Local voters will see five statewide measures and two county measures on the ballot when they vote in the Nov. 6 election.
While we aren’t offering outright endorsements, we’re providing the following summary of each one, along with what we think are key issues voters should consider.
County Measures
Second Amendment
Preservation Ordinance
If adopted, Local Measure No. 22-174 would make the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance part of the County Code.
It authorizes the Linn County Sheriff to determine whether certain firearms laws are constitutional and if the Sheriff determines that any federal, state or local laws affecting firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition are unconstitutional, then the county may prohibit the use of its funds, personnel or facilities in enforcing such laws. Those who do enforce such laws in the county would be subjected to a fine of up to $2,000 per person and $4,000 for a corporation.
The issues here are pretty obvious and involve recognition of Second Amendment constitutional rights along with the extent of local government authority. But essentially, this ordinance would allow a Linn County Sheriff to determine whether firearms laws are constitutional and whether to enforce such laws. This puts the Sheriff in an unusual legal position, as an arbiter of constitutionality, which is usually left up to judges who have been trained in legal theory.
Appointment of Linn County Surveyor
If adopted, Local Measure No. 22-176 would change the mode of selecting the Linn County Surveyor, which is currently an elective office, to one appointed by the Board of Commissioners.
The measure is a response to a state law, passed by the Legislature in 2009, that requires counties to appoint the surveyor. Linn County Commissioners then passed their own ordinance providing that the county surveyor continued to be elected. But in August commissioners approved this measure, which will be voted on by county residents. Current Surveyor Chuck Gibbs retired in July but agreed to stay through October, so the issue could go on the ballot. His term expires in January 2021.
If the measure passes, the Board of Commissioners will select and appoint a new surveyor.
There are two arguments to consider on this one: Is it important that a position such as this one, requiring technical knowledge and expertise, be elected? A prerequisite for anyone seeking the elected office has been that they be licensed surveyors, so the expertise question isn’t just subjective, but how expert are most citizens in determining who’s qualified and who’s not?
Certainly, it has been an elected office for most of the county’s history, but is that good or bad?
Another, related, question is whether the state should be telling us how we should appoint our leaders.
State Measures
Measure 102: Local
governments funding
privately owned affordable housing
Passage of Measure 102 would allow cities and counties to use bonds to fund privately owned affordable housing.
It would remove an existing ban on local governments working with nonprofits and local businesses to build affordable housing in their community with bond funds.
The proposition has drawn significant support from a very wide variety of legislators and organizations such as the League of Women Voters, the American Association of Retired People, homeless support and food bank groups, the League of Oregon Cities, educators, medical personnel and many others.
State Sen. Alan Olsen, who represents the suburbs southeast of Portland, is one of the few who have voiced concerns about the measure.
“What this means in laymen’s terms, is a city or county can borrow money, using your property as collateral to build “affordable housing,” Olsen says on his website. “‘Affordable housing’ is an important issue, but it is not defined in this measure. The definition is left up to the borrowing agency, hence, each different jurisdiction, county or city can have their own definition of ‘affordable.’
“You, the voters will be able to vote for or against the bonding, but you will not know at the time of the vote what terms or conditions are placed on the money to be distributed by the jurisdiction. Nor will you know how repayment of this funding will be handled. Will it reduce the bonded indebtedness, or will it go into the General Fund of the jurisdiction?”
Also, Olsen says, when “affordable housing” construction is complete, the jurisdiction will benefit by increased property taxes.
“How is your housing made any more affordable when your property taxes will increase, outside the limits of Measure 5 and Measure 50, that we the voters passed?” he asks. “Do you want your city or county to become the local bank, loaning out money that you are required to pay back so a private developer can reap the profits?
The housing crisis is linked to the lack of affordable building land and huge system development charges, all created by the same governments.”
Measure 103: Banning taxes on “grocery” sales
Passage of Measure 103 would ban taxes on groceries.
Though Oregon’s lack of a sales tax applies to grocery store purchases, local governments are granted the power to impose taxes on groceries and sugary drinks such as soda. Multnomah County has taken steps in that direction.
Proponents say the constitutional amendment would block taxes on “groceries,” but critics claim the measure would apply to far more than just conventional grocery retailers – it would include food processors, slaughterhouses, trucking companies, and restaurants and fast food chains.
It would also apply to transactions such as Oregon’s bottle deposit fee, fuel tax, and restaurant meals, they say. The constitutional amendment is also retroactive in nature, so the measure would repeal parts of two provider assessments approved in early 2018 to fund Medicaid for low-income families, children, and seniors.
The initiative is supported by grocery chains such as Albertson’s Safeway, Kroger and Costco Wholesale Corporation, which have contributed millions to the campaign, and by the Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Association, the Oregon Small Business Association, the Oregon Family Farm Association, the Taxpayer Association of Oregon, various chambers of commerce, and the Oregon Farm Bureau Federation, among others.
The constitutional amendment has drawn widespread criticism from small business owners and tax experts who note that there is no tax on groceries and that it adds unnecessary complications to the Constitution.
Opponents include a wide range of individuals and groups, many with connections to the interests included among the supporters – grocers, family farm owners, educators, the League of Women Voters, environmentalists, legislators on both sides of the aisle, and a variety of state newspapers.
Also, they say, it puts Medicaid funding at risk, repealing part of the provider tax Oregon voters just approved in January to protect families from losing their healthcare.
Other criticisms include: the passage of the measure gives breaks to large farm and grocery operations that already push family businesses to the sideline; it puts unnecessary burdens on low-income residents and veterans; the language is “unclear” and it’s not clear who is covered by the measure; it fails to exempt many of the basic necessities that Oregon families rely on, including medicine, diapers, and feminine hygiene products – and it includes “loopholes” for “Big Tobacco” and e-cigarettes; and it is a “risky” and “unprecedented and permanent change” to the Oregon Constitution.
