively fish the permit vessel in some other ocean fishery or
if the board finds that the individual fails to meet the require-
ments as the result of illness, accident or other circumstances
beyond the individual's control.
(3) In accordance with any applicable provision of ORS
chapter 183, the board may promulgate such rules as it
considers necessary to carry out its duties, functions and
powers.
(4) The board may delegate to the department the authority to
waive eligibility requirements for renewal of permits.
SECTION 8. ORS 508.485 is amended to read:
508.485. Except for vessel licenses prescribed in ORS
508.285, 508.470, 508.755, [508.775 to 508.796,] 508.801 to
508.825, 508.880, 508.883, [and] 508.889 to 508.910 and
509.216, the State Fish and Wildlife Commission may, in its
discretion, revoke for the remainder of the license year any
license issued to such person under the authority of the
commission or the State Fish and Wildlife Director, and in
its discretion may refuse the issuance of any license issued
under the authority of the commission or director during any
period not to exceed one year from the date of the license
revocation order:
(1) Upon conviction within this state of any person of violation
of any of the commercial fishing laws or rules;
(2) Upon receiving notice from the agency that regulates com-
mercial fishing in the State of Washington of the conviction of
any person in that state of an offense which was a violation of
Columbia River commercial fishing rules adopted pursuant to
the Columbia River Compact and which if committed in this
state would be grounds for license revocation pursuant to
subsection (1) of this section;
(3) Upon conviction within this state of any person for
violation of ORS 498.022, or any rule promulgated pursuant
thereto, involving game fish, through the use of a license
issued pursuant to the commercial fishing laws; or
(4) Upon conviction within this state of a person for violation
of ORS 164.043 to 164.065 when the subject of the theft is
commercial fishing crab rings or crab pots, or the crabs taken
therefrom.
SECTION 9. ORS 508.490 is amended to read:
508.490. Except for vessel licenses prescribed in ORS 508.260
and vessel permits prescribed in ORS 508.285, 508.470,
508.755, [508.775 to 508.796,] 508.801 to 508.825, 508.880,
508.883, [and] 508.889 to 508.910 and 509.216, the State
Fish and Wildlife Commission may, in its discretion, refuse
the issuance of any license issued under the authority of the
commission or the State Fish and Wildlife Director during any
period not to exceed two years from the date of the license
revocation order:
(1) Upon conviction within this state of any person of viola-
tion of any of the commercial fishing laws or rules after such
person has once been convicted and penalized under ORS
508.485; or
(2) Upon receiving notice from the agency that regulates com-
mercial fishing in the State of Washington of the conviction of
any person in that state of an offense which was a violation of
Columbia River commercial fishing rules adopted pursuant to
the Columbia River Compact and which if committed in this
state would be grounds for refusal to issue a license pursuant
to subsection (1) of this section.
SECTION 10. ORS 509.240 is amended to read:
509.240. It is lawful to operate or use a net consisting of a
single nylon or cotton web of a mesh not less than 14 inches,
taut measure, hung or attached to not to exceed two lead
lines combined and used as a single line and a single cork
line, in any of the waters of this state, during any season
or period closed to commercial fishing by law or by rule of
the State Fish and Wildlife Commission, for the purpose of
clearing away or removing snags or similar obstructions from
[gillnet drifts and other] suitable or desirable fishing areas.
SECTION 11. ORS 509.245 is amended to read:
509.245. Any person desiring to operate a snagging net
as provided in ORS 509.240 shall, before operating or
attempting to so operate such net, obtain from the State
Fish and Wildlife Director a snagging permit by forwarding
a written request to the office of the State Fish and Wildlife
Commission specifically providing:
(1) The particular [gillnetdrift,] fishing ground or other area to
be cleared;
(2) The waters in which located;
(3) The mesh size of the snagging net to be used; and
(4) The dates on which or within which the proposed snag-
ging operations will be carried on. In specifying any such
dates, no one notice is valid for a period of more than 30 days
from the date thereof.
SECTION 12. ORS 183.700 is amended to read:
183.700. (1) As used in this section and ORS 183.702, "permit"
means an individual and particularized license, permit,
certificate, approval, registration or similar form of permis-
sion required by law to pursue any activity specified in this
section, for which an agency must weigh information, make
specific findings and make determinations on a case -by -case
basis for each applicant.
(2) The requirements of this section and ORS 183.702 apply to
the following permits granted by:
(a) The Department of Environmental Quality under ORS
448.415, 454.655, 454.695, 454.790, 454.800, 459.205, 465.315,
465.325, 466.140, 466.145, 466.706 to 466.882, 468A.040,
468A.310, 468B.035, 468B.040, 468B.045, 46813.050 and
4686.095.
(b) The Department of State Lands under ORS 196.800 to
196.900 and 390.805 to 390.925.
(c) The Water Resources Department under ORS chapters 537
and 540, except those permits issued under ORS 537.747 to
537.765.
(d) The State Department of Agriculture pursuant to ORS
468B.200 to 468B.230 and 622.250.
(e) The State Department of Fish and Wildlife pursuant to
ORS 497.142, 497.218, 497.228, 497.238, 497.248, 497.252,
497.298, 497.308, 498.019, 498.279, 508.106, 508.300, 508.760,
[508.775,1 508.801, 508.840, 508.880, 508.926, [and] 509.140
and 509.216.
(f) The Department of Transportation pursuant to ORS
374.312.
SECTION 13. Section 6, chapter 512, Oregon Laws 1989,
as amended by section 2, chapter 184, Oregon Laws 1991,
section 10, chapter 8, Oregon Laws 1997, section 2, chapter
643, Oregon Laws 2003 and section 3, chapter 765, Oregon
Laws 2009, is amended to read:
Sec. 6 In addition to the fees otherwise prescribed by law,
the issuer of [each of the following permits] an Ocean Troll
Salmon Fishery permit issued under ORS 508.816 shall
charge and collect each time the permit is issued, during the
period beginning January 1, 1998, and ending December 31,
2019, [the following surcharges.] a surcharge of $65.
[(1) Ocean Troll Salmon Fishery permit issued under ORS
508.816, $65.1
[(2) Columbia River Gillnet Fishery permit issued under ORS
508.790, $74.1
SECTION 14. ORS 508.460, ORS 508.778, 508.781, 508.784,
508.787, 508.790, 508.792, 508.793 and 508.796 are repealed.
SECTION 15. (1) Sections 1 and 4 of this 2012 Act, the amend-
ments to section 6, chapter 512, Oregon Laws 1989 and ORS
183,700, 506.006, 508.485, 508.490, 508.755, 508.775, 508.867,
509.216, 509.240 and 509.245 by sections 2, 3 and 5 to 13 of
this 2012 Act and the repeal of ORS 508.460, 508.778, 508.781,
508.784, 508.787, 508,790,508.792, 508.793 and 508.796 by
section 14 of this 2012 Act become operative July 1, 2013.
(2) The State Fish and Wildlife Commission and State
Department of Fish and Wildlife may take any action neces-
sary before the operative date specified in subsection (1)
of this section to enable the commission or department to
exercise, on and after the operative date specified in subsec-
tion (1) of this section, all the duties, functions and powers
conferred on the commission or department by this 2012 Act.
(3) To obtain a permit authorized under ORS 509.216 (3) as
amended by section 3 of this 2012 Act, a person must apply
for the permit by November 1, 2013.
Note: Boldfaced type indicates new language; [brackets and
italic] type indicates deletions or comments.
Explanatory Statement
Current law allows commercial salmon fishing in the
Columbia River only with gillnets and tangle nets. Ballot
Measure 81 prohibits the non -tribal commercial use of gill -
nets and tangle nets to take salmon, steelhead and any other
fish in Oregon inland waters, including the Columbia River.
The measure prohibits wholesalers, canners and buyers
from buying or receiving salmon, steelhead or any other fish
taken with a gillnet or tangle net by non -tribal commercial
fishers in Oregon inland waters.
The measure invalidates all Oregon Columbia River
commercial gillnet and tangle net permits, and requires the
State Fish and Wildlife Commission to adopt rules that allow
persons who currently hold the permits to obtain a permit
to use seines or fixed fishing gear to take salmon from the
Columbia River for commercial purposes.
The measure requires the Oregon Fish and Wildlife
Commission to ensure: that the percentages of the total state,
non -tribal Columbia River salmon harvest landed in recre-
ational fisheries are not reduced below 2007 - 2011 averages;
that permitted seines or fixed fishing gear minimize mortality
to endangered salmon, steelhead and other nontarget species
through sorting and live release.
The measure specifies that its provisions do not affect the
Columbia River Compact or fishing management agreements
between the United States, Indian tribes and states. The
measure also specifies that its provisions do not affect any
tribal fishing rights, or the use of gillnets or any other fishing
gear pursuant to any tribal fishing rights.
The measure removes Oregon Columbia River commercial
fishers from the Commercial Fishery Permit Board. Currently
those fishers have three positions on the board.
Committee Members:
Appointed by:
Heath Heikkila
Chief Petitioners
Steve Pedery
Chief Petitioners
Torn Dulcich*
Secretary of State
Pat McCormick
Secretary of State
Edwin Peterson
Members of the Committee
* Member dissents (does not concur with explanatory
statement.)
(This committee was appointed to provide an impartial
explanation of the ballot measure pursuant to ORS 251.215.)
Argument in Favor
Before this statement was submitted, Governor Kitzhaber
announced an alternative proposal that would remove gillnets
from the mainstem of the Columbia River by limiting them to
off -channel areas.
While different than Measure 81, Stop Gillnets Now supports
the Governor's plan. However, we cannot be sure (as of this
deadline) that his plan will be adopted by the Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Commission.
For an update, please go to stopgillnets.com,
email info@stopaillnets.com or call 503.893.4740.
Oregon Small Businesses Support Measure 81
My wife and I own a small business in Oregon. We are aware
of the challenges of surviving in a tough economy.
The majority of my customers are in the manufacturing
sector. I have watched them struggle over the past 25 years to
implement regulations to improve environmental responsibil-
ity. Companies who have met the challenges and evolved
have survived; those that refused have failed.
Oregon has a national reputation as a leader in sustainability,
but we have a dirty little secret. Our wild salmon - a Pacific
Northwest icon treasured throughout the world — are on the
brink of extinction.
Every Oregonian pays for protecting our endangered salmon.
We pay higher electric bills for salmon recovery and our tax
dollars help pay for habitat restoration and improved fish
hatchery management.
So it makes no sense that we still allow an outdated fishing
method (gillnets) that indiscriminately kill the very wild fish
we spend so much to protect.
Commercial gillnetters on the Columbia River are currently
allowed to kill, keep and sell endangered wild salmon while
they fish for hatchery salmon.
Measure 81 will remove gillnets from the Columbia River in
Oregon. It requires the state to license fish friendly gear that
will allow live sorting for the selective capture of hatchery fish
while returning the native fish back to the river unharmed.
Measure 81 is the kind of common sense solution that Oregon
small businesses appreciate.
Bruce Polley
Please Vote YES on Measure 81.
(This information furnished by Bruce Polley.)
Argument in Favor
Before this statement was submitted, Governor Kitzhaber
announced an alternative proposal that would remove gillnets
from the mainstem of the Columbia River by limiting them to
off -channel areas.
While different than Measure 81, Stop Gillnets Now supports
the Governor's plan. However, we cannot be sure (as of this
deadline) that his plan will be adopted by the Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Commission.
For an update, please go to stopgillnets.com,
email info@stoiaillnets.com or call 503.893.4740.
MEASURE ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF MEASURE 81
THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES
The Humane Society of the United States, the nation's largest
animal protection organization, urges Oregon voters to
protect wildlife by voting YES on Measure 81.
Commercial gillnets in the Columbia River not only catch
endangered salmon, but also kill other nontarget wildlife
species, such as diving birds and beavers.
Gillnetting is an outdated, indiscriminate fishing method, and
the HSUS supports efforts to curb this practice. Prohibiting
the use of commercial gillnets in the Columbia River will
prevent the suffering of marine animals, including endan-
gered and threatened species.
Please vote YES on Measure 81.
(This information furnished by Scott Beckstead, The Humane
Society of the United States.)
Argument in Favor
Before this statement was submitted, Governor Kitzhaber
announced an alternative proposal that would remove gillnets
from the mainstem of the Columbia River by limiting them to
off -channel areas.
While different than Measure 81, Stop Gillnets Now supports
the Governor's plan. However, we cannot be sure (as of this
deadline) that his plan will be adopted by the Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Commission.
For an update, please go to stopgillnets.com,
email info@stolaillnets.com or call 503.893.4740.
Oregon Wild Urges You to Vote Yes on Measure 81.
Protect Wildlife, Ban Indiscriminate Gillnets
Since 1974, Oregon Wild has worked to protect and restore
the wildlands and wildlife that make Oregon special. Ensuring
that natural resource users avoid needlessly harming wildlife
is a bedrock Oregon value.
That is why Measure 81 is so important. In the Columbia
River, commercial gillnets are strung across areas that
salmon and other valuable species travel. The holes in these
net "curtains" are large enough to allow fish to get their
heads in, but when they try to back out, the netting snags on
their gills.
Gillnets are indiscriminate, and needlessly kill wildlife. They
entangle diving birds, otters, beavers and other wildlife that
swim into them, causing them to drown. Gillnets capture not
only hatchery salmon, but also critically endangered wild
salmon and steelhead, sturgeon and other fish. Gillnets are
so effective at capturing nearly anything that swims that
they have been dubbed "curtains of death."
The good news is that alternatives exist that avoid need-
lessly harming wildlife. Measure 81 would ban use of gillnets
for commercial fishing, while allowing for the use of more
sustainable and selective seine nets. These nets allow endan-
gered fish to be released unharmed while avoiding injury
to wildlife. Ending the use of gillnets would be a major step
forward in conserving Oregon's wild salmon and wildlife,
while preserving a sustainable commercial fishing industry.
Vote Yes on Measure 81.
Ban indiscriminate gillnets, protect Oregon's wildlife.
(This information furnished by Sean Stevens, Executive
Director, Oregon Wild.)
Argument in Favor
A Message from the Chief Petitioners of Measure 81
Did you know that gillnets were banned off Oregon's coast
in the 1950s? Oregon's coastal commercial fishing industry
adapted and continues to thrive today.
Did you know that Oregon voters — in 1956— banned gillnets
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
in all coastal rivers and streams except the Columbia? The
Columbia River is the only river in Oregon where the use of
indiscriminate gillnets is still allowed.
For decades, conservation -minded Oregonians have
attempted to protect wild native salmon and other wildlife
by getting gillnets off the Columbia River. Many times,
we've had bipartisan support for reform legislation in the
Oregon legislature, but too often it didn't even make it out of
committee.
The powerful gillnet lobby has fought us every step of the way.
Undertaking a ballot measure campaign was not a decision
made lightly, but we believed it was the only way to break
through decades of political inaction and enact real reforms
to protect Oregon's wild fish and wildlife.
And now we have another valuable opportunity.
As we approached the deadline for submitting this statement,
Governor Kitzhaber announced an alternative proposal that
would remove gillnets from the mainstem of the Columbia
River by limiting gillnets to off -channel areas. While differ-
ences exist between the Governor's proposal and Ballot
Measure 81, both share the same long term vision: removing
gillnets from the lower Columbia for the betterment of endan-
gered wild fish, wildlife and our economy.
We believe that the Governor's vision, if adopted and imple-
mented as proposed, represents a significant milestone in the
management of fisheries on the Columbia River.
However, as of this deadline, we cannot be sure that the
Governor's plan will be adopted by the Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Commission.
For an update on where the proposal stands, please go to
stopgillnets.com or email info@stopgillnets.com.
Senator Fred Girod, Senator Rod Monroe,
Republican Democrat
Stayton Portland
Chief Petitioner Chief Petitioner
(This information furnished by Jeremy Wright, Stop Gillnets
Now.)
Argument in Favor
Before this statement was submitted, Governor Kitzhaber
announced an alternative proposal that would remove gillnets
from the mainstem of the Columbia River by limiting them to
off -channel areas.
While different than Measure 81, Stop Gillnets Now supports
the Governor's plan. However, we cannot be sure (as of this
deadline) that his plan will be adopted by the Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Commission.
For an update, please go to stopgillnets.com,
email info@stopaillnets.com or call 503.893.4740.
VOTE YES ON MEASURE 81
Coastal Conservation Association Oregon Urges a YES Vote
on Measure 81
The Coastal Conservation Association is the largest marine
conservation organization in the country. From the Gulf of
Mexico to the Pacific Northwest, we work for the conserva-
tion and restoration of our natural resources.
Measure 81 provides critical conservation protection to
endangered native fish.
Columbia River salmon fisheries
Gillnets catch wild fish in addition to the hatchery fish devel
oped for harvest. If we want to protect our wild, native fish,
we must use 'selective' fishing gear that can release wild
salmon back into the river unharmed.
Measure 81 requires the use of selective, sustainable com-
mercial fishing on the Columbia.
Measure 81 WILL save wild, threatened and endangered
salmon and steelhead!
VOTE YES ON MEASURE 81
For Salmon, For Wildlife, For Jobs
(This information furnished by Bryan Irwin, Coastal
Conservation Association Oregon.)
Argument in Favor
Before this statement was submitted, Governor Kitzhaber
announced an alternative proposal that would remove gillnets
from the mainstem of the Columbia River by limiting them to
off -channel areas.
While different than Measure 81, Stop Gillnets Now supports
the Governor's plan. However, we cannot be sure (as of this
deadline) that his plan will be adopted by the Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Commission.
For an update, please go to stopgillnets.com,
emai/info@stopqillnets.com or call 503.893.4740.
VOTE YES ON MEASURE 81 TO
PROTECT ENDANGERED SALMON
What Measure 81 Does
Prohibits commercial gillnets on the Columbia River in
Oregon
Preserves commercial fishing industry by requiring
alternatives to gillnets
Retains Native American tribal fishing rights
Why Oregon Needs Measure 81
Wild salmon and steelhead on the Columbia River are in
serious trouble! 13 species of salmon and steelhead in
the Columbia River Basin are listed under the Endangered
Species Act.
The Columbia is also home to hatchery salmon raised espe-
cially for harvest. But the way we fish for hatchery salmon is
destroying our wild fish population.
Despite the threat of extinction to our wild salmon, Oregon
still permits the use of commercial gillnets on the Columbia.
Gillnets are non -selective, designed to 'gill' fish snared in the
nets, leading to injury, suffocation and death. Nearly every-
thing that gets caught in a gillnet dies.
Gillnets needlessly kill and injure large numbers of endan
gered salmon and steelhead. Gillnets also kill seabirds,
beavers and other wildlife.
Oregon has banned gillnets in our ocean waters and every
river and stream except the Columbia.
It's time to get gillnets out of the Columbia and switch to
common sense, sustainable alternatives!
Stop Gillnets Now urges your support on Measure 81.
VOTE YES ON MEASURE 81
For Salmon, For Wildlife, For Jobs
13 species of Columbia River salmon & steelhead are listed as (This information furnished by Eric Stachon, Stop Gillnets
threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Now.)
Gillnets are the only commercial fishing gear legal for use in
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Argument in Favor
Argument in Opposition
Before this statement was submitted, Governor Kitzhaber ECUMENICAL MINISTRIES OF OREGON BELIEVES
announced an alternative proposal that would remove gillnets MEASURE 81 HURTS ALL OREGONIANS, AND VIOLATES
from the mainstem of the Columbia River by limiting them to BASIC PRINCIPLES OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS
off -channel areas.
While different than Measure 81, Stop Gillnets Now supports
the Governor's plan. However, we cannot be sure (as of this
deadline) that his plan will be adopted by the Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Commission.
For an update, please go to stopgillnets.com,
email info@stopgillnets.com or call 503.893.4740.
A Former Fish & Wildlife Officer Supports Measure 81
I am a retired Oregon State Police Fish & Wildlife Sergeant. I
spent 25 years enforcing sport and commercial fishing regu-
lations on the Columbia River.
In order to promote conservation and protect salmon and
steelhead stocks listed under the Endangered Species Act, we
need to simplify rules to ease enforcement.
Enforcement of the commercial gillnet/tangle net industry on
the Columbia River is nearly impossible due to the compli-
cated rules that require constant observation to ensure they
are followed.
Because the system allows gill-netters to report their own
catch, abuses occur. Proper documentation would require
the mandatory use of logbooks to log each fish at the time of
catch, just like sport anglers do.
Unlike recreational fishing, commercial gillnet fishing is con-
ducted at night. Darkness compounds the enforcement chal-
lenge for Wildlife Officers and makes the important work of
protecting wild salmon and steelhead from unlawful fishing
difficult. Proper case development requires untold hours of
observation and documentation.
A recent example of the problem: In January 2009, after
a long investigation, four men admitted to falsifying fish
records, agreed to pay a $150,000 civil penalty, but were
allowed to keep their gillnet licenses.
Just weeks ago, these same men gave $16,000 to the gillnet
lobby campaign against Measure 81.
It's time to clean up the Columbia. Measure 81 is a necessary
step.
Joe Schwab, OSP Fish & Wildlife Sgt, retired
Vote Yes on 81
(This information furnished by Joseph R. Schwab.)
As a religious non-profit organization our membership comes
from many faith traditions, and holds many different social
and theological views. We agree, however, on our commit-
ment to the well-being of Oregon families and communities,
and on our belief that the best public policy emerges from a
collaborative dialogue among all affected parties. Measure
81 hurts Oregon families and communities and it is one-sided
public policy.
Measure 81 will reduce incomes and lead to more job losses
in our state. Measure 81's gillnet ban will harm Oregon
seafood wholesalers and retailers, restaurants, local fish
markets and consumers of locally caught salmon and stur-
geon, since it specifically prohibits Oregonians from purchas-
ing salmon and sturgeon caught with gillnets— even those
that Washington State commercial fishermen can continue to
catch with gillnets under Measure 81.
Measure 81 provides no funding or transition plan to assist
those impacted. At best, Measure 81 would force commercial
fishing families to change their equipment and nets with no
compensation and cost them at least $150,000 per vessel.
More likely, it will simply put Oregon's fishing families out
of business, with no funds or plan to assist them with their
economic losses or to help them find new work.
Measure 81 is a one-sided measure. Measure 81 has not
emerged out of dialogue and collaboration among all those
affected, but instead represents a one-sided, unfair approach
to the complex issues surrounding Columbia River fishing.
While the environmental impacts of gillnets are debatable,
the economic impacts of this measure on gillnet fishers, their
families and their communities are not. Banning Oregon com-
mercial fisherman from using gillnets on the Oregon side of
the Columbia River will impose heavy economic costs on all
three, and on Oregon. It is neither fair nor just. Therefore,
Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon recommends that all
Oregonians vote "No" on Measure 81.
(This information furnished by Kevin Finney, Ecumenical
Ministries of Oregon.)
Argument in Opposition
Why Oregon Chefs and Restaurateurs Oppose Measure 81:
Our Customers
Much of the discussion about Measure 81 centers on the
harm it will do to Oregon's commercial fishing families and
the fact that will not save a single endangered fish. There's
good reason for this. The ban on the use of gillnets by Oregon
commercial fisherman will put commercial fishing families
out of business, and for no reason. The measure simply takes
the existing commercial fishermen's share of fish and re-
allocates it to Measure 81's sponsors — sport -fishing interests.
Lost in this allocation grab, however, is what this measure will
do to Oregon's nationally recognized restaurant community.
You don't have to be a Food Network or Travel Channel
viewer to know we have something special here. My fellow
Oregon chefs and restaurant owners pride themselves
in serving fresh, local, sustainable and distinctively
Northwestern food. We're not only feeding Oregonians, but
visitors who travel here to feast on our cuisine. It's called
"culinary tourism." At the center of Northwest cuisine is
Columbia River Spring Chinook.
Measure 81 will wipe this signature fish off Oregon menus. It
specifically prohibits Oregon consumers from buying fresh
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Columbia River salmon anywhere in Oregon. The devasta-
tion it will do to all consumers of locally caught salmon and
sturgeon —wholesalers and retailers, local fish markets and,
yes, restaurants — will be enormous. The only Oregonians
who will be able to enjoy Columbia River salmon will be
sport -fishermen who have the ability, means or itch to catch it
themselves. That excludes almost all Oregonians.
What's worse, Washington commercial fishermen could still
use gillnets on the Columbia (and sell salmon to Washington
restaurants) while Oregon commercial fishermen would be
banned.
Why we would do this to ourselves is beyond me. This is no
time to hurt another Oregon industry and eliminate jobs. Vote
"No" on Measure. 81 and come in and enjoy a fresh Columbia
River salmon at your favorite Oregon restaurant.
(This information furnished by Chef Peter Roscoe, Owner of
Fulio's Pastaria, Tuscan Steak House and Delicatessen.)
Argument in Opposition
Oregon Women Speak Out Against Measure 81
We, the undersigned women of Oregon, oppose Ballot
Measure 81. Measure 81 has affected Oregon communi-
ties creating a climate of fear for the family businesses and
jobs it will destroy. Its negative stereotyping of Columbia
River gillnet fishermen is undeserved. Fishing communities
and families have advocated strongly for conservation and
salmon restoration for decades.
Measure 81 provides no compensation to fishing families,
related businesses, and communities that will lose a major
source of income. While it purports to replace gillnets with
seines, current experiments have several years to go before
this gear will meet federal standards. The Measure makes
no allowances for this lengthy gap or the possibility that
the experiments might find the gear unworkable. Instead, a
ban goes into effect on July 1, 2013. Yes, as of July 1, 2013,
families will lose businesses that took a lifetime to build,
with no compensation. This is unjust. It is also unjust that
commercial gillnet fishermen in Washington will be able to
continue fishing and Oregon consumers will be prohibited
from purchasing Columbia River gillnet-caught fish, including
those caught legally in Washington.
Instead of creating unemployment in rural areas with high
poverty rates and negative social statistics, particularly among
children, we want recreational, commercial and tribal fishers
working together on fishery issues. We believe in cooperation
instead of confrontation. We want to be able to raise our chil-
dren and work in our communities in an atmosphere of mutual
support, where traditional livelihoods and skills are valued and
honored. Measure 81 contradicts those values.
Please vote NO on Measure 81:
Helena Barbey Lankton Lori B. Flexer
Norma Paulus Betsy Johnson
Ginny Goblirsch Joan Dukes
Small Business Owner Former State Senator
Connie Hunt
Jenny Holmes
ORLA, Past Chairman
Environmental
of the Board
Ministries Director
(Oregon Restaurant
Ecumenical Ministries
Lodging Association)
of Oregon
June Spence N. Kathryn Brigham
Heather Munro Mann Shirley Kalkhoven
Lisa Tarabochia Clement
Owner—Clemente's Restaurant
(This information furnished by Helena Barbey Lankton.)
Argument in Opposition
As a former operator of an Oregon salmon charter busi-
ness and past Chairman of the Pacific Fishery Management
Council, I know that successful salmon conservation depends
on all players (sport, commercial, tribal, and environmental)
working together and professional fishery managers set-
ting science -based rules. Measure 81 violates both of these
principles and should be defeated.
Columbia River salmon harvest is strictly regulated by fed-
eral, tribal, and inter -state compact rules. Science drives the
system; only after conservative escapement requirements are
met and tribal harvest needs satisfied do we allow sport and
commercial catch. Measure 81 uses the ballot box, not the
knowledge of fisheries scientists, to decide who catches fish.
Measure 81 doesn't save fish; it tells commercial fishermen
that they can't participate but then increases sport catch so that
sport fishermen alone harvest the former commercial share.
Commercial fishermen pay landing taxes and license fees,
which fund restoration and enhancement projects, money that
will be lost if Measure 81 passes. Commercial, sport, and tribal
fishermen together advocate habitat improvements, hatchery
reform, and changes in hydropower operations to enhance
salmon survival. Increased salmon runs benefit all three
groups. Kicking out one group only weakens salmon advocacy.
Not everyone can catch their own fish. Measure 81 pre-
vents Oregon consumers from enjoying their local bounty.
Shutting down the commercial gillnet fishery hurts lower
river communities. I have seen the devastating effects of fish-
eries depletion on the cultural values in coastal communities
when we've drastically reduced catches to protect fish stocks.
Measure 81 would create those same effects by arbitrarily
removing fishermen from the river without producing any
conservation benefits.
At a time when Americans are increasingly angry with
polarized government, we should not create the same antago-
nism here in Oregon. Let's work together to provide healthy
natural salmon runs on the Columbia River. Please join me in
voting "NO" on Measure 81.
Frank Warrens
(This information furnished by Frank Warrens.)
Argument in Opposition
Professor Emeritus of Marine Economics Opposes Measure 81
Recovering wild salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River
is complicated and involves difficult scientific questions.
Fisheries are an important piece of recovery, and decisions
about their management must be based on the best scientific
information available, with full assessment of alternatives
and impacts.
In my 30 years as an academic researcher and advisor to
fishery management I have seen firsthand the benefit of
taking collaborative approaches to tough fishery problems.
That's why I think Ballot Measure 81 is a bad idea.
Oregon is fortunate to have good collaborative processes
already in place for making informed decisions about fisher-
ies. The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission conducts
regular public meetings to decide how to conserve fish and
balance competing interests. The Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife made extensive use of scientific advice
and stakeholder involvement to develop the Oregon Lower
Columbia River Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon
Populations of Salmon and Steelhead.
These processes are open, transparent, and informed by the
best available scientific information. They have a record of
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
success in meeting conservation standards and milestones
while balancing competing interests. Oregonians can take
pride in these processes.
Measure 81 will upend established practice without ensuring
improvements in passage of wild salmon and steelhead. It is
about allocation, not conservation.
Recreational anglers will benefit at the expense of commer-
cial fishermen, seafood dealers, restaurants and consum-
ers. Oregon consumers will be prohibited from purchasing
Columbia River salmon and sturgeon and will lose the benefit
of their investment in good management, without any evi-
dence that fish will be saved.
Oregon citizens deserve better. We should all working
together to achieve good outcomes for our Columbia River
fishery resources through existing public processes that are
committed to recovery, science -based decisions and balance.
This is a stronger basis for fish recovery than slogans and
images of a ballot measure campaign.
Susan Hanna, Ph.D
Professor Emeritus of Marine Economics
Oregon State University
(This information furnished by Susan Hanna, Ph.D, Professor
Emeritus of Marine Economics, Oregon State University.)
Argument in Opposition
The Association of Northwest Steelheaders has worked with
the Oregon Legislature and the Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife on the issue of gill nets in the Columbia River
since the Association started in 1960. We have achieved many
victories for conservation and sport fishing since then, includ-
ing eliminating gill nets from Coos Bay and establishing steel -
head as a game fish, preventing their commercial harvest.
Now we near the finish line of this longstanding objective.
Ballot Measure 81 is already a success with the directive
from Governor Kitzhaber to the ODFW Commission in
August. This directive will achieve the goals of the initiative's
member organizations, their members and the thousands
of Oregonians who helped put the initiative on the ballot. In
many ways the direction and objectives the Governor gave
to ODFW and its Commission is more complete and a better
solution than Measure 81 for all concerned: conservationist,
sport anglers, and commercial fishermen alike.
The ODFW Commission and agency leadership have both
expressed commitment to achieve the Governor's directive.
The Governor's directive and the ODFW Commission's
response are the start of a very significant improvement in
fish conservation, while at the same time increasing sport
fishing seasons and expanding sport fishing catch, and also
ensuring commercial fishing opportunities, thereby helping
the Oregon economy.
The Association of Northwest Steelheaders therefore thanks
our Measure 81 coalition partners, our members, and the
thousands of conservation -minded Oregonian's who have
supported getting Measure 81 on the ballot, but we now ask
them all to show support for the Governor's directive. Getting
the initiative on the ballot made it possible, but now we must
work to ensure adoption of the Governor's directive and trust
the integrity of the ODFW Commission and ODFW leadership
to deliver on that directive. The Northwest Steelheaders
asks all to vote "No" on Measure 81 in order to achieve the
Governor's directive for the Columbia River.
(This information furnished by Joseph Domenico, Association
of Northwest Steelheaders.)
Argument in Opposition
Got Salmon? Not if Measure 81 Passes
Customers at my Eugene fish market love salmon and stur-
geon from the Columbia River. Whether they're putting on a
barbecue or buying the catch of the day for their restaurant,
the Columbia's great bounty is a part of Oregon's heritage
and an on -going tradition. But that won't be the case if
Measure 81 passes.
It would prohibit Oregonians from purchasing Columbia River
salmon caught with gillnets and ban Oregon commercial fish-
ermen (but not Washington State fisherman) from using what
is currently the only legal means of bringing this resource to
market.
Under Measure 81, the only way Oregonians will be able
to enjoy Columbia River salmon and sturgeon is if they're
sport -fishermen and can catch their own. Currently, sport -
fishermen with Oregon licenses and tags constitute less than
6 percent of all Oregonians. Thus, Measure 81 would prevent
Oregon taxpayers who help pay for the hatcheries that
produce the Columbia runs from enjoying the fruits of their
investment.
Oregonians won't even be able to purchase Columbia River
salmon and sturgeon that Washington commercial fisher-
man will still be able to catch legally under Measure 81.
This set of facts highlights the unfairness of Measure 81. Over
the last decade, the sport -fishermen have caught 80% of the
Columbia River Spring Chinook Salmon, while commercial
gillnet fishermen only caught 20% of these fish.
Measure 81 takes the allotment that currently goes to Oregon
commercial fishermen and consumers and gives it to sport -
fishermen. So Measure 81 is not about protecting, much less
increasing, Columbia River fish runs. It has nothing to with
conservation. It's nothing more than a re -allocation grab by
sport -fishing interests.
This ban will hurt Oregon seafood wholesalers, retailers,
canners, restaurants, fish markets in addition to the many
Oregon commercial fishing families it will put out of business.
But it will ultimately hurt Oregon consumers — some of whom
are my customers. Please, join me in opposing Measure 81.
(This information furnished by Dwight Collins, Owner of
Newman's Fish Market.)
Argument in Opposition
Workers in Oregon's fish -processing industry could lose jobs
I believe I speak for many workers in Oregon's fish processing
industry when I write that Measure 81 scares and angers me.
My mob is one of many that could be eliminated if the Oregon
commercial fishermen are prohibited from using gillnets on
the Columbia River. I make a decent salary and have a good
health and retirement plan through my employer. A measure
that would cut incomes of Oregon commercial fishermen
and industry employees and prohibits Oregon consumers
from buying Columbia River salmon is scary. These days, you
don't have to work in fish processing and support a family on
a modest income to worry about your job, healthcare costs
and tuition payments to wonder why we would harm another
Oregon industry and cut Oregon jobs.
What's maddening is that one Washington resident contrib-
uted over half a million dollars or 89% of the funds to pay
for the signatures to get measure 81 on the Oregon ballot. It
would take me a lifetime of paychecks to write that kind of
contribution, and some rich Washington guy basically buys
his way onto the Oregon ballot with a measure that could put
me and many not -so -rich Oregonians out of work.
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
What's more maddening is that Measure 81 prohibits
Oregon food processors, wholesalers and consumers from
buying any gillnet-caught fish — even those caught legally by
Washington commercial fishermen under the measure.
So who gains under 81, besides Washington commercial
fishermen? Well, the sport -fishing interests who sponsored
Measure 81? You see, all the salmon and sturgeon that Oregon
commercial fishermen are now allowed to catch on the
Columbia River's main stem would go instead to Washington
sport or commercial fisherman under the measure.
Who loses? Oregon consumers who will no longer be able to
enjoy these fish as well as Oregon fishermen and workers who
help bring Oregon's bounty to market. Please vote no on 81.
Darren E. Carlson
(This information furnished by Darren Carlson, fish processing
industry worker.)
Argument in Opposition
A Fishing Guide and Sport -fisherman Opposes Measure 81's
Re -Allocation Masked as Conservation
I've been a fishing guide for 14 years and an avid sport -
fisherman for 54. Much of my time guiding and fishing has
been in the Columbia River basin. My observations from
sport -fishing and the research I've done lead me to oppose
Measure 81.
I totally favor having more fish available for sport -fishermen
but let's get it done by working together to get more fish
returning for everyone. Rather than fight over a few thousand
fish let's work together to solve problems such as avian
predation that, if rationally addressed, can add hundreds of
thousands of adult fish to the Columbia basin.
As a lifelong Oregonian fighting to survive in today's
economy I don't think it's productive to pass measures that
will inflict economic harm, particularly on rural communi-
ties. Measure 81 would help put more commercial fishing
families out of business. It holds out the false hope of switch-
ing to other gear types, without considering the costs and
feasibility. It would also hurt other Oregon seafood -related
businesses.
Measure 81 is pitched as a conservation measure, but it's
not. I won't save a single Columbia River salmon. It would
simply re -allocate the commercial fishermen's share to
sport -fishermen. I guess I'm supposed to like this as a sport -
fisherman and guide, but I don't. It's not the Oregon way.
Finally, here are some facts about Measure 81 you might not
know:
If it passes, Washington commercial fishermen could
still use gillnets on the Columbia — and sell their catch to
customers everywhere but Oregon.
For the last decade, main -stem Columbia River sport -
fishermen have caught 80% or more of the allowable
Spring Chinook catch while commercial fishermen have
only caught 20% or less.
In 2012, the Spring Chinook commercial tangle -net
fishery consisted of one 12-hour and on 6-hour opener
and caught less than 5000 fish.
Let's defeat Measure 81 and work together to get more fish
for everyone.
(This information furnished by Bob Spelbrink, fishing guide/
sport fisherman.)
