1996 Oregon Ballot Measure 40 and subsequent measures

Last updated

Ballot Measure 40 was an Oregon ballot measure in 1996. The measure brought sweeping reforms to Oregon's justice system, generally in an effort to promote victims' rights.

Contents

Measure 40 passed with 58.8% of the vote, but was overturned by the Oregon Supreme Court in 1998, on the grounds that it contained more than one amendment to the Oregon Constitution. [1]

Measure 40 case precedent has since been cited as the basis for overturning several voter-approved initiatives. Among these are term limits for state office-holders in 2002 and Measure 3, the Oregon Property Protection Act of 2000.

Kevin Mannix, the state legislator behind Measure 40, shepherded many of its provisions through the Legislature as statutory enactments (in Senate Bill 936 of 1997) while Measure 40 was being considered in the courts, placing many of the constitutional provisions of Measure 40 into statutory law. [2]

Armatta v. Kitzhaber

The 1998 Oregon Supreme Court ruling Armatta v. Kitzhaber [1] was a landmark decision for constitutional amendments. A similar decision in California, Jones, had recently upheld the "single subject rule," which essentially states that a single constitutional amendment measure cannot affect more than one subject in the Constitution. [3]

But the Oregon decision went further, stating that a constitutional amendment cannot affect more than a single clause of the Constitution, even if multiple clauses affect the same subject. The decision has had a significant impact on the way initiative drafters have approached their work in the years since. [3]

Mannix subsequently brought seven more measures (Measures 69-75) to voters in 1999 via legislative referral, each originally part of Measure 40. All seven would have amended the Oregon Constitution. Four of the measures were approved by voters. Campaigns for these measures were primarily funded by conservative millionaires Loren Parks and Mark Hemstreet.

Meas
num
passed?YesNo %Ballot Title
69YES40639329241958.15Grants Victims Constitutional Rights In Criminal Prosecutions, Juvenile Court Delinquency Proceedings
70NO28978340742941.56Gives Public, Through Prosecutor, Right To Demand Jury Trial In Criminal Cases
71YES40440429269658.01Limits Pretrial Release Of Accused Person To Protect Victims, Public
72NO31635138268545.26Allows Murder Conviction By 11 To 1 Jury Verdict
73NO32016036984346.4Limits Immunity From Criminal Prosecution Of Person Ordered To Testify About His Or Her Conduct
74YES36889932507853.16Requires Terms Of Imprisonment Announced In Court Be Fully Served, With Exceptions
75YES39967129244557.75Persons Convicted Of Certain Crimes Cannot Serve On Grand Juries, Criminal Trial Juries

See also

Related Research Articles

A constitutional amendment is a modification of the constitution of a polity, organization or other type of entity. Amendments are often interwoven into the relevant sections of an existing constitution, directly altering the text. Conversely, they can be appended to the constitution as supplemental additions, thus changing the frame of government without altering the existing text of the document.

Capital punishment is one of two penalties for aggravated murder in the U.S. state of Oregon, with it being required by the Constitution of Oregon.

California ballot proposition Statewide referendum item in California

In California, a ballot proposition is a referendum or an initiative measure that is submitted to the electorate for a direct decision or direct vote. If passed, it can alter one or more of the articles of the Constitution of California, one or more of the 29 California Codes, or another law in the California Statutes by clarifying current or adding statute(s) or removing current statute(s).

In the politics of the United States, the process of initiatives and referendums allow citizens of many U.S. states to place new legislation, or to place legislation that has recently been passed by a legislature on a ballot for a popular vote. Initiatives and referendums, along with recall elections and popular primary elections, are signature reforms of the Progressive Era; they are written into several state constitutions, particularly in the West. It is a form of direct democracy.

2004 Oregon Ballot Measure 36

Ballot Measure 36 was a 2004 initiative in the U.S. state of Oregon. It amended the Oregon Constitution to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. The initiative passed with 1,028,546 votes in favor, and 787,556 votes against in the November 2, 2004 general election. It is one of a number of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions.

U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions

Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions of several different types passed, banning legal recognition of same-sex unions in U.S. state constitutions, referred to by proponents as "defense of marriage amendments" or "marriage protection amendments." These state amendments are different from the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban same-sex marriage in every U.S. state, and Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act, more commonly known as DOMA, which allowed the states not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. The amendments define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and prevent civil unions or same-sex marriages from being legalized, though some of the amendments bar only the latter. The Obergefell decision in June 2015 invalidated these state constitutional amendments insofar as they prevented same-sex couples from marrying, even though the actual text of these amendments remain written into the state constitutions.

