Endorsements 2000 Overwhelmed by the mega-ballot that just arrived in your mailbox? Relax and take a deep breath. Here are our handy-dandy recommendations on the candidates and the measures. Some of these are obvious choices, such as "no" on Measure 9, while others require more thought. We've emptied our brains into this week's endorsements -- so don't expect much inspired prose from us next week. Meanwhile, if in doubt on any of these issues, don't take our word as gospel. Read your Voters' Pamphlet, newspapers and websites, and be skeptical of those slick TV commercials. Get yourself educated and vote! This election is too damned important to ignore. U.S. President Not Bush We cannot ignore or dismiss the looming threat of a George W. Bush administration (see Editorial this week). Four or eight years of Bush would be a disaster that would set back the progressive agenda and do irreparable damage to our environment. An Al Gore administration promises significant improvements on Bill Clinton's environmental record and assures us of an at least moderate agenda on judicial appointments, social issues and health care. Eugene might be ready for Ralph Nader to lead the country, but the rest of the country is not. We join many Eugeneans in saying yes, campaign for Nader now and keep campaigning until he's elected, but don't punch the ballot for Nader until the final hours of Nov. 7, and use one of the handy ballot drop-off boxes around town. Watch the exit polls in the East and Midwest and vote for Gore if it looks like it's still a close race. U.S. Representative, 4th District Peter DeFazio (D) This is the seventh time we vote for Da' Faz and every time the reasons are stronger. As a member and chair of the Progressive Caucus in the House, he has shown strong leadership skills, often advocating fiercely for labor and environmental protections in the global economy. That was his message in Seattle at the WTO protests, in Nation magazine, and on other national stages. We're proud of Congressman Pete and his fight for what's right. If the voters have the smarts to dump the Republican majority in the national House, the Fourth District of Oregon will be well represented with DeFazio in a position of power. As to his opponents this round, John Lindsey, 34-year-old Linn county commissioner, looks to be a Republican running for the future. Socialist David Duemler is a valuable activist in the Eugene progressive community who runs to put his message out there. Secretary of State Bill Bradbury (D) The future of Oregon is reflected in this race. After the 2000 census, the Legislature is directed to reapportion the legislative districts. But, in the last 30 years, the Legislature hasn't agreed on reapportionment, so it goes to the secretary of state. That's one reason why it's so important to elect Bradbury rather than Lynn Snodgrass, a conservative, highly partisan Republican who is financed in part by some of Sizemore's buddies and is viewed as a strong candidate for governor down the road. If you care about the environment, choice, campaign finance reform, education, gun control, punch your ballot as hard as you can for Bill. While we all appreciate the anti-nuclear work Lloyd Marbet has done for us, the stakes are so high that we can't throw away one vote for him. The same is true for Ed Pole, the Libertarian. State Treasurer Randall Edwards (D) Endorsed by Jim Hill, the outgoing treasurer, Edwards has strong experience for this job. He has been a state rep from Portland since '97 and has worked four years for Hill as a policy adviser and communications assistant. Edwards and Kvistad (R) differ in that Edwards sees the job as an activist place to work toward better school funding and to take a leadership role in Oregon's other financial arenas. Kvistad views the job more narrowly. State treasurer is the third ranking elected official in this state. We're in favor of aggressive leadership wherever we can find it. That makes Edwards an easy choice. Attorney General Hardy Myers (D) Incumbent Attorney General Hardy Myers has a superior track record in the exceptionally tough job of attorney general, and there is no good reason to replace him. His Republican challenger, Kevin Mannix, is the author of Measure 11 and a fanatical crusader for law and order at the expense of balance and reason. Myers is a bipartisan leader who enjoys the overwhelming support of Oregon's district attorneys. Let's keep him on the job. House District 39 Bob Ackerman (D) Kitty Piercy is being term-limited out of the state Legislature and the best candidate to take her place is Democrat Bob Ackerman, a Eugene attorney. Ackerman is a veteran of 15 years of public service on local and state boards and councils, including three terms on the LCC Board. He also carries a wealth of legal experience fighting for the interests of citizens. His priorities are stabilizing funding for public education and preserving farm and forest lands. His Republican opponent, Chris Bevans, is a security guard and political science grad student. Bevans has held no elected office and has no experience comparable to Ackerman's. House District 40 Phil Barnhart (D) No contest for this replacement of Floyd Prozanski, term-limited out. Barnhart brings unusual credentials: both a law degree and a doctorate in psychology plus six years on the Eugene 4-J school board and several years as chair of the local Democratic party. As a professional, he has worked both in law and health care, and as a public servant, both in education and party politics. His eagerness to make a difference is infectious. Dist. 40 has a proud tradition of outstanding legislators. Phil Barnhart will