Argument in Opposition
Sport -fishing Group's Bid to Take All the Columbia River Fish
Via Measure 81 Should Embarrass True Sport -fishermen
I'm a sport -fisherman. I've caught a few salmon on the
Columbia in 50 years in Oregon. The rhythm of the river,
the tug on your line, the cry of "Fish On" and the taste of
fresh Spring Chinook. I guess I'm supposed to like Measure
81's ban on commercial gillnet fishing in Oregon, because it
would take commercial fishermen off the river and give their
share of fish to us sports fishermen. But the fact is I oppose
Measure 81. It's selfishness masquerading as conservation.
Measure 81 won't save one fish. It's about re -allocation, not
conservation.
Sure, I'd like to catch more fish. What sport -fisherman
wouldn't? But not at another Oregonian's expense. Measure
81 would devastate commercial fishermen and hurt Oregon
consumers who depend on them when they go to a fish
market or restaurant.
I'm fortunate enough to be able to catch my own salmon
and sturgeon. Not every Oregonian wants to or can. Only
6 percent of Oregonians have fishing licenses, much less a
salmon tags. Should they be forbidden from buying Columbia
salmon in Oregon? They will under Measure 81, even if it's
caught by Washington State commercial gillnet fishermen.
Yes, Washington commercial fishermen could still use gillnets
under Measure 81, which is a whole other story.
It's not like sport -fishermen don't get our share. I mean,
we've caught 80%of the Columbia River Spring Chinook
over the last ten years compared to commercial fishermen
who've landed 20%. And now some sport -fishermen want 100
percent of this run. That's not sportsmanship. That's greed.
It's embarrassing. The only thing that makes it less embar-
rassing is that Measure 81 was essentially put on Oregon's
ballot by a Washington resident who paid half -a -million or
89% of the cost of collecting signatures for the measure.
Please join me standing up for all Oregonians. Vote "No." on
Measure 81.
(This information furnished by Jon Hickerson, sport fisherman.)
Argument in Opposition
Oregon Restaurant & Lodging Association (ORLA) Opposes
the Ban on Commercial Fishing in the Columbia
Measure 81 would ban Columbia River commercial fishing
with gillnets for Oregon fishermen only. Remember, the State
of Washington decides what happens on the other side of the
Columbia.
ORLA recognizes the importance of all of the players in the
Columbia River fishing debate; both sport and commercial
fishing play a vital role in Oregon's tourism industry. Often
times, a harsh one-sided solution is proposed by a single
player to try and force people into choosing sides; this is one
of those times. We should be working together on this issue,
not pitting one side against the other.
This measure does not save fish because Washington fisher-
men would still be able to use gillnets on the Columbia River,
and the existing commercial fishermen's share of salmon and
sturgeon would be reallocated to sport fishermen. Ironically,
the sport fishing industry has caught 80 percent of the
Columbia River spring Chinook salmon, while commercial
fishermen have caught only 20 percent of these fish over the
past 10 years, according to numbers from the Oregon and
Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife.
Further, this measure specifically forbids Oregonians from
buying gillnet-caught Columbia River fish in their fish
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
markets, grocery stores and restaurants, even if they were
caught legally in areas outside of Oregon. This restriction will
not save fish, but will drive up the prices for Oregon consum-
ers. Consumers will indeed pay more for northwest salmon in
Oregon restaurants and grocery stores.
This measure, if passed, will destroy the Oregon commercial
salmon fishing industry and result in a sharp decrease in jobs,
and an increase in salmon prices.
Vote No on Measure 81
(This information furnished by Bill Perry, Oregon Restaurant &
Lodging Association.)
Argument in Opposition
Former Director of the Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife Speaks Out Against Measure 81
While serving as the Director of the Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife and, before that, Captain of the Oregon
State Police Fish and Wildlife Division, I needed all voices to
speak in support of Oregon's fisheries. Measure 81, seeks to
eliminate commercial gillnetting on the Columbia River for
Oregon, though it would allow Washington commercial fish-
ermen to use this gear. By passing Measure 81, Oregon may
lose a critical voice in support of our Columbia River fisheries.
Over the last decade, sport fishing harvested 80% of the
allocated Columbia River Spring Chinook Salmon, while
commercial fishing harvested 20%. Is this parity? Sharing the
harvest of our fishery resources is an Oregon tradition. Why
would we want to change that?
We need all parties to advocate for our fishery resources
just as the commercial fishermen did in the 1930s when
promoting a fish ladder at Bonneville Dam while it was being
constructed. Today, at Bonneville Dam, people view migrat-
ing salmon, and the fish are counted to ensure conservation
measures are employed.
Measure 81 would do more than eliminate an Oregon voice
in support of our Columbia fisheries. It will also eliminate
jobs and reduce income in Oregon. It will likely transfer jobs
and income to Washington as its residents continue to fish
and sell Columbia River fish in their stores.
Like you, I am concerned about the management of our
fish and wildlife resources. The Oregon Fish and Wildlife
Commission passes rules governing seasons as well as
harvest allocations and methods. In addition, the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife director has emergency rule
making authority to immediately halt any season or harvest
in the interest of conservation. This system has worked well
for Oregon over my lifetime.
Let's keep all the advocates we have today for our fishery, as
well as Oregon jobs. Vote no on Measure 81.
(This information furnished by Lindsay Ball, Former Director
of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.)
Argument in Opposition
A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER SHOWS HOW MEASURE 81
WILL HURT OREGON'S FISH PROCESSING BUSINESS AND
THE DAMAGE WILL RIPPLE THROUGH OUR COMMUNITIES
Business is about bottom lines. As you think about Measure
81, I'd like to explain how this measure will be bad for my
company and my community's — and our state's — bottom line
I'm an Oregon native and the owner of fish processing business
in Astoria. We've done business here for 30 years. Salmon and
sturgeon from the Columbia River commercial fisherman are
a significant component of my company's business plan. This
won't be the case if Measure 81 for two reasons:
One, it prohibits Oregon commercial fishermen from
using gillnets on the Columbia River. This would virtually
end all fishing by Oregon commercial fishermen on the
river, because all Columbia River commercial fishermen
use gillnets.
Two, Measure 81 bans Oregon retailers, wholesalers and
consumers from purchasing Columbia River fish caught
by non -tribal commercial gillnet fishermen — even if the
fish are legally caught by Washington commercial gillnet
fishermen, as the measure allows.
Measure 81's ban on commercial gillnet fishing in Oregon will
devastate Oregon seafood wholesalers and retailers, restau-
rants, local fish markets, marine supply dealers. Well -paying
jobs with good benefits will be lost, and incomes will be cut.
This will mean less revenue for Oregon whether through the
income tax or the taxes fish processors pay on the fish we
take out of the Columbia. At a local level, it will means busi-
ness in the seafood industry will have less disposable income
to donate to the charities, schools or youth activities.
Our industry provides season employment in our communi-
ties for young people. It always has. The money from these
summer jobs has helped Oregon students and their parents
with tuition payments so our kids — Oregon's kids — can make
their own life choices.
The bottom line for Oregon: Measure 81 is bad for all of us.
Please help defeat it.
(This information furnished by Steve Fick, Owner, Fishhawk
Fisheries.)
Argument in Opposition
The Lower Columbia Alliance for Sustainable Fisheries
Hopes You VOTE NO On Measure 81
The Lower Columbia Alliance for Sustainable Fisheries was
formed in 2003 to help keep commercial and sport fishermen
fishing by working to keep as much area open to fishing as
possible. Our 100+ members consist of commercial fishing
families, local charter fishing operations and sport fishermen,
as well as businesses that depend on fishermen to stay open.
Why should you Vote No on 81?
One, this measure has nothing to do with sustainable fish-
eries. It simply takes the share of the Columbia River catch
that currently goes to commercial fishermen and their
customers and gives it to sport -fishermen.
Two, Measure 81 won't benefit the majority of Oregonians.
It will cut the amount of available locally caught salmon for
our local restaurants and fish markets, thereby increasing
the cost to you. People from Portland and the Willamette
Valley want to come to the North Coast, eat some locally
caught salmon, and visit our fish markets and take some
home with them. Measure 81 will make this much more dif-
ficult. Measure 81 prohibits Oregon consumers from being
able to buy fresh gillnet-caught Columbia River Spring
Chinook salmon and sturgeon anywhere in Oregon
Three, Measure 81 really doesn't make sense. It says
that gillnetting on the main stem of the Columbia will
be replaced by seining. Saying seining is a better way
of fishing, isn't really true. Besides, even if seines made
sense and federal authorities ultimately allowed their use,
Measure 81 provides no compensation for new equipment
and nets that could cost Oregon commercial fishermen at
least $150,000.
Our local gillnetters have been cut back drastically over the
last 30 years. We hope you see through this latest attempt by
the few to take away your right to buy some locally caught
salmon at an affordable price.
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
(This information furnished by Bernie Bjork, Lower Columbia
Alliance for Sustainable Fisheries.)
Argument in Opposition
Democratic Central Committee of
Clatsop County Opposes Measure 81
Measure 81 Hurts Oregon Fishing Families and Consumers and
Does Nothing to Help Columbia River Salmon and Sturgeon
Clatsop County Democratic Central Committee approved the
following resolution on August 27, 2012
WHEREAS Measure 81's ban on commercial gillnet fishing in
Oregon would put Oregon's local commercial fishing families
out of business
WHEREAS Passage of Measure 81 would virtually end all
fishing by Oregon commercial fishermen on the Columbia
River, because all Columbia River commercial fishermen use
gillnets.
WHEREAS Passage of Measure 81 would drastically cut the
incomes of Columbia River commercial fishermen and their
families and lead to greater poverty and other negative social
consequences in Oregon's rural communities.
WHEREAS Measure 81's ban on commercial gillnet fishing in
Oregon will harm Oregon seafood wholesalers and retailers,
restaurants, local fish markets, marine supply dealers, and
consumers of locally caught salmon and sturgeon.
WHEREAS Measure 81 would prevent Oregon consumers
from being able to buy fresh Columbia River salmon any-
where in Oregon
WHEREAS Washington commercial fishermen would still be
allowed to use gillnets on the Columbia River while Oregon
commercial fishermen would be banned under Measure 81.
WHEREAS Measure 81 does nothing to save endangered fish,
but simply reallocates the existing commercial fishermen's
share of fish to sports fishermen.
WHEREAS Commercial gillnet fishing in the Columbia River
is approved and regulated by federal and state agencies
charged with the protection of fish, birds and mammals.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED on this day that the Democratic
Central Committee of Clatsop County opposes Measure 81
on the November 2012 ballot
(This information furnished by Larry Taylor, Clatsop County
Democratic Central Committee, Chairman.)
Argument in Opposition
Peter Galbreath, PhD Zoology
Dale McCullough, PhD Fisheries
Jeffrey Fryer, PhD Fisheries
Phillip Roger, PhC Fisheries
Cooperation is a hallmark of fishery conservation and
management. State, federal and tribal fisheries manage-
ment agencies, local governments and public interest groups
are demonstrating their ability to work in concert to help
restore salmon and salmon fisheries. Cooperation is the right
approach. In contrast, Measure 81 is not cooperative, it adds
complexity and does not offer a conservation benefit.
Columbia River fisheries management is important. Effective
long-term fish management plans require consideration
of the best scientific information available as well as social
needs. Collaborative fisheries management is effective,
resulting in record numbers of salmon headed up the
Columbia River above Bonneville Dam to return to communi-
ties and spawning grounds throughout the Basin. Since 2001,
the nine top annual returns of chinook, the top five returns
of coho, and the top four returns of steelhead have crossed
Bonneville Dam, constructed in 1938. In the past three years,
the two highest returns of sockeye salmon have crossed
Bonneville Dam.
While much work remains, by working cooperatively it has
been possible to design programs and manage resources to:
• Improve water quality, water flow, and fish passage
commitments in the Columbia and Snake rivers and their
tributaries;
• Restore salmon habitat damaged decades ago by mining
and other practices that did not account for fish needs;
• Reform hatchery practices to rebuild wild spawning
salmon populations using state of the art scientific tools;
• Sustainably manage salmon harvest on a coast -wide
basis with the cooperation of scientists from Alaska,
Canada, Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, and
more than 24 Indian tribes
Measure 81 would transfer catch impacts from one fishery to
another, not saving salmon, but threatening the cooperative
approaches that have been successful in producing record
numbers of salmon. Continued cooperative efforts will
help rebuild salmon runs. Favoring one harvest group over
another as Measure 81 proposes will not restore salmon runs.
(This information furnished by Babtist Paul Lumley, Columbia
River Inter -Tribal Fish Commission.)
Argument in Opposition
A Sport -fisherman and Seafood Business Owner Sees
Measure 81 as allocation battle initiated by Sport -fishing
Interests
Don't be misled by Measure 81, proposed Columbia River
gill -net ban on the November ballot. It has nothing to do with
"protecting fish and wildlife." This measure is strictly an
allocation battle initiated by some sport fishermen against
commercial fishermen.
It's a shame because the two have so much in common,
and I say this as someone who's been a sport -fishermen for
60 years and the owner of a small, family -owned seafood
business (Oregon's Choice Gourmet Albacore) for 34 years.
Instead of fighting, we should all be working together to
increase our salmon resources for all user groups.
The losers, if Measure 81 passes, will be Oregon consumers,
who love to eat their seasonally delicious salmon and sturgeon
Columbia River spring and summer Chinook salmon are world-
famous for their quality, flavor and high omega-3 content.
Oregon's renewable fishery resources belong to all the
people, not just a select few who own the boats and equip-
ment to catch fish for themselves. The public's access to
its fish is through commercial fishermen. Public tax money
raises the hatchery salmon that are harvested (wild salmon
must be released unharmed). Will Congress continue to fund
federal hatcheries if there is no "food fish" harvest?
There is no other fishery standing by to replace gill nets,
despite the "pie in the sky" claims from ban promoters. The
sport -fishing industry behind this ban measure currently
catches 80% the allowable quota, so it's not like they're
short of fish.
It has a lot to do with eliminating their competition. They claim
to respect the rights of commercial fishermen to represent the
consumer, but will their next targets after gill-netters be ocean
salmon trollers, inshore crab and sardine fishermen?
The various promoters of the Columbia River gill -net ban rate
"pants on fire-10" for proposing to replace fishery manage-
ment with a political decision. Vote "No" on 81.
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
(This information furnished by Herb Goblirsch, Fish Market
Owner, Oregon Choice Gourmet Albacore.)
Argument in Opposition
Statement of the
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
Confederated Tribes of the
Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and
Nez Perce Tribe
We oppose Measure 81 because it is the wrong approach to
salmon restoration. All Oregonians, including commercial,
sport, and tribal fishers, should be working together to
improve salmon runs, not trying to put each other out of
business.
Our tribal creation story teaches us that we were created
in this landscape, relying on the natural resources of the
Columbia River Basin to sustain us. The tribes have demon-
strated by their actions that cooperative salmon rebuilding
efforts are effective:
• Columbia Basin salmon runs are growing and during
the last decade, 75-year record returns of sockeye and
spring chinook have crossed Bonneville Dam, as well as
strong and consistent returns of summer chinook, fall
chinook, coho, and steelhead.
• Working together, we removed Condit Dam and wel-
comed the first salmon, steelhead, and lamprey to the
White Salmon River in 100 years.
• Salmon are spawning in the Deschutes River above
Round Butte Dam for the first time in 50 years due to a
joint commitment of Portland General Electric and the
Warm Springs Tribe.
These successes are the direct result of partnerships. The
Columbia River Basin will be able to recover salmon popu-
lations to healthy and abundant levels only if the region
works together. Ballot Measure 81 distracts the public from
constructive solutions like improving salmon habitat and
reforming hatchery practices.
Forgoing one fishery in lieu of another will not put any more
fish back on to the spawning grounds.
(This information furnished by Babtist Paul Lumley, Columbia
River Inter -Tribal Fish Commission.)
Argument in Opposition
The Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association and
NW Guides and Anglers Association
encourage a "NO" vote on Measure 81.
The Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association (NSIA) and
NW Guides and Anglers Association (NWGAA) applaud and
support Governor Kitzhaber's leadership directing the Oregon
Fish and Wildlife Commission to resolve century -old salmon
issues between sports fishing interests and commercial gill-
netters on the Columbia River.
Governor Kitzhaber recognizes that status quo is not accept-
able, leads to continued conflict between the commercial
and recreational industries and negatively impacts the
Endangered Species Act listed salmon and steelhead popula-
tions on the Columbia River. His plan to move Columbia River
commercial gillnetters into designated off -channel fishing
areas (SAFE areas) and out of the main stem Columbia River
will create jobs statewide, preserve commercial fishing jobs
and result in tens of millions of dollars of additional economic
benefit to both Oregon and Washington.
Despite an earlier endorsement in support of Measure 81,
NSIA and NWGAA withdraw that support as a result of the
Governor's action and encourage voters to vote "no" on the
ballot measure.
SAFE areas are an undisputed success for the commercial
fishing industry. In the last two years, commercial gillnet
landings in the SAFE zones grew larger than the sport harvest
in the entire lower Columbia River. Additionally, the outlook is
even brighter for future SAFE area harvests. In recent years,
Oregon and Washington increased the transfer of smolts
into SAFE areas by nearly 40%. NSIA and NWGAA support
these SAFE areas and will continue to work to insure their
sustainability.
To be clear, we have concerns with some elements of the
Governor's plan, but we understand that bold change does
not come without some trade-offs from everyone.
We hope Oregonians will support Governor Kitzhaber's pro-
posal to the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission to adopt
a fair, equitable, and scientific approach that maximizes the
economics of Columbia River salmon now and for the future
(This information furnished by Liz Hamilton, Northwest
Sportfishing Industry Association.)
Argument in Opposition
Statement of the
Columbia River Inter -Tribal Fish Commission
Ballot Measure 81 is the wrong approach; it is fundamentally a
transfer of fish harvest from one type of fishery to another with
no gain in rebuilding. Instead, tribes, commercial, and sports
fishers should be working together to improve salmon runs.
For over thirty years, the tribes and many others have
been working on that goal. They have been conserving and
improving thousands of acres of salmon habitat and chang-
ing hatcheries into wild salmon nurseries that are designed
to give the fish a better start to life and allow the adult
returns to rebuild healthy and abundant naturally -spawning
populations overtime.
These cooperative efforts have been working, with inde-
pendent science validating that salmon populations are
rebuilding:
• Wild spring chinook salmon are returning to restored
ecosystems in the Umatilla, Yakima and Klickitat rivers.
• Coho in the Clearwater River in Idaho are now abundant
after being declared extinct in 1994.
• In the Snake River Basin, the fall run of chinook has been
brought back from the brink of extinction. Last year, more
than 10,000 wild fall chinook crossed Lower Granite Dam.
Ballot Measure 81 fails to recognize these salmon restoration
successes. It paints a picture of scarcity and proposes harvest
measures that have been tried before and failed. Measure 81
is not a solution. Instead, by working to rebuild abundance to
the Columbia River system, we can all benefit from healthy
and sustainable fish populations.
Created in 1977 by the Warm Springs, Umatilla, Yakama
and Nez Perce tribes, the Columbia River Inter -Tribal Fish
Commission serves as a technical and coordinating agency
for these tribes on salmon policy and treaty fishing rights on
the Columbia River. Tribal governments are leaders in salmon
recovery and have helped bring salmon runs up to their
highest levels in years through habitat improvements and
hatchery reform.
(This information furnished by Babtist Paul Lumley, Columbia
River Inter -Tribal Fish Commission.)
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Argument in Opposition
Ballot Measure 81 arises out of decades of conflict between
user groups over fishing on the lower Columbia River. While I
appreciate their frustration and agree with the desire to more
selectively catch fish from the River, I oppose Ballot Measure 81
Ballot Measure 81 will further divide Oregonians instead of
advancing economic and conservation gains that a more
thoughtful effort can achieve. Instead of recreational vs. com-
mercial fishing interests, rural vs. urban interests or business
vs. environmental interests —the interests of Oregon are best
served when Oregonians find ways to advance mutual ben-
efits instead of mutual division.
Measure 81 would impose sweeping changes on Columbia
River fish management. Such management decisions are
best made by Oregon's publicly appointed Fish and Wildlife
Commission. The Commission is staffed by professional fish
and wildlife experts that can address this issue with their
counterparts in Washington, engage federal agencies and
sovereign tribal governments, and bring meaningful conser-
vation strategies to lower Columbia fish management.
My concerns over Ballot Measure 81 stem from my view that
it would:
• Significantly harm Oregon's commercial fishing com-
munity, threatening families, jobs and culture that are
important to Oregon.
• Fail to achieve adequate conservation gains for salmon,
steelhead and sturgeon.
• Lead to uncoordinated management between Oregon
and Washington.
I believe we need to change the way fish are managed in the
Columbia River, but not the way Ballot Measure 81 proposes.
I have proposed a solution through Oregon's Fish and Wildlife
Commission that, unlike Measure 81, can find the right
balance between economic interests as well as protecting
and restoring threatened fish.
I encourage voters to reject Measure 81, and expect both
recreational and commercial fishing interests to work in
good faith with the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission to
achieve a more balanced and sustainable resolution of this
long-standing dispute.
John A. Kitzhaber
(This information furnished by John A. Kitzhaber, M.D.,
Governor, State of Oregon.)
Argument in Opposition
I'm a commercial fisherwoman and mom, and I ask you to
Vote "NO" on 81
I've seen more substance and less fabrication in "fish stories"
about "the one that got away" than in the Measure 81 spon-
sors' claims about their proposed ban on gillnets on the
Columbia River.
For starters, their measure won't save one single fish. It
simply reallocates the commercial fishermen's share of
salmon and sturgeon to ... sport -fishermen. It's a reallocation
disguised as conservation. I don't know what sport -fishing
guys call this, but I call it bait and switch.
It's amazing when you consider that the sports fishing
industry has caught 80% of Columbia River Spring Chinook
Salmon, while commercial fishermen caught only 20% over
the last ten years. Now sport -fishing interests want 100% and
are willing to put Oregon commercial fishing families out of
business to get what they want. This at a time we should be
encouraging Oregon industries and growing jobs.
Even worse, this ban only applies to Oregon commercial
fishermen. Washington commercial fishermen would still be
allowed to use gillnets on the Columbia.
Of course, we fish for consumers. Under Measure 81, only
sport -fishermen with the ability, means and inclination to
catch their own fish — under 6% of Oregonians — could still
enjoy Columbia River salmon. In fact, the measure forbids
Oregonians from buying Columbia River fish in their fish
markets, grocery stores and restaurants — even if those fish
were caught legally by Washington commercial fishermen.
By law, commercial fishing here is highly selective and
heavily regulated. Commercial fisherman wouldn't be
allowed to fish if they were a threat to the Columbia's salmon
and sturgeon populations. And the Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife wouldn't approve the use of gillnets if they
threatened the river's fish and wildlife.
Voters shouldn't abandon the scientific management of the
Columbia salmon harvest in order to create a monopoly for
sport -fisherman at the expense of Oregon consumers. Please
vote "No" on 81.
(This information furnished by Brenda Wall, commercial
fisherman.)
Argument in Opposition
Measure 81 "Allocation Grab" Won't Say Fish, Says Former
Chair of Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission and Retired
Oregon State Professor
I'm an avid Columbia River sport -fisherman I devoted my
career as a marine extension agent and full professor with
Oregon State University, and as a past member and chair
of the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission to protecting
Oregon's natural resources for the benefit all Oregonians,
not a select few. That's why I oppose Measure 81.
Measure 81 would virtually end all fishing by Oregon com
mercial fishermen on the Columbia River, because these com-
mercial fishermen — who fish for consumers — use gillnets.
Oregonians who want to enjoy eating Columbia River salmon
and sturgeon, but don't sport -fish, would be out of luck.
Measure 81's gillnet ban will harm Oregon seafood wholesal-
ers and retailers, restaurants, local fish markets and consum-
ers of locally caught salmon and sturgeon. The measure
specifically prohibits Oregonians from purchasing fish caught
with gillnets.
So who benefits? Well, Washington commercial fishermen
would still be allowed to use gillnets on the Columbia while
Oregon commercial fishermen would be banned, though
salmon caught legally by Washington commercial fisher-
men could not be sold to Oregonians. No wonder a maior
contributor to Measure 81 is a Washington resident who
contributed over half a million dollars or 89% of the funds to
put this measure on the ballot.
And sport -fishermen would certainly benefit. Measure 81
simply reallocates the existing commercial fishermen's
share of fish to sports fishermen. This measure does nothing
to save endangered fish. The sport -fishing industry is just
trying to eliminate its competition. That's awfullygreedy,
given that over the last 10 years the sports fishing industry
has caught 80% of Columbia River Spring Chinook Salmon.
while commercial gillnet fishermen only caught 20% of these
fish.
Columbia River is one of the most regulated fisheries
in United States. It should remain a vital fishery for all
Oregonians. Please join me in voting against Measure 81.
(This information furnished by Bob Jacobson, Former
Chairman of the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission.)
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Argument in Opposition
AN OREGON COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN TELLS HOW
MEASURE 81 WILL KEEP HIM FROM FISHING FOR
OREGON'S CONSUMERS
I'm a native Oregonian and commercial fisherman. I've fished
the Columbia River since 1977. Commercial fishing is my
life and livelihood, but I don't fish for myself alone. I fish for
consumers of salmon and sturgeon in Oregon and beyond.
Measure 81's ban on commercial gillnet fishing in Oregon
would force many of our local commercial fishing families out
of business.
Measure 81 would pretty much end all fishing by Oregon
commercial fishermen on the Columbia River, because we
use gillnets.
Obviously, I have a stake in this. Measure 81 would slash
incomes of Oregon's Columbia River commercial fishermen
and their families. While the measure talks about using other
nets, this change of boats and equipment would cost us at
least $150,000 — and provides us no compensation.
What's unfair is Washington fishermen would still be able to
fish while Oregonian commercial fishermen would be wiped
off the Columbia under Measure 81.
But this is about more than the jobs and incomes of Oregon
commercial fishermen. This ban will harm Oregon seafood
wholesalers and retailers, restaurants, local fish markets,
marine supply dealers, and consumers of locally caught
salmon and sturgeon. Under Measure 81, Oregon consumers
couldn't buy fresh Columbia River Spring Chinook salmon
anywhere in Oregon — even if it were legally caught by
Washington commercial fishermen.
What Measure 81 is definitely not about is protecting endan-
gered fish, which commercial fishermen care about, since
our livelihoods' depend on a healthy fishery. The fact is this
measure won't save one fish. Its secret is that it re -allocates
the commercial fishermen's share of salmon to sports fisher-
men. They'll be able to fish more while Oregon commercial
fishermen — and our consumers — will go without.
Measure 81 is about re -allocation, not conservation.
Join me in opposing Measure 81 so Oregonians can continue
to enjoy fresh Columbia River Chinook salmon and sturgeon.
(This information furnished by Jim Wells, commercial fisher-
man, President of Salmon For All.)
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Proposed by initiative petition to be voted on at the General Election, November 6, 2012.
Result of "Yes" Vote
"Yes" vote amends state constitution to authorize privately -
owned casinos; requires such casinos to give percentage of
monthly revenue to State Lottery for specified purposes.
Result of "No" Vote
"No" vote maintains current state of the law, which does
not authorize any privately -owned casino within state; tribal
casinos authorized pursuant to gaming compacts.
Summary
Amends constitution. Currently, Oregon Constitution pro-
hibits the operation of privately -owned, non -tribal casinos
within the state. Under measure, State Lottery shall permit
the operation of privately -owned casinos within the state,
provided that the particular operation is approved through an
initiative law. Privately -owned casinos must be located within
an incorporated city, and city electors must also approve
casino location. The privately -owned casino shall pay 25%
of adjusted gross revenues each month to a dedicated state
fund for the purposes of fostering job growth, educational
achievement, vibrant local communities, protecting and
improving natural environment, and supporting all federally
recognized Indian tribes in Oregon. Amendment prohibits the
operation of privately -owned casino within 60-mile radius of
existing tribal casino operating on reservation land.
Estimate of Financial Impact
This measure has an indeterminate financial impact.
Currently the Constitution prohibits casinos in Oregon, and
this measure amends the Constitution to allow casinos.
However, if the measure is adopted, there may be a financial
impact to certain local government entities that receive
revenue derived from tribal gaming operations, because
tribal gaming revenues may decline.
Text of Measure
PARAGRAPH 1. Section 4, Article XV of the Constitution of
the State of Oregon is amended to read:
Section 4. (1) Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), (4),
(8), [and] (9) and (11) of this section, lotteries and the sale of
lottery tickets, for any purpose whatever, are prohibited, and
the Legislative Assembly shall prevent the same by penal
laws.
(2)(a) The Legislative Assembly may provide for the estab-
lishment, operation, and regulation of raffles and the lottery
commonly known as bingo or lotto by charitable, fraternal,
or religious organizations. [As used in this section, charitable,
fraternal or religious organization means such organizations
or foundations as defined by law because of their charitable,
fraternal, or religious purposes.] The regulations shall define
eligible organizations or foundations, and may prescribe the
frequency of raffles, bingo or lotto, set a maximum monetary
limit for prizes and require a statement of the odds on win-
ning a prize. The Legislative Assembly shall vest the regula-
tory authority in any appropriate state agency.
(b) As used in this section:
(A) "Adjusted gross revenues" means the total of amount
of cash and property, except nonredeemable credits,
received from games at the taxpaying casino, less the
amount of cash, cash equivalents, credits and prizes paid to
patrons of the games.
(B) "Charitable, fraternal or religious organization" means
such organizations or foundations as defined by law because
of their charitable, fraternal, or religious purposes.
(C) "Net proceeds of the State Lottery" means the net
proceeds from the sale of tickets or shares to the public and
the revenues received from a taxpaying casino permitted
under subsection (11) of this section, after paying prizes
and expenses as described in subparagraphs (C) and (D) of
paragraph (d) of subsection (4) of this section.
(3) There is hereby created the State Lottery Commission
which shall establish and operate a State Lottery. All pro-
ceeds from the State Lottery, including interest, but excluding
costs of administration and payment of prizes, shall be used
for any of the following purposes: creating jobs, further-
ing economic development, financing public education in
Oregon or restoring and protecting Oregon's parks, beaches,
watersheds and native fish and wildlife.
(4)(a) The State Lottery Commission shall be comprised of
five members appointed by the Governor and confirmed by
the Senate who shall serve at the pleasure of the Governor.
At least one of the Commissioners shall have a minimum of
five years experience in law enforcement and at least one of
the Commissioners shall be a certified public accountant. The
Commission is empowered to promulgate rules related to the
procedures of the Commission and the operation of the State
Lottery. Such rules and any statutes enacted to further imple-
ment this article shall insure the integrity, security, honesty,
and fairness of the Lottery. The Commission shall have such
additional powers and duties as may be provided by law.
(b) The Governor shall appoint a Director subject to
confirmation by the Senate who shall serve at the pleasure
of the Governor. The Director shall be qualified by training
and experience to direct the operations of a state -operated
lottery. The Director shall be responsible for managing the
affairs of the Commission. The Director may appoint and
prescribe the duties of no more than four Assistant Directors
as the Director deems necessary. One of the Assistant
Directors shall be responsible for a security division to assure
security, integrity, honesty, and fairness in the operations and
administration of the State Lottery. To fulfill these responsi-
bilities, the Assistant Director for security shall be qualified
by training and experience, including at least five years of law
enforcement experience, and knowledge and experience in
computer security.
(c) The Director shall implement and operate a State
Lottery pursuant to the rules, and under the guidance, of the
Commission. The State Lottery may operate any game proce-
dure authorized by the commission, except parimutuel racing,
social games, and the games commonly known in Oregon as
bingo or lotto, whereby prizes are distributed using any exist-
ing or future methods among adult persons who have paid
fortickets or shares in that game; provided that, in lottery
games utilizing computer terminals or other devices, no coins
or currency shall ever be dispensed directly to players from
such computer terminals or devices. The limitations on game
procedures and prohibition of dispensing coins and currency
described in this paragraph do not apply to a taxpaying
casino operating as permitted under subsection (11) of this
section.
(d)(A) There is hereby created within the General Fund the
Oregon State Lottery Fund which is continuously appropri-
ated for the purpose of administering and operating the
Commission and the State Lottery.
(B) The State Lottery shall operate as a self-supporting
revenue -raising agency of state government and, except as
provided in subsection (11) of this section, no appropriations,
loans, or other transfers of state funds shall be made to it.
(C)The State Lottery shall pay all prizes [and all of its
expenses] out of the revenues [it] that the State Lottery
receives from the sale of tickets or shares to the public.
(D) The State Lottery shall pay all expenses out of the
revenues that the State Lottery receives from:
(i) The sale of tickets or shares to the public; and
(ii) A taxpaying casino under subsection (11)(e) of this
section.
(E) The State Lottery shall [turnover] turn over the net
proceeds [therefrom] from the State Lottery to a fund to
be established by the Legislative Assembly from which
the Legislative Assembly shall make appropriations for the
benefit of any of the following public purposes: creating
jobs, furthering economic development, financing public
education in Oregon or restoring and protecting Oregon's
parks, beaches, watersheds and native fish and wildlife.
Effective July 1, 1997, 15% of the net proceeds from the State
Lottery shall be deposited, from the fund created by the
Legislative Assembly under this [paragraph] subparagraph,
in an education stability fund. Effective July 1, 2003, 18% of
the net proceeds from the State Lottery shall be deposited,
from the fund created by the Legislative Assembly under this
[paragraph] subparagraph, in an education stability fund.
Earnings on moneys in the education stability fund shall be
retained in the fund or expended for the public purpose of
financing public education in Oregon as provided by law.
Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, moneys
in the education stability fund shall be invested as provided
by law and shall not be subject to the limitations of section 6,
Article XI of this Constitution. The Legislative Assembly may
appropriate other moneys or revenue to the education stabil-
ity fund. The Legislative Assembly shall appropriate amounts
sufficient to pay lottery bonds before appropriating the net
proceeds from the State Lottery for any other purpose. At
least 84% of the total annual revenues from the sale of all
lottery tickets or shares by the State Lottery shall be returned
to the public in the form of prizes and net revenues benefiting
the public purpose.
(F) Of the 25% of adjusted gross revenues paid by the tax-
paying casino to the State of Oregon pursuant to subsection
11(e) of this section, the casino shall pay:
ri) 80% into the Oregon State Lottery Fund; and
(ii) 20% into a fund to be created by law.
(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (d) of subsection (4) of this
section, the amount in the education stability fund created
under paragraph (d) of subsection (4) of this section may not
exceed an amount that is equal to five percent of the amount
that was accrued as revenues in the state's General Fund
during the prior biennium. If the amount in the education
stability fund exceeds five percent of the amount that was
accrued as revenues in the state's General Fund during the
prior biennium:
(a) Additional net proceeds from the State Lottery may not
be deposited in the education stability fund until the amount
in the education stability fund is reduced to less than five
percent of the amount that was accrued as revenues in the
state's General Fund during the prior biennium; and
(b) Fifteen percent of the net proceeds from the State
Lottery shall be deposited into the school capital matching
fund created under section 4, Article XI-P of this Constitution.
(6) The Legislative Assembly may by law appropriate, allo-
cate or transfer any portion of the principal of the education
stability fund created under paragraph (d) of subsection (4) of
this section for expenditure on public education if:
(a) The proposed appropriation, allocation or transfer is
approved by three -fifths of the members serving in each
house of the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative
Assembly finds one of the following:
(A) That the last quarterly economic and revenue forecast
for a biennium indicates that moneys available to the state's
General Fund for the next biennium will be at least three
percent less than appropriations from the state's General
Fund for the current biennium;
(B) That there has been a decline for two or more consecu-
tive quarters in the last 12 months in seasonally adjusted
nonfarm payroll employment; or
(C) That a quarterly economic and revenue forecast
projects that revenues in the state's General Fund in the
current biennium will be at least two percent below what the
revenues were projected to be in the revenue forecast on
which the legislatively adopted budget for the current bien-
nium was based; or
(b) The proposed appropriation, allocation or transfer is
approved by three -fifths of the members serving in each
house of the Legislative Assembly and the Governor declares
an emergency.
(7) The Legislative Assembly may by law prescribe the
procedures to be used and identify the persons required to
make the forecasts described in subsection (6) of this section.
(8) Effective July 1, 1999, 15% of the net proceeds from
the State Lottery shall be deposited in a parks and natural
resources fund created by the Legislative Assembly. Of the
moneys in the parks and natural resources fund, 50% shall be
deposited in a parks subaccount and distributed for the public
purposes of financing the protection, repair, operation, and
creation of state, regional and local public parks, ocean shore
and public beach access areas, historic sites and recreation
areas, and 50% shall be deposited in a natural resources
subaccount and distributed for the public purposes of financ-
ing the restoration and protection of native fish and wildlife,
watersheds and water quality in Oregon. The Legislative
Assembly shall not limit expenditures from the parks and
natural resources fund, or from the parks or natural resources
subaccounts. The Legislative Assembly may appropriate
other moneys or revenue to the parks and natural resources
fund.
(9) Only one State Lottery operation shall be permitted in
the State.
(10)The Legislative Assembly has no power to authorize,
and except as provided in subsection (11) of this section,
shall prohibit, casinos from operation in the State of Oregon.
(11) The State Lottery Commission shall permit the opera-
tion of a taxpaying casino in this state if, and ONLY if:
(a) The people of the State of Oregon authorize the opera-
tion of the taxpaying casino by law through an initiative law;
(b) The taxpaying casino is to be sited in an incorporated
city, and the electors of the incorporated city approve the
development of the casino on the site;
(c) The taxpaying casino is owned and operated by a
taxpaying corporation that is incorporated under the laws of
the State of Oregon;
(d) The taxpaying casino is not within a 60-mile radius of
the location of a tribal casino operating on reservation land
in Oregon on January 1, 2011; and
(e) The taxpaying casino will pay 25% of the casino's
adjusted gross revenues to the State of Oregon for the
purposes of fostering job growth, educational achievement,
vibrant local communities, protecting and improving of the
natural environment and supporting all federally recognized
Indian tribes in Oregon.
