Academic

Thoughts on some of the 2010 Oregon ballot measures

By Tung Yin

One of the not-so-pleasant things about moving back to the West Coast is the fact that my voting ballot is once again clogged with all kinds of ridiculous voter-sponsored initiatives.  At least here in Oregon there aren't competing ballot measures on the same issue, as happened frequently in California when I was living there.

I presumptively vote against ballot measures unless there's some compelling reason to vote otherwise.  That's because, as bad as politicians tend to be, I still believe in the republican form of government, where we elect representatives and hold them accountable for what they legislate and don't legislate.

In any event, here are some interesting ballot measures this year:

Measure 73 would raise the mandatory minimum prison for certain repeat (i.e,, 4 time) sex offenders from 70-100 months to 300 months; and set a minimum 90 day sentence for the third DUI conviction.

As a parent, I'm concerned about sex offenders, but 70-100 months is a pretty long time.  Recidivism rates for sex offenders are, I recall from editing a classmate's law review comment, about average among all criminals, so there doesn't seem to be any special need to add to the sentence in terms of protecting society, at least, not relative to financial crimes, which do have a higher recidivism rate.

I have even less tolerance for repeat drunk drivers, and I do think Oregon's sentences are absurdly low.  If you are racking up a third DUI, it's pretty good evidence that you cannot control yourself and you are a menace to society; after all, the difference between DUI and vehicular manslaughter is largely that someone was unlucky enough to be in the way in the latter case.

Yet . . . Measure 73 would require that we increase prison capacity to house these repeat sex offenders and repeat DUIers.  Either we build more prisons and hire more prison guards -- a dubious proposition given the massive budget deficit that Oregon already faces -- or we end up releasing existing prisoners early to make room for the new prisoners.  I would be on-board with giving prison time for repeat DUI offenders as part of a rational re-allocation of prison time across the board for all crimes.  As one of my colleagues puts it, prison space/time should be treated as a scarce resource.  We need to consider which crimes merit use of that scarce resource.  But I'm not going to vote for simply increasing demand on that scarce resource.

Measure 74 is some kind of a stealth marijuana decriminalization proposal.  In the abstract, I think I would support a measure calling for outright decriminalization of pot, treating it like alcohol and tobacco as an adult-only product subject to high regulatory taxes.  The problem with Measure 74 is that it proceeds along with the Oregon/California fiction that all of the pot to be legalized under its terms will be for "medicinal" purposes.  I have no personal experience/knowledge, but I accept the assertions of some medicinal pot use proponents who say that it is their only effective pain relief medication.  The problem is that I highly doubt that the vast numbers of Oregon residents who currently have medical cards to buy pot for such uses actually fall in that category.  The problem, of course, is that this is the only avenue for getting pot legally in the state.

Worse yet, Measure 74 establishes a "low income cardholders' assistance program."  Wha??  Now we're going to be subsidizing poor pot smokers?  To be fair, the measure envisions that the subsidies will be paid for through the sale of marijuana to other more affluent cardholders.  Nonetheless, I'm concerned that that firewall will not hold.  If "every" cardholder needs pot for medical purposes, and not enough money is generated to cover the subsidies, isn't it plausible to believe that there will be pressure on the state to provide funding for people who need their "medicine"?

I would much rather vote on a straight decriminalization proposal, which would reduce the impetus for people to claim "medicinal need" for pot.  That in turn would allow a more rational look at how to subsidize people who truly need pot for pain relief and who can't afford it.

Measure 75  would allow a private casino to be built in Oregon.  Color me skeptical on the claims that this will bring in money and revitalize Oregon's economy.  I can see how the casinos in Las Vegas actually help Nevada's economy, because it's hard to see why people would otherwise go visit Vegas.  The casinos make Vegas a big vacation destination, just as Disney World undoubtedly boosts central Florida's economy.  I do not see a casino in Oregon as bringing visitors to Portland.  Who would come to visit Oregon because of a casino?  That's not to say that someone already planning on visiting Oregon might not also stop in the casino, but that's not someone you're getting to visit because of the casino.

So who are likely to be the bulk of the patrons?  Local Oregonians (and I suppose, some southwest Washington residents).  So we're going to have the problems associated with gambling, but we're not really going to reap the benefits of driving much external traffic.  No, thanks.

The Multmomah County Charter Amendments include a number of potential changes to the county rules.  I like the one that says if you are a County Commissioner and you move out of Multnomah County, you are deemed to have resigned your position.  The least we could expect is that our county commissions actually live in the county so that if they vote for big property tax increases, or other painful county laws, they are subject to them too.

Full post as published by The Yin Blog on October 21, 2010 (boomark / email).