continue it. House District 41 Vicki Walker (D) Vicki Walker has done an impressive job during her freshman term in the state legislature. She's passed both a bill prioritizing teen suicide prevention and only the third bill in the nation that established a pesticide use reporting system. The court reporter is currently working on bills that would make transportation safer and beef up Oregon's aeronautics industry, among others. Walker is a Democrat backed by state organizations involved with education, and is in the right party to vote to increase state funding for schools. She is also a proponent for the Oregon Health Plan. Challenger Jeff Miller (R), former Eugene mayor and city councilor, says he is also an advocate for education and healthcare, but the fact is he will be part of a majority party with extremely poor voting records on those crucial issues. As a rookie, it is highly unlikely that Miller would be able to change the status quo; rather he would more likely be pressured to vote with the majority bloc. Oregon needs more, not fewer, Democrats in the Legislature. House District 44 Al King (D) Al King is a moderate Democrat and a good fit for his Springfield, Cottage Grove, Marcola, and McKenzie voters. He has a strong and genuine interest in education, especially in rural Oregon. Ed Kemp, the Walterville Republican opposing him, is more conservative and would help to keep that miserable majority in place. King earned only a 75 percent rating from the Oregon League of Conservation Voters for his first session, with anti-enviro marks in both toxics and water quality issues. He was one of the leaders against Eugene's toxics right-to-know law, a curious stance. Surely, voters from District 44 believe in their right to know what toxics are in their air, water, and soil. We're hoping for a better environmental rating in King's second term. Oregon Supreme Court Paul DeMuniz (Non-partisan) Consider that most ballot measures passed in this election are likely to go to the Oregon Supreme Court. This state will be better served by having Paul DeMuniz, a seasoned and respected jurist now on the Court of Appeals, rather than Greg Byrne, a conservative Portland lawyer, ruling on these questions and many more in the highest court of Oregon. Byrne has represented right-wing activists Don McIntire and Bill Sizemore. When the Oregon State Bar was asked "Who does the law community think would make a good judge?" 1,671 lawyers voted for DeMuniz and 113 for Byrne. DeMuniz handily won the May primary over four other candidates. This is one of the most important votes you will cast. Eugene Mayor Michael Glownia It's hard to forget Mayor Jim Torrey sitting in his car doing nothing on that famous first day of June 1997 when local cops decided it was somehow OK to abolish the rights of local protesters and douse them with dangerous levels of pepper spray. And it's hard to ignore the fact that Torrey is backed by business-as-usual, pro-sprawl conservatives. Protesting by not punching in that little hole by his name on the ballot won't mean much -- he only needs one vote to win. But it is possible for a write-in candidate to win. To have your write-in vote count, you must fill out the form: "City of Eugene. Mayor. [candidate's name]." Michael Glownia, who came in second in last May's primary, is hoping you'll write in his name. The single father of two and poet works with youth at Station 7 homeless shelter and sits on the board of Planned Parenthood. He hopes to create a more sustainable Eugene by bringing in green businesses, managing growth and building consensus on important issues (see News story). Emerald People's Utility District Board Katherine Schacht, Dick Eymann and Doug Still. This progressive trio should be affirmed to continue the policies that have made EPUD the socially and environmentally aware utility of which this community is proud. They continue to support conservation and renewables at a time when most other utilities are sliding back. Schacht, Eymann, and Still have helped to build EPUD and voters should support them in carrying on their good work. Measure 83 New standards for vet loans. YES Oregon veterans who served before 1977 can apply for state-financed home and farm loans, but vets of Desert Storm, Lebanon, Grenada and Kosovo cannot under federal guidelines. Measure 83 would set up a separate state-run loan program funded by bond sales, but paid back by vets using the program. Measure 84 No unfunded state mandates. YES Voters approved a constitutional amendment in 1996 to require the state to pay the costs of any new programs imposed on local governments and it appears to be have been a good idea. The measure required a second look in 2000, and here we are. We see no good reason not to continue. Measure 85 Formation of new counties. NO State law currently allows new counties to form and break away, but they need 400 square miles. This measure promoted by two Gresham Republicans would allow smaller geographic areas to form new counties in densely populated urban areas, such as the Portland area. The environmental, land-use and financial implications are unclear, so we say "no" to this measure. Measure 86 Ban use of tax refund kicker. NO This measure would move the surplus-kicker law from state statute to the Oregon Constitution. It would prevent the Legislature from overriding the surplus-kicker law and spending excess income tax revenues on schools. Measure 86 would put an end to campaigns to dedicate the kicker to kids. School kids need the money more than corporate income tax payers. Measure 87 Restrict "sexual" business. NO Passage would allow governments to pass zoning laws barring "sexually oriented" businesses from certain locations, and setting up such zones so that such businesses could be located in certain "red light districts." In addition to the potential clustering of nude dancing bars and adult bookstores all in one area is the issue of free speech. The definition of "sexually oriented" business is so loose it could include some art galleries, neighborhood video stores, cable television stations, local book stores and museums. Local politicians could decide what is "sexually oriented" material and close a legal business just because they don't like what it is selling, even if it isn't causing any problems. Cities and counties already have the power to shut down any problem business. Similar measures have been voted down twice before: in 1994 and 1996. Measure 88 Income tax deduction. NO Measure 88 would cut $168 million out of the state biennial budget by increasing the maximum amount of federal income taxes that may be deducted on Oregon personal income tax returns from $3,000 to $5,000. Schools would take a big hit. 4J could lose an estimated $1 million a year in state funding. Most of the tax savings would go to the wealthy. Measure 89 Tobacco spending plan referral. NO The Legislature passed this measure on to voters to try to figure out, thank you. Similar to Measure 4, Measure 89 sets aside Oregon's tobacco settlement money into a trust fund, in this case spending the earnings on a variety of health and welfare programs. But the plan spends too little on reducing tobacco use or long-term care for people disabled by smoking-related diseases. Measure 90 Bail-out of debt on failed utilities. NO This measure would allow regulated utilities that provide water, electricity, natural gas and phone service to make profits on plants no longer in operation, such as the Trojan nuclear plant that closed in 1993. This is a sneaky way for utilities to get customers to bail them out for bad decisions in the past, but particularly worrisome are the implications for utilities' bad decisions in the future. Measure 91 Income tax deduction. NO This measure would cut $632 million in state revenue in 1999-2001 by repealing the limit on the amount of federal income taxes that may be deducted from Oregon personal income tax returns. Schools could lose 18 percent of their state funding or $272 million. In 2001-03, the cuts would continue with $2.03 billion or 18 percent cut from state money available for schools. District 4J stands to lose an estimated $9 million in the current fiscal year and $12 million each year after. While school kids suffer, corporate taxes would drop by about a third and almost three-fourths of the tax cut will go to individuals making more than $100,000. Measure 92 Limit payroll deductions. NO This anti-union measure would restrict the ability of public employees to contribute to any organization through payroll deduction if any portion of the contribution will be used for political purposes. The measure would require that every employee issue an explicitly written authorization for such payroll deductions every year. The unfair measure could severely weaken the Oregon Education Association and other public employee groups that have been among the state's strongest advocates of school funding and government services. Measure 93 Vote on every little thing. NO This complex constitutional amendment would require voter approval of most tax and fee increases, however minor. Depending on the measure's approval percentage, the measure would subject already-approved school and government tax increases to a re-vote and, if unsuccessful, require a refund of already-collected taxes. For future tax measures, Measure 93 would create a super-majority voter approval requirement for tax measures based on the measure's approval percentage. The measure would create a ballot nightmare with voters deciding each year on potentially dozens of fees. Many government fees are designed to prevent taxpayers from subsidizing government services for those who could afford to pay for them. Measure 94 Change sentencing laws. YES This measure would return control of courtrooms to judges by changing current sentencing laws. Under the current rule of "one strike you're out," many first-time juvenile offenders are given lengthy prison terms. Passing this measure would enable judges to consider the whole picture of a person's crime history (or lack thereof) and offer a punishment to fit the crime. The current system of imposing mandatory sentences on first-time juvenile offenders and locking them up with adults could end up producing hardened criminals who are not given a chance to mature, improve and rectify their situations. Measure 95 Link teacher pay to student tests. NO Measure 95 would require a massive system of expensive standardized tests that would replace learning with rote memorization and fill-in-the-bubble exams. Standardized tests results depend mostly on socioeconomic factors. Teachers could be punished for teaching children from poor families and/or unstable families. With layoff and pay raise decisions based on bubble tests, teachers would flee classrooms and schools with the poorer and needy children who most need their help. This unprecedented teacher pay proposal is part of Bill Sizemore's war on public education and is opposed by a host of pro-school groups, including the Oregon PTA. Measure 96 Initiative process. NO Measure 96 would prohibit the Legislature from passing or referring laws that would make the initiative process more difficult. In general, we're opposed to making it tougher to get an initiative on the ballot. Past efforts by the Legislature to require a geographic