Note: Boldfaced type indicates new language; [brackets and
italic] type indicates deletions or comments.
Explanatory Statement
The Oregon Constitution currently prohibits the Legislative
Assembly from authorizing a casino to operate in this state.
Ballot Measure 82 would amend the Constitution and autho-
rize the establishment of privately -owned casinos, subject
to certain conditions. Under the Ballot Measure amendment,
a privately -owned casino may be allowed to operate in this
state, only if, all of the following criteria are satisfied: (i) The
privately -owned casino must be approved by a separate
statewide initiative; (ii) The privately -owned casino must
be located in an incorporated city and the electors of that
incorporated city must approve the casino's development;
(iii) The privately -owned casino must be owned and operated
by a taxpaying corporation that is incorporated in Oregon;
(iv) The privately -owned casino may not be located within 60
miles of a tribal casino that was operating on reservation land
on January 1, 2011; and finally, (v) The privately -owned casino
must pay twenty-five (25) percent of its adjusted gross rev-
enues to the State of Oregon. Eighty percent of each payment
must be deposited into the Oregon State Lottery Fund and 20
percent must be deposited into a fund established by Ballot
Measure 83 (IRR 38). The privately -owned casino will be
regulated by the Oregon State Police and Oregon Lottery. The
Oregon Lottery is presently required to be self-supporting
and the revenues from the private casino will cover all the
administrative and regulatory costs as currently required by
the Constitution.
Committee Members:
Appointed by:
Stacey Dycus
Chief Petitioners
Greg Peden
Chief Petitioners
Rob Greene
Secretary of State
Mike Weatherby
Secretary of State
Chip Lazenby
Members of the Committee
(This committee was appointed to provide an impartial
explanation of the ballot measure pursuant to ORS 251.215.)
Citizens' Review Statement
This Citizens' Statement, authorized by the 2009 State Legislature, was developed by an independent panel of 24 Oregon voters
who chose to participate in the Citizens' Initiative Review process.The panelists were randomly selected from registered voters in
Oregon and balanced to fairly reflect the state's voting population based upon location of residence, age, gender, party affiliation,
education, ethnicity, and likelihood of voting. Over a period of five days the panel heard from initiative proponents, opponents,
and background witnesses.The panelists deliberated the measure and issued this statement.This statement has not been edited,
altered, or approved by the Secretary of State.
The opinions expressed in this statement are those of the members of a citizen panel and were developed through the citizen
review process.They are NOT official opinions or positions endorsed by the State of Oregon or any government agency. A citizen
panel is not a judge of the constitutionality or legality of any ballot measure, and any statements about such matters are not
binding on a court of law.
Key Findings
The following are statements about the measure and the
number of panelists who agree with each statement:
• Economists disagree on the long term economic impact
of private casinos in Oregon. (22)
• For every dollar of revenue from Video Lottery
Terminals, about 65 cents goes to the State lottery. In
addition, under Measure 82 for every dollar of revenue
produced by private casinos, 25 cents would go to the
State lottery. (24)
• Private casinos could negatively affect the gaming
revenues of the tribal casinos and the communities they
support. (20)
• The Oregon Lottery and businesses with Oregon Video
Lottery Terminals that are located within a close proxim-
ity of a private casino would likely lose money. (23)
• According to the "Measure 82 Estimate of Financial
Impact" Measure 82 will have an unknown impact
on state revenue, however, 25% of a private casino's
adjusted gross revenue will be given to the State of
Oregon for specified purposes. (22)
• In Oregon, the state government has compacts with all
nine Tribal governments, however, those agreements do
not prohibit private casinos. (21)
Additional Policy Considerations
The following are statements about the subject matter or
fiscal considerations related to the measure and the number
of panelists who agree with each statement:
• If Measure 83 passes, approximately 2000 full-time jobs
with benefits may be created; however, jobs could be
lost at tribal casinos and small businesses as well. (22)
Citizen Statement in Opposition to
the Measure
POSITION TAKEN BY 17 OF 24 PANELISTS
We, 17 members of the Citizens' Initiative Review, oppose
Ballot Measure 82 forthe following reasons:
Measure 82 changes the Oregon constitution. If this measure
passes it will allow more outside influence on gambling
within the state. The backers who wrote this measure
stand to gain significant profits by changing the Oregon
constitution.
The social impact to the overall culture and values of Oregon
are at risk with the added casinos that Measure 82 will allow.
Changing the Oregon state constitution, with no clear eco-
nomic benefit to Oregonians, is not worth the possible nega-
tive effects to our citizens.
According to local experts more than 70,000 adult Oregonians
have problems with gambling. Our concern is that an increase
of private casinos will increase addictions to gambling,
alcohol and drugs.
Measure 82 will negatively impact the revenue generated by
tribal casinos traditionally used to support tribal communi-
ties, nearby rural areas, non -profits and charitable organiza-
tions throughout Oregon.
Small businesses near private casinos could stand to lose up to
46% of Video Lottery Terminal revenue on average. We believe
this loss would have a substantial impact on businesses.
If Measure 83 passes, the proposed private casino in
Multnomah County will negatively impact surrounding com-
munities who have a State vote, but not a local vote. Our con-
cerns are traffic congestion and the possible increase in crime.
Sustained funding for Oregon education shouldn't be depen-
dent upon our citizens' private casino gambling losses.
Citizen Statement in Support of the Measure
POSITION TAKEN BY 7 OF 24 PANELISTS
We, 7 members of the Citizens' Initiative Review, support
Ballot Measure 82 for the following reasons:
Measure 82 changes the Oregon constitution to allow the
people of Oregon to decide whether they want private
casinos and allows the local communities to vote for or
against the measure even if voters approve a casino in a
statewide election.
The current funding structure for K-12 schools in Oregon
is not sufficient. Private casinos may provide an additional
revenue source for education.
Private casino construction and operations will result in
additional well -paying jobs and property taxes for the local
community.
Research has shown the existence of a casino in a community
does not in and of itself increase gambling behavior and does
not cause the behavioral problems that many fear.
A casino is a new tourist attraction and may revitalize the sur-
rounding areas.
The casino must be developed in an incorporated city and
must be owned and operated by an Oregon tax -paying
corporation.
If measure 83 passes and the voters of Wood Village approve
the proposed casino, net revenue to State and local govern-
ments are estimated to be $32 million to $54 million annually
to be divided amongst:*
Public schools
Job creation
Oregon tribes
Problem gambling programs
Local and state police
City of Wood Village
Adjacent cities
Parks and natural resources
*Refer to section 3 of Ballot Measure 83
Argument in Favor
and property taxes to the tune of $19 million a year.
When you have a chance to help the economy and the middle New money for schools. New money for vital services. New
class, the right vote is "YES." money for local communities... when you vote "yes."
Labor signer from NW Oregon Labor Council, AFL-CIO
Like the entire nation, Oregon has been through a tough time
economically. Too many Oregonians are unemployed. Too
many face the loss of their homes through foreclosure. And
the things that middle class families depend on — schools,
public safety, and other vital services — have been hit just as
hard.
With Measures 82 & 83 we have a chance to help.
NW Oregon Labor Council, AFL-CIO represents thousands
of hard-working Oregonians. Our industry depends on the
economy around us. When jobs are created anywhere in
Oregon, our overall economy feels the benefit.
Measures 82 & 83 will create thousands of jobs — good
jobs with health care and other benefits. And those jobs
won't just be in Wood Village and Portland: the project's
"Oregon First" policy means new business opportunities
throughout the state.
But Measure 82 & 83 aren't just about jobs. Middle class
families and those struggling to get by have borne the brunt
of cuts to our schools and other vital services.
Voting "Yes" on these two Measures will make a real dif-
ference in every corner of Oregon. They will pump more
than $100 million a year directly into our schools and other
critical public services, all without using a penny of tax-
payer dollars or subsidies.
We need more projects like this, and Measures 82 & 83 are
a great start. When we have the opportunity to do so much
good for so many Oregonians, we should do it.
Please join the members of NW Oregon Labor Council,
AFL-CIO by voting YES on Measures 82 & 83.
(This information furnished by Bob Tackett, Northwest Oregon
Labor Council, AFL-CIO.)
Argument in Favor
Over $100 Million each year to support schools, job creation,
and natural resources
With your "yes" vote on Measures 82 & 83, a proposed $300
million entertainment and casino destination in Wood Village
will become a reality, and so will the benefits it creates for all
Oregonians.
Once built, the casino will dedicate 25 percent of gross
adjusted gaming revenue to support public schools, other
vital services, and local communities. No taxpayer money
will be used to build or run this casino.
25% of gross adjusted revenues = $102.8 million in new
revenue each year that you'll see in your communities.
Every year The Grange will pay an estimated:
$50 million to Public Schools
$19 million to Job Creation
$12 million to Parks and Natural Resources
$9.3 million to neighboring cities — Gresham, Troutdale,
Fairview
$4.1 million to host city Wood Village
$3.1 million to Local and State Police
$3.1 million to Oregon Tribes
$1.9 million to Gaming Addiction Programs
This investment in Oregon's future will be made without any
tax breaks or special deals. On top of the the revenue -sharing
with the state, The Grange will pay its fair share of corporate
YES ON MEASURES 82 & 83
GOOD FOR PUBLIC SERVICES
GOOD FOR OREGON
William E Reid
Johnson Reid, LLC
(This information furnished by William E Reid, Johnson Reid, LLC.)
Argument in Favor
A Parent's Perspective on Measures 82 and 83
I am a parent with a child in Oregon's public schools. I believe
in the public school system and want to continue to keep my
child enrolled. But I've watched as constant cutting and lack
of stable funding have deeply damaged our local schools.
Our kids and teachers deserve better. While it won't solve
the entire funding problem, the casino will contribute $100
million annually for schools and vital services throughout the
state. It's definitely a step in the right direction.
Stabilizing school funding means that money has to be
dedicated to every school district in the state, every year. We
must provide the school days, curriculum, programs, and
teachers to ensure that students in Oregon can compete in a
quickly changing world.
We can't allow one more day to be cut, one more program to
be abolished, or one more teacher to be laid off.
The casino will create jobs and income taxes that go to
schools. It pushes us toward economic recovery. And it won't
cost Oregon taxpayers a single dime.
Please consider the impact on the next generation of Oregon
workers and leaders. They are in the classrooms today and
they need our support. Please vote yes to bring these vital
resources back to Oregon's public schools.
Ross Day
Keizer
(This information furnished by Ross Day.)
Argument in Favor
Measures 82 and 83 Explained
Measure 82 is a constitutional measure that allows a tax-
paying casino to be built only if it is approved by a separate
statewide measure, and only if the local voters approve it,
too. This will ensure that Oregon voters are always in control
and will always get to vote on whether, when, and where any
privately -funded casino can be built.
Owned and operated by an Oregon company, the casino
cannot be located within 60 miles of an existing tribal casino.
In addition, 25 percent of the facility's adjusted gross gaming
revenue will go to the State of Oregon. The casino will cover
the cost of regulation by the Oregon State Police and the
Oregon Lottery at no cost to taxpayers.
Measure 83 allows for creation of a new entertainment des-
tination to be built on the site of the former Multnomah Kennel
Club in Wood Village, Oregon. It allocates the 25% of gross
adjusted revenue share to the State Lottery, to be distributed
as voters mandate to schools, job creation, parks and con-
servation, and problem gaming. Portions are also distributed
to Wood Village, Gresham, Troutdale, Fairview, Multnomah
County, Oregon tribes, and the Oregon State Police.
Development of the project will create thousands of new
jobs. The project will include a hotel, restaurant, public plaza,
farmer's market, casino, performing arts venue, and rooftop
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
dining with views of Mt. Hood.
For The Grange to happen, both Measures 82 and 83 must
pass, and the voters of Wood Village have the final say. The
voters decide: not the Legislature. In the end, any future tax-
paying casino proposal will require both a statewide vote and
a local community vote.
Learn more about the Measures at www.Yeson82and83.com
(This information furnished by Stacey Dycus, Yes on 82 and 83.)
Argument in Favor
Vote Yes on 82 & 83
These measures create an Oregon Solution to the recently
approved Cowlitz Casino 20 miles outside of Portland, in
Washington. Without a response, the Cowlitz Casino will
extract gaming dollars, jobs and investment from Oregon.
Oregon's resources will go to benefit Washington Tribes and
their east coast partners.
Tribal Casinos & Tax -Paying Casinos Can Co -exist
Other states in the country have both tax -paying casinos and
video lottery terminals in bars and restaurants— competing
with each other to make each other better and give the cus-
tomer a better experience and a choice. We should not limit
ourselves to just tribal casinos and video lottery terminals in
Oregon. The Grange is a very different project attracting a
different market.
The Tax -Paying Casino Protects Tribes
Measure 82 & 83 create a 60 mile competitive barrier, so that
a tax -paying casino must give all current tribal casinos room
to operate. These measures give millions of dollars yearly to
tribes in addition to all the other benefits they share and jobs
they create.
The Washington Casino without an Oregon Solution will be
Costly
Without a tax -paying casino response in Portland, the
Washington Casino will take jobs and hundreds of millions
for schools and other resources that could be invested in
Oregon.
Join me in voting YES on Measures 82 & 83 — they are good
for ALL Oregonians.
Joe Vricella
Member of the Grand Ronde Gaming Commission 2005-2008
Vice Chairmen 2007-2008
(This information furnished by Joe Vricella.)
Argument in Favor
As a resident of Wood Village, I'm extremely worried about
the lack of tax base for our city and schools. I'm also very con-
cerned about the economy both here in our town and across
the state. That's why I'm supporting Measures 82 & 83.
The past few years have been tough on my family and on this
community. Jobs are scarce in East Portland, and each year
our public schools have to make difficult choices with fewer
and fewer resources. Here in Wood Village we support The
Grange. We know it will bring us many desperately needed
jobs along with an overall economic boost.
It will be a place that our whole community can feel proud
of; I know my family will want to spend time there. The water
park, bowling alley, concert hall, shopping, and restaurants
will be places that everyone can enjoy. I can't wait to feed my
family fresh Oregon produce from the farmer's market and to
attend festivals and outdoor concerts at the community plaza
But do you know what I'm most excited about? Good wages,
health care, and other benefits for the people of East County
Not only that, but it puts money into every school district and
every county in the state, including ours. Wood Village and
Oregon schools have had a hard time for long enough. This is
an opportunity to start turning education funding around.
My community and my kids deserve this, and so do yours.
Vote yes with me on 82 & 83.
Gary Lee Moore, Jr
Wood Village
(This information furnished by Gary Lee Moore, Jr.)
Argument in Favor
One Hundred Million Dollars Every Year for Schools, Job
Creation, and Conservation
The Lottery and its Programs Benefit With "Yes" on
Measures 82 & 83
State economists have determined that passing Measures 82
& 83 will give more to the State Lottery: 25% of ad-
justed gross gaming revenue every year = approximately
$100 Million annually
OREGON IS PAID FIRST
The 25% of adjusted gross gaming revenue comes off the top.
The law requires that money goes first to the state, before
paying the investors or anyone else.
And it will benefit Oregon's economy:
For the State:
3,000 construction jobs and 2,000 jobs with
health care and benefits - plus funding for
schools, job creation, parks, and natural areas.
For Locals:
Revenue for community livability,
law enforcement,
and traffic improvements.
Improved property values.
• Measures 82 & 83 require the private casino develop-
ment to pay its fair share of taxes with no special tax
breaks.
• $100 million every year can help fund schools and vital
services across the state.
• Measures 82 & 83 require that The Grange casino be
owned by an Oregon company and pay all corporate,
property, transportation, and payroll taxes.
Oregon needs jobs and money for schools.
Passing Measures 82 & 83 can help.
(This information furnished by Stacey Dycus, Yes on 82 and 83.)
Argument in Favor
Vote Yes for jobs and our economy. Vote Yes on Measures 82
& 83.
In these tough economic times, Oregon needs projects that
will put people back to work. The proposed entertainment
and gaming facility in Wood Village will create 3,000 local
union construction jobs and once constructed, will provide
2,000 full-time jobs with benefits and health care. On top of
that, the development will embrace an Oregon First policyof
hiring Oregon workers, using Oregon services, showcasing
Oregon agriculture, and selling Oregon products.
We support Measures 82 & 83. Voting yes will create jobs
for our members that will last for two years or more. We
know this project is the right thing to do for Oregon, jobs and
money for education and vital services are a big deal.
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Please join our organizations and labor unions in voting yes
on82&83:
Oregon State Building and Construction Trades Council
IBEW #48
Sheet Metal Workers Local #16
Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Local #1 Oregon
Kevin Jensen -Business Manager Ironworkers Local 29
Laborers Local 320 Portland OR
Cement Masons Local 555
UA Local 290 Plumbers & Steamfitters
United Union of Roofers and Waterproofers Local 49
Liuna Local 296
(This information furnished by Alan Keser, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers #48.)
Argument in Favor
Vote Yes on Measure 82
As a panelist in the Citizen Initiative Review for Measure 82,1
participated in a 5-day process that allowed me to listen to all
of the arguments for and against the measure. I didn't know
very much about the Measure so I took the time to really
listen to both sides.
After hours of testimony, discussion, questioning and
thoughtful consideration, I recommended a "Yes" vote on
Measure 82. Here's why:
Measure 82 amends the Oregon Constitution to allow the
people of Oregon to decide if they want a taxpaying casino.
The local community gets a vote as well. Both must pass
before the project could go forward. This would happen every
time a casino is proposed.
Continued deep cuts to schools and other programs through-
out the state are unacceptable. But funding for schools in
Oregon is unstable and unreliable. This taxpaying casino will
provide much needed additional revenue education and other
vital services.
Construction and operations for this project will result in
thousands of well -paying jobs and property taxes for the East
Multnomah County.
It will also be a new tourist attraction that will revitalize the
surrounding areas.
It's my opinion that this casino will be a tremendous lift to the
City of Wood Village and to the entire state of Oregon.
Please vote yes on Measure 82.
Gregory L Barren
US Air Force, E-4 Senior Airman
US Army, E-5 Sergeant
(This information furnished by Gregory L Barren.)
Argument in Favor
Vote "Yes" for Oregon jobs. Vote "Yes" on Measures 82 & 83
Parts of Oregon are finally starting to emerge from the
recession. But some areas of the state are still looking for
that recovery. The Grange is an extraordinary opportunity to
bring badly needed jobs to East Multnomah County and give
Oregon a shot in the arm with revenue for schools and vital
services.
Measures 82 & 83 are an opportunity for Oregon.
The Grange's economic benefits are clear: 3,000 construction
jobs fortwo years while the development is being built, and
2,000 permanent jobs created to operate the facility once it
opens.
Rebuilding Oregon schools
In addition, The Grange will dedicate $100 million in annual
revenue to fund schools and other vital state services. With
schools laying off teachers and cutting school days, this is a
dedicated source of funding with no additional tax burden on
our already struggling fellow Oregonians.
Part of the community
A beautiful, $300 million LEED-certified project will be built with
Oregon materials and Oregon labor. The community will enjoy
an open plaza, performing arts space, and restaurants with
Oregon chefs and Oregon -sourced ingredients. The Grange will
be built and run with the values of our state in mind.
Please join me in voting "Yes" for a revitalized Oregon
Vote "Yes" on Measures 82 & 83.
Bob Shiprack
(This information furnished by Bob Shiprack.)
Argument in Favor
WANTED: OREGON'S BEST
It's not often that Oregon has the chance to secure $300
million in private investment into our state. But that's exactly
what Measures 82 and 83 will do.
Large private investments create jobs, generate revenue for
government, and build stronger communities, and that is
what The Grange and measures 82 and 83 are all about.
CONSIDER THE ECONOMIC FACTS:
• $300 million of new private investment in Oregon
• 3,000 jobs created for union construction of The Grange,
with a two-year payroll of $82 million
• 2,000 jobs created to run The Grange, with an annual
payroll of $70 million
• Nearly $20 million generated each year in new local,
state, and federal taxes
• $50 million in new revenues generated each year to
support Oregon schools
• No special tax breaks or insider deals from any politician
or government agency
JOIN OREGON'S BEST TODAY
As Oregonians who have been working to develop this
project for several years, we want Oregon workers and busi-
nesses to benefit first.
That's why we have adopted an "Oregon's First" policy —
seeking out Oregonians who can help build, operate and
supply The Grange. Learn more about the types of jobs that
will be needed at The Grange, and see the lists of suppliers and
vendors that will be needed at www.TheGrangeOregon.com.
At the end of the day, these measures are about finding an
innovative way to create good jobs and generate funding at a
time when Oregon needs it most.
Matt Rossman and Bruce Studer
Chief Co -Petitioners of Measures 82 & 83
THE GRANGE: FUN FOR YOU. GOOD FOR OREGON.
YES ON 82 AND 83
(This information furnished by Bruce Studer.)
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Argument in Opposition
Two years ago a big foreign -owned gambling conglomer-
ate asked us to amend our constitution to open the door to a
statewide expansion of gambling.
We said NO. Emphatically. It's Bad for Oregon.
Now they're back, trying to convince Oregonians to change
our minds. And these measures are even worse --rewriting
the constitution to allow for an unlimited number of privately
run casinos in communities across Oregon.
Bad for Our Communities
• Measures 82 and 83 are bad for Oregon, bad for our
economy and bad for our families, amending the consti-
tution just to benefit two rich executives and the foreign
corporations backing them.
• They ask voters to approve a Vegas -style mega -casino
in Wood Village just outside of Portland, within a mile
of elementary schools, parks and playgrounds, bringing
gambling and all the things that come with it closer to
our children.
• Measure 82 takes it even further. Instead of one Vegas -
style mega -casino in the heart of a family neighborhood,
it asks us to amend our constitution to allow an unlimited
number of privately run casinos in nearly every commu-
nity, fundamentally changing our culture and quality of
life here in Oregon.
Bad for Local Oregon businesses
• The backers of measures 82 and 83 make a lot of big
promises, but the truth is that these measures rig the
system to hurt small businesses and rural communities.
They include a loophole that allows them to skip paying
taxes on slot and video poker machines at their casino,
one restaurants and taverns must pay. That's not fair.
Bad for Law Enforcement
• Across our state law enforcement officials are already
overburdened. If these measures pass, law enforce-
ment in every county where a casino pops up will have
to deal with more crime, more alcohol and drug abuse
and more traffic problems as a result — with taxpayers
footing the bill.
Measures 82 and 83 are Still Bad for Oregon
Vote no on Measures 82 and 83.
www.StillaBadidea0regon.com
(This information furnished by Paige Richardson, Still A Bad
Idea Committee.)
Argument in Opposition
Local small business owners ask you to Vote NO on
Measure 82!
Passage of this ballot measure will take money away from
small retail businesses in Oregon.
Proponents argue that critics dislike commercial casinos
because they will take money away from the Oregon Lottery.
However, redirecting funds from the Oregon Lottery is not the
main issue. The real issue is about taking money from small
businesses across the state.
The casino ballot measures will not limit commercial casinos
to the old dog track in Wood Village. Instead, they open the
door to commercial casinos all across the state, depleting
discretionary spending in areas where the casinos are built.
Instead of spending money in local shops, bowling alleys,
movie theaters, restaurants, motels and on other recreational
uses, which boosts a diversified local economy, these casinos
will become the main hub for shopping and dining and will
reduce many local choices. Although proponents argue that
their ultimate goal is to raise state revenue, the measures
actually reallocate money from small businesses and the
local economy to casino operators.
Proponents also argue that commercial casinos generate
additional revenue for schools. However, the state currently
collects 75% of the revenues from video lottery, while this
casino measure would only contribute 25% of its gaming
dollars to the state. So, money spent at the casino generates
50% less revenue for the state than it would at local small
businesses.
The fact that the ballot measure would require commercial
casinos to contribute only 25% of its gaming dollars to the
state demonstrates the underlying purpose of the ballot
measure: to create the opportunity for many ambitious
entrepreneurs to open commercial casinos across the state.
In 2010 the casino measure was strongly defeated at the
polls. Why are we voting on this again?
Vote NO on Measure 82, AGAIN!
(This information furnished by Bill Perry, Oregon Restaurant &
Lodging Association.)
Argument in Opposition
Measures 82 and 83 will hurt Oregon Tribes
If these measures pass, the massive private casino owned by
an out-of-state gambling conglomerate, will seriously disrupt
the economic engine that supports the Grand Ronde and all
of Oregon's Indian tribes.
We have worked hard to become self-sufficient, and by sup-
porting our members we have also been able to lessen the
burden on local and state government.
It is not long since our rural reservation was a place of
sadness, suffering and unrelenting poverty, a place where
our adults had lost hope and our children had no future.
Now our people have jobs rather than relying on welfare.
The tribal casino, the jobs it provides, and the revenue it gen
erates, have brought our community back from the brink.
We are now able to provide basic health care for tribal
members AND members of the local community as well.
Our agreement with the state created that opportunity, but
we did not stop there.
Along with other tribes, we felt a responsibility to the people
of Oregon. Together we volunteered to pay the equivalent of
the corporate income tax— more than $100 million so far --
into a fund that supports charities across Oregon. And we are
also committed to buying local — 75% of our purchases come
from Oregon vendors, large and small.
That's part of our mutual promise with the people of Oregon
to work together for the benefit of all of us. That shared com-
mitment has been working well for years.
Please do not let outsiders and wealthy corporate interests
convince you to break that promise.
The future of Oregon's tribal members depends on it.
Please vote no on Measures 82 and 83.
Council Members, The Confederated Tribes of the
Grand Ronde Community of Oregon
Reyn Leno, Tribal Council Vice -Chair
Kathleen Torn, Tribal Council
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Chris Mercier, Tribal Council
Toby McClary, Tribal Council
Steve Bobb, Tribal Council
June Sell-Sherer, Tribal Council
Jack Giffen, Jr., Tribal Council
(This information furnished by Paige Richardson, Still A Bad
Idea Committee.)
Argument in Opposition
As parents we are acutely aware that the decisions we make
as a society today can have serious negative impacts on the
future of our children and grandchildren.
Like all parents, we want the best possible for our children
and grandchildren: good communities, safe neighborhoods,
a strong economy and a society based on strong community
values.
Measures 82 and 83 will open the door to a massive expan-
sion of gambling in nearly every Oregon community —
allowing mega -casinos in populated areas near schools and
playgrounds, increasing problem gambling and overwhelm-
ing local law enforcement --sending a terrible message to our
children about our Oregon values.
This is a bad idea for Oregon's children and communities.
A major casino and the problems that come with it --increased
drug use, drinking and crime -- have no place where our chil-
dren play. Opening one major Vegas -style casino outside of
Portland, as Measure 83 proposes, is a bad enough idea.
But even more concerning, Measure 82 would change the
Oregon constitution to allow big gambling corporations to
set their sights on communities across our state. By rewrit-
ing our constitution in this way, they open the door to turning
Oregon into the largest gambling destination in the West
outside of Las Vegas.
That might be good for them, but it is not good for us. We
already have enough gambling in Oregon.
Let's face it. Relying on privately run, Las Vegas -style casino
gambling to solve our state's economic problems is wrong
and sends the wrong message to our kids. If, as Oregonians,
our best idea to create a brighter economic future is to build
casinos and sell ourselves out to gambling, then we have given
up —on ourselves, on our communities and on our children.
We can do better. Vote NO on measures 82 and 83.
Chris Baker, Parent
Suzanne VanOrman, former Executive Director
Mid -Columbia Children's Council
(This information furnished by Paige Richardson, Still A Bad
Idea Committee.)
Argument in Opposition
I oppose the gambling interests that want to build a casino
that could reduce school funding, hurt Indian tribes, and
undermine families - and which offers a fake promise of
"economic development."
I have spent the last twelve years fighting the Oregon Lottery
because they overpay tavern owners that have video poker
machines, instead of giving a bigger percentage of lottery
revenue to schools.
Although the Lottery gives too much money to taverns, most
of its money does go to the schools. The casino, on the other
hand, would keep most of the money and give just a fraction
to schools. That means that for every gambler who switches
from the Lottery to the casino, the schools would lose.
The United States spent two hundred years abusing Indian
tribes. Casinos are one of the few ways the tribes can make
money. This private casino would compete with the tribal
casinos.
Casinos are not "economic development." Economic devel-
opment is Intel expanding its factory that makes chips that
they sell worldwide, bringing new money to Oregon.
A casino means Oregonians gambling away money they
would otherwise spend at restaurants, or on bicycles for
their children, or save for the children's education.
Please vote no on Measures 82 and 83
Steve Novick
(This information furnished by Steve Novick.)
Argument in Opposition
As a residents of Fairview Oregon, we are proud of our state
and proud of the neighborhoods, towns and cities that reflect
our character, unique culture and support local independent
businesses.
And we know that we need to do everything we can to
protect our quality of life and maintain the local culture that
makes Oregon such a great place to live.
What we don't need is big, new casinos plopped down in
nearly every community, bringing with them the increased
drug use, alcohol abuse and crime that come with gambling.
Especially in these tough economic times when our commu-
nity police and county sheriffs are already understaffed and
overburdened. We simply can't afford it.
Yet foreign -owned Clairvest, one of the companies bankroll-
ing the measures to expand gambling throughout Oregon,
has a history of creating projects that increase crime in the
neighborhoods where they open casinos.
A recent Clairvest casino project in Illinois, similar to the one
being proposed near Portland, saw 1,400 police and 200 fire
calls in one year to just that facility.
And Clairvest has repeatedly proved itself to be a distinctly
bad neighbor in other parts of the country. The foreign -
owned company has been linked to a bribery and influence
peddling scandal in New York, has a documented history
of labor disputes and sticking taxpayers with the tab to
upgrade safety in their casinos.
All evidence points to them repeating their track record of
focusing on major profits over what is best for the local com-
munity. Already, the backers of this initiative have written in
a loophole that allows them to skip paying taxes on slot and
video poker machines at their casino.
Say NO to Measures 82 and 83
Our state doesn't need major casinos that would damage our
way of life and irrevocably change the culture of Oregon's
neighborhoods.
Teresa Bright, Glenda Raulerson, Steve Prom
Neighbors, Fairview Oregon
(This information furnished by Paige Richardson, Still A Bad
Idea Committee.)
Argument in Opposition
As the former Chief of Police for the city of Gresham, Oregon,
I'd like to tell you some things about Measures 82 and 83.
The proposed casino location is in a heavily populated com-
munity, surrounded by neighborhoods, churches, schools,
playgrounds and parks.
The printing of these arguments does not constitute anon dorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
There are a dozen preschool, elementary and middle schools
within a two mile radius of the location of the proposed casino.
We already have significant traffic congestion and safety
issues in the area. We already have two major safety cor-
ridors because there are so many accidents on these roads
now. The proposed casino would bring thousands of addi-
tional car trips onto our neighborhood streets every day with
insufficient resources to handle what we have already, much
less the increase.
Let's talk about crime. It goes up around large gambling
facilities, especially when they are located in large popula-
tion centers. The proposed facility is located in the heart of
neighborhoods, business districts and our community.
Clairvest, the company that will own and operate the casino,
recently completed a similar project in Illinois. In the year
since that casino opened, there were 1,400 police and 200
fire calls just to that one facility. Wood Village, where the first
casino would be located, had only 300 reported crimes last
year and doesn't even have its own police force
Public safety in Multnomah County, or any community
across the state simply won't be able to keep up.
Yet, if these constitutional amendments pass, we will have
more casinos and law enforcement across Oregon will have
to deal with more crime, more alcohol and drug abuse and
more traffic problems.
Please Vote No on Measure 82 and 83
Carla Piluso, Gresham Police Chief, Retired
(This information furnished by Paige Richardson, Still A Bad
Idea Committee.)
Argument in Opposition
Oregon Governors —Republican and Democrat
Urge a "NO" Vote on Measures 82 and 83
Oregon is different —and proud of it. We've made a name for
ourselves as a place for creative ideas, innovation, and pro-
viding a quality of life that is envied across the country. Over
the years, Oregonians have voted time and again to preserve
what makes our state special.
In that tradition, we urge Oregonians to vote "no" on
Measures 82 and 83.
Measures 82 and 83 set a risky precedent and don't belong in
our constitution or our Oregon communities.
Amending our constitution to allow an unlimited number
of privately run casinos across Oregon will fundamentally
change our state —and not for the better.
These measures lock private casinos into our Oregon consti-
tution, and open the door to Las Vegas -style gaming across
our state.
If these measures pass the tidal wave of deep pocketed, out-
of-state private casino interests would be nearly impossible
to stop.
Private casinos will bring big gambling operations and their
related problems into many of Oregon's towns and cites,
damaging the quality of life so important to our communities
and families.
Measures 82 and 83 hurt our economy, especially in strug-
gling rural parts of the state, and small local businesses.
Over 75% of purchases for services and supplies at Tribal
casinos come from Oregon businesses. Oregon's voter
approved lottery returns 64% of its' revenues to Oregonians
through funding for schools, job creation, parks and water
shed restoration.
And Tribal casinos give backto Oregon —their community
funds have given over $100 million to Oregon communities
and local charities across the state.
In 2010 Oregon voters overwhelmingly voted no to a very
similar initiative. We believe that was a wise choice by
Oregonians. We urge you to say no again.
Please vote "no" on Measures 82 and 83
Governor Victor Atiyeh
Governor Barbara Roberts
Governor Ted Kulongoski
(This information furnished by Paige Richardson, Still A Bad
Idea Committee.)
Argument in Opposition
Oregon Tribes Give Back to Oregon
Keep Oregon's Promise to Indian Tribes
Vote "NO" on Measures 82 and 83
Like all of the tribes across Oregon, we are committed to
honoring our tribal traditions of sharing and giving back to
the community. From hiring local workers, creating living
wage jobs and buying supplies and services from Oregon
businesses.
Tribal casinos are keeping a promise to Oregonians to be
good neighbors and community members.
We see ourselves as part of the solution for our local com-
munities who are facing challenges. And that's why, twelve
years ago, we created the Spirit Mountain Community Fund
as way to give back even further by setting aside casino
profits to help charities across the street.
In the last 15 years alone, the Spirit Mountain Community
Fund has made donations of over $56 million to non -profits
and charities across Oregon who care for those most in need.
Here are just a few of the over 900 organizations we have
donated to:
Boys & Girls Clubs Oregon Food Bank
Habitat for Humanity Red Cross
Doernbecher Dove Lewis
Oregon Special Olympics OMSI
Spirit Mountain Community Fund takes great pride in giving
back to Oregon, and we have a proven record of doing just
that. Unfortunately, we don't believe the same can be said
for the big corporate backers of Measures 82-83 who have a
documented history of taking profits out of state and out of
the country.
Just as we have honored our promise to Oregon, we are
hopeful that the state will continue to honor its promise to
the Indian Tribes — a community partner with a history of
putting Oregon First.
Protect the Promise.
Vote "no" on Measures 82 and 83
Sho Dozono, Chairperson
Spirit Mountain Community Fund
(This information furnished by Paige Richardson, Still A Bad
Idea Committee.)
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Argument in Opposition
Bottom line: Measures 82 and 83 won't help our schools, and
it sends the wrong message to our kids.
As educators in Oregon public schools, we know how tough
things are right now for education funding. We see it daily.
We also know that authorizing a massive expansion of gam-
bling, and changing the state constitution to allow dozens of
casinos across Oregon -- is a terrible idea.
Yes, the foreign -owned gambling conglomerate pushing
these measures makes big promises about how their casino
will solve education funding. But that's all it is: a self-serving
promise from a company that has a rotten track record else-
where of promising big and not delivering.
We teach our kids that if something sounds too good to be
true, it probably is. The slick corporate spin coming from
this company — which got caught in a bribery and influence -
peddling scandal in New York when its executives promised
jobs and campaign contributions to legislators for approving
a casino — is simply not credible.
Most of the public revenue generated by this mega -casino
will actually be eaten up in increased law enforcement and
social costs, and from lost revenue to small businesses and
rural communities devastated by this change.
We must do better than this. We can find better, more sus-
tainable ways to pay for education and public services. Ways
that don't say to our kids that we are addicted to short cuts and
quick fixes to solve our problems as measures 82 and 83 do.
You don't need to be an educator to know that the foreign
company putting up millions to back this casino is not
interested in education, or in our kids. They don't care about
protecting our unique culture and quality of life.
All that really matters to them is separating us from our
money at their casino.
Don't believe the hype. Vote NO on 82 and 83.
Shannon Foxley, Educator, School Counselor
Dan Zelazek, Educator, School Counselor
(This information furnished by Paige Richardson, Still A Bad
Idea Committee.)
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Proposed by initiative petition to be voted on at the General Election, November 6, 2012.
Result of "Yes" Vote
"Yes" vote authorizes a single privately -owned casino in
Wood Village; requires casino to give percentage of monthly
revenue to State Lottery for specified purposes.
Result of "No" Vote
"No" vote maintains current state of the law, which does
not authorize any privately -owned casino within state; tribal
casinos authorized pursuant to gaming compacts.
Summary
Currently, Oregon Constitution prohibits privately -owned
casinos within state. Under measure, State Lottery shall
issue renewable 15-year lease permitting owner of former
Multnomah Kennel Club in Wood Village to operate gaming
devices, table games, keno, and other games of chance at
that site. Measure would become operative only if constitu-
tion is amended to permit privately -owned casinos within
state. Casino operator shall pay 25% of adjusted gross
revenues monthly to State Lottery. Lottery shall deposit
20% of adjusted gross revenues into Job Growth, Education
and Communities Fund (separate from general fund), and
80% in State Lottery Fund. Moneys in the Job Growth fund
are apportioned to the incorporated cities adjoining casino,
Indian tribes, law enforcement, and gambling treatment ser-
vices. Other provisions.
