portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article questions oregon & cascadia

environment | government | social services oregon elections 2004

Measures 31, 32, 34, 35, 38 - How To Vote ? ? ? ? ?

can someone please enumerate how progressives/radicals should vote on these Ballot Measures?

(also, some information on who/what corporations or special interests are sponsoring or in favor of these measures would please be helpful)

THANKS
Measure 31 - Amends Constitution: authorizes law permitting postponement of election for particular public office when nominee for office dies

Measure 32 - Amends Constitution: deletes reference to mobile homes from provision dealing with taxes and fees on motor vehicles

Measure 34 - requires balancing timber production, resource conservation/preservation in managing state forests; Specifically Addresses Two Forests [WHICH ONES??]

Measure 35 - Amends Constitution: limits noneconomic damages (Defined) recoverable for patient injuries caused by healthcare providrer's negligence or recklessness

Measure 38 - abolishes SAIF; State must reinsure, satisfy SAIF's obligations; dedicates proceeds, potention surplus to public purposes
thanks for asking (i'm wondering too) 11.Oct.2004 22:55

an indymedia activist

there will soon be links from the oregon elections 2004 page to articles like this, so folks who are voting can figure out what's best to do.

not entirely sure 12.Oct.2004 03:56

Vystrix Nexoth

I dunno, although a Voters' Pamphlet (Volume I) was mailed out the other day. you should have received one by now; it covers the eight ballot measures exclusively.

I'll just give my own take on them.

31 - makes sense. I'll vote yes on it.

32 - not sure, don't care all that much. couldn't find any arguments in opposition (although I haven't searched exhaustively, for the reason I just gave), so I'll vote yes.

33 - sounds good. I'll vote yes.

34 - unsure, although I'm leaning towards yes. the text of the measure is rather verbose, but it should mention which two forests are in question (I believe Tillamook is one of them)

35 - unsure, although I'm leaning towards no. if it passes, doctors may be promoted to recklessness since there's a limit on how much they'd have to pay; on the other hand, it could reduce costs. if it fails, it will help keep doctors in line to avoid recklessness, but may raise costs since who knows how much some moron may sue them over something.

36 - I fully support this measure, except for the part that says "only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage".

37 - unsure but tentatively leaning towards no. it sounds good on the surface but will cost a lot of money to implement, even before compensation is served; this in turn = higher taxes.

38 - unsure, but leaning towards no on the basis that Teresa Keane and my father both oppose it, for whatever reasons.

anyhow, read the voters' pamphlet which describes each measure and contains a multitude of arguments pro and con for most of the measures (a couple, such as 32, didn't have any arguments in opposition filed). that's what it's there for. :P
if you didn't get a pamphlet, you can read information online (although without the pro/con arguments, to my knowledge) at  http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov22004/g04_meas.html

no on 35/38 12.Oct.2004 07:14

glassguy

I've been a medical malpractice victim, and the $43,000 I got for it didn't exactly make me whole again. The medical industrial complex will become more like the national security state if they don't have to answer to anyone over their improprieties.
I also own a small business, and would hate to be forced to buy liberty mutuals grossly overpriced workman's comp. 38 will really hurt small business badly, and it's already hard enough for the little guy to compete with walmart.

Oppose Measure 31 (Candidate Death) ? 12.Oct.2004 09:46

jbk

The Pacific Green Party has taken a position to oppose measure 31. I coulnd't find the actual language used or reason behind it but I seem to recall something like "we can not support any law the supports cancelling an election."

Personally I'd like to see some more debate on 31 and would advise people to read it and decide for themselves rather than just voting yes because it "sounds good" or "makes sense".

From:  http://www.pacificgreens.org
Measure 31 (Candidate Death): Oppose

Yes, READ through the Oregon Voters Pamphlet 12.Oct.2004 10:27

Lawrence Maushard

As stated in the posts above, everyone can start educating themselves on these items by simply reading the pamphlet mailed to registered voters. And if you don't have one, I'm sure they're available at your neighborhood library.

The pamphlets explain each measure, reprint the exact wording, and have many, many opinions both for and against each measure.

Hint: you can learn a lot by who is supporting or trying to defeat each one.

