Measure No. 65

Explanatory Statement

Arguments in Favor

Arguments in Opposition

Measure Contents Page

Proposed by initiative petition to be voted on at the General Election, November 3, 1998.

BALLOT TITLE

65

AMENDS CONSTITUTION: CREATES PROCESS FOR REQUIRING LEGISLATURE TO REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE RULES

RESULT OF "YES" VOTE: "Yes" vote creates process for petitioning legislature to require its review of administrative rules.
RESULT OF "NO" VOTE: "No" vote keeps system not requiring legislative approval for administrative rules to remain in effect.
SUMMARY: Amends constitution. Current law does not require legislative review of administrative rules. Measure allows voters to require legislative review of administrative rules at next regular session when petition, signed by specified number of voters, is filed listing affected rules. Rule remains effective until reviewed by legislature, but rule ceases to be in effect unless approved. If governor vetoes bill, rule is disapproved unless legislature overrides veto. If rule is not approved, state agency may adopt new rule on same issue, but legislative review is required.
ESTIMATE OF FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial effect on state or local government expenditures or revenues.

TEXT OF MEASURE

Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:

PARAGRAPH 1. The Constitution of the State of Oregon is amended by creating a new section 34 to be added to and made a part of Article IV and to read:

SECTION 34. (1) The people reserve upon themselves the power to require that the Legislative Assembly review and approve any administrative rule in the manner provided by this section.

(2) The Legislative Assembly shall be required to review and approve an administrative rule upon the filing of a petition with the Secretary of State that has been signed by a number of qualified voters equal to two percent of the total number of votes cast for all candidates for Governor at the election at which a Governor was elected for a term of four years next preceding the filing of the petition. A petition filed under the provisions of this subsection shall specify the specific administrative rule or rules that the Legislative Assembly is required to review.

(3)(a) Upon receiving a petition that meets the requirements of subsection (2) of this section, the Secretary of State shall cause written notice to be given to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall thereafter cause to be prepared and introduced at the next following regular session of the Legislative Assembly a bill approving the administrative rule or rules. If the petition is filed with the Secretary of State during a regular session of the Legislative Assembly, the bill required by this subsection must be introduced at the regular session of the Legislative Assembly next following the session during which the petition is filed.

(b) The Legislative Assembly may approve the administrative rule or rules specified in the bill introduced under this subsection by passing the bill. The Legislative Assembly by amendment of the bill may approve only some of the specified rules, or may approve only part of a specified rule. Any administrative rule or part of a rule not approved by the passage of the bill has no further force or effect after adjournment sine die of the legislative session in which the bill is introduced.

(4)(a) Disapproval of a rule or part of a rule under subsection (3) of this section does not prevent a state agency from thereafter adopting another administrative rule pertaining to the issue or issues addressed by the disapproved rule. If a state agency adopts an administrative rule or rules addressing the same issue that was the subject of a rule that was disapproved under subsection (3) of this section, the President of the Senate shall cause to be prepared and introduced a bill approving the administrative rule or rules. The bill shall be introduced at the next following regular session of the Legislative Assembly after the effective date of the rule. If the rule becomes effective during a regular session of the Legislative Assembly, the bill required by this subsection must be introduced at the regular session of the Legislative Assembly next following the session during which the rule becomes effective.

(b) The Legislative Assembly may amend a bill introduced under this subsection in the same manner as provided for bills introduced under subsection (3) of this section. Any administrative rule or part of a rule not approved by the passage of the bill has no further force or effect after adjournment sine die of the legislative session in which the bill is introduced. If an administrative rule or part of a rule is disapproved under the provisions of this subsection, any administrative rule adopted by a state agency that addresses the same issue that was the subject of the disapproved rule is of no force and effect until such time as the Legislative Assembly by law approves the rule.

(c) Any person may seek judicial review of a determination made by the President of the Senate on whether an administrative rule addresses the same issue that was the subject of a rule that was previously disapproved under subsection (3) of this section. Any person may seek a judicial determination as to whether an administrative rule adopted by a state agency after disapproval of a rule under this subsection addresses the same issue that was the subject of the disapproved rule. In any proceeding for judicial review under this subsection, the court shall liberally construe the language of a rule in favor of a finding that the rule addresses the same issue that was the subject of a previously disapproved rule. The Legislative Assembly shall by law provide a process for seeking judicial review under this subsection.

(5) Any bill introduced under this section is subject to veto by the Governor in the manner provided by section 15b, Article V of this Constitution. If the Governor vetoes a bill introduced under this section, the administrative rule or part or a rule specified in the bill shall be considered disapproved for the purposes of this section unless the Legislative Assembly overrides the veto in the manner provided by section 15b (2), Article V of this Constitution.

