In a message posted at News With Views, writer Jim Kouri reports on Oregon’s Measure 65. This proposal is titled “Changes General Election Nomination Processes for Major/Minor Party, Independent Candidates for Most Partisan Offices”, and News With Views reports in part
“If passed, Measure 65 will spell the end of all third parties in Oregon. They will NEVER be on the General Ballot again if this measure passes and will most likely lose their certification to be on ANY ballot in the state of Oregon,” former Oregon gubernatorial candidate and news anchorwomen Mary Starret told NewsWithViews.com.
Ballot Access News has more than 360 reports on Oregon, and many do address the system proposed by Measure 65. In this one, Editor Richard Winger gives a factual rundown of the measure and how it is even more draconian than Washington’s similar law. This report says that the Oregon Secretary of State was an ardent supporter of the “top two primary” idea and likens it to the Louisiana system.
In another post about this top-two system, Winger questions the law’s Constitutionality, and here he points out that the primary would be held in May for a November election.
While the report at News With Views reports on opinion from the Constitution Party perspective, the Libertarian and Green Party positions seem more difficult to locate. In an article at Oregon Live, Washington Green Party spokesperson Trey Smith is quoted saying
“The reason to be in the general election is to expand the political discourse on the issues. Whether you win or not in the end doesn’t matter. What matters is being able to present issues to the public.”
In a comment at that site Green Ferret said
This is the election reform equivalent of ethanol: a false cure that is truly worse than the disease. Restricting people’s choices at the ballot is never a good idea. The only people who can possibly benefit from this are the big-money interests who already control our political process and who fear true democracy.
The Oregon Libertarian Party website had no information on Measure 65, and an email to the Executive Director was sent an the early hours of September 4th. The same is true of the Pacific Green Party. Likewise the Constitution Party website.
A blogger who goes by the name The Hankster believes the measure, if passed, would allow everyone and her sister to run for anything in the May Primary, improving the situation for independents.
A writer at Swing State Project observes that the measure is likely to fail because the major party bosses don’t want it. This seems in direct opposition to the proposition laid out in the News With Views piece.
The Free Citizen has a fairly documented and linked article published August 28th, so readers will have to dig a bit for the pertinent section.
The Register-Guard has a professional piece on the measure, and Newhouse News Service does as well. Oregon Live has a brief article as well.
Lindapendent – thank you for your great comment!
You say that you’re a proponent of direct democracy, and that you’ve worked with ballot initiatives before. Have you ever heard of the national initiative? It’s a movement to create intiative and referendum on the local, state, and national level. The two main websites for it are http://www.ni4d.us and http://www.vote.org
You can contact me at [email protected] if you have questions.
I’m an attorney with a lot of election law experience and I’m personally committed to direct democracy. I’ve worked on and drafted statewide ballot measures, Public Utility District formation petitions, recall and referral petitions and local initiative drafting for 30 years.
I was the sponsor of the petition drive to form the Independent Party of Oregon, the IPO has taken no position on the so-called “open primary,” Ballot Measure 65 on the November ballot in Oregon, because of a split among the voting delegates, but I do not want to see the Constitution, Green, Working Families and Peace parties silenced. My opposition is not based on “sour grapesâ€â€“ In fact, IPO is one of only 2 of the minor and emerging parties in Oregon which would survive the effects of BM 65, which will wipe out parties with fewer than 10,000 registered members who now maintain their legal status by running candidates who receive at least 1% of the vote in statewide general elections.
I have absolutely no financial ties to BM 65, pro or con, and I am not being paid for this post–I am opposed to BM 65 because it’s poorly drafted. It will reduce meaningful citizen involvement in collective action and direct democracy. It was put on the ballot by big money interests which will get the candidates they “want” under BM 65.
BM 65 Makes Special Interests Even More Powerful in Picking Candidates.
Now, why would Oregon’s largest land speculators, industry lobbyists, and a smelter owner pay a lot of money to get BM 65 on the ballot?
OR has no campaign contribution limits at all–none. Most of you reading this live in the 45 states that actually limit money in state races, so you may not realize how totally corrupting unlimited money from special interests can be.
OR votes by mail exclusively. The May primary ballots go out to voters in April. That means the money race for enough cash to make the top-two will start in the winter. The big funders will “anoint” the top-two and then “elect” the winner in the (even more) expensive November general election.
Stifles citizen voices.
Independent voters engage in personal democracy, they want their votes to count. But actual political strength and the power to change history come from the other great parts of the First Amendment–our freedoms of association and to collectively petition the government.
A vote is an individual act, concerted action is what brought about Abolition, women’s suffrage, trust busting, the social safety net, environmental proctection, the end to the last tragic, pointless war.
A robust democracy needs more voices, often brought to prominence through political campaigns. Killing minor parties and wiping out citizen sponsored candidates (in Oregon candidates can now get on the ballot thru petition or through assemblies of 1000 voters) is bad for Oregon.
In practice, the need for insurgent and competitive candidates cannot be known until after the May primary. In Oregon, citizens (led by the Grange) had to draft a candidate for goivernor by petition in 1930 because the major party candidates were hand-picked by corporate interests and opposed rural power development and action to lift Oregon out of the depression. Julius Mieer won by 54% of the total vote, more than the other candidates combined vite.
Too many drafting flaws to describe in detail.
The Bill is poorly drafted. It fails to integrate dozens of current state election law statutes.
It deprives the existing parties of the right to “nominate” candidates at all, a federal First Amendment violation which caused the State of Virgina to alter its compulsory open primary system after losing at the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (the appeals level just below the US Supreme Cout).
It does not harmonize with federal election law. In particular, by not allowing party nominations, it thrreatens the rights of parties to support their federal candidates becasue FEC rules allow coordinated financial support only by state parties in support of their “nominees.†The top-two runoff candidates are not party nominees.
If you live in Oregon–Voting for a hastily designed measure in the hopes it will get “fixed” is a bad idea. Do we want elected legislators to vote for any old thing and then promise to “fix” it somehow, sometime? As citizen legislators who vote of laws before us, we should hold ourselves to a high standard.
Read BM 65 and understand it before you vote. If it needs “a fix” to make it work, then vote “NO.”
It’s also nigh impossible to achieve a third party ballot line in WA.
You still need to win 5% in a statewide partisan race in the general election to get a major party status, but to get to the general election, you have to come in at least second place in the primary.
And we now have seven state legislative races where voters will have only two Democrats or two Republicans to choose from.
My write-in pen is going to go into overdrive this year.
And, as another WA state voter, I agree with Mike Gillis’ assesment. The election for all offices but president, is now completely rigged. They’ll never be another indie or minor partry candaite on the Nov ballot, except for president. That’s why I did not vote for any partisan offices in the Aug primary, and won’t in Nov, except for president.
As a voter in Washington state, let me assure you that the two top primary sucks.
Hard.