Yes, it takes a little time to read through this pamphlet. But it's worth it. And it's necessary. Also, you don't have to read the whole thing. You'll know how to find the good stuff.

Basically, take some responsibility for your vote.

Endlessly amending the constitution 12.Oct.2004 10:30

spinning

endless constitutional amendments reduce the effectiveness of constitutional law. And inserting constitutional amendments which legalize discrimination are a bad idea. So Measure 35 discriminates against those who sue physicians and Measure 36 discriminates against those who are gay and wish to marry. Constitutional amendments reduce the flexibility of the law, which is good for the fundamentalists.

My opinion 12.Oct.2004 10:59

Bison Boy

31: Leaning no
The enabling legislation is already passed by the legislature. It applies this change only to major parties. This doesn't strike me as fair. Otherwise I think it's a reasonable housekeeping measure.

32: Yes
Mobile homes are more homes than vehicles.

33: Leaning no
I'm not inclined to screw with medical marijuana again just yet. Try again in a few years.

34: Undecided
Interesting idea. I have not yet read the measure itself.

35: Yes
That's a reluctant yes. I oppose it philosophically, but pragmatically the system needs a band-aid Real Soon Now. Good docs are currently being punished for the sins of bad docs. I'd like a better solution, but this is what I've got. :-(

36: No!
It's just not playing nice.

37: NO!!
This is aimed at destroying urban growth boundaries, not promoting fairness. There is a problem to be solved, but this solution would create larger problems. It will tie up the civil courts, because it is enforced through lawsuits and the barrier to action is very low. It won't help most rural landowbers, either, because federal and pollution regulations are exempt from action.

38: No
WTF? can anyone tell me why this might be a good idea?

Pacific Green Party positions 12.Oct.2004 11:13

cut-n-paster

i wish the local PGP had endorsed Nader rather than Cobb for pResident, but i'm willing to trust them on other issues. here's the word, from their website:

# Measure 26-71 (East Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District Permanent Rate Limit): Endorse
# Measure 31 (Candidate Death): Oppose
# Measure 32 (Mobile Homes): Endorse
# Measure 33 (Medical Marijuana): Endorse
# Measure 34 (Tillamook Forest 50/50 Plan): Endorse, but with strong caveat
# Measure 35 (Medical Malpractice): Oppose
# Measure 36 (Same-Sex Marriage Ban): Oppose
# Measure 37 (Property Compensation): Oppose
# Measure 38 (Abolish SAIF): Oppose

on 31 12.Oct.2004 13:43

tt01

the part about 31 i dont like is that the legislature has already passed a bill that will become legal if 31 passes. in other words, they wrote a bill, it was deemed unconstitutional, so now they try and change the constitutional. i say NO.

Also, it is true that the bill that has been passed applies ONLY to "major political parties" one reason greens would not support it. the inclusion of only "major parties" with no explanation that i can find, forces me to vote No.

as for the others
32 yes, fine

33, this is really important to read. the part i cant figure out is where the marijauna "dispensaries" will be required to distribute "AT LEAST 20% of the total amount distributed to indigent people." i dont understand why the "at least" what possible reasoning is there for this?

34, is another tough one. it looks good, but it will by all accounts cost A LOT of money AND decrease revenue. still, old growth is probably worth it. idk yet...the forests in question are tillamook and clatsop

35, probably no
36, definetly no
37, probably no but i have to pour over that one. i believe very strongly in property rights, at least as far as defined by Proudhon...

38, probably no, a true lesser of two evils in my opinion...

so many decisions to make... 12.Oct.2004 17:28

strongbad

Measure 31 - I'm so glad some of you mentioned your qualms about this one, i hadn't given it much thought before, but now i definitely will.

Measure 32 - yes

Measure 33 - yes, why it's not legal for everyone already is just silly!

Measure 34 - this is the Tillamook 50/50 plan, almost everyone i know signed the petition to get it on the ballot, check out their website www.tillamook5050.org

Measure 35 - HELL NO! the way to lower insurance premiums for dr's malpractice insurance is to make insurance companies NON-profit.