distribution of signatures or big increases in signatures required for constitutional amendments would have blocked grassroots environmental and government reform measures from the ballot. Corporations and wealthy conservatives would have simply paid to hire more signature gatherers. We'd like to see more progressive measures on the ballot (e.g., progressive income and corporate tax reform!) not fewer. But the initiative process does need some reform. Bill Sizemore should be required to disclose the wealthy conservatives who pay for his signature gatherers, for example. Under the existing system, any changes to the initiative process by the Legislature would still likely be referred to voters. Measure 97 Bans steel-jawed trapping. YES Backed by the Oregon Animal Welfare Alliance, the Humane Society, the Animal Control Agencies and wildlife advocacy and animal welfare groups throughout Oregon, this measure would ban steel-jawed leghold traps along with Compound 1080 and sodium cyanide. Both traps and poisons, in addition to being cruel to wildlife, are also dangerous to domestic animals and children. Some steel traps are so painful that animals who are left trapped for days or even weeks will often chew off their legs to escape. Eighty-nine countries and four states have banned such traps. Studies demonstrate that for every target animal caught in a trap, one to 10 non-target animals are caught. Gophers and moles are already exempt by state law from all trapping restrictions, and would not be effected by Measure 97. Measure 98 Political money collecting. NO This unfair measure would ban public employee unions from using payroll deductions to advocate for better government. Measure 98 would also eliminate candidate statements and ballot measure arguments from state and local voters' pamphlets. The measure also prevents charities that receive money from payroll deductions from using the money for advocacy. By attacking the political voice of unions and charities, Measure 98 would cripple organizations that have been among the strongest supporters of school funding and better government. Measure 99 Home care services. YES The turnover in Oregon home care workers is extremely high and the quality and consistency of care suffers because of it. This measure creates a nine-member commission to ensure high-quality care services for the elderly and people with disabilities. It also sets qualifications, provides training and other support, and collective bargaining. The costs associated with this measure would be more than offset by the savings associated with allowing more elderly and disabled Oregonians to live independently in their own homes. Measure 1 School funding. YES This measure would require the Legislature to publish a report explaining why it doesn't fund schools adequately. It would also require the Legislature to create equalization grants for poorer school districts. The measure was spearheaded by Gov. John Kitzhaber but doesn't include any actual funding increase for schools, a big disappointment. But Measure 1 won't hurt and could help embarrass Salem Republicans into giving schools the funding they need. Measure 2 Attack administrative rules. NO Measure 2 would allow special interests to overturn an administrative rule with 10,000 signatures, if the legislature didn't then vote to uphold it. The pro-sprawl, anti-environment, anti-government wackos at Oregonians in Action put this constitutional amendment on the ballot as a sneak attack against land use planning, anti-pollution and health regulations. Shoot it down. Measure 3 Stamp out shady forfeitures. YES Oregon's property forfeiture law has stood up to court challenges even though it violates the spirit (if not the letter) of our Constitution regarding due process. It also violates one of our most cherished legal principles: that we are innocent until proven guilty. It is outrageous that people accused of crimes can permanently lose their cars, cash, even their homes, and not be convicted of any crime. Measure 3 still allows seizure of property and forfeiture, but protects us from over-zealous and unaccountable law enforcement agencies. Measure 4 Tobacco settlement spending. NO This measure, similar to Measure 89 but not referred by the Legislature, would put Oregon's tobacco settlement money into an Oregon Health Plan trust fund. The earnings would help shore up health care for low-income Oregonians, and would be matched by federal funds. But the measure does little to prevent tobacco use now or fund long-term care for people disabled by tobacco-related diseases. Let's go back to the drawing board. Measure 5 Background checks at gun shows. YES A loophole exists in state and federal gun laws that allows anyone, even convicted felons and juveniles, to buy rifles and shotguns from unlicensed dealers at gun shows. Measure 5 would require background checks on all gun sales where more than 25 guns are for sale. Under the proposal, a system would be set up so private citizens selling guns can call and request criminal history background checks. Makes sense. Let's do it. Measure 6 Campaign finance reform. YES A voter-approved cap on election spending survived one election before the state Supreme Court nixed it in 1997. Since then, campaign spending for state offices has risen to ridiculous heights. This much-needed measure sponsored by the Oregon League of Women Voters, Norma Paulus and John Dellenback would give public money to candidates who agree to limit their campaign spending and not raise money from private contributors once they have raised a minimum number of $5 gifts. The costs would be offset in part by the elimination of the state