Estimate of Financial Impact
The financial impact of the measure is indeterminate. This
measure authorizes a single privately owned casino in
Multnomah County. The measure requires a minimum invest-
ment of $250 million in the casino property. The measure sets
limits on the number of slot machines and table games at
3,500 and 150, respectively.
If the casino is built, the following direct financial impacts on
state and local government will result (millions of dollars):
Low estimate High estimate
of impact of impact
25%Casino revenue
transferred to State
and local governments $83 $94
Reduction in State
Video Lottery earnings -$51 -$40
Net Revenue to State
and local governments $32 $54
The impacts listed above depend on initial assumptions,
including a $300 million investment in the casino property,
as well as 2,200 slot machines and 100 table games. To the
extent that actual investment and build differ significantly
from these assumptions, the impact to state and local
governments would also vary. Thus the overall impact of
this measure on state and local government revenue is
indeterminate.
Explanation of Estimate of Financial Impact
Currently, the Constitution prohibits legislative approval of
casinos in Oregon. The prohibition does not apply to tribal
casinos. Another initiative on this ballot seeks to repeal that
prohibition. If the constitutional prohibition on casinos is
repealed, passage of this measure would allow a casino to be
built and operated in Multnomah County. The casino could
only be built if voters in the city of Wood Village approve
siting of the facility within their city limits by a separate vote.
The casino would be licensed and regulated by the Oregon
Lottery Commission.
The measure requires the casino to pay 25 percent of its
gaming revenues, after prizes, to the State for specified state
and local government purposes. This transfer amount is esti-
mated to total between $83 million and $94 million per year
when the casino is fully operational.
If a casino is built as authorized by this measure, Oregon
video lottery revenues are projected to decline because some
of the money people currently spend playing video lottery
machines may be spent gaming at the new casino instead.
Revenues from video lottery games operated by the Oregon
State Lottery, after prizes, are projected to decline between
$61 million and $78 million per year. Because 65 percent of
these video lottery revenues are transferred to state and local
government, state and local government revenues are
projected to decline. The decline is projected to be between
$40 million and $51 million when the casino is fully
operational.
The measure specifies how the State's share of the casino's
gaming revenues would be allocated for public purposes:
80 percent to the State Lottery Fund and 20 percent to the
Oregon Job Growth, Education and Communities Fund. The
Oregon Job Growth, Education and Communities Fund is
distributed 75 percent to local governments, 15 percent to
tribal governments, and five percent each to the Oregon State
Police and to the Problem Gambling Treatment Fund. This is
different than the current allocation of lottery funds, which is
58 percent for education, four percent for local government,
and the remainder for other public purposes.
The proposed casino would have many indirect impacts
on state and local government revenues and expenditures,
many of which cannot be accurately predicted. New jobs
at the casino would generate income tax revenue, but tax
revenue would be lost as a result of the loss of video lottery
retailers in the area and the loss of jobs in entertainment and
other businesses affected by the shift in consumer spending
decisions. Property tax revenues in the area would increase.
Cost increases for public safety and infrastructure are offset
by casino revenues. Hotel tax and Mass Transit payroll taxes
would also be affected.
Considering all direct financial impacts that can be estimated,
if a casino is built as authorized by this measure, it would
generate between $32 million and $54 million per year for
public purposes.
Committee Members:
Secretary of State Kate Brown
State Treasurer Ted Wheeler
Michael Jordan, Director, Dept. of Administrative Services
James Bucholz, Director, Dept. of Revenue
Debra Guzman, Local Government Representative
(The estimate of financial impact and explanation was
provided by the above committee pursuant to ORS 250.127.)
Text of Measure
SECTION 1. Sections 1 to 15 of this 2012 Act and the
amendments to ORS 320.011, 409.435, 461.100, 461.110,
461.120, 461.150 and 461.190 by sections 16 to 22 of this 2012
Act shall be known as the Oregon Job Growth, Education
and Communities Fund Act.
SECTION 2. The Oregon Job Growth, Education and
Communities Fund is established separate and distinct
from the General Fund. Interest earned by the Oregon Job
Growth, Education and Communities Fund shall be credited
to the Oregon Job Growth, Education and Communities
Fund. The moneys in the Oregon Job Growth, Education
and Communities Fund are continuously appropriated to
the Oregon State Lottery Commission for the allocations
required by section 3 of this 2012 Act.
SECTION 3. (1) Not later than the tenth day of each month,
the gaming operator licensed under section 5 of this 2012
Act shall pay 25% of adjusted gross revenues from the pre-
ceding month to the Oregon State Lottery Commission for
the purposes of fostering job growth, educational achieve-
ment, vibrant local communities, protecting and improving
of the natural environment and supporting all federally
recognized Indian tribes in Oregon.
(2) The commission shall deposit:
(a) 80% of the adjusted gross revenues from the preceding
calendar month into the Oregon State Lottery Fund.
(b) 20% to the adjusted gross revenues from the preceding
calendar month into the Oregon Job Growth, Education and
Communities Fund, to be allocated as follows.
(A) 45%to the Oregon Department of Administrative
Services to be divided into equal payments to the incor-
porated cities that adjoin the city in which the destination
entertainment and casino complex described in section 5 of
this 2012 Act is located.
(B) 20% to the Oregon Department of Administrative
Services for payment to the incorporated city in which the
destination entertainment and casino complex described in
section 6 of this 2012 Act is located.
(C) 15% to the Oregon Department of Administrative
Services for payment to federally recognized Indian tribes
in Oregon, to be used for creating jobs, furthering economic
development, financing education and restoring and protect-
ing tribal lands and native fish and wildlife.
(D) 10%to the Oregon Department of Administrative
Services for payment to the county in which the destination
entertainment and casino complex described in section 6 of
this 2012 Act is located, to be used for law enforcement.
(E) 5% to the Department of State Police for deposit to the
State Police Account.
(F) 5% to the Oregon Health Authority for deposit to the
Problem Gambling Treatment Fund.
(3) The allocations from payments made under subsection
(2) of this section are in addition to and not in lieu of any
other payments.
(3) As used in this section, "adjusted gross revenue"
means the total of all cash and property, except nonredeem-
able credits, received from the games authorized by section
6 of this Act at the property identified in section 13 of this
2012 Act, less the amount of cash, cash equivalents, credits
and prizes paid to patrons of the games.
SECTION 4. (1) As used in sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and
14 of this 2012 Act, "gaming operator" means:
(a) The owner of the property identified in section 13 of
this 2012 Act, if the owner is the person operating the games
authorized by section 6 of this 2012 Act; or
(b) If the owner of the property identified in section 13 of
this 2012 Act is not the person operating the games autho-
rized by section 6 of this 2012 Act, the person that the owner
authorizes to operate the games.
(2) As used in this section and sections 6, 7 and 9 of this
2012 Act:
(a) "Gaming area" means the physical locations within the
destination entertainment and casino complex described
in section 5 of this 2012 Act where the games authorized by
section 6 of this 2012 Act are in operation or where transac-
tions related to the games occur.
(b) "Gaming employee" means:
(A) A person employed in the operation or maintenance of
the games authorized by section 6 of this 2012 Act;
(B) A person employed in a gaming area except for a
person engaged exclusively in preparing or serving food or
beverages;
(C) A person who manages an activity on the property
identified in section 13 of this 2012 Act that is conducted
while games authorized by section 6 of this 2012 Act are in
operation; and
(D) Any other person who, in the judgment of the Oregon
State Lottery Commission, is so regularly employed to work
in a gaming area that licensing the person is in the best
interests of the public.
SECTION 5. (1) The gaming operator must apply to the
Oregon State Lottery Commission, on a form prescribed by
the commission, for a license to operate the games autho-
rized under section 6 of this 2012 Act. The commission shall
issue a 15-year license to the gaming operator if:
(a) The commission determines that:
(A) The gaming operator:
(i) Is a taxable corporation incorporated under the laws of
this state; and
(ii) Will, during the term of the license, construct and
operate a destination entertainment and casino complex and
make an investment of at least $250 million in the develop-
ment of the destination entertainment and casino complex
on the property identified in section 13 of this 2012 Act.
(B) The individual who will manage the casino for the
gaming operator:
(i) Is of good moral character, honesty and integrity;
(ii) Has a good prior record, reputation, habits and
associations;
(iii) Has adequate business competence and experience in
gaming;
(iv) Does not pose a threat to the public interest of this
State or the effective regulation and control of gaming; and
(v) Is in all other respects qualified and found suitable,
consistent with the policy of the State as reflected by the
Oregon Job Growth, Education and Communities Fund Act;
and
(b) The gaming operator makes the payment required by
section 15 of this 2012 Act.
(2) If the voters of the incorporated city in which the
destination entertainment and casino complex is to be sited
have not approved the development of the casino on the
site as provided in section 4 (11), Article XV of the Oregon
Constitution at the time the commission issues the license
to the gaming operator, the commission shall condition the
operation of the games on the approval by the voters of the
incorporated city.
(3) The commission shall, at the expiration of a license and
upon application by the gaming operator, renew the license
for an additional 15 years if the gaming operator and the
individual who manages the casino for the gaming operator:
(a) Have the qualifications required by subsection (1)(a) of
this section; and
(b) Will, during the term of the renewed license, operate
the destination entertainment and casino complex on the
property identified in section 13 of this 2012 Act.
(4) The gaming operator must obtain all necessary build-
ing and land use permits for the destination entertainment
and casino complex described in subsections (1) and (3) of
this section.
(5) The commission shall:
(a) Grant or deny the license required by subsection (1) of
this section within 60 days of the commission's receipt of
the application for the license.
(b) Grant or deny the renewed license required by subsec-
tion (3) of this section within 60 days of the commission's
receipt of the application for the renewed license.
(6) If the commission denies or refuses to renew the
license required by subsections (1) or (3) of this section,
the commission shall serve written notice, in the manner
prescribed by ORS 183.415, on the gaming operator, direct-
ing the gaming operator to:
(a) Notify the Director of the Oregon State Lottery within
30 days of the service of the notice if the gaming operator
seeks a review of the proposed denial or refusal to renew the
license in the manner provided for contested case proceed-
ings in ORS 183.413 to 183.470; and
(b) Set forth in any notification under paragraph (a) of this
subsection the gaming operator's reasons why the license
should be granted or renewed.
(7) The gaming operator may obtain judicial review of the
commission's order under ORS 183.484.
SECTION 6. (1) The gaming operator licensed under sec-
tion 5 of this 2012 Act may operate on the property identified
in section 13 of this 2012 Act any:
(a) Up to 3,500 electronic gaming devices;
(b) Up to 150 table games or other games; and
(c) Keno.
(2) As used in this section:
(a) "Consideration" means:
(A) A token, coin, bill, ticket or other similar object or thing
of value; and
(B) Any other thing of value obtained through the use of
any electronic payment system except a credit card or debit
card.
(b) "Device" means:
(A) Any mechanical or electrical contrivance, terminal, or
machine, regardless of whether the contrivance, terminal,
or machine is capable of downloading games from a central
server system; and
(B) The associated equipment necessary to conduct the
operation of the contrivance, terminal, or machine.
(c) "Electronic gaming device" means a device that, upon
payment of consideration, whether by reason of skill or
the element of chance or both, may deliver to or entitle the
person playing or operating the device to receive:
(A) Cash;
(B) Bills, tickets, tokens or electronic credits to be
exchanged for cash;
(C) Merchandise; or
(D) Any other thing of value.
(4) An electronic gaming device may use spinning reels or
video displays, or both.
(5) An electronic gaming device shall:
(a) Theoretically pay out a mathematically demonstrable
percentage of all amounts wagered that is not less than 80
percent for each wager available for play on the device.
(b) Be certified by an independent entity as accurate and
functioning properly.
(6) Devices authorized under subsection (1) of this section
are specifically exempted from the provisions of 15 U.S.C. §
1172.
(7) The Oregon Job Growth, Education and Communities
Fund Act neither authorizes nor prohibits the gaming opera-
tor from offering games or activities that are lawful under
other state laws, including off -race -course mutuel wagering
under ORS 462.700 to 462.740.
(8) The gaming operator may not:
(a) Permit a person under 21 years of age to play the
games.
(b) Pay winnings from games to a person under 21 years of
age.
SECTION 7. (1) A gaming employee who works in a gaming
area must hold a license issued by the Oregon State Lottery
Commission.
(2) The commission may suspend, revoke or refuse to issue
to or to renew the license if the commission determines that
the applicant:
(a) Does not have a good record of compliance with the
gaming laws and rules of this state or of any other state;
(b) Has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpi-
tude or of any gambling or gambling -related offense;
(c) Has violated a rule adopted to implement the Oregon
Job Growth, Education and Communities Fund Act; or
(d) Should not, in the best interest of the safety, welfare,
health, peace and morals of the people of the state, be
permitted a license.
SECTION 8. (1) Not later than February of every year,
the Oregon State Lottery Commission shall submit to the
people, the Governor, and the Legislative Assembly a report
on the gambling activities carried out under the authority of
this Oregon Job Growth, Education and Communities Fund
Act in the preceding year and the disbursements from the
Oregon Job Growth, Education and Communities Fund in
the preceding year.
(2) The commission may require the gaming operator to
provide periodic reports on gaming activities, including
but not limited to all financial, business, management, and
operating records directly related to the gaming activity on
the property identified in section 13 of this 2012 Act.
(3) The commission shall obtain independent audits of:
(a) Financial records directly related to the gaming activity
on the property identified in section 13 of this 2012 Act; and
(b) Payments by the gaming operator to the Oregon State
Lottery for deposit into the fund.
(4) Subject to section 9 of this 2012 Act, the commission
may include a summary of the information obtained under
subsections (2) and (3) of this section in the report required
by subsection (1) of this section.
(d) "Other games" means any game of chance other than SECTION 9. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this
a table game authorized by law, including but not limited to, section, the Oregon State Lottery may not disclose a record
mixed -use platforms, networking and progressive gaming. to the extent that the record:
(e) "Table game" means any house -banked game played
with cards, dice, equipment or any device, including but not
limited to blackjack, twenty-one, poker, craps, roulette, or
any variations of these games approved by the Oregon State
Lottery Commission.
(a) Was provided by a confidential source or informant and
relates to the background of the gaming operator, a gaming
employee, an applicant for a license under section 7 of this
2012 Act or the owner of the property identified in section 13
of this 2012 Act.
(b) Relates to security measures of the Oregon State
Lottery, the gaming operator or the owner of the property
identified in section 13 of this 2012 Act.
(c) Consists of personal history forms or questionnaires,
disclosure forms, or financial statements and records of
the gaming operator, a gaming employee, an applicant for
a license under section 7 of this 2012 Act or the owner of
the. property identified in section 13 of this 2012 Act unless
the information in the forms, questionnaires, statements
or records is information required to be made public by the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or regulations adopted
pursuant to that Act.
(d) Relates to surveillance and security techniques, proce-
dures, or practices of the Oregon State Lottery, the gaming
operator or the owner of the property identified in section 13
of this 2012 Act.
(e) Relates to trade secrets or the design of experimental
gaming devices and equipment.
(f) Consists of proprietary architectural construction,
schematic or engineering plans, blueprints, specifications,
computer programs or software, or economic or financial
calculations that relate to authorized gaming activities on
the property identified in section 13 of this 2012 Act.
(g) Results from or is part of a background investigation of
the gaming operator, a gaming employee, an applicant for a
license under section 7 of this 2012 Act or the owner of the
property identified in section 13 of this 2012 Act.
(h) Relates to an investigation into a possible violation of
law or rule for which the Oregon State Lottery has not made
a final determination to seek civil or criminal penalties.
(2) The Oregon State Lottery may disclose records
described in subsection (1) of this section:
(a) To a law enforcement officer of the United States, this
state or of any political subdivision of this state; or
(b) With the consent of the person providing the informa-
tion in the record.
SECTION 10. (1) The Oregon State Lottery Commission
may adopt rules necessary to implement the Oregon Job
Growth, Education and Communities Fund Act.
(2) To achieve as much consistency as possible in the
regulation of gaming activities among the states that permit
gaming activities, when adopting rules to implement the
Oregon Job Growth, Education and Communities Fund Act,
the commission shall give primary consideration to adopting
rules that are consistent with the laws and rules adopted in
states that permit gaming.
SECTION 11. (1) In addition to any other liability or penalty
provided by law, the Oregon State Lottery Commission
may impose a civil penalty on the gaming operator licensed
under section 5 of this 2012 Act for:
(a) Violation of a term or condition of the license issued
under section 5 of this 2012 Act; or
(b) Violation of any provision of the Oregon Job Growth,
Education and Communities Fund Act or a rule of the com-
mission adopted to implement the Oregon Job Growth,
Education and Communities Fund Act.
(2) Before imposing a civil penalty, the commission shall
prescribe a reasonable time for elimination of a violation:
(a) Not to exceed 30 days after first notice of a violation; or
(b) In cases where the violation requires more than 30 days
to correct, the time that is specified in a plan of correction
found acceptable by the commission.
(3) A civil penalty imposed under this section may be
remitted or reduced upon the terms and conditions that the
commission considers proper and consistent with the public
health and safety.
(4) Any civil penalty under this section shall be imposed in
the manner provided in ORS 183.745.
(5)(a) After public hearing, the commission by rule shall
adopt a schedule establishing the civil penalties that may be
imposed under this section.
(b) In imposing a civil penalty pursuant to the schedule
adopted pursuant to this subsection, the commission shall
consider the following factors:
(A) The past history of the gaming operator incurring a
civil penalty in taking all feasible steps or procedures neces-
sary or appropriate to correct any violation.
(B) Prior violations by the gaming operator of statutes or
rules pertaining to gaming.
(C) The extent to which the violation poses an immediate
threat to the health, safety and well-being of the public.
(c) A civil penalty imposed under this section shall not
exceed $50,000 for each violation.
(6) All civil penalties recovered under this section shall be
paid into the State Treasury and credited to the General Fund.
(7)(a) If the commission determines that the imposition
of a civil penalty has been insufficient to cause the gaming
operator to remedy a violation, the commission may
suspend or revoke the license granted under section 6 of this
2012 Act.
(b) Prior to suspending or revoking the license, the com-
mission shall serve written notice in the manner prescribed
by ORS 183.415.
(c) The gaming operator shall have 20 days from the date
of receiving the notice to make written application for a
hearing before the commission.
(d) The hearing, if requested, shall be conducted as a
contested case hearing pursuant to ORS 183.413 to 183.470.
(e) Judicial review of an order made after a hearing under
this subsection shall be, at the election of the gaming opera-
tor, as review of an order in a contested case under ORS
183.482 or as review of an order in other than a contested
case under ORS 183.484.
SECTION 12. (1) ORS 167.117, 167.122, 167.127, 167.132,
167.137, 167.147, 167.162, 167.164, 167.166, 461.210, 461.215,
461.217, 461.400, 461.445, 461.535, 461.548, 461.725, and
464.250 do not apply to games and gaming authorized by
section 6 of this 2012 Act.
(2) The Oregon Job Growth, Education and Communities
Fund Act does not repeal or modify existing state or local
laws on gambling except that state or local laws that would
prohibit, deter or punish the games and gaming authorized
by section 6 of this 2012 Act do not apply to the games
authorized by section 6 of this 2012 Act.
(3) A local government as defined in ORS 174.116 may
not adopt or enforce an ordinance, rule or regulation that
limits the authority conferred by the Oregon Job Growth,
Education and Communities Fund Act.
(4) Payments by the gaming operator under sections 3
of this 2012 Act are excluded from Oregon taxable income
under ORS chapter 317 and 318.
SECTION 13. The games authorized by section 6 of
this 2012 Act may be offered only at the location of the
former greyhound racing site, historically known as the
Multnomah Kennel Club, located generally at 944 NE 223rd
Avenue, Wood Village, Oregon, 97060, and more specifically
described as follows:
A tract of land located in the Northeast and
Northwest one -quarters of Section 34 and the
Southeast and Southwest one -quarters of Section
27, in Township 1 North, Range 3 East of the
Willamette Meridian, in the City of Wood Village,
Multnomah County, Oregon, more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing at the Southwest corner of the
Addison C. Dunbar Donation Land Claim No. 41,
said point being at the center line intersection of
N.E. Glisan Street and N.E. 223rd Avenue; thence
North 00°09'30" West along the center line of N.E.
223rd Avenue, a distance of 868.27 feet; thence
East; a distance of 45.00 feet to a point on the East
right of way line of N.E. 223rd Avenue, 45.00 feet
from the center line thereof, measured perpendicu-
lar thereto, said point being the true point of begin-
ning of the tract herein described; thence North
00°09'30" West along said right of way line, a dis-
tance of 764.71 feet to a point on the South line of
Stanley Avenue (now vacated) as dedicated in the
plat of Wymore; thence South 89°51'24" East along
said South right of way line, a distance of 931.36
feet to a point that is at the intersection of said
right of way line and a line 121.00 feet East of the
West line of Tract 12 of the plat of Wymore; thence
North 00°08'07" East, parallel with the West line
of said tract, a distance of 360.00 feet to the center
line of Leroy Avenue (now vacated) as dedicated in
the plat of Wymore; thence North 89°51'24" West
along said center line, a distance of 6.00 feet to a
point that is at the intersection of the center line of
said avenue, and a line 115.00 feet East of the West
line of Tract 5 of the plat of Wymore; thence North
OW08'07" East, parallel with the West line of said
tract, a distance of 335.00 feet to the South right of
way line of Arata Road, 25.00 feet from the center
line thereof, measured perpendicular thereto;
thence South 89051'24" East, along said right of
way line, a distance of 527.08 feet; thence South
leaving said right of way line, a distance of 1214.83
feet; thence South 89°59'50" West, a distance of
459.07 feet; thence South 21°57'20" West, a dis-
tance of 110.34 feet; thence South 89°49'21" West, a
distance of 30.02 feet; thence South 00°00'19" East,
a distance of 138.79 feet; thence West, a distance of
921.64 feet to the point of beginning.
SECTION 14. The Oregon State Lottery Commission may
expend funds for the administration of the Oregon Job
Growth, Education and Communities Fund Act only from the
moneys provided by the gaming operator under sections 3
and 15 of this 2012 Act.
SECTION 15. (1)(a) Within 30 days after the effective date
of this 2012 Act, the Oregon State Lottery Commission shall
by order establish the monthly fee needed for the commis-
sion to administer the Oregon Job Growth, Education and
Communities Fund Act until the gaming operator makes the
payment required by section 3 of this 2012 Act.
(b) A gaming operator may obtain judicial review of the
order under ORS 183.484.
(2)(a) With an initial application for a license under section
5 (1) of this 2012 Act, a gaming operator shall pay into the
Oregon State Lottery Fund the monthly fee determined
under subsection (1) of this section.
(b) If the commission denies the application for a license,
the commission shall refund the payment made under
paragraph (a) of this subsection less the expenses the com-
mission incurred to process the application.
(3) A gaming operator that obtains a license under section
5 of this 2012 Act shall pay the monthly fee determined
under subsection (1) of this section every month until the
gaming operator makes the payment required by section 3 of
this 2012 Act.
SECTION 16. ORS 320.011 is amended to read:
320.011. (1) An excise tax is imposed upon every person for
the privilege of operating an amusement device within this
state. The tax shall be imposed as provided in subsection (2)
of this section and ORS 320.012.
(2) The tax shall be $125 for operating an amusement
device during the tax year.
(3) If an amusement device is not in operation in each
quarter of the tax year, the tax imposed under this section
shall be prorated, based on the number of calendar quarters
in which the amusement device was operating for one day or
more.
(4) The tax imposed by this section is in addition to all other
excises, taxes, fees or other charges and shall not be used
to reduce amounts otherwise accruing to the State Lottery
Fund under contracts or agreements with lottery operators or
retailers or in any other manner.
(5) The tax imposed by this section does not apply to the
operation of an electronic gaming device authorized by sec-
tion 6 of this 2012 Act.
SECTION 17. ORS 409.435 is amended to read:
409.435. (1) There is established in the State Treasury,
separate and distinct from the General Fund, the Problem
Gambling Treatment Fund. All moneys in the Problem
Gambling Treatment Fund are continuously appropriated to
the Oregon Health Authority to be expended for the preven-
tion and treatment of gambling addiction and other emotional
and behavioral problems related to gambling and for the
administration of the programs.
(2) The Problem Gambling Treatment Fund shall consist of:
(a) The net proceeds from the Oregon State Lottery
allocated to the fund under ORS 461.549;
(b) Moneys appropriated to the fund by the Legislative
Assembly;
(c) Moneys allocated from the Oregon Job Growth,
Education and Communities Fund under section 3 of this
2012 Act; and
[c](d) Interest earnings on moneys in the [fund] Problem
Gambling Treatment Fund.
SECTION 18. ORS 461.100 is amended to read:
461.100. (1) The Oregon State Lottery Commission is
hereby created in state government.
(2) (a) The Oregon State Lottery Commission shall consist
of five members appointed by the Governor and confirmed by
the Senate who shall serve at the pleasure of the Governor.
(b) The members shall be appointed for terms of four years.
(c) Vacancies shall be filled within 30 days by the Governor,
subject to confirmation by the Senate, for the unexpired por-
tion of the term in which they occur.
(3) At least one of the commissioners shall have a minimum
of five years' experience in law enforcement and at least one
of the commissioners shall be a certified public accountant.
No person shall be appointed as a lottery commissioner who
has been convicted of a felony or a gambling related offense.
No more than three members of the commission shall be
members of the same political party.
(4) The commission shall exercise all powers necessary to
effectuate the purpose of this chapter and the Oregon Job
Growth, Education and Communities Fund Act. In all deci-
sions, the commission shall take into account the particularly
sensitive nature of the lottery and the games authorized by
section 6 of this 2012 Act and shall act to promote and insure
integrity, security, honesty and fairness in the operation and
administration of the state lottery and the games authorized
by section 6 of this 2012 Act.
(5) Lottery commissioners shall be eligible for compensa-
tion and expenses under ORS 292.495.
(6) Lottery commissioners shall file a verified statement of
economic interest with the Oregon Government Standards
and Practices Commission and shall be subject to the provi-
sion of ORS chapter 244.
(7) The Governor shall select annually from the member-
ship of the commission a chairperson who serves at the
pleasure of the Governor. The chairperson or a majority of
the members of the commission then in office shall have the
power to call special meetings of the commission.
(8) Meetings of the commission shall be open and public
in accordance with state law. Records of the commission
shall be open arid available to the public in accordance with
state law. The commission shall meet with the Director of the
Oregon State Lottery not less than monthly to make recom-
mendations and set policy, to approve or reject reports of the
director, to adopt rules and to transact other business.
(9) A quorum of the commission shall consist of a majority
of the members of the commission then in office. All deci-
sions of the commission shall be made by a majority vote of
all of the commissioners then in office.
(10) The commission shall prepare quarterly and annual
reports of the operation of the state lottery. Such reports
shall include a full and complete statement of State lottery
revenues, prize disbursements, expenses, net revenues
and all other financial transactions involving state lottery
funds. The commission shall, not less than annually, contact
interested parties, including those named in ORS 461.180 (3),
arid provide them with such quarterly and annual reports as
they may request.
SECTION 19. ORS 461.110 is amended to read:
461.110. (1) Upon the request of the Oregon State Lottery
Commission orthe Director of the Oregon State Lottery, the
office of the Attorney General and the Oregon State Police
shall furnish to the director and to the Assistant Director for
Security such information as may tend to ensure security,
integrity, honesty and fairness in the operation and adminis-
tration of the Oregon State Lottery and the games authorized
by section 6 of this 2012 Act as the office of the Attorney
General and the Oregon State Police may have in their pos-
session, including, but not limited to, manual or computerized
information and data.
(2) In order to determine an applicant's suitability to enter
into a contract with or to be employed by the Oregon State
Lottery, each applicant identified in this subsection shall be
fingerprinted. The Assistant Director for security may submit
to the Department of State Police and to the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, for the purpose of verifying the identity of
the following persons and obtaining records of their arrests
and criminal convictions, fingerprints of:
(a) With respect to video game retailers, each person for
whom ORS 461.300 or an administrative rule of the Oregon
State Lottery Commission requires disclosure of the person's
name and address;
(b) With respect to lottery vendors and lottery contractors,
each person for whom ORS 461.410 or an administrative rule
of the Oregon State Lottery Commission requires disclosure
of the person's name and address;
(c) Applicants for employment with the Oregon State
Lottery; and
(d) With respect to other persons and entities that apply
for contracts or have contracts with the Oregon State Lottery,
each person for whom ORS 461.300 requires disclosure of
the person's name and address and for whom the assistant
Director for Security has prepared written reasons, approved
in writing by the director, for requiring the confirmation of the
person's identity and records.
(3) For the purpose of requesting and receiving the infor-
mation described in subsections (1) and (2) of this section,
the Oregon State Lottery Commission is a state agency and a
criminal justice agency and its enforcement agents are peace
officers pursuant to ORS 181.610 to 181.712 and rules adopted
thereunder.
(4) Enforcement agents, designated as such by the com-
mission, shall have the same authority with respect to service
and execution of warrants of arrest and search warrants as is
conferred upon peace officers of this state.
SECTION 20. ORS 461.120 is amended to read:
461.120. (1)(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, the
provisions of ORS 279.835 to 279.855 and ORS chapters
279A, 279B, 279C, 282 and 283 do not apply to the Oregon
State Lottery Commission unless otherwise provided by this
chapter.
(b) Officers and employees of the Oregon State Lottery
Commission are in the exempt service for purposes of ORS
chapter 240 and other related statutes.
(c) ORS 276.004(2), 276.021, 276.093 to 276.098, 276.410 to
276.426, 276.428, 276.440, 291.038, 291.201 to 291.260 and
292.210 to 292.250 do not apply to the Oregon State Lottery
Commission.
(d) ORS 293.075, 293.190, 293.205 to 293.225 and 293.275
do not apply to the Oregon State Lottery Commission.
(e) ORS 279A.100 and ORS chapters 659 and 659A apply to
the Oregon State Lottery Commission.
(f) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, the
provisions of ORS 282.210 shall apply to the Oregon State
Lottery Commission.
(2) The commission shall, in accordance with ORS chapter
183, adopt and enforce rules to carry out the provisions of
this chapter and the Oregon Job Growth, Education and
Communities Fund Act.
SECTION 21. ORS 461.150 is amended to read:
461.150. (1) The Governor shall appoint a Director of the
Oregon State Lottery, subject to confirmation by the Senate,
who shall serve at the pleasure of the Governor. The director
shall implement and operate a state lottery and administer
the Oregon Job Growth, Education and Communities Fund
Act pursuant to the rules, and under the guidance, of the
commission.
(2) The director shall be qualified by training and experi-
ence to direct the operations of a state -operated lottery and
to regulate the games authorized by section 6 of this 2012
Act. No person shall be appointed as lottery director who has
been convicted of a felony or any gambling related offense.
(3) The director shall receive such salary as may be set
by the commission with the approval of the Governor, and
shall be reimbursed for all expenses actually and necessarily
incurred in the performance of official duties. The director
shall render full-time service to the duties of office.
(4) The director shall, subject to the approval of the
commission, perform all duties, exercise all powers and
jurisdiction, assume and discharge all responsibilities and
carry out and effect the purposes of this chapter and the
Oregon Job Growth, Education and Communities Fund Act.
The director shall act as secretary and executive officer of
the commission. The director shall supervise and administer
the operation of the Oregon State Lottery in accordance with
this chapter, and the rules adopted by the commission. In all
decisions, the director shall take into account the particularly
sensitive nature of the state lottery and the games authorized
by section 6 of this 2012 Act, and shall act to promote and
insure integrity, security, honesty and fairness of the opera-
tion and the administration of the state lottery and the games
authorized by section 6 of this 2012 Act.
(5) The director shall recommend to the commission
the establishment of rules pertaining to the employment,
termination and compensation of all commission staff. The
rules shall conform to generally accepted personnel practices
based upon merit principles. Under the rules so established,
the director may set compensation, prescribe the duties and
supervise persons so hired. The director may terminate or
otherwise discipline persons so hired. No person shall be
employed by the state lottery who has been convicted of a
felony or any gambling related offense.
(6) If a lottery employee transfers to a state agency that
is subject to ORS chapter 240, the employee is entitled to
transfer accrued sick leave, adjusted if necessary to reflect
the accrual rate in use for management and unrepresented
employees under rules of the Personnel Division.
(7) Subject to approval of the commission, the director may
appoint, prescribe the duties of and terminate or
otherwise discipline no more than four assistant directors
as the director deems necessary. The compensation of each
assistant director shall be established by the director subject
to approval of the commission. The director shall supervise
the assistant directors.
(8) The director and each assistant director shall file a
verified statement of economic interest with the Oregon
Government Standards and Practices Commission and shall
be subject to the provisions of ORS chapter 244.
SECTION 22. ORS 461.190 is amended to read
461.190. (1) The Assistant Director for Security appointed
pursuant to the Constitution of the State of Oregon and this
chapter shall be responsible for a security division to assure
integrity, security, honesty and fairness in the operation and
administration of:
(a) The Oregon State Lottery, including but not limited
to, an examination of the background of all prospective
employees, lottery game retailers, lottery vendors and lottery
contractors.
(b) The games authorized by section 6 of this 2012 Act,
including but not limited to, an examination of the back-
ground of the gaming operator, the owner of the property
identified in section 13 of this 2012 Act and licensees and
applicants for licenses under section 7 of this 2012 Act.
(2) The Assistant Director for Security shall be qualified by
training and experience, including at least five years of law
enforcement experience, and knowledge and experience in
computer security, to fulfill these responsibilities.
(3) The Assistant Director for Security shall, in conjunction
with the Director of the Oregon State Lottery, confer with
the Attorney General or designee as the Assistant Director
of Security deems necessary and advisable to promote and
insure integrity, security, honesty and fairness of the opera-
tion and administration of the state lottery and the games
authorized by section 6 of this 2012 Act. The Assistant
Director for Security, in conjunction with the director, shall
report any alleged violation of law to the Attorney General
and any other appropriate law enforcement authority for
further investigation and action.
(4) As used in this section, "gaming operator" has the
meaning given that term in section 4 of this 2012 Act.
Note: Boldfaced type indicates new language; [brackets and
italic] type indicates deletions or comments.
Explanatory Statement
The Oregon Constitution currently prohibits the Legislative
Assembly from authorizing a casino to operate in this state
and for the provisions of this Ballot Measure that relate to
gambling to become operative, the Constitution also must
be amended. Ballot Measure 82 (IRR 36), also on this ballot,
would amend the Constitution to allow these provisions
to become operative. Ballot Measure 83 authorizes the
operation of a casino at the former Multnomah Kennel Club
located in Wood Village. Under this measure, the owner of
the former Multnomah Kennel Club property, or the person
that the owner authorizes to oversee the operation of the
games, must apply to the Oregon State Lottery Commission
for a license to operate the games. To qualify for a license,
the applicant must be a taxable corporation incorporated
in Oregon, invest at least $250 million in the development
of a destination entertainment and casino complex on the
former Multnomah Kennel Club property and meet certain
other criteria contained in Ballot Measure 82 (IRR 36). A
license is issued for 15 years and must be renewed for 15
years if the licensee continues to meet the qualifications for
licensure. The measure also requires licensing of persons
who are employed to operate or maintain the games, or who
are employed to perform certain other duties related to the
operation or maintenance of the games.
The owner of the former Multnomah Kennel Club prop-
erty, or the person that the owner authorizes to oversee the
operation of the casino, must make a monthly payment to the
Oregon State Lottery Commission. These monthly payments
must total 25 percent of the adjusted gross revenues received
from the games during the preceding month. The com-
mission must deposit 80 percent of each payment into the
Oregon State Lottery Fund and 20 percent into the Oregon
Job Growth, Education and Communities Fund, a dedicated
fund established by Ballot Measure 83.
Moneys deposited into the Oregon Job Growth, Education
and Communities Fund must be allocated to the Oregon
Department of Administrative Services for making payments
to Wood Village, Oregon and Multnomah County in which
the former Multnomah Kennel Club property is located, to
Fairview, Gresham, and Troutdale, Oregon that adjoin the
former Multnomah Kennel Club property and to federally
recognized Indian tribes located within Oregon's borders.
Moneys also must be allocated to the Department of State
Police for deposit in the State Police Account and the Oregon
Health Authority for deposit in the Problem Gambling
Treatment Fund.
Committee Members:
Appointed by:
Stacey Dycus
Chief Petitioners
Greg Peden
Chief Petitioners
Rob Greene
Secretary of State
Mike Weatherby
Secretary of State
Chip Lazenby
Members of the Committee
(This committee was appointed to provide an impartial
explanation of the ballot measure pursuant to ORS 251.215.)
Argument in Favor
Vote YES on Measures 82 and 83
Oregon Needs Jobs
Oregon is suffering from a stalled economy while we have
a construction industry eager and ready to work. A private
investment of $300 million without any taxpayer subsidies is
an opportunity to put thousands of Oregonians like myself
and my team back to work. It's an opportunity we cannot
afford to let pass us by.
Oregon Workers First
The passage of Measures 82 and 83 would approve a private
investment with no risk to taxpayers that will create 3,000
direct jobs during the construction phase — all Oregon jobs,
for Oregonians. And the materials and supplies to construct
the development will be from every corner of the state. From
concrete, to timber, stonework and plumbing, these two mea-
sures will inject $300 million into our economy and directly
benefit citizens who are ready and able to work.
Good for Oregon's Economy
The project will not only help our economy with jobs during
construction but also going forward, by creating 2,000 well -
paying jobs with health benefits to operate the destination,
plus millions of dollars each year to maintain the facilities.