Measure 36 - i ain't no bigot. you should read the first 3 arguments in favor of this measure in the pamphlet. brought to you by the defense of heterosexual breeding coalition, vote yes or burn in hell!

Measure 37 - (another) HELL NO! it seems like every 5 years or so the same initiative keeps popping up. it's really important to see who pays for the arguments in favor of these ones, like citizens for a sound economy and shit.

Measure 38 - no, SAIF may be totally sucking ass right now, with all the corruption and lost money we've found out about them, but it's still better to have a state owned insurance than an insurance company that's interested in making as much money as possible for shareholders and ceo's

VERY VERY IMPORTANT -- DON'T BE A BIGOT, VOTE NO ON 36

Vote Yes on 34 14.Oct.2004 21:41

Reasonable tree-hugger

I think the Willamette Week endorsement on 34 was very instructive.  http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=5609. The numbers the state used in the financial impact statement were based on "pie in the sky" future revenues, not what the forests have been producing in the past. The truth is that the "fox" is really guarding the Hen House with our state forests. How can we trust these guys to make good decisions on our public lands when they all get their bread buttered with timber $$?

34 is pretty reasonable proposal--consider clean water, fish and wildlife, and recreation equally valuable to logging on a public forest, and have scientists determine the areas of the landscape that should be protected rather than timber goons.

I'm voting yes on this one, I think it's a no-brainer.

No on 35 25.Oct.2004 16:26

Pink Emma

Bison Boy wrote:
"35: Yes ... That's a reluctant yes. I oppose it philosophically, but pragmatically the system needs a band-aid Real Soon Now. Good docs are currently being punished for the sins of bad docs. I'd like a better solution, but this is what I've got. :-( "

The insurance industry is the lobby behind this measure and it's all about profit.

Measure 35 is NOT a band-aid for high insurance rates. It simply will not do what it claims. If passed it will do NOTHING to help the doctors suffering from high insurance rates. In states that have passed similar legislation, insurance rates continued to go up - in some cases at an EVEN HIGHER RATE.

A very small number of doctors are responsible for over half of the medical malpractice claims. The medical profession needs to do a better job of monitoring their own colleagues and putting the flagrantly bad doctors out of practice.

And the insurance industry must be reformed.

SOME OF THE ORGANIZATIONS AND PEOPLE OPPOSING MEASURE 35:
AARP
AFL-CIO, Oregon
American Federal of Teachers, Oregon
AFSCME Local 75
Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers
Brain Injury Association of Oregon
Center for Justice and Democracy
Common Cause of Oregon
Community Alliance of Tenants
Governor Barbara Roberts
Governor Ted Kulongoski
Multnomah County Democratic Party
Oregon NARAL
Oregon Federation of Nurse and Health Professionals, Local 5018
Oregon State Public Interest Research Group
Oregon Trial Lawyers Association
Public Citizen
Service Employees Internation Union,Local 503
Service Employees Internation Union,Local 49
Former Supreme Court Justice Betty Roberts
Rural Organizing Project

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

 http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov22004/guide/meas/m35_bt.html
 http://www.realinsurancereform.com/
 http://www.trustjuries.com/
 http://www.seiu503.org/action/cape/noon35.cfm
 http://www.theportlandalliance.org/2004/sept/ballot35.htm
 http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=26499
 http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1095595160227181.xml
 http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/10/02/ed.edit.m35.1002.html


No on 35 25.Oct.2004 16:31

Pink Emma

Bison Boy wrote:
"35: Yes ... That's a reluctant yes. I oppose it philosophically, but pragmatically the system needs a band-aid Real Soon Now. Good docs are currently being punished for the sins of bad docs. I'd like a better solution, but this is what I've got."

The insurance industry is the lobby behind this measure and it's all about profit.

Measure 35 is NOT a band-aid for high insurance rates. It simply will not do what it claims. If passed it will do NOTHING to help the doctors suffering from high insurance rates. In states that have passed similar legislation, insurance rates continued to go up - in some cases at an EVEN HIGHER RATE.

A very small number of doctors are responsible for over half of the medical malpractice claims. The medical profession needs to do a better job of monitoring their own colleagues and putting the flagrantly bad doctors out of practice.

And the insurance industry must be reformed.