(6) Nothing in this section affects any right of a person to seek judicial review of any rule as otherwise provided for by law.

(7) As used in this section:

(a) "Administrative rule" means any state agency directive, standard, regulation or statement of general applicability that implements, interprets or prescribes law or policy, or that describes the procedures or practices of a state agency, but does not include:

(A) Executive orders; or

(B) State agency internal management directives, regulations or statements if those directives, regulations or statements do not substantially affect the interests of members of the public.

(b) "State agency" means any elected or appointed state officer, board, commission, department, agency or institution, except those in the legislative and judicial branches.

NOTE: Boldfaced type indicates new language; [brackets and italic] type indicates deletions or comments.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

This measure would amend the Oregon Constitution to create a review and approval process of state agency administrative rules by the Legislative Assembly. Currently, no such process exists. This process is triggered when a petition signed by a specified number of qualified voters is filed with the Secretary of State.

Administrative rules are rules and regulations adopted by state agencies, boards and commissions that generally have the full force and effect of law.

The number of qualified voters who must sign the petition is equal to two percent of the total number of votes cast for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election. The petition must specify the administrative rule or rules that the Legislative Assembly is required to review.

Upon being notified by the Secretary of State that a petition meeting the requirements of the measure has been filed, the President of the Senate must prepare a bill that would approve the administrative rule or rules specified in the petition. The President of the Senate must then introduce that bill at the next following regular session of the Legislative Assembly. If the petition is filed with the Secretary of State during a regular session, the bill must be introduced at the next following regular session.

After the introduction of the bill, the Legislative Assembly may amend the bill to approve only part of a specified rule. If the petition specifies more than one rule, the bill may be amended to approve fewer than all of the specified rules. Any rule or part of a rule that is not approved by the passage of a bill has no further force or effect after the session is adjourned.

Disapproval of a rule under the measure does not prevent an agency from adopting another rule pertaining to the same issue. However, if the agency does adopt another rule addressing the same issue, the President of the Senate must introduce a bill for approval of the new rule. Once again, the new rule will have no further force or effect after the end of the legislative session in which the bill is introduced if the bill is not passed. If the new rule or any part of the new rule once again fails to gain approval, the measure requires that any rule adopted thereafter by a state agency to address the same issue that was the subject of the disapproved rule must be approved by the Legislative Assembly before the rule can take effect. The measure authorizes judicial review of the question whether a new rule addresses the same issue that was the subject of a previously disapproved rule. The measure directs courts to interpret a new rule in favor of a finding that it addresses the same issue as a disapproved rule.

The measure provides that bills introduced under the measure's provisions are subject to veto by the Governor, and that any such veto may be over-ridden in the same manner provided for other bills.
Committee Members:Appointed by:
Larry GeorgeChief Petitioners
David HunnicuttChief Petitioners
Ron CeaseSecretary of State Professor
Bill FunkSecretary of State Professor
Jim HuffmanMembers of the Committee

(This committee was appointed to provide an impartial explanation of the ballot measure pursuant to ORS 251.215.)

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

Did You Know That Unelected Government Officials Can:

The sad truth is that new rules are made every day.

And our elected officials are powerless to do anything about it.

They're called administrative rules.

Currently, numerous boards, commissions, and state agencies create administrative rules. The average voter doesn't know where they come from, who made them up, or even why we don't have some control over the agencies we created.

That's why we need to pass Measure 65.

Measure 65 is About Citizen Involvement

Measure 65 simply allows citizens to gather signatures on a petition. If enough signatures are gathered, the legislature is required to review administrative rules we think are unfair, unwise, too weak or too costly.

Like the rule that allow companies to dump toxic sludge in our rivers.

Or the one that says a barber can't let his dog lie in the corner of his shop.

Measure 65 Doesn't Change One Single Rule that Already Exists

But it does give citizens a voice . . .

A chance to tell the Legislature that our beliefs and feelings are being ignored . . .

A chance for average citizens to take control away from special interest groups.

Vote Yes on Measure 65

Vote Yes for More Citizen Involvement

(This information furnished by Lawrence B. George, Citizens for Accountability in Administrative Rules.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

VOTE YES FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT

Vote Yes on Measure 65:

What is Measure 65?

Simply stated, Measure 65 is a citizen involvement issue.

Numerous boards, commissions, and other state agencies can create administrative rules (laws) without the review and approval of our elected legislators. Measure 65 creates an initiative process which allows citizens to force their elected representatives to review state agencies' administrative rules.

What are Administrative Rules?

Administrative rules are laws passed by non-elected state agencies. They have the same force and effect as state laws passed by our elected officials. State agencies can impose regulations, raise fees (taxes), and levy fines through administrative rules.