Additionally, it will attract new money from across the river
and from tourists visiting from other states and other coun-
tries. That means millions more in tax revenues for Oregon
schools, economic development and other vital services,
without any new taxes on Oregonians or any risk to Oregon
taxpayers.
Good Family Fun
With outdoor parks for music, festivals, and markets; family -
friendly, locally -sourced restaurants; a water slide, bowling,
movies, and casino that pays taxes for schools — everyone
can find something to enjoy, from young kids to older adults
In a community outside of Portland that welcomes this new
destination and development, Measures 82 and 83 will open
the doors of opportunity for new jobs, new revenue for
our state, and a fun place to take the family for the day or
overnight.
Carl Boden
Boden Alexander, Portland
(This information furnished by Carl Boden, CEO, Boden
Alexander.)
Argument in Favor
OREGON'S CONSTRUCTION TRADES URGE YOU TO VOTE
"YES" ON MEASURES 82 & 83
As we struggle to emerge from the recession, few parts of
Oregon's economy have been harder hit than the construction
industry. There are 25,000 Oregonians in the building trades
alone, and over the last few years, unemployment for these
people has reached as high as 60%.
Measures 82 & 83 mean jobs, especially good union con-
struction jobs.
• Jobs Now— Building the casino will create more than
3,000 desperately needed jobs, now, when they are really
needed. These jobs go beyond our trades; they include
local architects, suppliers, and many others.
• Jobs for the Future — The casino will also provide 2,000
permanent jobs for its ongoing operation. These are
good jobs with health care and other benefits.
• Putting Oregon Jobs First— The project will have an
"Oregon First" policy of hiring local workers and Oregon
businesses, while purchasing supplies and materials
within the state whenever possible. That will help farm-
ers and businesses around Oregon.
A "Yes" vote on Measures 82 & 83 will create something
extraordinary for Oregon: a family destination that we
can all be proud of. We will be proud to build it, and you
will be proud to enjoy it. And it will give hope and work to
Oregonians who have really struggled during this economic
crisis.
Please join us in voting Yes for a better Oregon future.
Vote Yes on Measures 82 & 83
John Mohlis
Oregon State Building & Construction Trades Council
Columbia Pacific Building Trades
(This information furnished by John Mohlis, Oregon State
Building & Construction Trades Council.)
Argument in Favor
SAY YES TO MEASURES 82 AND 83
Dear Fellow Oregonian:
It's easy to lose track of where Wood Village ends and
Gresham, Troutdale and Fairview begin, but together they
make up East Multnomah County. Unless you live here, you
probably just pass through on the way to Portland, Mt. Hood,
and the Gorge.
Like the rest of Oregon, we've had our share of tough times,
with job losses and businesses closing.
For many years, the Multnomah Kennel Club in Wood Village
was home to dog racing. Generations of Oregonians fondly
remember the dog track — the racing, the betting, and the
fun. But the track closed in 2004, leaving a hole that created
economic hardships in our community. The entertainment
destination will change all that.
Part of the solution to overcoming tough times for East
County — and for the State of Oregon — is to approve
measures 82 and 83.
• They bring $300 million in private investment into our
communities and state
• They create thousands of jobs and generate millions for
schools and services
• They build an entertainment destination — a family and
community project that includes a hotel, local restau-
rants and pubs, a bowling alley — even a new public plaza
for events
Measures 82 and 83 don't raise taxes or risk taxpayer money.
The Casino is Good for East County and Oregon.
That's why I support Measures 82 and 83, and I urge you to
support them too.
When complete, The Grange will become a destination for
Oregonians and visitors alike. It will be built to the highest
design standards, consistent with Oregon values.
Even if you don't gamble or never plan to visit, please support
measures 82 and 83. Give East County the chance to respon-
sibly create its own future, while helping all of Oregon along
the way.
Sheila Ritz
Former Wood Village City Administrator 1987-2011.
(This information furnished by Sheila Ritz, Former Wood
Village City Administrator 1987-2011.)
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Argument in Favor
A Fun Place to Go ... If you Vote "Yes" on 82 & 83
As a central Oregon resident, I'm always looking for fun
things to do when I head out of town. Hiking and being out-
doors is great in nice weather, but we need more fun, family
things to do indoors too.
I'm voting "yes" on Measures 82 and 83 because I want to
go to the entertainment destination, for the local chefs and
Oregon -grown food, the nice hotel and rooftop bar with
views of Mount Hood.
Not everything should be in downtown Portland! Those of us
coming from the east side will find this a nice place to visit,
somewhere we can take our families and meet our friends.
And, what a benefit that we can fund schools with our fun!
I'm a big "Yes" for Measures 82 and 83.
Vote "Yes" and see you there!
Thanks!
Cliff Cook, Central Oregon
(This information furnished by Clifford L Cook.)
Argument in Favor
"Yes" on 82 & 83
Dear Voter,
I run a small business here in Wood Village. Since the closure
of the Multnomah Kennel Club in 2004, it's been much harder
for businesses in Wood Village to get by. As a business-
person, I'm very aware of the need for more economic activ-
ity in East Multnomah County. This development project is
committed to local sourcing of materials, supplies and labor.
It's a potential shot in the arm for my business.
"Yes" on 82 & 83 is a vote to support the new entertainment
destination in Wood Village. It will be home to an upscale,
smoke -free casino; restaurants featuring local chefs and
locally produced food and wine; a four -star hotel with a
family -friendly water playground; and an outdoor public plaza
open to the community for festivals and farmers markets.
Good for Oregon
The development's boost for the local economy is clear. But
equally important are its benefits to our public schools. Each
year, The Grange will generate $100 million in revenue to fund
schools and other vital state services. At a time when schools
are laying off teachers and cutting days out of the school
year, this represents a new, dedicated source of funding
without adding any additional tax burden onto our already
struggling businesses. The businesses we represent are just
as concerned about a healthy school system for educating
our workforce as they are about new economic development
opportunities. With The Grange, we get both.
The Grange: Good for Oregon businesses. Good for schools
(This information furnished by Dino Bertas, Picoberry LLC.)
Argument in Favor
Measures 82 and 83 by the Numbers
What Oregon jobs will the
entertainment destination create?
Oregon needs jobs. Measure 83 creates almost 10,000 jobs
for Oregon.
Building The Grange
Building the casino will take 18-24 months, and Oregon
workers will build it:
• 3,000 union construction jobs created
• 2,900 full-time jobs created via direct, indirect, and
induced economic activities from construction
Running The Grange
Good permanent jobs in more than a dozen professional
capacities will be created for operations
• 2,000 full-time jobs
• Average salary: $35,000 with health care and benefits
To learn more about the types of jobs that will be available,
and get on our list for more information, go to
www.TheGrangeOregon.com/jobs
Buying Oregon First
To keep money local, the casino will have a policy to use
Oregon companies first for supplying services and products
such as:
• Produce and food
• Construction materials
• Professional services
There will be 1,800 full time jobs created from indirect and
induced ripple effects of operations at casino.
Total new jobs created by completion of project: 9,900 full
time jobs.
If you are interested in learning how your company can do
business with The Grange, visit
www.TheGrangeOregon.com/Suppliers.
William E Reid
Johnson Reid, LLC
(This information furnished by William E Reid, Johnson Reid,
LLC.)
Argument in Favor
Law Enforcement Costs Covered by Measure 83
Few groups are witness to the impact of an economic down-
turn on a community like law enforcement.
Looking at the world through that lens, it's an easy decision
to support the privately funded $300 million entertainment
destination in Wood Village, featuring restaurants, a public
plaza, bowling alley, concert hall, and four -star hotel.
This project does two positive things from a public safety
perspective:
1. It puts thousands of people back to work by reviving the
centerpiece of a community, and
2. It injects millions of dollars of new funding into fighting
crime without raising taxes on you or any other Oregonian
Let's start with the benefit of new jobs. A healthy community
is made up of healthy individuals — people who make a
decent living, support their family, and become invested in
a thriving community. During the two years that it will take
to build, the construction project will bring steady work
to 3,000 Oregonians from the building trades — one of the
industries struggling the most to bounce back from the eco-
nomic downturn. And when it opens its doors, another 2,000
workers will have full-time jobs with health care and full ben-
efits. This development is a multi -million dollar investment
in the well -established link between a vibrant workforce and
lower crime rates.
In addition to the jobs created, state and local police will also
benefit from the revenue.
The Multnomah County Sheriff's Office will receive about
$2 million per year — that funding alone would replace the
$1.6 million cut from our budget this year.
And here's the exclamation point: that new revenue will help
prevent more cuts to our police force so they can stay on top
of criminals —without a single penny raised from taxpayers
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
and without a single tax break for developers.
From a public safety perspective, this is good for our work-
force, good for police — and good for Oregon.
(This information furnished by Stacey Dycus, Yes on 82 and 83.)
Argument in Favor
Investing in Oregon
Vote Yes on Measure 82 & 83
As one of the major investors for The Grange casino and
entertainment destination in Wood Village, and a proud
Canadian, I'm delighted to have the opportunity to be a part
of a project that invests in the people of Wood Village and
the citizens of Oregon. We look forward to joining the many
other out-of-state organizations who have chosen to invest in
the state.
Those who put their money into a development project hope
for a financial return. My company is no exception. We invest in
many jurisdictions outside of Canada and our history and track
record show our commitment to building great companies that
contribute to their communities through good jobs and giving
back. That is why we have our Oregon First program for jobs
and supplies to build and operate the business.
It's important to us to be a positive part of the community.
We've made sure that this project will have an area for a
farmer's market, a performing arts space and community
meeting rooms with access to the public. In addition, the
casino will give 25% of gross gaming revenue for schools and
vital services, including law enforcement and community
infrastructure. We believe in being good neighbors.
This entertainment destination will reinvent East Multnomah
County and the community of Wood Village. It's a bigger,
bolder, and more fun project than the previous gaming pro-
posal with a community plaza, locally sourced restaurants
and several entertainment options. We have engaged local
design and architectural firms to ensure we create a uniquely
Oregon development.
Please vote yes on Measures 82 and 83 to make this plan a
reality. For all of us.
Jeff Parr
PDX Entertainment Company
(This information furnished by Jeff Parr, PDX Entertainment
Company.)
Argument in Favor
I used to work at the Multnomah Kennel Club. It was the
number one tourist destination in the State and the social hub
of Wood Village for over 50 years.
On race days, people came from near and far to enjoy the
races and the atmosphere. The track was groomed, the lawn
was manicured, and the grounds were packed with excite-
ment. The track was not just an entertainment and gambling
facility: it was a source of employment, where many young
people had their first jobs and others worked until retirement.
The track was a great part of the community.
The dog races ended eight years ago and now we live as
caretakers, looking over what once was. Ever since then the
building has faded right along with the excitement. The park
has become overgrown, the building is falling apart, and the
facility has become a target for vandalism and crime.
Wood Village needs a project to revitalize the community and
bring back the excitement, the entertainment, and the jobs to
this historic location. The Grange will be a space for the com-
munity to gather and a destination for visitors once again.
The jobs created by the project, in the short term and long
term, are needed in Wood Village and East County, and the
revenue created by the casino is vital for all of Oregon during
these tough economic times. The development will encom-
pass the spirit of the Multnomah Kennel Club and carry on
the tradition of family -friendly entertainment in the void left
when the races ended.
Please vote yes on BOTH Measures 82 and 83 to help make
this a special place that Wood Village can be proud of once
more.
John Thomas
Caretaker, former Multnomah Kennel Club site
Wood Village
(This information furnished by John Thomas.)
Argument in Favor
Measures 82 & 83
An Opportunity for Oregon Local Businesses
With the approval of Measures 82 & 83, local Oregon com-
panies will benefit. While it may be outside of Portland, the
benefits will be evident from North to South and East to West
— from the jobs it creates to the new money it puts into our
state to fund schools and other services.
This opportunity is more than a casino — it's an entertain-
ment destination for the entire family done the right way, the
Oregon way. At a location once home to the premier tourist
attraction in the state —the Multnomah County Kennel Club
—this development reinvents a new kind of fun that creates
jobs, pays taxes, supports our state schools and other ser-
vices and gives families and visitors a place to go for a day
trip or overnight.
It's also a place that will represent Oregon, from the con-
struction supplies and the hands that put it together, to the
Oregon businesses that will provide products, from produce
to beef to our famous microbrews and internationally
renowned wines.
It has been too many years since a private investor last
brought an idea to Oregon, offered to pay for the project in
its entirety without a cent from taxpayers, and committed to
doing it the Oregon way with Oregon suppliers, vendors and
workers.
Oregonians should vote Yes for:
• Oregon Products and Goods
• Oregon Jobs
• Oregon Fun
Oregon needs these jobs. We need this opportunity. We need
new taxpaying companies that will generate additional money
for our schools and other public services. We need this new
opportunity. We need The Grange. Vote "Yes" on 82 and 83.
Barry Greenberg
Ocean Crystal Seafood
(This information furnished by Barry Greenberg, Ocean
Crystal Seafood - President.)
Argument in Favor
Benefiting East Multnomah County
I am the former Mayor of Gresham. Our city is adjacent to
Wood Village, where the proposed entertainment center will
be located. I ask you to vote "yes" on Measures 82 and 83.
East County has long been in an economic slump. This new
employer - a tax -paying company - will start our economy
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
moving forward again by injecting millions of new dollars
into our cities. Jobs created by this project will bring new
consumers to small businesses and stores in our communi-
ties, which will in turn need to hire new employees to keep up
with demand. The resulting economic boost will help revital-
ize our region —and all these benefits will occur without the
developers receiving a single tax break.
Since the economy took a nose dive, our cities, like cities all
over the state, have been forced to slash our budgets. We have
struggled to maintain adequate funding for vital services.
Wood Village will receive $4 million every year. Revenue will
be dedicated to supporting the surrounding communities,
including Gresham, Troutdale, and Fairview. That's $3 million
for each city.
Why now? This project in Wood Village will be a local
business, with local investors using Oregon products and
services. Once this project is underway, thousands of con-
struction jobs will be available. Upon completion, thousands
more jobs with health care and benefits will be here, in East
County, for our residents.
Charles Becker
Former Gresham Mayor
(This information furnished by Charles J. Becker.)
Argument in Favor
The more than 2,000 full time jobs will pay an average salary
of over $35,000 per year and will include health care and full
benefits.
Health care and good wages are extremely important to me
and my family because it means I can do more for my family
than just support their basic needs. At the end of the day, I
want my kids to have a future, they deserve to go to college.
Working at The Grange, will help me to afford to make that
dream a reality.
This project will also help prepare my children for college. Every
year The Grange will pay over $100 million in taxes, over $50
million of which goes directly to fund Oregon's public school
system. Revitalizing our schools is very important to me.
I am also looking forward to enjoying the development as a
destination for my family. I am not much of a gambler, but it
will be great to have a place where I can take my children for
some family friendly entertainment. I am excited to take them
to the bowling alley and I know that they will love the water
slides. Maybe I'll take them to their first concert at performing
arts venue.
Please join me in voting "yes" on Measures 82 and 83. It is
Fun for You, it is Good for Oregon, and it will benefit Oregon
families like mine.
Tim Lemke
Parent & Native Oregonian
(This information furnished by Timothy Lemke.)
Argument in Favor
WOOD VILLAGE MAYOR ASKS YOU
TO VOTE YES ON 82 & 83
As mayor of Wood Village, I ask you to vote Yes on Measures
82 & 83 to help make the entertainment destination happen.
The project would be at the site of what used to be the
Multnomah Kennel Club, an abandoned dog racing track with
easy access to 1-84. Years ago, the racetrack provided jobs
for east Multnomah County and entertainment for locals and
visitors. Now it sits empty and derelict, doing nothing for the
community or the state.
Our city will ensure that the project will be a community -
oriented entertainment center with a movie theater, water
park, shops, a performing arts venue, and a hotel, along
with a casino. It would provide fun family entertainment and
attract tourists to Oregon.
The casino will be a good neighbor in Wood Village and the
surrounding area. Funds dedicated from the project will go
directly to law enforcement and to our city for infrastructure
and other needs. This Measure provides resources for
Wood Village and our neighbors to cover any costs associated
with the facility. Learn more at www.TheGrangeOregon.com.
Thank you,
Patricia Smith
Mayor of Wood Village
(This information furnished by Patricia Smith.)
Argument in Favor
Sustainable like Oregon
In Oregon, we respect our environment. It's part of who we are.
This is development done the right way.
Reclaiming a derelict site.
Abandoned since 2004, the Multnomah Kennel Club buildings
and grounds are decaying. The site once attracted thousands
of families and visitors each year but is now a dangerous
eyesore. The Grange project promises to renew this already
developed parcel without extending urban sprawl or requir-
ing zoning changes.
Repurposing materials.
The Multnomah Kennel Club is a testament to Oregon
craftsmanship. Rather than toss away the glass, metalwork
and intricate wood structures of the dog park, the project will
reclaim these materials and feature them in the design of The
Grange.
Public transportation and traffic.
Transportation infrastructure is already in place in this part
of Wood Village. TriMet serves the area with both bus lines
and MAX options. In addition, revenue from the development
will go to TriMet along with funds for local municipalities for
infrastructure, sidewalks, and roadway improvements.
A LEER Certified Project.
The project developers are committed to creating an enter-
tainment center Oregonians can be proud of. They will be
strictly adhering to LEED Standards defined by the Green
Building Certifications Institute. Energy efficiency will be part
of every design element, sustainable materials will be reused
or sourced locally whenever possible, and smart water
reclamation, food composting and renewable energy will be
standard.
Money for Water, Parks, and Recreation.
Oregon rightly takes pride in having many high quality parks
and recreation areas. By law, about $12 million a year from
this project will go toward protecting clean water across the
state, restoring riparian areas and waterways, and maintain-
ing our state and city parks.
No Cascade Locks Casino.
Environmental organizations oppose a proposed casino in
the Columbia Gorge. The Grange project makes it much less
likely that the Cascade Locks project will happen, and thus
will help preserve Oregon's scenic Columbia Gorge and keep
it pristine for years to come.
(This information furnished by Stacey Dycus, Yes on 82 and 83.)
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Argument in Opposition
As parents we are acutely aware that the decisions we make
as a society today can have serious negative impacts on the
future of our children and grandchildren.
Like all parents, we want the best possible for our children
and grandchildren: good communities, safe neighborhoods,
a strong economy and a society based on strong community
values.
Measures 82 and 83 will open the door to a massive expan-
sion of gambling in nearly every Oregon community —
allowing mega -casinos in populated areas near schools and
playgrounds, increasing problem gambling and overwhelm-
ing local law enforcement --sending a terrible message to our
children about our Oregon values.
This is a bad idea for Oregon's children and communities.
A major casino and the problems that come with it --increased
drug use, drinking and crime -- have no place where our chil-
dren play. Opening one major Vegas -style casino outside of
Portland, as Measure 83 proposes, is a bad enough idea.
But even more concerning, Measure 82 would change the
Oregon constitution to allow big gambling corporations to
set their sights on communities across our state. By rewrit-
ing our constitution in this way, they open the door to turning
Oregon into the largest gambling destination in the West
outside of Las Vegas.
That might be good for them, but it is not good for us. We
already have enough gambling in Oregon.
Let's face it. Relying on privately run, Las Vegas -style casino
gambling to solve our state's economic problems is wrong
and sends the wrong message to our kids. If, as Oregonians,
our best idea to create a brighter economic future is to build
casinos and sell ourselves out to gambling, then we have given
up —on ourselves, on our communities and on our children.
We can do better. Vote NO on measures 82 and 83
Chris Baker, Parent
Suzanne VanOrman, former Executive Director
Mid -Columbia Children's Council
(This information furnished by Paige Richardson, Still A Bad
Idea Committee.)
Argument in Opposition
Oregon Governors —Republican and Democrat
Urge a "NO" Vote on Measures 82 and 83
Oregon is different —and proud of it. We've made a name for
ourselves as a place for creative ideas, innovation, and pro-
viding a quality of life that is envied across the country. Over
the years, Oregonians have voted time and again to preserve
what makes our state special.
In that tradition, we urge Oregonians to vote "no" on
Measures 82 and 83.
Measures 82 and 83 set a risky precedent and don't belong in
our constitution or our Oregon communities.
Amending our constitution to allow an unlimited number
of privately run casinos across Oregon will fundamentally
change our state —and not for the better.
These measures lock private casinos into our Oregon consti-
tution, and open the door to Las Vegas -style gaming across
our state.
If these measures pass the tidal wave of deep pocketed, out-
of-state private casino interests would be nearly impossible
to stop.
Private casinos will bring big gambling operations and their
related problems into many of Oregon's towns and cites,
damaging the quality of life so important to our communities
and families.
Measures 82 and 83 hurt our economy, especially in strug-
gling rural parts of the state, and small local businesses.
Over 75% of purchases for services and supplies at Tribal
casinos come from Oregon businesses. Oregon's voter
approved lottery returns 64% of its' revenues to Oregonians
through funding for schools, job creation, parks and water-
shed restoration.
And Tribal casinos give backto Oregon —their community
funds have given over $100 million to Oregon communities
and local charities across the state.
In 2010 Oregon voters overwhelmingly voted no to a very
similar initiative. We believe that was a wise choice by
Oregonians. We urge you to say no again.
Please vote "no" on Measures 82 and 83
Governor Victor Atiyeh
Governor Barbara Roberts
Governor Ted Kulongoski
(This information furnished by Paige Richardson, Still A Bad
Idea Committee.)
Argument in Opposition
Two years ago a big foreign -owned gambling conglomer-
ate asked us to amend our constitution to open the door to a
statewide expansion of gambling.
We said NO. Emphatically. It's Bad for Oregon
Now they're back, trying to convince Oregonians to change
our minds. And these measures are even worse --rewriting
the constitution to allow for an unlimited number of privately
run casinos in communities across Oregon.
Bad for Our Communities
• Measures 82 and 83 are bad for Oregon, bad for our
economy and bad for our families, amending the consti-
tution just to benefit two rich executives and the foreign
corporations backing them.
• They ask voters to approve a Vegas -style mega -casino
in Wood Village just outside of Portland, within a mile
of elementary schools, parks and playgrounds, bringing
gambling and all the things that come with it closer to
our children.
• Measure 82 takes it even further. Instead of one Vegas -
style mega -casino in the heart of a family neighborhood,
it asks us to amend our constitution to allow an unlimited
number of privately run casinos in nearly every commu-
nity, fundamentally changing our culture and quality of
life here in Oregon.
Bad for Local Oregon businesses
• The backers of measures 82 and 83 make a lot of big
promises, but the truth is that these measures rig the
system to hurt small businesses and rural communities.
They include a loophole that allows them to skip paying
taxes on slot and video poker machines at their casino,
one restaurants and taverns must pay. That's not fair.
Bad for Law Enforcement
• Across our state law enforcement officials are already
overburdened. If these measures pass, law enforce-
ment in every county where a casino pops up will have
to deal with more crime, more alcohol and drug abuse
and more traffic problems as a result — with taxpayers
footing the bill.
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Measures 82 and 83 are Still Bad for Oregon
Vote no on Measures 82 and 83.
www.StillaBadidea0regon.com
(This information furnished by Paige Richardson, Still A Bad
Idea Committee.)
Argument in Opposition
Oregon Tribes Give Back to Oregon
Keep Oregon's Promise to Indian Tribes
Vote "NO" on Measures 82 and 83
Like all of the tribes across Oregon, we are committed to
honoring our tribal traditions of sharing and giving back to
the community. From hiring local workers, creating living
wage jobs and buying supplies and services from Oregon
businesses.
Tribal casinos are keeping a promise to Oregonians to be
good neighbors and community members.
We see ourselves as part of the solution for our local com-
munities who are facing challenges. And that's why, twelve
years ago, we created the Spirit Mountain Community Fund
as way to give back even further by setting aside casino
profits to help charities across the street.
In the last 15 years alone, the Spirit Mountain Community
Fund has made donations of over $56 million to non -profits
and charities across Oregon who care for those most in need.
Here are just a few of the over 900 organizations we have
donated to:
Boys & Girls Clubs
Oregon Food Bank
Habitat for Humanity
Red Cross
Doernbecher
Dove Lewis
Oregon Special Olympics
OMSI
Spirit Mountain Community Fund takes great pride in giving
back to Oregon, and we have a proven record of doing just
that. Unfortunately, we don't believe the same can be said
for the big corporate backers of Measures 82-83 who have a
documented history of taking profits out of state and out of
the country.
Just as we have honored our promise to Oregon, we are
hopeful that the state will continue to honor its promise to
the Indian Tribes — a community partner with a history of
putting Oregon First.
Protect the Promise.
Vote "no" on Measures 82 and 83
Sho Dozono, Chairperson
Spirit Mountain Community Fund
(This information furnished by Paige Richardson, Still A Bad
Idea Committee.)
Argument in Opposition
Bottom line: Measures 82 and 83 won't help our schools, and
it sends the wrong message to our kids.
As educators in Oregon public schools, we know how tough
things are right now for education funding. We see it daily.
We also know that authorizing a massive expansion of gam-
bling, and changing the state constitution to allow dozens of
casinos across Oregon -- is a terrible idea.
Yes, the foreign -owned gambling conglomerate pushing
these measures makes big promises about how their casino
will solve education funding. But that's all it is: a self-serving
promise from a company that has a rotten track record else-
where of promising big and not delivering.
We teach our kids that if something sounds too good to be
true, it probably is. The slick corporate spin coming from
this company — which got caught in a bribery and influence -
peddling scandal in New York when its executives promised
jobs and campaign contributions to legislators for approving
a casino — is simply not credible.
Most of the public revenue generated by this mega -casino
will actually be eaten up in increased law enforcement and
social costs, and from lost revenue to small businesses and
rural communities devastated by this change.
We must do better than this. We can find better, more sus-
tainable ways to pay for education and public services. Ways
that don't say to our kids that we are addicted to short cuts and
quick fixes to solve our problems as measures 82 and 83 do.
You don't need to be an educator to know that the foreign
company putting up millions to back this casino is not
interested in education, or in our kids. They don't care about
protecting our unique culture and quality of life.
All that really matters to them is separating us from our
money at their casino.
Don't believe the hype. Vote NO on 82 and 83.
Shannon Foxley, Educator, School Counselor
Dan Zelazek, Educator, School Counselor
(This information furnished by Paige Richardson, Still A Bad
Idea Committee.)
Argument in Opposition
As the former Chief of Police for the city of Gresham, Oregon,
I'd like to tell you some things about Measures 82 and 83.
The proposed casino location is in a heavily populated com-
munity, surrounded by neighborhoods, churches, schools,
playgrounds and parks.
There are a dozen preschool, elementary and middle schools
within a two mile radius of the location of the proposed casino.
We already have significant traffic congestion and safety
issues in the area. We already have two major safety cor-
ridors because there are so many accidents on these roads
now. The proposed casino would bring thousands of addi-
tional car trips onto our neighborhood streets every day with
insufficient resources to handle what we have already, much
less the increase.
Let's talk about crime. It goes up around large gambling
facilities, especially when they are located in large popula-
tion centers. The proposed facility is located in the heart of
neighborhoods, business districts and our community.
Clairvest, the company that will own and operate the casino,
recently completed a similar project in Illinois. In the year
since that casino opened, there were 1,400 police and 200
fire calls just to that one facility. Wood Village, where the first
casino would be located, had only 300 reported crimes last
year and doesn't even have its own police force
Public safety in Multnomah County, or any community
across the state simply won't be able to keep up.
Yet, if these constitutional amendments pass, we will have
more casinos and law enforcement across Oregon will have
to deal with more crime, more alcohol and drug abuse and
more traffic problems.
Please Vote No on Measure 82 and 83
Carla Piluso, Gresham Police Chief, Retired
(This information furnished by Paige Richardson, Still A Bad
Idea Committee.)
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Argument in Opposition Along with other tribes, we felt a responsibility to the people
of Oregon. Together we volunteered to pay the equivalent of
As a residents of Fairview Oregon, we are proud of our state the corporate income tax — more than $100 million so far --
and proud of the neighborhoods, towns and cities that reflect into a fund that supports charities across Oregon. And we are
our character, unique culture and support local independent also committed to buying local —75% of our purchases come
businesses. from Oregon vendors, large and small.
And we know that we need to do everything we can to That's part of our mutual promise with the people of Oregon
protect our quality of life and maintain the local culture that to work together for the benefit of all of us. That shared com-
makes Oregon such a great place to live. mitment has been working well for years.
What we don't need is big, new casinos plopped down in
nearly every community, bringing with them the increased
drug use, alcohol abuse and crime that come with gambling.
Especially in these tough economic times when our commu-
nity police and county sheriffs are already understaffed and
overburdened. We simply can't afford it.
Yet foreign -owned Clairvest, one of the companies bankroll-
ing the measures to expand gambling throughout Oregon,
has a history of creating projects that increase crime in the
neighborhoods where they open casinos.
A recent Clairvest casino project in Illinois, similar to the one
being proposed near Portland, saw 1,400 police and 200 fire
calls in one year to just that facility.
And Clairvest has repeatedly proved itself to be a distinctly
bad neighbor in other parts of the country. The foreign -
owned company has been linked to a bribery and influence
peddling scandal in New York, has a documented history
of labor disputes and sticking taxpayers with the tab to
upgrade safety in their casinos.
All evidence points to them repeating their track record of
focusing on major profits over what is best for the local com
munity. Already, the backers of this initiative have written in
a loophole that allows them to skip paying taxes on slot and
video poker machines at their casino.
Say NO to Measures 82 and 83.
Our state doesn't need major casinos that would damage our
way of life and irrevocably change the culture of Oregon's
neighborhoods.
Teresa Bright, Glenda Raulerson, Steve Prom
Neighbors, Fairview Oregon
(This information furnished by Paige Richardson, Still A Bad
Idea Committee.)
Argument in Opposition
Measures 82 and 83 will hurt Oregon Tribes
If these measures pass, the massive private casino owned by
an out-of-state gambling conglomerate, will seriously disrupt
the economic engine that supports the Grand Ronde and all
of Oregon's Indian tribes.
We have worked hard to become self-sufficient, and by sup-
porting our members we have also been able to lessen the
burden on local and state government.
It is not long since our rural reservation was a place of
sadness, suffering and unrelenting poverty, a place where
our adults had lost hope and our children had no future.
Now our people have jobs rather than relying on welfare.
The tribal casino, the jobs it provides, and the revenue it gen-
erates, have brought our community back from the brink.
We are now able to provide basic health care for tribal
members AND members of the local community as well.
Our agreement with the state created that opportunity, but
we did not stop there.
Please do not let outsiders and wealthy corporate interests
convince you to break that promise.
The future of Oregon's tribal members depends on it.
Please vote no on Measures 82 and 83.
Council Members, The Confederated Tribes of the
Grand Ronde Community of Oregon
Reyn Leno, Tribal Council Vice -Chair
Kathleen Tom, Tribal Council
Chris Mercier, Tribal Council
Toby McClary, Tribal Council
Steve Bobb, Tribal Council
June Sell-Sherer, Tribal Council
Jack Giffen, Jr., Tribal Council
(This information furnished by Paige Richardson, Still A Bad
Idea Committee.)
Argument in Opposition
I oppose the gambling interests that want to build a casino
that could reduce school funding, hurt Indian tribes, and
undermine families - and which offers a fake promise of
"economic development."
I have spent the last twelve years fighting the Oregon Lottery
because they overpay tavern owners that have video poker
machines, instead of giving a bigger percentage of lottery
revenue to schools.
Although the Lottery gives too much money to taverns, most
of its money does go to the schools. The casino, on the other
hand, would keep most of the money and give just a fraction
to schools. That means that for every gambler who switches
from the Lottery to the casino, the schools would lose.
The United States spent two hundred years abusing Indian
tribes. Casinos are one of the few ways the tribes can make
money. This private casino would compete with the tribal
casinos.
Casinos are not "economic development." Economic devel
opment is Intel expanding its factory that makes chips that
they sell worldwide, bringing new money to Oregon.
A casino means Oregonians gambling away money they
would otherwise spend at restaurants, or on bicycles for
their children, or save for the children's education.
Please vote no on Measures 82 and 83
Steve Novick
(This information furnished by Steve Novick.)
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Proposed by initiative petition to be voted on at the General Election, November 6, 2012.
Result of "Yes" Vote
"Yes" vote phases out existing inheritance/estate taxes on
large estates, death -related property transfers, and taxes on
certain intra-family property transfers; reduces state revenue
Result of "No" Vote
"No" vote retains existing estate/inheritance taxes on estates
with value of at least $1 million; tax on all income -producing
intra-family property transfers.
Summary
Current state law imposes one-time tax on estate of person
dying on/after January 1, 2012, if estate's gross value —deter-
mined by federal law as of December 31, 2010—is at least
$1,000,000. Current law taxes income -producing property
sales, regardless of parties' relationship. Measure incre-
mentally phases out estate/inheritance tax, tax on property
transfers between "family members" (defined), and tax on
property transferred in connection with person's death;
prohibits imposition of such taxes on property of person
dying on/after January 1, 2016. Allows state to cooperate with
other states and federal government in administering those
entities' estate/inheritance taxes; permits fees on probate and
other transactions that may occur following person's death.
Measure reduces state revenues; provides no replacement.
Other provisions.
Estimate of Financial Impact
This measure phases out existing estate taxes, which will
reduce state revenue by approximately $17 million in fiscal
year 2013-14, approximately $43 million in 2014-15, and
approximately $72 million in 2015-16 as Oregon's existing
estate tax is phased out. Thereafter the measure will reduce
state revenue by approximately $120 million per year,
depending upon growth in estate values.
This measure also prohibits all taxes on transfers of property
between family members, and phases out existing taxes on
those transfers. The current amount of those transfers, and
the changes that might occur given elimination of taxes on
those transfers are unknown, therefore the impact of this part
of the measure is indeterminate.
Explanation of Estimate of Financial Impact
Upon the death of an Oregon resident whose assets are
greater than one million dollars, an estate tax is levied at a
rate ranging from 10%to 16%of the value of the deceased
person's assets that exceed $1 million. The estate tax does
not apply to property inherited by surviving spouses, and up
to $7.5 million in farm, forest or fishing property used in busi-
ness is also exempt. Approximately one thousand estates are
subject to the tax each year, with an average value of about
$3 million.
This measure will reduce the estate tax due by 25% for deaths
that occur in calendar year 2013, 50% in 2014, and 75% in
2015, after which the estate tax would be eliminated.
Current Oregon law also imposes a tax on any capital gain on
the sale or transfer of assets between individuals, including
from one family member to another family member. The
measure phases out taxes on the gains from transfers of
assets between family members and eliminates them entirely
as of January 1, 2016.
Committee Members:
Secretary of State Kate Brown
State Treasurer Ted Wheeler
Michael Jordan, Director, Dept. of Administrative Services
James Bucholz, Director, Dept. of Revenue
Debra Guzman, Local Government Representative
(The estimate of financial impact and explanation was
provided by the above committee pursuant to ORS 250.127.)
Text of Measure
The People enact the following statute:
Section 1. This Act shall be known as the Death Tax Phase -
Out Act.
Section 2. Except as provided in sections 3 and 6 of this 2012
Act, neither the State of Oregon nor any other unit of govern-
ment in Oregon shall impose a Death Tax.
Section 3. The Death Tax system in place at the time of
passage of this Act shall remain in place but shall be phased
out. The phase -out shall be based on the amount of tax col-
lectible as of the date of passage of this Act; the amount col-
lectible during the phase -out shall be a reduced percentage
of the tax amount collectible just before passage of this Act.
The reduced percentage shall apply as to the year in which a
person dies.
a. 75% of the prior tax shall be collectible as to a person
who dies in calendar year 2013.
b. 50% of the prior tax shall be collectible as to a person
who dies in calendar year 2014.
c. 25% of the prior tax shall be collectible as to a person
who dies in calendar year 2015.
d. 0% of the prior tax shall be collectible as to a person who
dies on or after January 1, 2016.
Section 4. A Death Tax is:
a. Any tax imposed on the estate of any decedent, or
b. Any inheritance tax, or
c. Any tax imposed on the transfer of property, or any inter-
est therein, to any person, where the transfer is a result of
the death of a person, or
d. Any tax imposed on the transfer of property, or any
interest therein, from one family member to another
family member, where the family relationship between the
transferor and the transferee is within the third degree of
consanguinity.
Section 5. For purposes of this Act, "property" includes, but
is not limited to, real property, personal property, and intan-
gible property.
Section 6. This Act does not prohibit the state from collect-
ing income taxes payable by an estate while the estate is
administered.
Section 7. This Act does not prohibit the state from cooperat-
ing in the processing and collection of Death Taxes imposed
by another state or territory of the United States as to a
person who, at the time of the person's death, may be subject
to Death Taxes in such other state or territory. This Act does
not prohibit the state from cooperating in the processing and
collection of Death Taxes imposed by the federal government.
Section 8. This Act does not prohibit the imposition of fees
as to transactions which may occur following the death of a
person, such as fees for processing death certificates or for
probate proceedings, provided that the fees do not exceed
the cost of the goods or services provided as a result of the
death of the person.
Section 9. This Act supersedes any Oregon law which
imposes any form of Death Tax. Any Death Tax due, under
any Oregon law in existence prior to the effective date of this
Act, as to a person who died before this Act became effective,
remains collectible under the terms of such preexisting law.
Section 10. This Act is effective January 1, 2013.
Explanatory Statement
Ballot Measure 84 incrementally reduces, and then elimi-
nates, estate tax or other taxes upon transfer of property at
a person's death or upon transfers of property among family
members. The measure first applies to estates of decedents
who die during calendar year 2013. For 2013 estates, the tax is
75 percent of the tax that would be due if the death occurred
just before passage of the measure. Under the measure, the
amount of tax is reduced by an additional 25 percent for each
subsequent year, with no tax on estates of people dying in
2016 or later.