SOME OF THE ORGANIZATIONS AND PEOPLE OPPOSING MEASURE 35:
AARP
AFL-CIO, Oregon
American Federal of Teachers, Oregon
AFSCME Local 75
Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers
Brain Injury Association of Oregon
Center for Justice and Democracy
Common Cause of Oregon
Community Alliance of Tenants
Governor Barbara Roberts
Governor Ted Kulongoski
Multnomah County Democratic Party
Oregon NARAL
Oregon Federation of Nurse and Health Professionals, Local 5018
Oregon State Public Interest Research Group
Oregon Trial Lawyers Association
Public Citizen
Service Employees Internation Union,Local 503
Service Employees Internation Union,Local 49
Former Supreme Court Justice Betty Roberts
Rural Organizing Project

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

 http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov22004/guide/meas/m35_bt.html
 http://www.realinsurancereform.com/
 http://www.trustjuries.com/
 http://www.seiu503.org/action/cape/noon35.cfm
 http://www.theportlandalliance.org/2004/sept/ballot35.htm
 http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=26499
 http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1095595160227181.xml
 http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/10/02/ed.edit.m35.1002.html
Don't Let Big Insurance Limit Your Rights
Don't Let Big Insurance Limit Your Rights

To Pink Emma 26.Oct.2004 11:22

Stinky Pinky

I read your post. I read the post of the fellow who got $43k out of his medmal case. But I have to say that your claim that measure 35 is backed by insurance and pharmaceutical companies is hyperbole at best. Insurance and Pharma co's have contributed approximately $400k to the campaign, that is less than 10% of the over 5m raised. Most of that money comes from doctors, practices and hospitals.

You seem to have bought into the lies spread by the oppositions-- which is not a grass roots group concerned about victim rights, but rather personal injury attorneys (funding over 98% of the opposition, 30 members gave over 1m) who care more about their bottom line than your health.

With 35 patients will be entitled to unlimited economic damages. Only non-economic damages will be capped. This is a solution that worked to keep costs low for over a decade (1987-1999) when the supreme court struck it down, determining that such caps should come as the result of a vote by the people.

Half a million for your pain and suffering. Unlimited to cover any hard costs. Sounds fair to me.

The alternative is not being able to see a doctor when you need one, already a problem in rural areas. Protect your access to health care, vote yes on 35.

To Stinky Pinky 26.Oct.2004 12:06

Pink Emma

Noneconomic damages is much more than pain and suffering. It includes compensation for such lifelong problems as loss of mobility, loss of a limb, loss of use of ones hands, loss of hearing, eyesight, etc. etc.

Economic damages awards are often no where near enough to cover the true costs when a person is severely injured by the negligent or reckless treatment by a physician. For many such patients, if they do receive a both economic and so-called "noneconomic" damages awards, the entire amount of the "noneconomic" award goes toward medical costs and other costs of coping with a disability resulting from medical malpractice.

Measure 35 is *falsely* presented as lowering medical malpractice insurance rates. There is no guarantee rates will be lowered; the text of the measure does not even mention lowering the rates. Similar legislation has already been tried in 19 states - and medical malpractice insurance rates increased at an even faster rate in those states under this type of legislation.

This measure does not help doctors. Their rates will not go down. Big insurance is the principal beneficiary. Their profits will go up up up.

Only 5 percent of the doctors are responsible for the majority of medical malpractice awards. The doctors should monitor their own professional colleagues and enforce reasonable standards. Information about the track record of doctors should be available to the public. It's easier to find out the record of a contractor who would work on your home than the doctor who will perform surgery on you.

Measure 35 is bogus.
Real insurance reform is the answer.
Real monitoring of medical incompetence is the answer.

Measure 35 28.Oct.2004 16:26

is the local manifestation

of a national effort supported by Bush to benifit large insurance companies. Bush even touted this "reform" in last debate.

conty measures? 29.Oct.2004 12:16

venus

All these discussions on candidates and measures are great, but what about the county measures? 26-57, 26-63?
No info in the pamphlet, nothing much to speak of on the web. I am trying to be resourcful and make an educated decision, not an educated guess? If change starts at the smaller level, where the information to do that?