political contribution tax credit. This voluntary form of campaign finance reform certainly doesn't solve all the problems with money in Oregon politics, but it's a step in the right direction, and it's likely to survive any legal challenges. Measure 7 Landowner compensation. NO The measure would cost $5.4 billion a year that the state and cities would pay landowners for reduced property values due to regulations, according to state estimates. The costs could run even higher. Eugene/Springfield would have to dole out up to $3.1 billion just to maintain its urban growth boundary, according to a recent study by economists at ECONorthwest. The is another constitutional amendment by the anarchists at Oregonians in Action that deserves to be shot down. Measure 8 Limit state spending. NO This constitutional amendment would impose a cap on state expenditures and cut state government funding by $5 billion or about 15 percent. School K-12 spending is now about 42 percent of the state's budget. School district 4J estimates that it could lose up to $11.5 million a year in state funding, a worse hit than Measures 5 and 50 combined. While Measure 8 will hurt kids, it's unclear how much it will benefit taxpayers. If the state turns away federal funds to stay under the spending cap, the money won't be returned to Oregon taxpayers but rather returned to the federal treasury. Measure 9 Prohibits homosexuality discussion in school. NO The so-called "student protection act," sponsored by the OCA, which has twice before had its anti-gay ballot measures rejected by voters, would prohibit public schools (including colleges and universities) from engaging in any discussion that might be seen as promoting, encouraging or sanctioning homosexuality. At issue, besides the intolerance that is antithetical to the philosophy of Oregon's public education system and issues of censorship, is the harm this measure would foster. Teen suicide rates could rise if counselors are not free to openly discuss issues with students. Also, health issues and sex education would be hindered if instruction around HIV/AIDS and other factors could not be openly discussed by teachers. Half of all new HIV infections occur in people under the age of 25. Not being able to discuss this with students puts them at risk. Also, if educators hear homophobic remarks or see harassment of students, they might have to remain neutral. Currently, promoting fair treatment of students is practiced in our schools. Measure 9, even if tossed out later by the courts as unconstitutional, would set the state way back in practicing tolerance. Measure 20-36 New police headquarters. NO This $48 million measure would build a deluxe new police headquarters that would be among the roomiest cop shops in Oregon. The city's own studies have shown the existing police space in City Hall could be renovated to be earthquake safe for only a fraction ($500,000 to $4.3 million) of the cost. The now vacant 911 center in City Hall could be remodeled to provide better space for the few officers now working in the basement. If the fire station moves out, the police could also expand into that space. The earthquake argument by 20-36 proponents is a red herring. City fire stations, schools, indoor pools, parking garages, commercial buildings and other police stations in Oregon face a similar hazard, but their seismic risk is largely ignored. Voters have a lot better things to spend their money on, such as buying threatened natural areas, library operations, road maintenance, a forecasted city deficit, crime prevention, domestic violence law enforcement, growth management, alternative transportation, $200 million to replace old schools, and Measure 20-37. Measure 20-37 Youth programs. YES This measure would cost property taxpayers $3.5 million over two years to fund grants for neighborhood youth activity programs to keep kids out of trouble. The price tag is a deal -- a14th the cost of the proposed new police station and a 16th the cost of the county's jail measures. Investing in activities for kids that keep them out of trouble in the first place is far more cost effective than paying for cops to arrest them and throw them in expensive jails. Measure 20-37 isn't perfect. The city should move toward a more progressive tax and permanent funding and take care in awarding the grants. The money should target the neediest kids and not go mostly for sports programs. But the measure is a humane, cost-effective and welcome step toward fighting crime by helping kids. Measure 20-38 Operate more jail beds. NO This four-year property tax levy would cost voters $40 million for the county to expand its adult and juvenile jails. The measure has four big problems. 1) The county is asking for a huge tax increase after it just got word of a likely windfall of at least $9 million a year from the federal government to replace lost timber revenues. 2) Unlike previous public safety measures, the county has cut cost-effective crime prevention from the measure and focused exclusively on expensive incarceration. 3) The measure relies on regressive property taxes instead of more fair income taxes on the wealthy and corporations. 4) With the per capita crime rate falling and the city and county jailing petty offenders for excessive terms, the need for expanded jail space is questionable. Measure 20-39 Build bigger jail. NO This bond measure would cost $15 million to expand the county jail by 65 beds. The measure has the same four big problems as 20-38 above. At $231,000 a bed, crime prevention would be far more cost effective. Table of Contents | News & Views | Arts & Entertainment Classifieds | Personals | EW Archive