Except for the amount allowed by the phase -out of any
existing estate or inheritance tax, the measure prohibits the
imposition, by the state or any other unit of government, of
any tax upon transfer of property at a person's death or upon
transfers of property among family members. The measure
does not prohibit fees and income taxes upon estates or
cooperation by this state with other states and the federal
government in the collection of estate and inheritance taxes.
Current Oregon law imposes an estate tax if a decedent's
taxable estate exceeds $1 million. It does not impose any tax
on the first $1 million in the taxable estate. The law allows
estates to take various additional deductions and exclusions
before tax is imposed. Current law also allows a credit, under
certain conditions, up to $7.5 million against estate taxes for
property that was used by the decedent in a farm, forestry
or fishing business. The rate of estate tax is graduated and
ranges from 10 percent of the Oregon taxable estate to a
marginal rate of 16 percent for Oregon taxable estates that
exceed $9.5 million.
Current Oregon law imposes a tax on certain transfers of
property from one family member to another family member.
The measure phases out such taxes and eliminates them
entirely as of January 1, 2016.
Ballot Measure 84 would take effect January 1, 2013
Committee Members:
Appointed by:
Kevin Mannix
Chief Petitioners
Tyler Smith
Chief Petitioners
Steve Robinson
Secretary of State
Jody Wiser
Secretary of State
Judge Bill Riggs
Members of the Committee
(This committee was appointed to provide an impartial
explanation of the ballot measure pursuant to ORS 251.215.)
Argument in Favor
Let me share a story with you, so you can understand why
I believe so strongly that it is important for Oregon voters
to end the Oregon Death Tax (estate tax) by voting Yes on
Measure 84.
We have a family -owned carpet business. Back in 1944, 1 was
a young man helping with the business. My two brothers
were serving in the Army and were taken as prisoners of war,
so I was the one person left to help out. My father died sud-
denly. I still remember how hard we had to work to try to save
the family carpet business because of the Death Tax which
we had to pay. The business barely survived.
Many years later, as a legislator, I heard a state revenue
officer talking about the amount of revenues which had
come from Death Taxes. At one point, he said the amount
of revenue depended upon "whether there was a fortuitous
death" in a given tax year. I still wonder whether that revenue
official recognized that people have been paying taxes all
their lives, and the Death Tax is a double tax. The death may
be fortuitous for the tax collector, but it could well be devas-
tating for a family.
Oregon Death Tax revenues constitute less than 1.5% of the
General Fund. Even in difficult economic times, such as these,
the General Fund grows at least 4% per biennium. Death Tax
revenues are not dedicated to any single purpose. Revenues
will continue to grow as we phase out the Death Tax and com-
pletely eliminate it by January 2016.
But, the main reason I support ending the Oregon Death Tax
is that it is an unfair tax which especially harms family -owned
business and farms.
Please join me in voting YES on Measure 84.
Vic Atiyeh
Oregon Governor 1979-1987
Honorary Chairman, YES on 84 Coalition
(This information furnished by Governor Vic Atiyeh.)
Argument in Favor
I am Robert Zielinski, Jr., one of the Chief Petitioners, who,
with 132,000 other Oregonians signed petitions to put
Measure 84 on the ballot as a citizen initiative.
We are a multi -generation farm family. My parents were
farmers. My wife, Pam, and I are farmers. Our kids are now
running the farm. We ask you to vote YES on Measure 84 to
help protect Oregon's legacy of family farms.
Measure 84 ends the Oregon Death Tax, officially called the
estate tax. This Death Tax cripples families and businesses
and farms. We pay taxes all our lives, and then the state
imposes a double tax when we die.
In order to pay the Death Tax, many family farmers are forced
to sell all or parts of their farms. Generally, farmland must be
sold in sizable chunks, not in small parcels.
All family farms give Oregon open space and a healthy food
supply here at home. Help protect this legacy, so we can
maintain that open space, but also so we do not have to rely
on other countries for our food. I urge you to join us in voting
YES on Measure 84.
Robert Zielinski, Jr.
(This information furnished by Robert Zielinski, Jr.)
Argument in Favor
AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE
FROM THE OREGON FARM BUREAU
VOTE YES ON MEASURE 84 and help protect our family farms.
Ask a farmer and they'll tell you how unfair the death tax is.
"Work hard all your life, pay your taxes and when you die
pay more taxes so that your family can keep -their farm they
already own," Is likely what you'll hear.
Land -rich and cash -poor isn't just a saving, it's the honest
truth about farming. The facts of the death tax are that when
you die, a good chunk of your farm will have to be sold off in
order to pay the tax!
It's true that Oregon does provide some tax plans that help
out farmers. But planning requires hiring an expensive team
of lawyers and accountants... something countless farm fami-
lies cannot afford to do. The death tax truly impacts those
who need the help most — those farmers or ranchers who
spend their time working the land.
THE OREGON FARM BUREAU SUPPORTS MEASURE 84
HERE IS WHY:
Sell the farm to pay the tax: Oregon family farms cannot
afford to pay the tax.
The Death Tax Impacts Small and Medium Sized Farms Most:
The farmers who pay Oregon's death tax are the ones who
cannot afford to pay for planning. If you cannot afford to pay
for planning, how can you afford to pay the death tax?
The Death Tax is a double tax: If you work you pay income
taxes. If you own property you pay property taxes. These
taxes pay for services we all use. Oregon's death tax doesn't
go to any specific service! And paying taxes to keep property
you've already paid taxes on is just wrong! It's a double tax!
Oregonians can take great pride in the number of family
farms in Oregon. But unless we continue to stand together
our farms and ranches are in jeopardy.
PLEASE JOIN WITH THE OREGON FARM BUREAU
VOTE YES ON BALLOT 84.
(This information furnished by Barry Bushue, President,
Oregon Farm Bureau Federation.)
Argument in Favor
Oregon Women for Agriculture
and Oregon Women in Timber Ask You to
Vote Yes on Measure 84 for Sustainability
For over 40 years, Oregon Women for Agriculture has been
educating the public about the importance of agriculture
and its effect on the economy, on the environment and on
Oregon's families. Oregon Women in Timber represent the
tradition of sustainable, family owned forests. A vote YES on
Measure 84 will secure this tradition to future generations.
Our mottos, "Almost Everything Starts On A Farm" and
"Managed Forests Are Forever", are the basis of our educa-
tion programs and overall mission to communicate the story
of today's natural resources. With these programs, we work
with our next generation of farmers, ranchers & foresters,
to maintain sustainable practices that will allow our sons
and daughters to continue our family farms and forests. The
Oregon Death Tax works against these future generations by
splitting apart the family farms and forests, reducing operat-
ing capital, and costing excessive and unnecessary amounts
of money to prepare for the death of a loved one.
Family farms & forests are typically multigenerational. The
current generation still strives to meet the founding genera-
tion's vision, to provide high quality food and fiber for
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Oregonians. This is met with sustainable practices, determi-
nation, limitless sweat equity and support of family.
Family farms and forests are torn apart by the Oregon Death
Tax, quality Oregon family businesses disappear, jobs disap-
pear, families are forced to move, and the list of negatives
goes on and on. Voting Yes on Measure 84 will allow family
farms and forests to span generations in Oregon, bringing
with them: family values, ethics, consistent quality in food
and fiber, and the "don't give up" attitude. We ask that
you Vote Yes on Measure 84 and support those who have
invested their lives in sustainable industries.
(This information furnished by Marie Bowers, Oregon Women
for Agriculture.)
Argument in Favor
Oregon's death tax hurts small businesses, family owned
businesses, farms and ranches. It also hurts Oregon's
economy by impeding the ability and motivation for busi-
nesses to risk and grow. And of course, if businesses don't
grow they can't employ Oregonians.
As a small business owner or family farmer, after paying
taxes your entire life, the government will take one last piece
of your estate in the form of a death tax. This is a double tax
since you've already paid taxes on the income you earned
and on your home, farm or businesses. You've paid all these
taxes and still you will need to pay more.
Imagine a small business owner, an individual who has
worked hard, built something and grew it to where he or she
could hire local people to work in the business. They've spent
a lifetime in the community, contributing to Little League
teams, non-profit organizations and other worthy causes.
After passing away, their family has to sell the business and
all the assets in it just to pay the estate or death tax.
The family is devastated. What was supposed to be a legacy;
a multi -generational family -owned part of the community,
now must be sold to pay taxes to the government even
though a lifetime of taxes have already been paid.
It doesn't have to be this way. In fact, eliminating the death tax
will help create jobs. Eliminating the death tax will encourage
new businesses to locate in Oregon and it's estimated over
the next five years may result in 30,000-44,000 new jobs.
Since less than 1.5% of the General Fund comes from the
current death tax and Measure 84 is structured to phase
out the tax gradually, over time the creation of new jobs will
generate replacement revenues. After five years, this should
completely replace the revenue previously gained from the
death tax.
Please vote Yes on Measure 84 to help create jobs and end
Oregon's death tax.
(This information furnished by John K. Miller, Salem Area
Chamber of Commerce.)
Argument in Favor
Vote YES on Measure 84. It makes good economic sense for
Oregon.
The estate tax is a Death Tax. The Death Tax is imposed on all
property a person owns when he or she dies. This includes
his or her home, furnishings, car, personal belongings, bank
accounts, retirement fund, life insurance, and all other assets
The state will impose a tax ranging from 10%to 16% of
market value of those assets referred to as your "estate."
The state allows a $1 million deduction before it imposes the
tax, but the legislature can change the deduction as long as
this tax exists. Measure 84 eliminates this tax as of January 1,
2016. Our goal is to establish fairness by eliminating this tax.
These are some of the organizations endorsing Measure 84:
Albany Area Chamber of Commerce, Janet Steele, President
Bend Chamber of Commerce
Hermiston Area Chamber of Commerce, Nate Rivera, President
Pacific City - Nestucca Valley Area Chamber of Commerce,
Doug Olson, Board Member
Roseburg Area Chamber of Commerce, Debbie Fromdahl,
President/CEO
Wilsonville Area Chamber of Commerce, Steve Gilmore, CEO
AG -PAC, Roger Beyer, Chairman
Associated Oregon Industries (AOQ
Associated Oregon Loggers, Jim Geisinger, Executive
Vice President
Cascade Foothills Grass Seed Growers Association,
John Beitel, President
Central Oregon Builders Association, Tim Knopp,
Executive Vice President
Oregon Cattleman's Association, Kay Teisl,
Executive Director
Oregon Farm Bureau, Shawn Cleave, Government Affairs
Specialist & Many County Farm Bureaus
Oregon Home Builders Association, Jon Chandler, CEO
Home Builders Association of Lane County, Ed McMahon,
Executive Vice President
Oregon Hop Growers Association
Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Association, Bill Perry,
Vice President of Government Affairs
TJ Reilly of Oregon Small Business Association
Oregon Association of Plumbing Heating Cooling Contractors
Paulette Pyle, Grassroots Director, Oregonians for Food
and Shelter
Dave Hunnicutt, Director, Oregonians In Action PAC
Taxpayers Association of Oregon, Jason Williams,
Executive Director
Find the full list on our website http://endoregondeathtax.com.
For fairness and for Oregon, please vote YES on Measure 84.
(This information furnished by Ryan J. Kuhlman, Yes on 84
Coalition.)
Argument in Favor
ASSOCIATED OREGON INDUSTRIES URGES YOU TO
VOTE YES ON MEASURE 84
ELIMINATING OREGON'S DEATH TAX
Associated Oregon Industries urges you to vote YES on
Measure 84 because it makes good economic sense for the
people of Oregon and the state of Oregon.
AOI supports the measure. Working Oregonians, particularly
in small business, farming and forestry, pay taxes their
whole lives while building their businesses and estates with
after-tax dollars. Oregon's estate tax is yet another tax bill - a
double tax on these hardworking families - that can disrupt
or break apart businesses by forcing them to liquidate por-
tions of the business or sell land lust to pay the tax.
Elimination of this tax will make Oregon more competitive
in the creation of jobs. Since 2001, 31 states have eliminated
their Death Taxes. As more states eliminate these taxes,
people who want to develop a family business find other
states more attractive. Even California no longer has a Death
Tax. Instead of investing in more jobs, family -owned busi-
nesses and farms are forced to set aside cash, so they can
afford to pay the government when a family member dies. An
economic study, published in February of this year, indicates
that elimination of this tax will lead to the creation of between
30,000 and 44,500 new jobs in Oregon.
Elimination of the Death tax is also good for the state of
Oregon, economically. The current Death Tax revenues are
less than 1.5% of the state General Fund revenues. According
to the same February 2012 economic study, the income tax
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
revenues from the creation of new jobs will offset any rev-
enues lost from the elimination of the Oregon Death Tax.
Measure 84 does not end the Death Tax overnight. The tax is
phased out over three years. This is a balanced approach to
allow the state budget to adjust.
AOI asks you to please vote YES on Measure 84 to help create
jobs in Oregon.
(This information furnished by JL Wilson, Associated Oregon
Industries.)
Argument in Favor
We own a hardware store in Forest Grove. We have worked
hard all our lives to build up a quality family business. We
own the building, as well as the inventory. In the hardware
business, the inventory is the critical element. We pay taxes
on all of this every year, so the Death Tax is truly a double tax
Under the Oregon estate tax (Death Tax) law, our family
will be taxed on the market value of all of our assets. This
includes the hardware business, itself, and the building and
land. We figure that they will have to sell a big chunk of the
hardware inventory just to pay the Death Tax, when we die.
That leaves them having to carry on the family business
without a full inventory. They have no choice, as they cannot
refuse to pay these taxes, and the tax must be paid in cash.
If you believe it is important to keep small businesses in our
communities and to help them survive, vote YES on Measure
84. Ending the Death Tax will help all family businesses
survive. Since family businesses provide most of the jobs in
Oregon, this will be an important boost to our economy.
Please vote YES on Measure 84.
Dave Easton
(This information furnished by Dave Easton.)
Argument in Favor
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESS/OR AND OREGON SMALL BUSINESS
COALITION TEAM TOGETHER TO VOTE
YES ON MEASURE 84
NFIB/OR supports eliminating the Oregon Death Tax. Since
many small businesses are family owned or closely held,
they must plan for the estate tax if they want to keep the
business operating after the death of the owner. Protecting
small business from the estate tax is important to keep Main
Street family businesses operating for future generations.
Therefore, NFIB/OR supports a vote of YES on Measure 84
With our united membership, Oregon Small Business
Coalition represents approximately 40,000 Oregon busi-
nesses. Oregon small business owners are struggling to
stay competitive and profitable while dealing with growing
government mandates, higher taxes, skyrocketing health care
costs and quantum increases in liability insurance premiums.
Oregon's Death Tax adds to these costs making Oregon even
more anti -business. OSBC encourages Oregonians to vote
YES on Measure 84.
The Oregon Death Tax forces family businesses to dedicate
operating capital to insurance, lawyers, and financial plan-
ners to keep the doors open after the owner dies. This money
could be used to create jobs, increase sales and services, and
offer raises and/or benefits to their employees. As well, many
family businesses do not hold the large quantities of cash
necessary to pay the Death Tax, before the 9 month deadline,
following the death of the owner.
A vote of YES on Measure 84 will show these small busi-
nesses that Oregonians appreciate the support they give to
our economy and our communities. NFIB/OR and OSBC ask
you to join them in returning that support to these family
businesses by voting YES on Measure 84.
(This information furnished by Jan Meekcoms, State Director,
National Federation of Independent Business/OR (NFIB/OR).)
Argument in Favor
Oregon's estate tax —more appropriately called a "death
tax" —is double taxation at its worst. Oregon, instead of
sharing its condolences, punishes families with a large tax bill
upon the devastating loss of a loved one.
Oregon's death tax confiscates up to 16% of estates larger
than $1 million, money that has already been subjected to
income taxes, property taxes, capital gain taxes and interest
taxes. The death tax hits our family farms and forests as well
as our family -owned businesses struggling in this weak eco-
nomic recovery. The vast majority of estates hit by the estate
tax have less than $1.5 million in assets -- illustrating that it is
families, not the wealthy or corporations, bearing the burden
of this tax.
The death tax in Oregon will raise less than 1.5% of Oregon's
state revenue in 2012 and the responsible phase -out of this
tax over three years will further spur Oregon's economic
growth. Family businesses will be able to expand and busi-
nesses can be passed from generation -to -generation without
Salem coming for its share of the wealth.
Thirty-one states have repealed their death taxes since 2001,
recognizing the huge burden placed on small, family -owned
businesses. Oregon is one of only three states west of the
Mississippi to still have such a tax.
Now it's time to protect the Oregon dream and for Oregon
citizens to send a strong message: End Oregon's Death Tax.
(This information furnished by Karla Kay Edwards, Americans
For Prosperity - Oregon.)
Argument in Favor
The Oregon Family Farm Association PAC urges you to vote
YES on Measure 84.
Our mission is to help Oregon farm families stay in business
and thrive. Whether it's the farmer wishing to open a farm
stand to sell fresh produce raised on the farm, or the rancher
struggling to understand and comply with a new land use
regulation that harms his business, the Oregon Family Farm
Association PAC works to ensure that Oregon's many farm
families have a powerful voice in Salem.
Death taxes strike a painful blow to farm families. Farmers
need land to farm. That land is accumulated over decades,
and farmed by successive generations of families.
As land is accumulated over time, the value of the farm
increases. But many times, the value of the farm is in the land,
not in the money generated by farming itself. You've heard
of the "land rich, cash poor" farmer? That describes many
Oregon farm families.
When the current owner of the family farm dies, and the
death tax bill becomes due, if there's not enough money to
pay the bill, part of the farm has to be sold. That means that
the business suffers for the next generation of the family, and
results in a decrease in the size of the business.
And when the death tax is paid, what's left of the farm is
passed down, and the next generation dies, the death tax is
charged again on the same land. And again, and again.
At a time when Oregon and the rest of the country needs
jobs, a policy that makes life more difficult for businesses to
thrive isn't wise. Maybe that's why in the last decade, nearly
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
every state that had a state death tax has repealed it, whether
liberal or conservative.
Please vote YES on Measure 84 to end this unfair Death Tax.
(This information furnished by David J. Hunnicutt, Oregon
Family Farm Association PAC.)
Argument in Opposition
Molalla Tree Farmer Says No to Measure 84
Measure 84 won't help family farms... it will cut the services
that help us thrive.
The proponents of this measure want you to believe that
this is about family farms, but in reality, family -owned farms
worth up to $7.5 million are already exempt from paying the
estate tax. Only a small fraction of the very largest farms will
benefit from this measure.
What Measure 84 will really do is give the very wealthy a big
tax break. We all need to pay our share and it's time we said
no to more tax breaks for the richest two percent.
I've operated my nursery for over 30 years, and I'm proud of
the business we've built here. Family -owned farms and small
businesses provide thousands of jobs and are the backbone
of Oregon's economy.
As a businessman and a proud member of my community, I
know firsthand what Oregon's small businesses and families
need in order to prosper. We need excellent schools, good
roads, fire and police protection, basic health services for
those in need, and a university system that supports the needs
of our farms and local industries. These are the very things that
make Oregon a great place to live and run a business.
Measure 84 would take us in the wrong direction. It will force
hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to our schools and the
other basic services essential to our communities and our
economy.
Please remember that while only the richest two percent of
households will get a tax break from eliminating the estate
tax, the rest of us will be forced to pick up the costs.
This life-long Oregonian and 30-year family farmer is voting a
big NO on Measure 84.
Jim Gilbert
Northwoods Nursery
Molalla, Oregon
(This information furnished by Jim Gilbert, Northwoods
Nursery.)
Argument in Opposition
Oregon Teachers
Urge a No Vote on Measure 84
The American Federation of Teachers -Oregon (AFT -Oregon),
representing over 15,000 members working in K-12 schools,
community colleges, higher education, and child care, urges
a NO vote on Measure 84.
Protecting the future of our students is about making impor-
tant decisions to fund critical services now. Measure 84
would give away at least $240 million in tax breaks for the
wealthy every two years —that's the equivalent of laying off
1,200 K-12 teachers and school professionals.
Don't sacrifice the future of our children in order to give yet
another big tax break to millionaires.
One issue that's especially important to us is reducing class
sizes. Compelling evidence shows that smaller classrooms
make students perform better. Unfortunately, Oregon's
class sizes are the third largest in the nation, well above the
national average. In order to meet the national average, we
would have had to hire 9,000 teachers in 2010. Instead, we
have cut 7,000 teaching and school employee positions.
As Oregonians, we need to show that we value our students by
providing the funding they need to be successful.
Measure 84 would take us in the wrong direction by slashing
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
school budgets even further just to give the richest 2% a big
tax break.
We can't afford to give our children less and cheat them out
of a chance for a better future. That is why we urge a NO vote
on Measure 84.
Voting NO on Measure 84 means we value our students'
education and are willing to invest in our future.
Help Protect Our Future.
(This information furnished by David Rives, American
Federation of Teachers -Oregon (AFT -Oregon).)
Argument in Opposition
Oregon Nurseryperson
Urges a No Vote on Measure 84
Measure 84 does not benefit small family farms.
Family -owned farms worth up to $7.5 million are already
exempt from paying the estate tax. This measure only ben-
efits a few very large farms and is really just a tax break for
millionaires and wealthy investors. And because this measure
will cost hundreds of millions in cuts every budget cycle, it
will hurt the schools and basic infrastructure that businesses
and families like ours depend on.
Vote NO to protect small businesses and critical public
services.
Measure 84 would force devastating cuts to the services we
all depend on, with slashes to K-12 school funding, public
safety systems, and support for local business development
When we have all been hit hard by the recession, and family
farms are struggling, can we really afford another tax break
that only benefits a few millionaires?
Protect family farms.
We at Whitman Farms are urging voters to support small
businesses and make a clear statement this election about
protecting our shared values and priorities. We need to
protect our local communities by stopping cuts to schools
health care, and services that ensure safe neighborhoods.
These are the very things small businesses need to thrive,
especially in a tough economy.
Vote to Protect Oregon's Priorities
Vote NO on Measure 84
Whitman Farms
Lucile Whitman — Owner
(Small Family Farm)
(This information furnished by Lucile Whitman, Whitman Farms.)
Argument in Opposition
Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon
Urges a NO Vote on Measure 84
As a voice for many in the faith community and a non-profit
provider of social services we urge a NO vote on Measure 84.
We believe it is fair and just to ask the wealthiest two percent
of estates to share in helping us protect the services, schools,
and public safety systems that benefit all Oregonians.
We all need to come together to ensure the health, safety
and opportunity of all Oregonians.
Measure 84 has serious consequences for the well-being of
our state; it would result in more than $120 million a year cut
from our health care services, our children's schools, and
community safety programs.
Faith -based charities and non-profit organizations alone
cannot meet the growing needs that exist in Oregon. But
Measure 84 would further impact critical public services that
provide hope and dignity to thousands of Oregonians.
Measure 84 shifts the tax burden onto the middle class and
increases inequality.
The biblical Jubilee Year was a way to ensure that society
was not characterized by an ever-increasing gap between the
rich and the poor that resulted from wealth accumulated end-
lessly over generations. Today, the estate tax serves a similar
purpose. Its elimination would increase inequality and shift
the tax burden onto the middle class.
Measure 84 could reduce charitable donations in Oregon at a
time of great need.
Currently, the estate tax provides strong incentives for indi-
viduals to donate from their estates to charitable organiza-
tions, since such donations sharply reduce estate tax liability.
Eliminate the tax and we eliminate the incentives and thus
reduce charitable bequests.
Vote NO on Measure 84 and help protect the most vulner-
able Oregonians.
At a time when the state is increasing class sizes, laying off
teachers, and cutting critical services, we cannot afford a tax
break that benefits so few, but affects so many.
Join with Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon
and Vote NO on Ballot Measure 84
(This information furnished by Kevin S. Finney, Ecumenical
Ministries of Oregon.)
Argument in Opposition
Oregon Educators Say:
Measure 84 Is A Tax Break For Millionaires
That Our Students Can't Afford
Vote NO on Measure 84
This measure creates big taxes breaks for the richest two
percent of estates, while requiring the rest of us to pick up
the bill.
The result of another tax break for millionaires would be a cost
to the State of more than $120 million each year; with poten-
tially hundreds of millions more in a new tax shelter for the rich.
Measure 84 would force additional cuts to Oregon's schools.
We have a clear decision to make about our shared priorities.
At a time when the state is increasing class sizes, laying off
teachers, and closing schools due to budget cuts, we cannot
afford another tax break for millionaires.
Here are some startling facts:
--Oregon has the third largest class sizes in the nation.
--We spend seven percent less on our classrooms than the
national average
--Since 2007, we've cut more than $500 million from the K-12
budget, while the amount we're losing in tax breaks and tax
loopholes has grown by $3.4 billion.
Since 2010, Oregon has lost 7,000 teachers and school
employees due to budget cuts.
It's time to get our priorities straight. Our schools are already
shouldering the brunt of funding shortfalls. Oregon's K-12
students can't afford to pick up the costs of another massive
tax break for the wealthy few.
Voting NO on Measure 84 will send a clear message about
protecting funding that pays directly for our schools and our
classrooms.
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Please join Oregon's Educators in Voting NO on Measure 84 Measure 84 is another tax break for millionaires.
(This information furnished by BethAnne Darby, Oregon
Education Association.)
Argument in Opposition
Vote No on Measure 84!
Measure 84 eliminates Oregon's estate tax and the
$100,000,000 (one hundred million) it raises. That revenue
equals one week of classes for Oregon's 540,000 K-12 students
This repeal effort is part of a multi -year nationwide effort
by America's anti -tax crowd to eliminate the estate tax com-
pletely. It has succeeded in about half of our states, including
California.
Eliminating the estate tax is part of a larger effort to unfund &
privatize "The Commons".
What's "The Commons"?
The Commons are the assets that we as a society hold "in
common". They are public assets that we all pay for and
benefit from, including public schools, libraries, museums,
courthouses, jails, roadways, waterways and water, airspace,
parks, public utility systems, police forces, firefighters and
emergency services. The Commons also includes more
ephemeral assets such as our systems of jurisprudence,
government & elections. Paying for such systems with public
dollars, not private dollars, makes them accessible by all
people, not just the rich and powerful.
Fiscal conservatives have long wanted to seize our public
assets and turn them over to corporations for private control.
One step in doing this is to reduce public funds available
to build and maintain The Commons; thus their on -going
emphasis on cutting taxes.
This fight is about control, not fairness.
Who pays Oregon's estate tax?
"Killing the death tax" is tricky business. People who will never
owe estate taxes have to be bamboozled into repealing it.
Oregon's estate tax is levied on estates worth more than
$1 million.
About 32,000 Oregonians die each year, but only about 730
will have an estate over $1 million. However all 32,000 will
have benefited from The Commons during their lifetimes,
even the wealthy. Funding cuts to The Commons hurt ALL
Oregonians. Examples: reduced library hours, a backlog of
court cases, fewer police & firefighters on the streets, dys-
functional schools.
Vote No on Measure 84
Alliance for Democracy, Portland
www.afd-pdx.org
www.taxfairnessoregon.com
(This information furnished by Joan Horton, CPA, Alliance for
Democracy, Portland.)
Argument in Opposition
Rural Organizing Project
Urges a No Vote on Measure 84
Join the Rural Organizing Project in Supporting Our
Communities
The effects of the recession and resulting budget cuts are felt
most in Oregon's rural communities. If Measure 84 is passed,
the wealthy will enjoy yet another tax break, while rural
Oregon communities will continue to struggle.
Let's be clear: This measure does nothing to help family
farms. Family -owned farms worth up to $7.5 million are
already largely exempt from the estate tax. It only benefits
farms worth over $7.5 million.
In fact, Measure 84 is really about giving a big tax break to
millionaires. Under this measure, the richest 2% would get a
tax break, and the other 98% would have to pick up the cost
through big cuts to schools, senior care, and public safety.
Eliminating Oregon's estate tax would cost our schools and
critical services more than $240 million every two years.
Schools in rural Oregon have been hit especially hard in the
last few years. Teachers have been laid off, class sizes have
grown, and schools have even been shut down. How are
Oregon's rural children supposed to be successful when we
are unwilling to support their future? That's why we urge a No
on Measure 84.
Saying No to Measure 84 is critical for rural Oregon families.
Saying No to Measure 84 is critical for our future.
Join us in standing up for our communities.
Join us in standing up for rural Oregon.
Join us in Voting No on Measure 84.
The Rural Organizing Project is a non -partisan, non-profit
organization made up of rural and small-town Oregonians.
ROP works to advance democracy in all of Oregon's 36 coun-
ties. ROP's mission is to "strengthen the skills, resources,
and vision of primary leadership in local autonomous human
dignity groups with the goal of keeping such groups a vibrant
source for a just democracy."
(This information furnished by Cara Shufelt, Rural Organizing
Project.)
Argument in Opposition
Second -Generation Family Farmer Opposes Measure 84
Thirty-four years ago, my family started building our vineyard
near Salem, literally from the ground up. My mother, father,
aunt and uncle put their backs into the work and their savings
on the line to start a new dream.
In the time since, Bethel Heights Vineyard has grown and
prospered, and now the second generation is taking over the
family business.
Here's what you need to know about Measure 84: It won't
do anything to benefit family farms. Family farms worth up
to $7.5 million are already exempt from the estate tax. The
average farm in Oregon is worth less than $900,000 (includ-
ing equipment) —which is far below the threshold.
Instead, what this measure is about is handing over
hundreds of millions of dollars in new tax breaks to the richest
two percent. There aren't a lot of family farmers in the
richest two percent.
Measure 84 only benefits estates worth more than
$1 million —not anybody else. But it will force deep cuts
to the services that all Oregonians care about: Our K-12
schools, in -home care for seniors, and public safety.
It could also result in funding cuts to university agriculture
extension services, and protections that keep our air and
water clean.
As a small business owner, I know that these are the basics
that allow us to have a stable customer base. And as a proud
Oregonian, I know that these are the things that make this
state great.
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Family businesses are part of Oregon's rich heritage. This
measure will do nothing to help the state's small businesses
and farms, but will cut the services we need just to give a tax
breakto millionaires.
That's just not right.
We need to invest in what matters. Measure 84 will take us in
the wrong direction.
Mimi Dudley Casteel,
Bethel Heights Vineyard
Salem, Oregon
(This information furnished by Mimi Dudley Casteel, Bethel
Heights Vineyard.)
Argument in Opposition
Protect Our Schools
Protect Our Communities
Protect Our Future
Hazelnut Farmer and Former Educator Says NO to Measure 84
I run a hazelnut farm near Beavercreek, and I have spent 30
years as an educator. As both a farmer and a former teacher, I
know that what our state needs most of all right now is to invest
in what matters most: Our schools, our kids, and our future.
Measure 84 would cut hundreds of millions of dollars —as
much as $500 million per year —from our K-12 schools, univer-
sities, in -home care for seniors, public safety, and other basic
priorities. That would mean even larger class sizes, higher
tuition costs for college students, and cuts to services that
our seniors need to stay healthy and independent.
In return for these painful cuts, Measure 84 would give a
massive tax break to the richest 2%. This measure only ben-
efits millionaires, while the rest of us will be forced to pick up
the tab.
You should know: Measure 84 does nothing to help family
farms. Family -owned farms already get an exemption from
the estate tax on up to $7.5 million of their value. That means
that Measure 84 only benefits farms worth more than
$7.5 million —those are very, very large farms.
In reality, this measure is about giving away a tax break to
millionaires so they can avoid paving taxes on their accumu-
lations of wealth.
Measure 84 takes Oregon in the wrong direction. We need to
invest in our schools so that our kids and our state are ready
to take on the challenges of the new economy.
I'm voting No on Measure 84, and I hope you will too.
Rex Hagans
Hazelnut Farmer
Canby, Oregon
(This information furnished by Rex Hagans, Hazelnut Farmer.)
Argument in Opposition
Protect Quality Care in Oregon
Vote No on Measure 84
Join the Elders in Action Commission in voting No on
Measure 84
Measure 84 would cut the services we all need the most.
Measure 84 is a massive tax break that only benefits estates
worth more than $1 million, but would force painful cuts to our
senior care services, our schools, and other critical services.
For some elders and their caregivers, these cuts could mean
the loss of assisted living programs, medication and housing
affordability programs, and other vital services that allow our
seniors to maintain their dignity and choice in their homes
and communities.
Measure 84 would give a big tax break to the wealthy few,
and the costs would be picked up by seniors, people with dis-
abilities, and families struggling to make ends meet.
Who benefits from Measure 84?
- Estates worth more than $1 million -the richest two
percent.
Who will be negatively affected by Measure 847
Seniors and people with disabilities will be hit hard by
massive cuts to the critical services they rely on
Middle-class families will shoulder the burden of millions
in cuts to Oregon's critical services that keep our com-
munities healthy and safe
Our kids will suffer from more cuts to school fund-
ing, with continued reduction in pay for teachers and
programs
A tax break for millionaires. The rest of us pay the cost
The implications for Oregon's future are clear: by cutting
services that keep our seniors active participants in the
economy, the quality of life for Oregon's elders will decline
and their spending power within the state will diminish.
Let's make sure Oregon's elders, families and communities
have the care and services they need and deserve. Vote No
on Measure 84.
(This information furnished by Steve Weiss, Chair, Elders in
Action Commission.)
Argument in Opposition
Vote No on Measure 84.
We are already cutting schools, health care and public safety
across the state, and instead of dealing with those problems
this measure would add to them by giving the richest 2 percent
of Oregonians a huge tax break. Then the rest of us in the
98 percent will have to pick up the tab for those that would
inherit millions of dollars. Only estates over $1 million would
be affected. We can't afford tax giveaways to millionaires.
The members of the American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employees (Oregon AFSCME Council 75) work
hard in the public service. We are drug treatment counselors,
corrections officers and other state and local government
workers. We stand united opposing this measure. Why
should we give huge tax breaks to millionaires when we are
barely able to fund basic services?
Pleased don't be fooled by advertising — this measure isn't
protecting the family farm. We already have protections for
family farms in Oregon law. The proponents of this measure
are hiding behind farmers to give tax breaks to millionaires.
Don't let them.
Oregon's tax laws are already full of tax breaks for corporations
and the rich — we don't need any more. This won't protect
family farms and it has other hidden consequences. The propo-
nents don't mention it, but Measure 84 also contains a loophole
that allows millionaires to avoid taxes by moving money to
distant relatives. Can Oregon afford giving millionaires even
more tax breaks while middle class people are struggling?
We need to keep Oregon as fair as possible and not give
those with the most even more.
Please Vote NO on Measure 84.
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
(This information furnished by Don Loving, Oregon AFSCME
Council 75.)
Argument in Opposition
Oregon's Nurses Urge a
NO Vote on Measure 84
Protect health care coverage for Oregon families.
By eliminating estate taxes for millionaire estates, Measure
84 will cost our state more than $240 million every two years,
forcing additional budget cuts to health care, education, and
public safety. It will also cost these basic services millions
more by creating a new loophole that will allow wealthy fami-
lies to avoid paying taxes on property transfers.
Measure 84 would hurt Oregon's most critical services.
Measure 84 eliminates estate taxes, which are currently only
paid on estates over one million dollars, or two percent of all
Oregon estates. At a time when we're constantly cutting the
basic health services that allow our communities to thrive
and keep people healthy, we simply cannot afford another big
tax break.
Voting NO on Measure 84 will help prevent cuts to health ser-
vices and other vital state services that Oregonians depend
on. These cuts would likely have the greatest impact on our
most vulnerable citizens.
Voting NO is the right thing to do for a healthier Oregon
Oregon's nurses are on the front lines keeping our families
and communities healthy. Our priority is the safety and well-
being of our patients, and improving health, and health care,
for all Oregonians. This is why we strongly urge a NO vote on
Measure 84.
As nurses, we urge a NO Vote on Measure 84. Help protect
millions in funding for Oregon's most essential services.
(This information furnished by Sarah Baessler, Oregon Nurses
Association.)
Argument in Opposition
Democratic Party of Oregon
Urges a No Vote on Measure 84
Protect what matters most by voting No on Measure 84.
We believe the choice is clear: Should the richest 2% get
yet another big tax break, or should we protect our schools,
health services for seniors, and public safety?
Measure 84 would eliminate estate taxes for estates worth
more than $1 million, and not anyone else. It would result in
hundreds of millions of dollars cut from our K-12 schools and
basic care for seniors and people with disabilities. These cuts
would come at the worst possible time, when we've already
cut too much from the services that middle-class families and
small businesses need.
For too long, our schools, our children, and our services have
suffered in order to give tax breaks to large corporations
and the rich. The wealthy do not need yet another tax break.
Measure 84 would not only give them another tax break, but it
would also place yet another burden on struggling Oregonians
through continued cuts to schools and other vital services.
Vote No on Measure 84 to stop this massive tax break for the
richest 2%!
We can't afford yet another tax break that benefits the richest
2% while the other 98% is forced to pay the costs.
This is another bad idea from initiative profiteer Kevin
Mannix, who has made a living by exploiting the initiative
system for his own gain.
We need solutions that protect all Oregonians, not just
millionaires.
Help Us Move Forward.
Please join us in Voting No on Measure 84.
(This information furnished by Trent Lutz, Democratic Party of
Oregon.)
Argument in Opposition
Oregon Alliance for Retired Americans
Urge a No Vote on Measure 84
Join the Oregon Alliance for Retired Americans in Voting to
Protect Vital Services for Our Seniors
Our coalition of community -based and retired union organiza-
tions in Oregon rejects Measure 84.
The Oregon Alliance for Retired Americans' first priority is the
health and economic security of older Americans. Protecting
and securing quality services for our seniors means funding
those services. Measure 84, which would create a tax break
that only benefits millionaires, would seriously jeopardize our
ability to ensure the security of our seniors.