While we generally support efforts to rein in legislators who constantly want to spend more and more of our money, there is some ambiguity in the wording that might land us all in court eventually, as happens with poorly worded laws. That may be a red flag, but the question is whether that trumps the message sent by approving this measure. Then again, the state constitution is probably not the best place to send messages.
Measure 104: Expands the scope of requirement for a three-fifths majority to approve bills to “raise revenue”
Passage of Measure 104 would add a definition for what it means to “raise revenue” to a section of the Oregon Constitution that requires bills for such actions to receive a three-fifths majority of members in both houses of the Legislature – a stipulation added to the Constitution by voters in 1996.
Under Measure 104, a bill would be considered to be “raising revenue” if it results in a tax or fee increase by (1) creating a new tax or fee; (2) increasing the rate of an existing tax or fee; or (3) modifying, eliminating or changing eligibility for any exemption, deduction, credit or lower rate of taxation.
Many supporters and opponents of this measure combine both 103 and 104 in their arguments.
Supporters argue that the change would fix a “loophole” that legislators have created in the state Constitution that, they say, leaves businesses and homeowners vulnerable to tax hikes, citing an effort by the Legislature last year to get rid of the mortgage interest and property taxes reductions on state income tax returns.
They say legislators are doing an end run around the three-fifths requirement by expanding tax bases, increasing fees and taking away tax deductions.
Opponents argue that the measure is unnecessary and will create “unnecessary gridlock” in the system. They say it will protect “special interests” and will make it harder to respond to emergencies. They note that the Constitution already requires a supermajority to pass tax increases. They say passage would jeopardize funding for public schools, Medicaid, and other essential services.
Though some taxes and fees are legitimate and necessary to the proper basic functions of government: protection of citizens, provision of justice and the general welfare of citizens, fees and tax hikes have provided back-door mechanisms for politicians seeking to come up with more revenue.
Despite the criticisms, the measure definitely offers a more straightforward approach than what we have now, so it’s a question of whether the good outweighs the bad.
Measure 105: Repeals Oregon’s Sanctuary Law for immigrants
Passage of Measure 105 would repeal Oregon’s 1987 Sanctuary Law, which forbids state resources from being used to apprehend persons violating federal immigration laws.
The law limits local and state involvement with federal immigration enforcement, preventing state and local governments from using agency money, equipment or personnel to detect or apprehend people whose only suspected offense is that they are in violation of federal immigration laws.
Proponents argue that the Sanctuary Law undermines respect for the law and the responsibility of state government to ensure public safety, administer justice and responsibly spend tax dollars. They say illegal immigration costs Oregon taxpayers more than $1 billion annually.
Opponents say repealing the Sanctuary Law is out of step with Oregon values, would open the door to racial profiling and civil rights violations, and would reduce public safety by making it harder for law enforcement officials to interact with immigrant communities.
They also argue that enforcing immigration laws would further deplete local law enforcement agencies already stretched thin.
Opponents include religious groups, environmental groups, law enforcement officials, newspaper editorial writers, business leaders, agricultural organizations, building trade representatives, civil rights organizations and more.
While many Oregonians may appreciate the positives that illegal immigrants provide to our state – and they do, particularly in agriculture, the fact remains that they are not here legally. They’re breaking laws established for America’s security.
If our state’s residents feel so strongly about this issue, why aren’t Oregon’s congressional representatives and senators taking the lead in coming up with real answers to the problem? Why look the other way when the law is violated, when it just needs to be fixed?
Plenty of other states have the same problem, although they haven’t officially caved on the legalities. Even if the federal law in this area is certainly problematic, what kind of message does Oregon send by blatantly defying it? We say we are taking an ethical stand in doing so, but two wrongs don’t really make a right.
Obviously, there’s a conflict of values here and that’s what voters are going to have to address.
Measure 106: Ban Use of Public Funds for Abortions
Passage of Measure 106 would prohibit public funds from being spent on abortions.
Both sides in this heated issue cite emotional accounts – either personal or otherwise – of how abortion or not going through with an abortion have impacted lives positively and negatively.
The central argument, though, for supporters is whether abortion should be paid for through taxpayers’ dollars. They argue that the state pays for roughly 10 abortions per day, at a cost of nearly $2 million in fiscal year 2017-18, and that a majority of Oregon residents – pro-choice or not – oppose publicly funding abortions.
Supporters include strong representation by individual women – including some who have had abortions themselves, educators, medical personnel, religious groups and groups opposing abortion, and immigrant representatives.
Opponents argue that the purpose of this proposition is to prevent low-income women from getting abortions through the Oregon Health Plan.
They also say the wording of the measure is broad enough that it could also prevent abortions from being covered in public employee health plans. They argue that abortion is included in women’s fundamental right to healthcare and patients’ ability to fund such a procedure should not preclude them from being able to go through with it, and and puts women at risk. They argue that the measure is a “poorly conceived” constitutional change that sets a dangerous precedent.
Opponents also include strong representation by individual women, public employees union members, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon, the ACLU of Oregon, Basic Right Oregon and immigrant representatives.
The issue here is not whether abortion should be legal. It is simply whether the state should be paying for the procedure. Of course, there are moral aspects to the question because, if this measure passes, other state-financed health services would be available to low-income women while abortion would not be.
But while the Supreme Court’s assertion that every woman’s right to abortion remains the law of the land, the question remains whether it is a necessity and comparable to, say, treatment of cardiac problems or cancer.
Given all that, the question remains: Should your tax dollars be paying for abortions?