Finally, here are my thoughts (and intended votes) on Oregon's 2006 ballot measures.
Measure 39: YES.This is the anti-
Kelo measure. It prohibits the government from seizing private property with intentions to pass it on to another private party. In other words, this means your quaint little house can't be seized and razed in order to build a Walmart. Sometimes it's necessary to seize private property in order to expand the interstate, or fix an awful blight problem (East St. Louis could be entirely condemned and turned into a park and it might be for the better). But it should not be the government's right to seize someone's home with the sole purpose of building a strip mall or more expensive housing simply to increase tax revenue from that stretch of land. I voted against Measure 37, because there should be zoning and land use regulation, but I am completely in favor of Measure 39, because it is an entirely different animal.
Measure 40: NO.This measure would require that Oregon Supreme Court and Court of Appeals judges be elected by district. This makes sense for county judges, but not for judges who serve the entire state. The measure would also make it easier for voters in the judges' districts to recall judges, without necessitating a state-wide vote.
Measure 41: NO.This measure would increase the Oregon income tax deduction to the level of the federal deduction. It's a way to cut taxes without actually saying, "Hey, we're cutting taxes." This particular measure would cut state revenue by $151 million in the current tax year, increasing to $430 million by the 2010 tax year.
Measure 42: YES.Resounding yes on this one. Measure 42 prohibits auto insurance companies from using credit scores when calculating insurance rates. Insurance is mandatory, but insurance companies are not required to disclose how their rates are calculated. Insurance rates should be calculated based on driving record. I understand starting a 16-year-old with a high-cost policy because of lack of driving experience, but for someone like me, with 20 years of excellent driving (one fender-bender when I was 16, not a ticket or accident since), my rates should be superb. However, because I believe in living within my means and not bothering with credit cards, my FICO score is not as high as that of friends who rack up ridiculous credit card debt. I don't have bad credit; I just don't use credit. Meanwhile, a friend who has had three accidents (her fault -- she tailgates like a fiend) in the past decade pays lower premiums than I do, simply because she tends to carry about $15K in debt on her credit cards. How does this make sense?
Measure 43: NO. (Long explanation, but this one is most important to me.)A thinly-veiled attempt to whittle away at Roe vs. Wade, this is the 48-hour parental notification law for 15 to 17-year-old girls seeking abortion. Consent is already required for girls under 15 in Oregon. The proponents of this bill claim they simply want to provide support for teenagers during this difficult decision-making process. In reality, they hope that parents will convince the girls not to have abortions.
I have a 13-year-old daughter. I have held many discussions with her about the consequences of sex, the importance of waiting for the ability to make mature decisions rather than hormonally-fueled ones, as well as extensive discussions on contraception and disease prevention when she eventually reaches the point where she feels she is ready. She knows my values and views. She is a damned responsible kid, and I trust her to make good decisions in this regard, but I sleep better at night knowing she has backup knowledge just in case...parents aren't in the vicinity when these decisions are being made, after all. If, despite my best efforts and her best intentions, she finds herself pregnant before she is 18, despite my hope that our relationship is solid enough that she will willingly come talk to me, she may not feel she can. I want her to have this option, even if it means I know nothing about it.
Then there are all those other girls who genuinely have something to fear by telling their parents. Girls actually are kicked out of their homes, disowned,
in some cases abused. Even in healthy families, sometimes the girl feels as though the disappointment will be too much to bear. Sometimes they hide pregnancies. Sometimes they commit suicide. These things happen anyway; but removing this option will only make it that much more difficult for girls who feel they can't tell their parents.
I consider myself pro-choice, but not pro-abortion. I think the "My body, my choice" argument is a weak one. It's much more involved than that. But, unlike the pro-life rhetoric suggests, there aren't many women who actually treat abortion casually. There aren't many women who wait until the second trimester, let alone the third. It can be a brutal decision or an easy one, depending on who you talk to, but sometimes it is the best choice for the situation. It is not a decision that should involve the government in any way, not even for a 15-year-old.
Measure 44: YES.This measure expands the Oregon Prescription Drug Program to include all Oregon residents. The only argument against this measure states that prescription drugs are necessarily expensive so that pharmaceutical companies can continue research and development. Aww, those poor drug companies, with their 18.5% profit margin. They already spend about twice as much on marketing than R & D, and a lot of R & D is done by the National Institutes of Health and university programs, then simply tweaked for patents by Big Pharma.
Measure 45: NO.I already discussed the perils of term limits when
I endorsed Peter DeFazio.
Measure 46: NO. This measure would amend the state constitution to allow campaign finance reform laws. It is intended to supplement....
Measure 47: NO.I am generally in favor of campaign finance reform, but this is a badly-written, overly-complex law that will be struck down by the Oregon Supreme Court. This is one measure where the adage, "Keep it simple, stupid," would have gone a long way.
Measure 48: NO.This final measure would amend the state constitution so that legislative appropriations would be limited to the percentage increase in state population plus inflation. This is a
TABOR measure sponsored by wealthy out-of-state interests who think setting arbitrary limits on government spending will eventually lead to a utopian low-tax society. Sorry, pal. Someone has to pay for repairs if London Bridge falls down. In Colorado, the effects of a similar measure have been detrimental, with education funding dropping to its lowest level in 40 years. I know we have pork-happy folks in Congress, but I'd rather vote against them individually than tie their hands if a good idea comes along that needs some extra fundage.