We can't afford another tax break that only benefits the
wealthy.
In an environment of ongoing budget cuts, it is critical that we
make tough choices. This, however, is NOT a tough choice.
This is a choice between giving the wealthy an enormous tax
break, or funding essential programs for Oregon's seniors.
Measure 84 would eliminate the estate tax just for estates
worth more than $1 million. This would cost our schools,
health care services, and public safety more than $240 million
every two years, plus hundreds of millions more lost due to a
new tax shelter for rich families hidden in the measure.
Not only would programs for seniors be cut, but programs
for our children, our grandchildren, and people with disabili-
ties would all be threatened by this unnecessary tax break.
Why place another burden on those most vulnerable during
these tough economic times? The richest 2% do not need yet
another tax loophole that the rest of us have to pay for.
Help Put Our Seniors First
Please join us in Voting No on Measure 84
(This information furnished by Scott Blau, Oregon Alliance for
Retired Americans.)
Argument in Opposition
SEIU Local 503 and SEIU Local 49
Urge a No Vote on Measure 84
Measure 84 is a tax cut for millionaires, and the rest of us
will have to pay the cost.
For too long, Oregon's seniors and middle-class families have
shouldered the burden of paying for our schools and our
basic services, while tax breaks for large corporations and the
rich have grown out of control.
Measure 84 would give the richest 2% another massive tax
loophole that would allow them to avoid paying taxes.
That would force cuts to critical services like:
• In -home care for seniors and people with disabilities
• Health care services that keep our communities healthy
• Child welfare programs that protect vulnerable kids
• Local schools, which provide a lifeline for many young
people
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
We can't sacrifice the services that middle-class families
depend on just to benefit millionaires.
Measure 84 eliminates estate taxes only for estates worth
more than $1 million. This measure gives us an opportunity
to make a decision about our priorities: Protecting our most
vulnerable citizens, or creating a new tax shelter for the rich?
Vote No on Measure 84
Who would benefit from Measure 84?
• The wealthiest 2% of Oregonians would benefit
• Those with estates worth more than $1 million would
benefit
Who would pay the costs of this millionaire tax break?
• The rest of us
Let's protect Oregon's middle-class families.
Let's protect our children, our seniors, and our communities
Let's protect what matters most.
Vote No on Measure 84
There are over 60,000 SEIU members in Oregon - frontline
workers who help deliver the vital services we all count on
every day.
(This information furnished by Jessica Stevens, SEIU.)
Argument in Opposition
Oregon League of Conservation Voters
Opposes Measure 84
Help Us Protect and Preserve Oregon's
Unique Quality of Life
OLCV urges you to vote NO on Measure 84. Opposing
Measure 84 would help protect our natural legacy and ensure
that Oregon's unique quality of life is preserved for our chil-
dren and grandchildren.
Measure 84 eliminates estate taxes for the richest two
percent of estates, and passes the burden of massive cuts to
everyone else.
The state's budget has already been cut to the bone, and
we cannot afford another tax break that benefits a few mil-
lionaires while leaving us to suffer from the loss of critical
services.
Measure 84 is a massive tax break for millionaires. It would
cost more than $120 million each year and contains hundreds
of millions more in a hidden tax loophole for the rich. Paying
for this massive tax break for millionaires would require addi-
tional budget cuts and jeopardizes critical services that keep
our air and water clean.
We have a clear decision this election to make it about our
shared priorities and the legacy we want for our children.
That choice is only possible if we come together and vote NO
on Measure 84.
By voting NO we can preserve programs protecting Oregon's
environment and our health such as:
• Water quality monitoring to ensure safe drinking water
for our families
• Air quality and air toxics monitoring to protect our most
vulnerable
• Developing Oregon's clean energy economy to bring
good jobs to our state
• Ensuring that recreation is accessible for all Oregonians
both today and tomorrow
Join the Oregon League of Conservation Voters in
Voting NO on Measure 84.
The Oregon League of Conservation Voters is a non -partisan
organization dedicated to protecting Oregon's natural legacy
by electing environmental champions, passing strong pro -
conservation laws, and by holding all of our elected officials
accountable.
(This information furnished by Doug Moore, Oregon League of
Conservation Voters.)
Argument in Opposition
Measure 84 essentially repeals much of the taxes that rich
people pay in Oregon: Estate taxes, and income taxes on the
sale of property.
Fewer than three percent of Oregon estates incur an Estate
Tax (over $1 Million of taxable property or$7.5 Million
for most family farms, tree lots, or fishing boats), so this
measure will only benefit a rich few.
Worse yet, Measure 84 adds a giant new loophole in our
income tax by allowing rich people to avoid the income tax
on appreciated property in most cases. Rich people already
pay a smaller percentage of their income in state and local
taxes than middle class and low income individuals and fami-
lies, even without this loophole.
If Measure 84 passes, the rich will pay no taxes to Oregon on
large estates and will escape much of the annual income tax
they pay now. Middle-class families will pay the cost of this
huge tax break through more cuts to K-12 schools, colleges,
senior care, and public safety.
If you think that rich people should pay less in taxes than
middle class and poor Oregonians, as a percentage of income,
then you might consider voting yes. Otherwise, vote "NO".
If you believe that much of the money inherited by rich people
should never be taxed at all, you should consider voting yes,
otherwise vote "NO".
If you think our schools, community colleges, universities,
long term -care for seniors, and public safety system are
over -funded and cutting up to $750 million or more from the
services our kids and seniors depend on is a good thing you
might vote yes on Measure 84, otherwise vote "NO".
If you think the rich should pay their fair share to support
schools, long-term care for seniors and public safety, then
join me in voting "NO" on Measure 84.
(This information furnished by Philip N Barnhart, State
Representative, Co -Chair of the House Committee on
Revenue.)
Argument in Opposition
Measure 84 creates a huge loophole
that has nothing to do with Estate Tax Reform.
Measure 84 not only eliminates the estate tax, but also all
taxes on intra-family transfers, creating a tax loophole costing
Oregon untold millions in revenue. Losing this revenue will
either devastate Oregon's schools, human services, courts and
prisons, or lead to more taxes on the middle class.
Measure 84 Section 4d is clear. Any sale between family
members results in no tax.
This Measure 84 loophole could work with any property: a
potato crop, an order of rail cars, an office tower, shares of
stock, or a business.
Any competent attorney or CPA will advise clients who sell
any property at a significant profit to take the following steps:
• Owner finds a Non -Family Buyer and establishes a price.
• Owner sells the property to a Family Member at the
same price using an IOU.
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
• Family Member then sells the property to the Non -Family
Buyer.
• Family Member repays IOU to the original Owner.
The original Owner incurs no Oregon tax because the sale
was to a family member. The Family Member has no tax
because they sold the property for the same price they paid
For example, suppose Dad has some stock purchased for
$100,000 and now worth $500,000. He transfers it to his
daughter for a $500,000 IOU. She sells the stock the next
day for $500,000, She made no profit and therefore owes no
taxes. Then she pays off the IOU. Dad pays no Oregon taxes,
even though he just made $400,000.
If Measure 84 passes, it will mean more cuts in services
or more taxes for the middle class to make up for this tax
loophole.
People from the left and right and middle should agree
Measure 84 is a problem not a solution.
While we're firing teachers we shouldn't be
creating new tax loopholes.
Vote No on Measure 84!
Tax Fairness Oregon
TaxFairnessOregon.com
(This information furnished by Jody Wiser, Tax Fairness
Oregon.)
Argument in Opposition
AARP Oregon Asks You to Vote No on 84
Measures 84 threatens services that seniors need the most.
Measure 84 is a massive tax break that only benefits the
richest two percent of estates, and not anyone else. But it
would cost our senior care services, our schools, and other
critical services hundreds of millions of dollars when they're
needed most.
At a time when basic services like in -home care and long-
term care for seniors and people with disabilities are threat-
ened, we cannot afford another tax break where two percent
get the benefit and ninety-eight percent pick up the costs.
Who will be affected by Measure 84?
Measure 84 would result in millions in cuts from those ser-
vices that help Oregon's elders lead full, independent lives.
Eliminating the estate tax would cost more than $240 million
every two years.
But this measure also has serious unintended consequences.
It could cost Oregon's schools and senior services hundreds
of millions of dollars more by creating a new tax loophole
that allows wealthy households to avoid paying capital gains
taxes.
For too many elders and their caregivers, these cuts could
mean the loss of assisted living programs, medication and
housing affordability programs, and other vital services that
allow our seniors to maintain their dignity and choice in their
homes and communities.
Measure 84 benefits very few but harms so many.
By voting NO on Measure 84, we can protect middle-class
families and elders from shouldering the burden of tax breaks
that only benefit a few.
Let's make sure Oregon elders, families and communities
have the care and services they need and deserve.
Vote No on Measure 84.
(This information furnished by Jerry Cohen, AARP Oregon.)
Argument in Opposition
Business Leaders Warn: Measure 84 Creates a Massive New
Tax Avoidance Scheme for the Richest Households
There are two parts to this measure, and they would both
harm the schools and services Oregon businesses depend on
We oppose the elimination of Oregon's estate tax, because it
would force hundreds of millions in cuts every two years to
schools and basic infrastructure, while providing a tax benefit
for only a small handful of wealthy households.
In addition, we're even more concerned about a stealth
clause in Measure 84 that will create a giant new loophole
that would allow the richest households to avoid paying any
capital gains taxes.
The chief sponsors have said explicitly that their intent is to
eliminate these capital gains taxes.
By banning taxes on "intra-family property transfers," this
new scheme would allow wealthy individuals to sell assets to
a family member, and the family member could turn around
and sell it to a third party for the same price —and they'd
never pay a dime in taxes on this big capital gain.
Capital gains taxes bring in around $800 million every two
years to pay for schools, health care, and public safety. Most
of those funds could be jeopardized by Measure 84. That's
the equivalent of losing nearly 4,800 teachers.
Businesses depend on educated students and a strong
middle class, but we're damaging those things by our lack of
investment in schools, courts, and infrastructure. We need to
invest, not give away a loophole that allows the richest
2 percent to avoid paying capital gains taxes.
Please join us in Voting NO on Measure 84
Equity Alliance Oregon
John A. Calhoun
Roger Johnson
Entrepreneur
Investment Advisor
Brendan Barnicle
Robert Stoll
Investor
Lawyer
Richard B. Solomon
Jim McDermott
CPA
Attorney/Business Litigation
Anna Geller
Real Estate + Community
Development
(This information furnished by John Calhoun, Equity Alliance
Oregon.)
Argument in Opposition
Small Business Urges a NO Vote on Measure 84
Because it's time to Protect Oregon's Future
Main Street Alliance of Oregon urges a NO on Measure 84.
Help protect our schools and our local economy.
In order for Oregon to remain a great place to run a business
and raise a family, we need a robust middle-class, stable
infrastructure, and an educated workforce ready for a 21st
century economy.
Unfortunately, as a state, we've been headed in the opposite
direction. We've cut the K-12 school budget by more than
$500 million since 2007, while the amount we're losing to tax
breaks and loopholes —many of which go to large corpora-
tions and the wealthy few —has jumped by $3.4 billion.
Measure 84 is yet another massive new tax break for million-
aires that the rest of us will be forced to pay for.
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
This measure eliminates the estate tax for estates worth
more than $1 million —the richest 2%—costing our schools,
health care, and public safety services hundreds of millions of
dollars. The rest of us will be forced to pick up the costs.
It's time for our state to get its priorities in order. If we want
our small businesses and middle-class families to be success-
ful, we need to fund our schools, basic health services, and
public safety.
At a time when middle-class families and small businesses
are struggling, we can no longer afford to give away hun-
dreds of millions in tax breaks that only benefit the rich.
Please join small businesses throughout Oregon in making
sure we protect our families, our communities and our shared
priorities this election.
Join Main Street Alliance of Oregon in
Voting NO on Measure 84
(This information furnished by Jim Houser, Co -Chair, Main
Street Alliance of Oregon.)
Argument in Opposition
Human Services Coalition of Oregon
Urges a NO Vote on Measure 84
The Human Services Coalition of Oregon (HSCO) is a statewide
group of over 120 individuals and organizations. We work to
promote the dignity of all Oregonians through improved public
policy and strengthened support for human services.
Now is the time to protect Oregon's critical services
Measure 84 eliminates estate taxes only for the richest two
percent of households, and doesn't benefit anyone else.
Everyone else in the state will be forced to shoulder the
burden through even deeper cuts to schools, health care
services, and public safety.
At a time when we're already making painful cuts to the ser-
vices that students, seniors, and working families depend
on, we can't afford another big tax break for the richest
two percent while the other 98 percent picks up the cost.
During the economic crisis many families have seen a reduc-
tion in critical services when they have been needed the most.
Measure 84 Benefits a Select Few and Endangers Oregon's
Most Vulnerable
This measure will have serious unintended consequences.
Not only would it cost the state more than $240 million every
two years, the impact could be hundreds of millions of dollars
worse because it creates yet another new tax shelter for the
richest two percent.
This would mean the Legislature would be forced to make
cuts like:
• Reduction in healthcare access for thousands of children,
seniors, and people with disabilities;
• Fewer funds for our K-12 schools and health services for
children;
• Eliminating or reducing in -home care for thousands of
seniors and people with disabilities that allow them to
remain independent and in their homes;
• And many more critical services that keep our communi-
ties resilient.
Make your voice be heard by voting NO on Measure 84, and
protect what makes our communities strong.
Please join the Human Services Coalition of Oregon
in voting NO on Measure 84.
www.oregonhsco.org
(This information furnished by AndrewJ. Smith, Human
Services Coalition of Oregon.)
Argument in Opposition
Don't be fooled!
Measure 84 isn't just about estate taxes.
It also creates huge income tax loopholes for the wealthy.
Under current law, individuals pay Oregon income tax when
they sell capital assets such as real estate, art, or stock in pub-
licly traded companies. Measure 84 creates a loophole allow-
ing wealthy people who hire pricey lawyers and accountants
to completely avoid any Oregon tax. Here's how it works:
A wealthy New York resident owns $100 million of Oregon
timberland originally purchased for $1 million. He sells the
land to his son for its $100 million fair market value, but not
for cash --the son just gives his father an IOU. The son immedi-
ately sells the property for $100 million and pays off the IOU.
Result: on his federal income tax return, the father owes
tax on his $99 million gain. But neither father nor son pays
Oregon income tax on the $99 million gain. The $99 million in
profit has just been legally laundered through Measure 84 to
avoid all Oregon tax.
This "father -son sale" scheme will be used by Oregon
residents to avoid any tax on capital gains, while reducing
government services for everyone. We predict if Measure 84
is enacted, it will be common for individuals making any large
sale to eliminate all Oregon income tax. Indeed, lawyers and
CPAs could be sued for failing to recommend this tax dodge
to high asset clients.
Measure 84 threatens $500 million of income and estate tax
that Oregon collects annually.
As Tax Attorneys, CPAs and Investment Advisors we urge
you to VOTE "NO" ON MEASURE 84.
Christi A. Cawood, CPA
Del Diebig, Retired Corporate Tax Accountant
Charles S. Gauger, Attorney and CPA
Carsten Henningsen, Investment Advisor
Joan Horton, CPA
Madeline Moore, Financial Planner
Richard B. Solomon, CPA
(This information furnished by Richard B. Solomon, Vote No
on 84.)
Argument in Opposition
We're voting NO on Measure 84
As small business owners, educators, healthcare providers,
community organizations and advocates dedicated to
preserving our communities and keeping our priorities
straight, we urge you to vote No on Measure 84.
At a time when the state is increasing class sizes, laying off
teachers, and closing schools due to budget cuts, we cannot
afford another tax break where two percent get the benefit
and ninety-eight percent pick up the costs.
Alliance for Democracy
American Federation of Teachers- Oregon (AFT — Oregon)
Asian Pacific American Network of Oregon (APANO)
Black United Fund of Oregon
Communications Workers of America, Local 7901
Democratic Party of Oregon
Economic Fairness Oregon
Economic Justice Action Group, First Unitarian Church
Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon
Elders in Action Commission
Equity Alliance Oregon
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Eugene/Springfield Solidarity Network/Jobs with Justice
Family Forward Oregon
Hawthorne Auto Clinic, Inc.
Human Services Coalition of Oregon
Main Street Alliance of Oregon
Mike Roach, Co -Owner— Paloma Clothing
Mimi Dudley Casteel, Bethel Heights Vineyard
The Mother PAC
Multnomah County Democrats
Northwest Oregon Labor Council, AFL-CIO
Northwoods Nursery
Oregon League of Conservation Voters
Oregon AFL-CIO
Oregon AFSCME
Oregon Alliance for Retired Americans
Oregon Center for Public Policy (OCPP)
Oregon Education Association
Oregon Nurses Association
Oregon PTA
Oregon State Fire Fighters Council
Our Oregon
Partnership for Safety and Justice
Rex Hagans, Hazelnut Farmer
Rural Organizing Project
SEIU Local 49
SEIU Local 503
Street Roots
Tax Fairness Oregon
Whitman Farms
Willamette Women Democrats
To find out more and join the coalition, visit
www.defendoregon.org
(This information furnished by Patrick Green, Defend Oregon.)
Argument in Opposition
Oregon PTA opposes Measure 84. Deep cuts to schools and
services will hurt Oregon children and families.
As parents, we see firsthand the devastating effects spend-
ing cuts have in the classroom, with 7,000 jobs lost in our
local schools, the third -highest class sizes in the country, and
school closures across Oregon. Spending on schools in the
state has dropped by more than $500 million over 5 years,
while at the same time tax breaks we give out have massively
increased by $3.4 billion.
We need to focus on what's most important — the health and
safety of our kids and our communities.
Measure 84 would add another set of tax breaks for million-
aires that would cut funding for schools and public services
for children and services like in -home care for seniors. This
measure eliminates estate taxes for the richest two percent
of estates — not anyone else, while passing the burden to
middle-class families. That would mean even deeper cuts
to our K-12 schools, physical education and school nutrition
programs, services for seniors, and public safety systems.
Vote with Oregon PTA and help put Oregon priorities first.
At a time when the state is increasing class sizes, laying off
teachers, and cutting school days due to budget cuts, another
tax break where two percent aet the benefits and ninetv-eiaht
percent pick up the costs is bad for Oreaon and bad for our
future
We must guarantee that all students have the resources they
need to learn and compete in tomorrows workforce.
Supporting our students and providing a strong education is
vital to rebuilding our economy and ensuring job opportuni-
ties for all Oregonians. Voting NO on Measure 84 protects the
services and schools that ensure our students are given the
tools to compete in the global economy.
The Oregon PTA says "Vote NO on Measure 84"
(This information furnished by Jackee Duvall, President,
Oregon PTA.)
Argument in Opposition
Join us in Voting "No" on Measure 84.
Measure 84 would create two new tax "loopholes" we well-
off Oregonians don't need and didn't ask for.
We believe it is fair for our heirs to pay a tax on the large
estates they will inherit.
We also believe it is fair for us to pay capital gains taxes when
we sell assets at a profit.
We choose to live in Oregon because it's an uniquely wonderful
state. If we want it to stay that way, we've got to fund our basic
shared priorities: our schools, our universities, health care for
seniors, public safety and the other important services we all
value. Each year Measure 84 would cut hundreds of millions of
dollars from these priorities to benefit 730 rich families.
Vote "No" on Measure 84
If Measure 84 passes our taxes will decrease;
vital services will be cut or
everyone else's taxes will increase.
We are willing and can afford to pay our fair share
Carol Adler, Investor and Inheritor
Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor, Investor
Barbara Dudley, Bethel Heights Vineyard
Brad S. Eamon, Business Owner, Retail Imaging
Gael Foord Hoffman
Robert Frisbee, Environmental Executive
Lorraine Gardner, Farmer
Elinor Gollay
Mitch Greenlick
Charlie Hales, Candidate for Portland Mayor
Elizabeth Henningsen
Stanley B. Hoffman
Mark R. Kalenscher
Ursula K. Le Guin
Kenneth Lewis, Former Chair, National "I Have a Dream"
Foundation
Michael Litt
Sandy Polishuk, Inheritor
Tangela E. Purdom, Inheritor
David Raphael
Lydia Rich, Teacher, Inheritor
David R. Roth, Inheritor
Izetta Smith
Elizabeth Steiner Hayward, Inheritor
Jody Wiser, Former Farm Owner, Investor
And many other wealthy individuals, willing to pay the dues
of civilization.
(This information furnished by Sandy Polishuk, Vote No on 84.)
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Proposed by initiative petition to be voted on at the General Election, November 6, 2012.
Result of "Yes" Vote
"Yes" vote allocates the corporate income and excise tax
"kicker" refund to the General Fund to provide additional
funding for K through 12 public education.
Result of "No" Vote
"No" vote retains existing corporate income and excise tax
"kicker" that requires refund to corporations when revenue
exceeds estimated collections by two percent or more.
Summary
Amends constitution. Before each biennium, the governor
must prepare an estimate of revenues expected to be
received by the General Fund for the next biennium. The
General Fund is the primary funding source for schools,
prisons, social services other state -funded programs/ser-
vices. Current law requires an automatic "kicker" refund
to taxpayers of corporate income and excise tax revenue
that exceeds estimated collections by two percent or more.
Measure allocates the corporate income and excise tax
"kicker" refund to the General Fund to provide additional
funding for K through 12 public education. Measure does
not change the constitutional personal income tax "kicker"
provision that requires a refund to individual taxpayers when
personal income tax revenue exceeds estimated revenue by
two percent or more. Other provisions.
Estimate of Financial Impact
The financial impact of this measure is indeterminate because
it is affected by unknown future events. If corporation tax
receipts exceed the state forecast by two percent or more
for a two-year budget period beginning July 2013 or later,
this measure will increase the amount retained in the state
General Fund relative to current law. In addition, state expen-
ditures will increase by the same amount. If this measure had
been in place for the past ten budget periods, the increases
would have ranged from $101 million to $203 million in each
of three of those periods.
Explanation of Estimate of Financial Impact
The Oregon Constitution currently requires that receipts from
the corporation income and excise taxes that exceed the
close -of -session forecast by two percent or more be returned
to corporate income and excise taxpayers. The close -of -
session forecast is the last forecast given to the legislature
in odd -year sessions, adjusted for laws passed during the
session. The Constitution allows the legislature, with a two-
thirds majority vote, to suspend the kicker and allow the
unexpected additional revenue to be used for discretionary
purposes, rather than being returned to corporate taxpayers.
This measure would redirect any future corporate kicker
refunds. Instead of returning the revenues to corporate
taxpayers, they would be expended on kindergarten through
twelfth grade public education.
Committee Members:
Secretary of State Kate Brown
State Treasurer Ted Wheeler
Michael Jordan, Director, Dept. of Administrative Services
James Bucholz, Director, Dept. of Revenue
Debra Guzman, Local Government Representative
(The estimate of financial impact and explanation was
provided by the above committee pursuant to ORS 250.127.)
Text of Measure
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OREGON:
PARAGRAPH 1: Section 14, Article IX of the Constitution of
the State of Oregon, is amended by adding new language
(shown in boldface type) and deleting existing language
(shown in [bracketed italics]), so that such section reads as
follows:
Sec. 14. (1) As soon as is practicable after adjournment
sine die of an odd -numbered year regular session of the
Legislative Assembly, the Governor shall cause an estimate to
be prepared of revenues that will be received by the General
Fund for the biennium beginning July 1. The estimated
revenues from corporate income and excise taxes shall be
separately stated from the estimated revenues from other
General Fund sources.
(2) As soon as is practicable after the end of the biennium, the
Governor shall cause actual collections of revenues received
by the General Fund for that biennium to be determined. The
revenues received from corporate income and excise taxes
shall be determined separately from the revenues received
from other General Fund sources.
(3) If the revenues received by the General Fund from cor-
porate income and excise taxes during the biennium exceed
the amount estimated to be received from corporate income
and excise taxes for the biennium, by two percent or more,
the total amount of the excess shall be [returned to corporate
income and excise taxpayers] retained in the General Fund
and used to provide additional funding for public education,
kindergarten through twelfth grade.
(4)If the revenues received from General Fund revenue
sources, exclusive of those described in subsection (3) of this
section, during the biennium exceed the amount estimated
to be received from such sources for the biennium, by two
percent or more, the total amount of the excess shall be
returned to personal income taxpayers.
(5) The Legislative Assembly may enact laws
(a) Establishing a tax credit, refund payment or other mecha
nism by which the excess revenues are returned to taxpay-
ers, and establishing administrative procedures connected
therewith.
(b) Allowing the excess revenues to be reduced by adminis-
trative costs associated with returning the excess revenues.
(c) Permitting a taxpayer's share of the excess revenues not to
be returned to the taxpayer if the taxpayer's share is less than
a de minimis amount identified by the Legislative Assembly.
(d) Permitting a taxpayer's share of excess revenues to be
offset by any liability of the taxpayer for which the state is
authorized to undertake collection efforts.
(6)(a) Prior to the close of a biennium for which an estimate
described in subsection (1) of this section has been made,
the Legislative Assembly, by a two-thirds majority vote of
all members elected to each House, may enact legislation
declaring an emergency and increasing the amount of the
estimate prepared pursuant to subsection (1) of this section.
(b) The prohibition against declaring an emergency in an act
regulating taxation or exemption in section la, Article IX of
this Constitution, does not apply to legislation enacted pursu-
ant to this subsection.
(7) This section does not apply:
(a) If, for a biennium or any portion of a biennium, a state tax
is not imposed on or measured by the income of individuals.
(b) To revenues derived from any minimum tax imposed on
corporations for the privilege of carrying on or doing busi-
ness in this state that is imposed as a fixed amount and that is
nonapportioned (except for changes of accounting periods).
(c) To biennia beginning before July 1, 2001.
PARAGRAPH 2. (1) The amendment to section 14 of this
Article applies to biennia beginning on or after July 1, 2013.
(2) This section (Paragraph 2), setting forth the effective date
of this amendment, is repealed on June 30, 2015.
Note: Boldfaced type indicates new language; [brackets and
italic] type indicates deletions or comments.
Explanatory Statement
Ballot Measure 85 changes the "corporate kicker" provision
of the Oregon Constitution. Under current law, certain excess
corporate income and excise tax revenues collected during a
biennium are returned to corporate taxpayers. Under Ballot
Measure 85, the excess revenues would be retained in the
state's General Fund and used to provide additional funding
for kindergarten through twelfth grade public education.
The Legislature has full discretion over how it allocates
General Fund moneys, including the total amount of General
Fund moneys to kindergarten through twelfth grade public
education.
The Oregon Constitution describes how the "corporate
kicker" process works. First, at the beginning of each bien-
nium the Governor estimates tax revenues that will be
received by the state's General Fund during the biennium.
Estimated revenues from corporate income and excise taxes
are determined separate from other General Fund revenues.
The General Fund is where most individual and corporate
income tax revenues are deposited. The General Fund pays
for state services, including schools, prisons and social ser-
vices. The biennium is the two-year period for which the state
budget is prepared. The biennium runs from July 1 of each
odd -numbered year to June 30 of the next odd -numbered
year.
Second, at the end of each biennium budget, the Governor
determines the revenues actually received by the General
Fund. Again, revenues received from corporate income and
excise taxes are determined separately from other General
Fund revenues.
Finally, if revenues actually received by the General Fund
from corporate income and excise taxes are at least two
percent greater than what was estimated, the excess
currently are returned, or "kicked back," to the corporate
income and excise taxpayers.
Ballot Measure 85 amends the Oregon Constitution to provide
the "corporate kicker" be retained in the General Fund and
used to provide additional funding for public education, kin-
dergarten through twelfth grade. The excess revenues would
no longer be returned to the corporate income and excise
taxpayers. The Legislature has full discretion over how it
allocates General Fund moneys, including the total amount of
General Fund moneys to kindergarten through twelfth grade
public education.
The Oregon Constitution contains "kicker" provisions for
both corporate income and excise taxpayers and personal
income taxpayers. Ballot Measure 85 does not affect the
"kicker" for personal income taxpayers.
Committee Members:
Appointed by:
Patrick Green
Chief Petitioners
Otto Schell
Chief Petitioners
Steve Buckstein
Secretary of State
Senator Larry George
Secretary of State
Judge Bill Riggs
Members of the Committee
(This committee was appointed to provide an impartial
explanation of the ballot measure pursuant to ORS 251.215.)
Citizens' Review Statement
This Citizens' Statement, authorized by the 2009 State Legislature, was developed by an independent panel of 24 Oregon voters
who chose to participate in the Citizens' Initiative Review process.The panelists were randomly selected from registered voters in
Oregon and balanced to fairly reflect the state's voting population based upon location of residence, age, gender, party affiliation,
education, ethnicity, and likelihood of voting. Over a period of five days the panel heard from initiative proponents, opponents,
and background witnesses.The panelists deliberated the measure and issued this statement.This statement has not been edited,
altered, or approved by the Secretary of State.
The opinions expressed in this statement are those of the members of a citizen panel and were developed through the citizen
review process.They are NOT official opinions or positions endorsed by the State of Oregon or any government agency. A citizen
panel is not a judge of the constitutionality or legality of any ballot measure, and any statements about such matters are not
binding on a court of law.
Key Findings
The following are statements about the measure and the
number of panelists who agree with each statement:
• The corporate "kicker" funds are not guaranteed to
increase K-12 funding because of the Legislature's
discretionary spending of the General Fund. This ballot
measure earmarks the corporate "kicker" to fund K-12
education, but does not prevent the redirecting of cur-
rent funding resources to other non -education budgets.
(24)
• The corporate "kicker" has had no effect on the stability
of Oregon revenue due to its unreliability. (22)
• The corporate "kicker" has the potential to stabilize State
spending by introducing unexpected revenues to fill in
funding gaps (Oregon Office of Economic Analysis). (24)
• There is no evidence that the corporate "kicker" benefits
or harms corporations. (19)
Additional Policy Considerations
The following are statements about the subject matter or
fiscal considerations related to the measure and the number
of panelists who agree with each statement.
• The corporate "kicker" has been triggered 8 times over
the past 16 budget periods making it an unreliable source
of school funding. (24)
• Oregon tax revenues vary greatly in each budget cycle
making future revenue predictions difficult. (23)
• Oregon Legislators have spent, on average, 99% of
the available General Fund monies each budget cycle
(General Fund Budget History). (21)
• Corporate businesses learn about the "kicker" after their
operating period, therefore it has no effect on business
decisions (Sierra Institute of Applied Economics). (18)
• Corporate businesses do not expect or depend on
corporate "kicker" credits. (22)
• Since 2003, the percentage of the General Fund spent on
K-12 education has changed from 44.8% to the current
39.1%. (23)
Citizen Statement in Support of the Measure
POSITION TAKEN BY 19 OF 24 PANELISTS
We, 19 members of the Citizens' Initiative Review, support
Ballot Measure 85 for the following reasons:
• Measure 85 does not affect the personal "kicker" and
does not increase personal or corporate taxes.
• There is broad bipartisan agreement that the corporate
"kicker" is not good public policy. It is unreasonable to
refund legally due taxes to corporations as a result of
inaccurate revenue projections. We believe Measure 85
is an improvement to current policy.
• Measure 85 would keep the corporate "kicker" dollars
in the Oregon economy instead of issuing tax credits to
corporations headquartered out of state.
• The intent of this measure is for 100% of the "kicker" to
go to K-12 education. Despite the potential for General
Funds to be redirected, the wording in the measure
specifies the funding would be in addition to and not
replace current education funds.
• The K-12 budget is declining due to inflation, the funding
of other services, and increased costs. The passage of
Measure 85 would demonstrate Oregon's commitment to
improving education.
Oregonians and Oregon businesses benefit from keeping
money in the state.
Citizen Statement in Opposition to
the Measure
POSITION TAKEN BY 5 OF 24 PANELISTS
We, 5 members of the Citizens' Initiative Review, oppose
Ballot Measure 85 for the following reasons:
• As written, Measure 85 cannot assure additional funding
for K-12 and may give the public the perception that tax
policy and K-12 school funding issues have been solved
thus inhibiting the discussion for future, comprehensive
budget reform. The Legislature retains control and
discretion of the General Fund.
• Measure 85 removes the flexibility to place corporate
kicker funds into a rainy day or other reserve fund for
future use.
• Due to the history of infrequent Kicker payouts, they
are too random and cannot be considered as a reliable
source of income.
• Over a 30 year period, Oregon Legislators have, on
average, spent 99% of the available General Funds.
Demonstrating an inability to prepare for budget
shortfalls.
Measure 85 seeks to change the Oregon constitution and
should not be passed without serious consideration. This
measure removes the flexibility to use the corporate kicker
funds where they are most needed at the time of the distri-
bution. We feel that this measure creates an illusion that it
is "fixing" the current K-12 economic situation in Oregon.
Having spent the majority of the available general funds over
the last three decades the Legislature has demonstrated that
"if you send it, they will spend it." We feel that real reform is
the answer and Measure 85 does not "measure" up.
Argument in Favor
American Federation of Teachers -Oregon (AFT -Oregon)
Urge a Yes Vote on Measures 85
Join the American Federation of Teachers -Oregon
(AFT -Oregon) in Voting Yes to Protect Our Schools,
Educators, and Families.
As current and retired education professionals, we have seen
firsthand the crisis Oregon schools are facing with debilitat-
ing funding cuts and closures. The result to our students is
that they are not experiencing the schools, programs, and
services we once knew.
State spending on K-12 schools has dropped by more than
$500 million over the past five years, while tax breaks have
massively increased by $3.4 billion. We need to put our focus
on what's most important - our kids and our future.
Don't our kids deserve the education we once enjoyed?
Every day, Oregon students face overcrowded classrooms.
The state budget cuts have resulted in 7,000 layoffs and posi-
tions cut in our local schools. And across the state, districts
are cutting school days.
Education professionals say a YES to Measure 85 is a YES for
Oregon's kids.
YES we want to begin the process of finally reinvesting
in our schools, at a time when they need it most.
YES we need to take a firm step forward in finally secur-
ing funds for our schools, instead of sending as much as
80% of those funds to large, out-of-state corporations.
YES to ending a massive tax break that only benefits the
largest corporations.
Help Protect Our Schools.
Please join 15,000 Oregon educators, graduate assistants,
nurses, and school employees in voting Yes on Measures 85.
(This information furnished by David Rives, American
Federation of Teachers -Oregon (AFT -Oregon).)
Argument in Favor
Partnership for Safety and Justice
Urges a Yes Vote on Measures 85
Because Healthy Schools Mean Safer Communities
Join public safety advocates in voting "Yes" on Measure 85
Public safety is best served when children are given oppor-
tunities to succeed and to become responsible, independent
members of their communities.
Yet as school funding continues to be cut, our children
receive fewer and fewer opportunities to learn and thrive. The
more than $500 million of cuts to K-12 funding in the past five
years has caused a crisis in Oregon classrooms that we can
no longer afford to ignore.
As class sizes expand and teacher layoffs increase, the
amount of money Oregon has been handing out in tax
breaks --largely for corporations and the rich --has grown by
$3.4 billion. It is time to rebalance our spending priorities, and
a "Yes" vote on Measure 85 is the best first step.
Stand strong for Oregon's youth
The corporate kicker is a major tax loophole that benefits
large corporations. Measure 85 would close that loophole
and invest the money where there is an urgent need: our local
K-12 schools.
An investment in the education of our children is an invest-
ment in the long-term health of our communities. Healthy
communities are safe, stable communities, and Oregon needs
to focus on giving our children the education they need to
protect their futures.
Invest in Schools. Invest in Safety.
(This information furnished by David Rogers, Partnership for
Safety and Justice.)
Argument in Favor
Will Measure 85 Salve Our School Funding Crisis?
No.
So, How Can We Create Stable Funding for Schools?
There is Only One Sure Way: More Family Wage Jobs.
Measure 85 will not produce enough money to make a differ-
ence for our schools. It's not even a Band-Aid. There has not
been a "corporate kicker" refund to businesses since 2007.
The non -partisan state Legislative Revenue Office also esti-
mates there will not be a corporate kicker this budget cycle.
There aren't enough Oregonians with family wage jobs who
generate the taxes to give education the funding it deserves.
Until Oregon is a great place to start and grow businesses
that can employ more Oregonians, the school funding crisis
will continue.
Essential services like schools are funded mostly by income
taxes, so more jobs = more money for families and schools.
The only way to permanently fund services at the levels we
all expect is to make sure more people are employed and
paying taxes. That's how it works in Oregon.
• More jobs and higher incomes for Oregonians would
mean $2.6 billion additional tax dollars every two years
for public services like schools, health care and senior
services that make Oregonians' lives better.
• If Oregonians' incomes met the national average (we are
currently 9% below), we would have billions more dollars
flowing through the state for people to save, invest and
plan for their economic future.
• We need to make it easier for people to start and expand
their businesses so that more of us can have jobs and
plan for our own economic future.
More private -sector jobs would mean billions more dollars
for services we care about like schools, health care and
public safety.
It's a Win -Win.
Quality of life starts with family wage jobs. Let's vote for
people and policies that will create more of them.
Learn more about how jobs finance our schools at
www.valueofiobs.com and www.oreclonorosperitv.orrc
The Oregon Small Business Coalition
(This information furnished by Darrell Fuller, Oregon Small
Business Coalition.)
Argument in Favor
Parents Say YES on Measure 85
As parents with kids in Oregon's K-12 schools, we've seen
firsthand the impact that years of budget cuts have had on
our local classrooms.
We've seen class sizes grow to levels we never thought
possible. Oregon now has the third largest class sizes in the
country.
We've seen entire programs —like art, music, or shop —
slashed or eliminated all together.
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
We've seen wonderful teachers laid off as the state has
reduced basic funding to school districts.