Kevin Mannix

Kevin Leese Mannix is an American politician, business attorney, and former chairman of the Republican Party in the U.S. state of Oregon.

The Constitution of Arkansas is the primary organizing law for the U.S. state of Arkansas delineating the duties, powers, structures, and functions of the state government. Arkansas' original constitution was adopted at a constitutional convention held at Little Rock in advance of the territory's admission to the Union in 1836. The current constitution was ratified in 1874 following the Brooks–Baxter War.

Same-sex marriage in the entire state of Oregon has been legally recognized since May 19, 2014, when a U.S. District Court judge ruled in Geiger v. Kitzhaber that Oregon's 2004 state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. This amendment had been passed after Commissioner Chairman Diane Linn in the city of Portland Oregon in Multnomah County in 2004 agreed to begin to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. A campaign that was then under way to win voter approval of a constitutional amendment legalizing same-sex marriage was suspended following the decision. In July 2015, Governor Kate Brown signed legislation codifying same-sex marriage in various Oregon statutes. The law change went into effect on January 1, 2016.

Oregon Ballot Measure 37 is a controversial land-use ballot initiative that passed in the U.S. state of Oregon in 2004 and is now codified as Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 195.305. Measure 37 has figured prominently in debates about the rights of property owners versus the public's right to enforce environmental and other land use regulations. Voters passed Measure 49 in 2007, substantially reducing the impact of Measure 37.

Term limits legislation – term limits for state and federal office-holders – has been a recurring political issue in the U.S. state of Oregon since 1992. In that year's general election, Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 3, an initiative that enacted term limits for representatives in both houses of the United States Congress and the Oregon Legislative Assembly, and statewide officeholders. It has been described as the strictest term limits law in the country.

Arizona ballot proposition

A ballot proposition in the state of Arizona refers to any legislation brought before the voters of the state for approval.

Elections in Oregon Overview of the procedure of elections in the U.S. state of Oregon

Elections in Oregon are all held using a Vote by Mail (VBM) system. This means that all registered voters receive their ballots via postal delivery and can vote from their homes. A state Voters’ Pamphlet is mailed to every household in Oregon about three weeks before each statewide election. It includes information about each measure and candidate in the upcoming election.

2008 Oregon Ballot Measure 54

Oregon Ballot Measure 54 (2008) or House Joint Resolution is a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that removed provisions relating to qualifications of electors for school district elections. The measure is a technical fix designed to remove inoperative provisions in the Oregon Constitution which barred those under 21 from voting in school board elections and required voters to be able to pass a literacy test to vote in school district elections. This measure appeared on the November 4, 2008 general election ballot in Oregon. It was passed by voters, receiving 72.59% of the vote.

Oregon ballot measures 46 and 47 were two ballot measures presented as a single package to voters; 46 would have amended the Constitution to allow limitations on campaign financing ; and 47 detailed specific limitations. While Measure 47 passed, 46 did not, and the Secretary of State and Attorney General now refuse to enforce Measure 47 despite not having made constitutional challenges in court during cases filed against them to compel enforcement.

Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the authority of states to regulate the electoral process, and the point at which state regulations of the electoral process violate the First Amendment freedoms.

1996 California Proposition 218 (Local Initiative Power)

Proposition 218 is an adopted initiative constitutional amendment in the state of California that appeared on the November 5, 1996, statewide election ballot. Proposition 218 revolutionized local and regional government finance in California. Called the “Right to Vote on Taxes Act,” Proposition 218 was sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as a constitutional follow-up to the landmark Proposition 13 property tax revolt initiative constitutional amendment approved by California voters on June 6, 1978. Proposition 218 was drafted by constitutional attorneys Jonathan Coupal and Jack Cohen.

References

  1. 1 2 Armatta v. Kitzhaber Archived 2009-03-25 at the Wayback Machine , 327 Or. 250, 959 P.2d 49 (1998)
  2. "Desperate Measures". Willamette Week. October 20, 1999. Archived from the original on September 29, 2007. Retrieved 2007-03-12.
  3. 1 2 Manweller, Mathew (2005). The People Vs. the Courts: Judicial Review and Direct Democracy in the American Legal System . Academica Press. pp.  220–221. ISBN   1-930901-97-6.