And we've seen the promise of a world -class education for
our children become little more than a pipe dream.
Our schools have talented teachers who do their best to reach
their students, but there's only so much they can do in a
class with 35 or 40 or more pupils. Simply put, Oregon's K-12
schools are no longer the educational experience that we all
took for granted just a few years ago.
As a state, we can no longer pretend that education is a prior-
ity if our leaders aren't willing to take steps to actually fund
our classrooms.
For us, voting yes on Measure 85 to reform the corporate
kicker is about refocusing on Oregon's priorities. At a time
when we're cutting schools days, laying off thousands of
teachers, and increasing class sizes, we can no longer afford
policies like the corporate kicker, which is a massive tax break
for large, out-of-state corporations.
It's time to end the corporate kicker and make sure those
funds go to our classrooms, not large corporations who don't
need them.
Most of all, it's time for state leaders to get their priorities
straight and focus on what's most important —our kids and
our future.
Signed,
May M. Chang, Parent of a Student at Franklin High School
Sarah Granger, Parent of an Atkinson Student
Dena Hellums, Parent of North Clackamas Student
Todd Henion, Parent of a Creative Science School Student
Dan Petrillo, Parent of an Atkinson Student
(This information furnished by Dena Hellums.)
Argument in Favor
Let's Make Oregon Schools Our Shared Priority
So Every Child has a
Safe and Supportive Environment in which to Learn
Basic Rights Oregon urges a Yes Vote on Measure 85.
Basic Rights Oregon is an organization dedicated to ending
discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender iden-
tity, and promoting equality for everyone. We believe that we
all have an interest in standing up for a future that works for
all Oregonians. That means ensuring our children receive the
education they deserve, our teachers have the training they
need, and the most vulnerable student populations have the
resources and support they require.
Our schools should be safe places for all students to learn
That means they need to be adequately funded.
When school budgets are slashed, that impacts programs
that are critical to protecting our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender (LGBT) students, staff, and families. Basic Rights
Oregon believes we all have a responsibility to ensure that
our schools are equipped to offer a safe environment in
which to learn. In particular, our school teachers and staff
must have the resources and training they need to recognize
and act on instances of bullying and discrimination.
Measure 85 puts more resources in the classroom, so
our children get the education and support they need to
succeed.
Stand with Basic Rights Oregon in voting YES on Measure 85.
Say YES to putting money into Oregon K-12 schools
Say YES to ensuring every child has a quality education
Say YES to providing a safe and supportive place for our
students to learn
(This information furnished by Jeana Frazzini, Basic Rights
Oregon.)
Argument in Favor
Small Business Urges a Yes Vote on Measures 85
Because Our Kids Are Oregon's Future Business Leaders
Measures 85 will help ensure that Oregon's students get the
education they deserve
Don't our kids deserve the education we once enjoyed? With
thousands of teacher layoffs, increased overcrowding in
classrooms, and cuts to school programs, today's K-12 stu-
dents are learning with less.
It's time for Oregonians to take a stand about funding what's
important.
Vote YES for our kids and for a strong local economy
Small business owners agree with parents, teachers, and
community advocates that we should reform the Corporate
Kicker, and spend those funds on our kid's education so they
can become Oregon's future leaders.
Strong schools are critical to our children's potential and key
to Oregon's economic recovery. For Oregon to thrive we need
to offer businesses a well -trained workforce, and provide our
kids the tools to win the good paying jobs of tomorrow.
The Corporate Kicker is a tax break the state can't afford
The Corporate Kicker is a big tax loophole for big corpora-
tions. It's time to start closing tax loopholes that only benefit
large corporations, and ensure they start paying their fair
share. Oregon's small businesses can no longer afford to pay
the costs of tax breaks for big corporations.
The choice is simple: We all want to live in the kind of Oregon
that does what's right for our schools and our children's
future so they can succeed in getting the good jobs of
tomorrow.
Vote YES on Measure 85 to reinvest in our schools and
protect Oregon's future
Main Street Alliance of Oregon urges a YES vote on
Measure 85 to reform the corporate kicker, and finally begin
the process of reinvesting in our K-12 classrooms and our
local communities.
(This information furnished by Jim Houser, Co -Chair, Main
Street Alliance of Oregon.)
Argument in Favor
SEIU Local 503 and SEIU Local 49
Urge a Yes Vote on Measure 85
Join the SEIU in Voting Yes to Protect Our Future.
For too long, Oregon's working families have shouldered
the burden of paying for our schools and basic health care
services. Cut after cut has been made to our most basic pri-
orities, while the state continues to give away billions in tax
breaks and loopholes, many of which go to large corporations
and the rich.
In the last five years, the amount we've given away through
these tax breaks has increased by a massive $3.4 billion, even
while seniors, students, and struggling families have seen
painful cuts to the basic services they need.
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
By giving away billions in tax breaks, Oregon has found itself
in a crisis that has meant cuts to services like:
• In -home care for seniors and people with disabilities
• Health care services that keep our communities healthy
• Child welfare programs that protect vulnerable kids
• Local schools, which provide a lifeline for many young
people
It's time to stop giving money away to corporations while
seniors, students, and struggling families are denied the
support they need just to get by.
Measure 85 is a clear choice. It will stop one big tax break —
the corporate kicker refund —which mostly benefits large,
out-of-state corporations. Instead, it will put that money into
one of Oregon's most basic priorities: our schools.
Reining in out -of -control tax breaks and investing in our
future is the right thing to do.
Help Protect Our Schools.
Join SEW Local 503
and
SEW Local 49
in Voting Yes on Measure 85.
(This information furnished by Jessica Stevens, SEIU.)
Argument in Favor
Vote Yes on Measure 85.
We can't give continue giving out-of-state corporations an
unexpected windfall while Oregon schools are cutting days
and laying off teachers.
Oregon is in crisis and our K-12 funding system is a horrible
example of that crisis. When we are laying off thousands of
teachers and cutting school days, we can't afford to give out-
of-state corporations millions of dollars. This measure won't
solve every problem we face, but it will put resources back in
classrooms where they are desperate needed. That's why the
members of the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (Oregon AFSCME Council 75) support
Measure 85.
We need to focus on what is important. This tax break
doesn't create jobs because it is an unexpected windfall for
corporations after the fact. So let's make sure we are focused
on what's important: our children's education.
Our tax system is out of whack when we are giving mil-
lions and millions of dollars to out-of-state corporations by
way of this massive tax loophole. We need to start closing
these unfair and downright silly tax policies that don't do
Oregon any good. Oregon taxpayers should not be paying
out bonuses to out-of-state corporations while cutting school
days and laying off teachers. It is unfair, and it simply doesn't
make sense.
For these reasons we ask you to Vote YES on Ballot Measure 85
(This information furnished by Don Loving, Oregon AFSCME
Council 75.)
Argument in Favor
The 45,000 Teachers and School Employees
of the Oregon Education Association
Urge You to Vote "Yes" on Measure 85
Measure 85 is an important step forward in finally funding
our schools.
This election is a chance for all of us to make a decision about
the direction of our state. Oregon's educators urge you to
vote Yes on Measure 85 so that we can begin to ensure that
our students are prepared for the 21st century.
The funding crisis in our K-12 schools is impossible to ignore.
Oregon has cut K-12 budgets by more than $500 million
since 2007, while the amount we're losing to tax breaks and
loopholes has grown by $3.4 billion. The state is handing out
massive tax breaks to large corporations and the rich, but it's
our K-12 students and their families who are paying the cost.
As educators, we believe that our students should have at
least the same opportunities we had when we were students.
But a student who enters school now faces overcrowded
classrooms, few opportunities, and very little individual
instruction.
Since 2010, Oregon has lost 7,000 teachers and school
employees due to budget cuts, and our students are now in
the third largest class sizes in the country.
Measure 85 will reform the corporate kicker by reinvesting
that money back into Oregon's K-12 classrooms, rather than
spending millions on tax breaks for large corporations, with
little evidence that those funds affect Oregon's economy or
local businesses.
Oregon's schools cannot afford more teacher and school
employee layoffs.
Our Students Deserve Better.
Support Our Schools
Join 45,000 teachers and school employees in voting
Yes on Measure 85.
(This information furnished by BethAnne Darby, Oregon
Education Association.)
Argument in Favor
Business Leaders Say Now Is The Time to Reform the
Corporate Kicker
The Corporate Kicker is random, arbitrary, and unfair.
The kicker is entirely unpredictable, which means the
Corporate Kicker has never factored into any business's
investment decisions. In fact, investors are more likely to
avoid Oregon because of the revenue instability caused by
the kicker, which damages K-12 schools.
Because 80% of the kicker funds go to big corporations head-
quartered outside of Oregon, this policy penalizes smaller
Oregon -based businesses, who receive little if any benefit
from the kicker when it is triggered. Oregon -based busi-
nesses are actually hurt by the instability in school funding
caused by the kicker.
According to a recent study by Ernst and Young for the
Council On State Taxation [http://www.cost.org/], Oregon
already has the lowest business taxes in the U.S. Businesses
depend on educated students and a strong middle class, but
we're damaging those things by our lack of investment in
schools, courts, and infrastructure. We need to invest, not cut
business taxes further.
As business leaders, we know that Oregon needs to reinvest
in education in order to help businesses thrive. That's why
we're backing a Yes vote on Measure 85, the Corporate
Kicker for K-12 initiative. It's the right thing to do for our
schools and for our economy, and it's the best way to start
the conversation about our future.
Please join us in Voting Yes on Measure 85.
Equity Alliance Oregon
John A. Calhoun Roger Johnson
Entrepreneur Investment Advisor
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Brendan Barnicle
Robert Stoll
Investor
Lawyer
Richard B. Solomon
Jim McDermott
CPA
Attorney/
Business Litigation
Anna Geller
Real Estate and
Community Development
(This information furnished by John Calhoun, Equity Alliance
Oregon.)
Argument in Favor
We're voting YES on Measure 85
As educators, parents, healthcare providers, small
business owners, community organizations and advocates
dedicated to funding our schools and doing what's right,
we urge you to vote Yes on Measure 85.
This measure puts more resources in the classroom where
they belong, so our children get the education they need to
succeed in the 21st century.
Protect Our Children, Our Schools, and Our Future
AARP Oregon
Adelante Mujeres
Alliance for Democracy
American Federation of Teachers — Oregon (AFT -Oregon)
Asian Pacific American Network of Oregon (APANO)
Basic Rights Oregon
Black United Fund of Oregon
Clatsop County Democratic Central Committee
Communications Workers of America, Local 7901
Community Alliance of Tenants
Democratic Party of Oregon
Eastside Democratic Club
Economic Fairness Oregon
Economic Justice Action Group, First Unitarian Church
Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon
Elders in Action Commission
Equity Alliance Oregon
Eugene/Springfield Solidarity Network/Jobs with Justice
Family Forward Oregon
Hawthorne Auto Clinic
Human Services Coalition of Oregon
Main Street Alliance of Oregon
Mike Roach, Co -Owner - Paloma Clothing
Mimi Dudley Casteel, Bethel Heights Vineyard
The Mother PAC
Multnomah County Democrats
Northwest Oregon Labor Council, AFL-CIO
Oregon League of Conservation Voters
Oregon AFL-CIO
Oregon AFSCME
Oregon Alliance for Retired Americans
Oregon Center for Public Policy (OCPP)
Oregon Education Association
Oregon Nurses Association
Oregon PTA
Oregon School Employees Association, AFT Local 6732
Oregon State Fire Fighters Council
Our Oregon
Partnership for Safety and Justice
PCUN
Planned Parenthood PAC of Oregon
Portland Jobs with Justice
Rural Organizing Project
SEIU Local 49
SEIU Local 503
Street Roots
Tax Fairness Oregon
Voz Hispana Political Action Committee
Western States Center
Whitman Farms
Willamette Women Democrats
To find out more and join the coalition, visit
www.defendoregon.org
(This information furnished by Patrick Green, Defend Oregon.)
Argument in Favor
Our kids deserve a world -class education
As teachers, we pour our hearts into educating Oregon's
students.
We wake up every morning excited and inspired to help
young minds reach their full potential. We've dedicated our
lives to helping the next generation learn the critical thinking
skills to help them be successful in the classroom and in life.
Every day, we strive to do our very best for these kids
because --simply put --they're worth it.
Unfortunately, no amount of enthusiasm or dedication on
our part can breakthrough the stark reality of ever-increasing
class sizes. Oregon has the third largest class sizes in the
country. According to a recent survey, the average high
school class size in Oregon has increased by nearly 30
percent in the last three years.
We know that individual instruction and one-on-one time with
students is what they need to thrive in school and beyond.
Overcrowded classrooms hinder our ability to concentrate on
each student with the individual instruction and one-on-one
time they deserve.
Our schools have cut entire programs, including foreign lan-
guages, the arts, library, P.E. and programs that help our kids
become well rounded.
We can't continue down this road
For us, reforming the corporate kicker to put those funds into
classrooms is about saying that
it's time to get our priorities
straight. It's time to fund our schools and our future.
We're voting yes on Measure 85.
We hope you will too.
Brian Haliski
Steve Anderson
1st/2nd Grade Teacher
High School Teacher
Metzger Elementary School
Hermiston
Marilyn Post
C. John Larson
Elementary Teacher
High School Teacher
Irrigon
Hermiston, OR
Sarah Black
Gary Humphries
Teacher
Middle School Teacher
Oregon City
Pendleton
Lance Masters
High School Teacher
The Dalles
(This information furnished by Brian Haliski.)
Argument in Favor
Oregon PTA Urges a YES Vote on Measure 85
Oregon parents and teachers are saying YES to Measure 85
and reforming the corporate kicker for K-12 schools by putting
money back into our children's education where it is needed
most.
Imagine what it means for a child to go to school every day
in a classroom that is overflowing with students. Because
there aren't enough teachers, she gets very little individual
attention, and in many cases there aren't even enough desks
for everyone.
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
Despite the great work of Oregon's teachers, the schools
we're sending our children to are simply not the schools that
we once attended. Thousands of teachers have been laid off
and we now have the third -largest class sizes in the country.
In just the past five years, we've cut K-12 funding by more
than $500 million, while the amount of money we're
giving away in tax breaks and loopholes has increased by
$3.4 billion. It's time to get our priorities in order.
This is an important election for school funding, and Oregon
PTA urges you to vote yes and support children and youth in
our communities; it's the right step to protecting our class-
rooms and the future of education in our state.
Voting YES on Measure 85 is critical in ensuring our kids have
the funding that will preserve Oregon's class sizes, protect
effective school programs, and make sure that our children
are well -prepared to excel in the future.
Please join Oregon PTA in voting YES on Measure 85.
Oregon's kids deserve a quality education.
YES on 85
For more information, please visit www.oregonpta.org
(This information furnished by Jackee Duvall, President,
Oregon PTA.)
Argument in Favor
Human Services Coalition of Oregon Urges a YES Vote
Measure 85 Protects Oregon's Schools
The Human Services Coalition of Oregon (HSCO) is a statewide
group of over 120 organizations and individuals. We work to
promote the dignity of all Oregonians through improved public
policy and strengthened support for human services.
We urge a YES vote on Measure 85.
This election is about Oregon's Priorities.
Healthy schools provide safety and resources for kids who
are hungry and are in need of critical services. For many
children— including a tragic number of homeless students —
school provides needed stability. Our schools hold our com-
munities together and should provide equitable opportunity
for all students.
Unfortunately, years of budget cuts have reduced the ability
of schools to play this critical role.
Argument in Opposition
Will Measure 85 Solve Our School Funding Crisis?
No.
So, How Can We Create Stable Funding for Schools?
There is Only One Sure Way: More Family Wage Jobs.
Measure 85 will not produce enough money to make a differ-
ence for our schools. It's not even a Band-Aid. There has not
been a "corporate kicker" refund to businesses since 2007.
The non -partisan state Legislative Revenue Office also esti-
mates there will not be a corporate kicker this budget cycle.
There aren't enough Oregonians with family wage jobs who
generate the taxes to give education the funding it deserves.
Until Oregon is a great place to start and grow businesses
that can employ more Oregonians, the school funding crisis
will continue.
Essential services like schools are funded mostly by income
taxes, so more jobs = more money for families and schools.
The only way to permanently fund services at the levels we
all expect is to make sure more people are employed and
paying taxes. That's how it works in Oregon.
• More jobs and higher incomes for Oregonians would
mean $2.6 billion additional tax dollars every two years
for public services like schools, health care and senior
services that make Oregonians' lives better.
• If Oregonians' incomes met the national average (we are
currently 9% below), we would have billions more dollars
flowing through the state for people to save, invest and
plan for their economic future.
• We need to make it easier for people to start and expand
their businesses so that more of us can have jobs and
plan for our own economic future.
More private -sector jobs would mean billions more dollars
for services we care about like schools, health care and
public safety.
It's a Win -Win.
Quality of life starts with family wage jobs. Let's vote for
people and policies that will create more of them.
Learn more about how jobs finance our schools at
www.valueofmobs.com and www.oregonprosperitv.ora
The Oregon Small Business Coalition
Oregon students are in crisis and need our help now. (This information furnished by Darrell Fuller, Oregon Small
Business Coalition.)
How have our classrooms been impacted by years of massive
cuts?
7,000 teacher and school employee cuts —just since June
of 2010
School closures
The third -largest class sizes in the country
Voting YES on Measure 85 is about finally taking steps to
reinvest in our K-12 classrooms.
Measure 85 will reform the corporate kicker by putting
money into Oregon K-12 classrooms, rather than back into the
pockets of large out-of-state corporations.
Please join the Human Services Coalition of Oregon in voting
YES on Measure 85
www.oregonhsco.org
(This information furnished by Andrew J. Smith, Human
Services Coalition of Oregon.)
The printing of these arguments does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the arguments.
It is against the law to:
sign another person's ballot return envelope for them
vote more than once in an election or cast a fraudulent ballot
vote a ballot if you are not legally qualified
coerce, pressure or otherwise unduly influence another voter
sell, offer to sell, purchase or offer to purchase
another voter's ballot
obstruct an entrance of a building in which a voting booth
or official ballot dropsite is located
deface, remove, alter or destroy another voter's ballot,
a posted election notice or election equipment or supplies
attempt to collect voted ballots within 100 feet
of an official ballot dropsite
attempt to collect voted ballots without displaying
a sign stating "Not An Official Ballot Dropsite"
Any violations of the identified election laws are subject to
penalties ranging from Civil Penalties (Up to $250 per Violation),
Class A Misdemeanors or Class C Felonies.
If you have any other questions about voting in Oregon or
if you think that your rights as a voter have been violated:
10 oregonvotes.goV
1 866 673 VOTE / 1 866 673 8683
se habla espanol
TTY 1 800 735 2900
for the hearing impaired
Vote by Mail Frequently Asked Questions
As a voter, what do I have to do?
Your ballot packet will automatically be mailed to you
between October 19 and October 23, 2012. 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
envelope 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 desig-
nated dropsite.
What if I am uncomfortable voting my ballot at home?
There are privacy booths available for you to cast your ballot
at your county elections office and there may be others at
dropsite locations elsewhere in your county. For further infor-
mation, call your county elections official.
What if my ballot doesn't come?
If you are registered to vote and have not received your ballot
by October 26th, call your county elections office. They will
check that your voter registration is current. If it is, they will
mail you a replacement ballot. You can also check the status
of your ballot at My Vote at oregonvotes.gov.
What if I have moved and have not updated my registration?
If you were registered to vote by October 16 but now have a
different address, call your county elections office for instruc-
tions on how to update your registration and receive a ballot.
Do I have to return my ballot by mail?
You have the choice of mailing your ballot or returning it to
any county elections office or any designated official dropsite
in the state. You can find your nearest dropsite along with a
map of how to get there by going to www.oregonvotes.gov or
you may contact your county elections office.
How much postage is required to mail the ballot back?
Your voted ballot can usually be returned using a single 450
first-class stamp. In those instances where additional postage
is necessary, it will be clearly indicated on the ballot materials
When must the voted ballot be returned?
The voted ballot must be received in any county elections
office or designated dropsite by 8pm on election night. Post
marks do not count!
How do I know if my ballot is received?
You can track the status of your ballot by going online to:
My Vote at www.oregonvotes.gov or you can call your county
elections office and ask if they received your ballot. A record
is kept showing each voter whose ballot has been returned.
Can anyone find out how I've voted once I mail my ballot?
No. All ballots are separated from the return envelope before
the ballots are inspected.This process ensures confidentiality.
What if I forget to sign the return envelope?
Your elections office will contact you, if possible, to come to
the elections office to sign it.
Can the public watch the election process?
All steps of the process are open to observation by the public
Contact your county elections official to make arrangements.
When will election results be known?
Initial results are released at 8pm election night and will con-
tinue to be updated through election night until all ballots have
been counted. Final certified results will be available 30 days
after the election.
Provisional Ballot Information
You will be issued a provisional ballot if:
there is a question about your eligibility as a voter (for
example, there is no evidence on file that you are an
active or inactive voter in Oregon)
you need to vote at a county elections office in a county
other than the one you live in
In order to obtain a provisional ballot, you need to fill out a
Provisional Ballot Request Form in person at the county elec-
tions office.
Your provisional ballot will not be counted until it is deter-
mined that you are eligible to vote.
After you have voted the ballot, you can call 1-866-ORE-VOTE
(1-866-673-8683) or the county elections office in which you
voted to find out if your ballot was counted. If your ballot
was not counted, you can also find out the reason it was not
counted.
If it is determined that you are ineligible to vote in this elec-
tion, the completed Provisional Ballot Request Form will
serve as your voter registration for future elections.
How to File a Complaint
Any registered voter may file a written complaint with the
Secretary of State alleging that a violation of an election
law or rule adopted by the Secretary of State has occurred.
The complaint should state the reason for believing that the
violation occurred and provide evidence relating to it. The
complaint must be signed by the elector; anonymous com-
plaints will not be accepted. The complaint should be mailed
to, or filed at:
Secretary of State, Elections Division
255 Capitol St NE, Suite 501
Salem, OR 97310
Resources for
19 Voters with Disabilities
Contact your county elections office or
call 1 866 673 8683 to request these resources.
Alternate Format Ballots
HTML ballot, available to voters who are unable to mark a printed ballot. Voters
can vote in the privacy of their own home using their own accessible tools. Voters
who do not have accessible tools at home may vote the HTML ballot using a tablet
computer. An accessible computer station is located in every county elections office.
--> Large print ballot, available to voters with low vision.
Alternate Format Voting Guides
4 Statewide Voters' Pamphlet, available in digital audio or accessible text at
www.oregonvotes.gov. Request a CD of mp3 format audio files by phone.
Easy Voters' Guide, available in digital audio or accessible text at
www.voteoregon.org/voterinformation/voters-guides. English and Spanish
versions are available in print.
Standard Voters' Guide, available in digital audio or accessible text
www.voteoregon.org/voterinformation/voters-guides. Large Print, Braille, CD
and NSL compatible versions also are available. Contact Talking Book and Braille
Services at 1 800 452 0292 to request this voting guide.
Additional Resources
� Large print voter registration card, available to voters with low vision.
4 Signature Stamp Attestation Card. If, because of a disability, a person is unable
to sign a ballot or registration card, they may use a signature stamp or other
indicator that represents their signature. A signature stamp attestation form must
be completed along with an updated (or new) voter registration card.
Voters Assistance
Contact your county elections office or
call 1 866 673 8683 to request these resources.
need assistance to vote
Any voter with a disability can request assistance to register to vote, vote their
ballot and/or return their ballot.You can also request assistance from a caretaker,
care provider or someone else you choose.
want to assist a voter
Your county elections office can suggest resources you can use to help inform
voters. Resources must be nonpartisan and unbiased.
Who can provide assistance?
A County Voting AssistanceTeam
A Facility Voting AssistanceTeam
Someone chosen by the voter
Who cannot provide assistance?
The voter's employer
An agent of the voter's employer
A union officer or agent of a union of which the voter is a member
What is a facility voting assistance team?
A congregate living facility may form a Facility AssistanceTeam to assist voters
living in their facility.
Teams must be made up of two registered voters that do not have the same
political party affiliation.
Registering to Vote
To vote in Oregon you need to be registered in the county
where you reside.
You can register if you can answer yes to these three ques-
tions:
Are you a resident of Oregon?
Are you a US citizen?
Are you at least 17 years of age?
If you are 17 years of age, you will not receive a ballot until an
election occurs on or after your 18th birthday.
How to register
You can register to vote online at www.oregonvotes.gov or
you can get a voter registration card at any of the following
places:
in this Voters' Pamphlet
any county elections office
the Secretary of State's Office
some state agencies such as the Division
of Motor Vehicles
--) a voter registration drive
You can fill the card out in person or send it in by US mail
You can also print out a registration card online at:
www.oregonvotes.gov.
To vote in the November 6, 2012, General Election, your
completed voter registration card must be either:
postmarked by Tuesday, October 16, 2012
delivered to a county elections office by Tuesday,
October 16, 2012 or
delivered to any voter registration agency (e.g., DMV)
by Tuesday, October 16, 2012.
If you register to vote online, your registration must be
submitted by 11:59pm on Tuesday, October 16, 2012.
What information is required to register?
To complete your registration you will provide your
4 Full legal name
4 Home address
Date of birth
Signature
Valid identification
What are the identification requirements?
1. If you have a current, valid Driver's License, Permit or
ID number issued by the State of Oregon Division of
Motor Vehicles (DMV), you must provide it in the boxes
on the card.
A suspended Driver's License is still valid, a revoked
Driver's License is NOT valid.
2. If you do not have a current, valid Driver's License, Permit
or ID number issued by the State of Oregon Division of
Motor Vehicles, you must affirm this on the card by marking
the appropriate circle and you must then provide the last
four digits of your Social Security Number.
3. If you do not have a Social Security number, you must
affirm this on the card by marking the circle in indicating
you do not have a valid Driver's License or Social Security
number.
4. If you do not have a Driver's License, Permit, ID number, or
a Social Security number, and you are registering by mail,
you must provide a copy of one of the following which
shows the voter's name and current address:
valid photo identification
a paycheck stub
a utility bill
a bank statement
a government document
proof of eligibility under the Uniformed and Overseas
Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) or the Voting
Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act
(VAEH)
If you do not provide valid identification, you will not be
eligible to vote for Federal races. You will, however, still be
eligible to vote for state and local contests.
Updating your voter registration
Once you have registered, you are responsible for keeping
your information up to date. You can do this online at
www.oregonvotes.gov or by completing and returning a voter
registration card with the new information. You should update
your registration if you do any of the following:
--) change your home address
4 change your mailing address
4 change your name
4 change your signature
4 want to change or select a political party
4 will be away from home on election day
If you notify your county elections office of your change of
residence address after November 1, 2012, you must request
that a ballot be mailed to you or go to your county elections
office to get your ballot.
Use online voter resources to register
' or update your registration status.
• oregonvotes.gov
Are you a citizen of the United States of America? O yes O no
Are you at least 17 years of age? O yes O no
If you mark no in response to either of these questions, do not complete this form.
last name* first* middle
Oregon residence address (include apt. or space number)* city* zip code*
date of birth (month/day/year)* county of residence
phone email
mailing address (required if different than residence) city/state zip code
O Nota memberofa party
Provide a valid Oregon Driver's License, Permit or ID:
El El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
O Americans Elect
O Constitution
O Democratic
O I do not have a valid Oregon Driver's License/PermiVID
O Independent
The last 4 digits of my Social Security Number (SSN) are:
O Libertarian
x x x-x x-❑ ❑ ❑ ElO
Pacific Green
O Progressive
O Republican
O I do not have a valid Oregon Driver's License/PermitIlD or a
SSN. I have attached a copy of acceptable identification.
O Working Families
O Other
sign here date today
aIf you sign this card and know it to be false, you can be fined up to $125,000 and/oriailed for up to 5 years.
previous registration name
previous county and state
home address on previous registration date of birth (month/day/year)
Baker
Tamara J. Green
Baker County Clerk
1995 3rd St., Suite 150
Baker City, OR 97814-3398
541-523-8207
TTY 541-523-9538
fax 541-523-8240
tgreen@bakercounty.org
Benton
James Morales
Benton County Clerk
Elections Division
120 NW 4th St., Room 13
Corvallis, OR 97330
541-766-6756
TTY 541-766-6080
fax 541-766-6757
bcelections@co.benton.or.us
www.co.benton.or.us/
elections
Clackamas
Sherry Hall
Clackamas County Clerk
Elections Division
1710 Red Soils Court,
Suite 100
Oregon City, OR 97045
503-655-8510
TTY 503-655-1685
fax 503-655-8461
elections @ co.clackamas.or. us
www.clackamas.us/elections
Clatsop
Nicole Williams
Interim Clatsop County Clerk
Elections Division
820 Exchange St.,
Suite 220
Astoria, OR 97103
503-325-8511
TTY 1-800-949-4232
fax 503-325-9307
clerk@ co.clatsop.or.us
www.co.clatsop.or.us
Columbia
Elizabeth (Betty) Huser
Columbia County Clerk
Courthouse, 230 Strand St.
St. Helens, OR 97051-2089
503-397-7214 or
503-397-3796
TTY 503-397-7246
fax 503-397-7266
Betty.Huser@ co.columbia.or.us
www.co.columbia.or.us
Coos
Terri L.Turi, CCC
Coos County Clerk
Courthouse, 250 N. Baxter
Coquille, OR 97423-1899
541-396-7610
TTY 1-800-735-2900
fax 541-396-1013
elections@co.coos.or.us
www.co.coos.or.us
Crook
Deanna (Dee) Berman
Crook County Clerk
300 NEThird, Room 23
Prineville, OR 97754-1919
541-447-6553
TTY 541-416-4963
fax 541-416-2145
dee.berman@co.crook.or.us
www.co.crook.or.us
Curry
Renee Kolen
Curry County Clerk
PO Box 746
Gold Beach, OR 97444
541-247-3297 or
1-877-739-4218
TTY 1-800-735-2900
fax 541-247-6440
www.co.curry.or.us/Clerk
Deschutes
Nancy Blankenship
Deschutes County Clerk
1300 NW Wall St.,
Suite 202
Bend, OR 97701
541-388-6547
TTY 1-800-735-2900
fax 541-383-4424
elections @ deschutes.org
www.deschutes.org
Douglas
Patricia Hitt
Douglas County Clerk
PO Box 10
Roseburg, OR 97470-0004
541-440-4252
TTY 1-800-735-2900
fax 541-440-4408
elections@ co.douglas.or.us
Gilliam
Rena Kennedy
Gilliam County Clerk
PO Box 427
Condon, OR 97823-0427
541-384-2311
rena.kennedy@
co.gilliam.or.us
www.co.gilliam.or.us
Grant
Brenda Percy
Grant County Clerk
201 S. Humbolt, Suite 290
Canyon City, OR 97820
541-575-1675
TTY 541-575-1675
fax 541-575-2248
percyb@grantcounty-or.gov
Harney
Maria Iturriaga
Harney County Clerk
Courthouse,
450 N. Buena Vista #14
Burns, OR 97720
541-573-6641
fax 541-573-8370
clerk@ co.harney.or.us
www.co.harney.or.us
Hood River
Brian D. Beebe
Director,
Records/Assessment
601 State St.
Hood River, OR 97031-1871
541-386-1442
fax 541-387-6864
Jackson
Christine Walker
Jackson County Clerk
1101 W. Main St., Suite 201
Medford, OR 97501-2369
541-774-6148
TTY 541-774-6719
fax 541-774-6140
walkercd@jacksoncounty.org
www.co.jackson.or.us
Jefferson
Kathy Marston
Jefferson County Clerk
66 SE "D" St., Suite C
Madras, OR 97741
541-475-4451
fax 541-325-5018
kathy.marston @
co.jefferson.or.us
Josephine
Art Harvey
Josephine County Clerk
PO Box 69
Grants Pass, OR 97528-0203
541-474-5243
TTY 1-800-735-2900
fax 541-474-5246
clerk@ co.josephine.or.us
Klamath
Linda Smith
Klamath County Clerk
305 Main St.
Klamath Falls, OR 97601
541-883-5157 or
1-80 0-377-6094
fax 541-885-6757
KlamathCountyElections@
Klamathcounty.org
www.klamathcounty.org
Lake
Stacie Geaney
Lake County Clerk
513 Center St.
Lakeview, OR 97630-1539
541-947-60 06
fax 541-947-0905
Lane
Cheryl Betschart
Lane County Clerk
275 W. 10th Ave.
Eugene, OR 97401-3008
541-682-4234
TTY 541-682-4320
fax 541-682-2303
elections.customer@
co.lane.or.us
www.co.lane.or.us/elections
Lincoln
Dana Jenkins
Lincoln County Clerk
225 W. Olive St., Room 201
Newport, OR 97365
541-265-4131
TTY 541-265-4193
fax 541-265-4950
www.co.lincoln.or.us/clerk
Linn
Steve Druckenmiller
Linn County Clerk
300 SW 4th Ave.
Albany, OR 97321
541-967-3831
TTY 541-967-3833
fax 541-926-5109
sdruckenmiller@co.linn.or.us
Malheur
Deborah R. DeLong
Malheur County Clerk
251 " B " St. West, Suite 4
Vale, OR 97918
541-473-5151
TTY 541-473-5157
fax 541-473-5523
countyclerk@ malheurco.org
www.malheurco.org
Marion
Bill Burgess
Marion County Clerk
4263 Commercial St. SE,
#300
Salem, OR 97302-3987
503-588-5041 or
1-800-655-5388
TTY 503-588-5610
elections@ co.marion.or.us
www.co.marion.or.us/co/
elections
Morrow
Bobbi Childers
Morrow County Clerk
PO Box 338
Heppner, OR 97836-0338
541-676-5604
TTY 541-676-9061
fax 541-676-9876
bchilders@co.morrow.or.us
Multnomah
Tim Scott
Director of Elections
1040 SE Morrison St.
Portland, OR 97214-2495
503-988-3720
fax 503-988-3719
elections@multco.us
www.mcelections.org
Polk
Valerie Unger
Polk County Clerk
850 Main St.
Dallas, OR 97338-3179
503-623-9217
fax 503-623-0717
unger.valerie@co.polk.or.us
www.co.polk.or.us
Sherman
Jenine McDermid
Sherman County Clerk
500 Court St.
PO Box 365
Moro, OR 97039-0365
541-565-3606
fax 541-565-3771
countyclerk@
shermancounty.net
www.sherman-county.com/
govt_clerk.asp
Tillamook
Tassi O'Neil
Tillamook County Clerk
201 Laurel Ave.
Tillamook, OR 97141
503-842-3402 or
1-800-488-8280 ext. 4000
fax 503-842-1599
clerk@ co.tillamook.or.us
www.co.tillamook.or.us
Umatilla
Patti Chapman
Director of Elections
PO Box 1227
Pendleton, OR 97801
541-278-6254
fax 541-278-5467
pattic@co.umatilla.or.us
www.co.umatilla.or.us
Union
Robin Church
Union County Clerk
1001 4th St., Suite D
LaGrande, OR 97850
541-963-1006
fax 541-963-1013
rchurch@union-county.org
www.union-county.org
Wallowa
Dana Roberts
Wallowa County Clerk
101 S. River St., Room 100
Enterprise, OR 97828-1335
541-426-4543 ext. 158
fax 541-426-5901
wcclerk@co.wallowa.or.us
www.co.wallowa.or.us
Wasco
Linda Brown
Wasco County Clerk
511 Washington St.,
Room 201
The Dalles, OR 97058
541-506-2530
fax 541-506-2531
lindab@co.wasco.or.us
Washington
Mickie Kawai
Elections Division
3700 SW Murray Blvd.,
Suite 101
Beaverton, OR 97005
503-846-5800
TTY 503-846-4598
elections @ co.washington.or.us
www.co.washington.or.us/
elections
Wheeler
Barbara S. Sitton
Wheeler County Clerk
PO Box 327
Fossil, OR 97830-0327
541-763-2400
TTY 541-763-2401
fax 541-763-2026
bsitton@co.wheeler.or.us
Yamhill
Rebekah (Becky) Stern Doll
Yamhill County Clerk
414 NE Evans St.
McMinnville, OR 97128-4607
503-434-7518
TTY 1-800-735-2900
fax 503-434-7520
elections@co.yamhill.or.us
www.co.yamhill.or.us/clerk
View unofficial election results
starting at 8 pm on November 6
for more information about voting in Oregon
oregonvotes.gov
1 866 673 VOTE / 1 866 673 8683
se habla espanol
TTY 1 800 735 2900
for the hearing impaired
Name Page
Avakian, Brad
23
Bagley, Beth
26
Baldwin, Richard C
24
Balyeat, Andy
26
Brown, Kate
13
Buchal, James L
16
Buehler, Knute
13
Conger, Jason
20
Cook, Nena
24
Cox, To m
15
Egan, James C
25
Ferrioli,Ted
18
Hauser, Geri
17
Hovekamp, Nathan R
20
Huddle, John
21
Huffman, John E
22
Johnson, Gary
9
Knopp,Tim
17
McLane, Mike
21
Obama, Barack
8
011erenshaw, Gary L
22
Romney, Mitt
9
Rosenblum, Ellen
16
Segers, Joyce B
10
Starr, Bruce
23
Stein, Jill
8
Volpert,Tim
25
Walden, Greg
10
Wheeler,Ted
14
Whisnant, Gene
19
Whitsett, Douglas K
18
Whitten, Cameron
14
Wolfe, Robert
12
Woolley, Seth
12
Secretary of State
Kate Brown
State Capitol
Salem, OR 97310-0722
ftICglk-
0S
Residential Customer
NONPROFIT
CAR-RT SORT
U.S. Postage
PAID
Portland, OR
Permit No. 815
Voters' Pamphlet
F- Oregon General Election
`c November 6, 2012
1713eschutes