Currently, there is no process for citizens to challenge administrative rules or to require elected officials to review and approve them. Ballot Measure 65 corrects this problem.

Why do we need Measure 65?

Over the last 30 years, state agencies have begun using administrative rules, not to implement actions of the legislature, but rather to create public policy themselves.

In contrast to the legislative system that is safeguarded by checks and balances, state agencies are empowered to adopt and implement administrative rules and regulations that have the full effect of law, as if adopted by the Legislature, but without review by the elected officials.

If you have any questions concerning Measure 65 please feel free to call Citizens For Accountability In Administrative Rules at (503) 620-0258.

(This information furnished by Lawrence B. George, Citizens for Accountability In Administrative Rules.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

FROM:

Senator Thomas Wilde - Democrat

Senator Bill Fisher- Republican

We are from different political parties, different parts of the state, represent very different constituencies, and have very different views on a number of issues.

However, both of us believe that Measure 65 is important to every Oregonian.

Whether you are Democrat, Republican, Independent, or a member of another party, having access to state government is vital.

Measure 65 gives more power to the voters, because it allows voters to require the legislature to review new laws adopted by state agencies. Measure 65 makes both the legislature and state agencies more accountable to the people of Oregon.

Measure 65 is not a partisan issue, it is about good government.

Only Voters Can Change This Process.

Measure 65 gives the citizens more power in state government, therefore Measure 65 must be a "constitutional amendment."

We strongly respect the integrity of Oregon's Constitution, and upon our thorough review, we believe Measure 65 deserves your support.

We urge you to vote yes and support Measure 65.

Sincerely,

Senator Thomas Wilde Senator Bill Fisher

Democrat Republican

Portland Roseburg

(This information furnished by Senator Thomas Wilde (D - Portland), Senator Bill Fisher (R - Roseburg.))

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

The Oregon State Grange Asks You To Vote Yes On Measure 65.

The Oregon State Grange is the largest grassroots, rural-based fraternal organization in the state with 245 local Granges. Grange members believe that an open and responsive state government is vital for good government and that is why we are urging you to vote yes on Measure 65.

No matter what issues you care about, the environment, education, or crime and punishment, Measure 65 gives average Oregonians more power through their state government.

Citizens Should Have The Right To Petition Their Government.

Oregon was the first state to give its citizens the right to circulate petitions to change state law. The Grange was the first organization to fight for this important right in Oregon. Direct democracy has been a proud Oregon tradition for over 90 years.

Over the past 30 years we have seen a substantial growth in "administrative rules". Administrative rules are laws passed by non-elected state bureaucrats who work in state agencies. Currently no process exists for citizens to petition their state government to change administrative rules. Measure 65 corrects this problem.

Measure 65 will require the Legislature to review "administrative rules" when citizens disagree with the actions of bureaucrats and then take action.

Measure 65 is about giving you more say over what happens in Salem. The Oregon State Grange urges your "Yes" vote on Measure 65.

(This information furnished by Edward L. Luttrell, Oregon State Grange.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

Help Protect The Family Farm Vote Yes on Measure 65

Measure 65 will help small farmers have a voice in state government, a voice we do not currently have.

Measure 65 creates a process that should already be the law and that most other states already adopted.

Measure 65 will help in several important ways:

1) Measure 65 would make state government more accountable to Oregonians

2) Measure 65 would counteract special interests' and lobbyists' influence

3) Measure 65 would open-up state government

Administrative rules are laws, just like those laws passed by a majority of our state senators, state representative, and eventually approved by the governor, except for one important requirement: administrative rules do not go through the careful "checks and balances" of the legislative process.

Simply put: state agencies are writing laws. State agencies are lobbied and influenced by special interests and there are very few ways that the average citizen can influence this process. Measure 65 fixes this problem.

Family farmers have found that state agencies react to special interest lobbying and protect moneyed interests, many times to our detriment.

Rules have even been written to specifically limit small family farms. This must stop. It is not fair, and it not good public policy. Measure 65 will help fix this problem.

Lane County Farm Bureau urges you to vote Yes on Measure 65.

(This information furnished by Lafona Jensen, Lane County Farm Bureau Federation.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

FROM THE DESK OF STATE SENATOR GARY GEORGE

Dear Voter:

Measure 65 will fix a serious problem in our state government.

All too often we hear outrageous (but true) stories about problems with state government -- problems which illustrate a simple lack of common sense from government bureaucracies.

In fact, most of the calls I receive are from Oregonians seeking help solving problems they have with state agencies and bureaucratic administrative rules. Unfortunately, state legislators, like myself, are seldom able to effectively change these situations. Why? Because the problems are caused by "administrative rules." Literally thousands of these rules are created each year by the agencies themselves, and they have the power of law.

Measure 65 will empower citizens by giving Oregonians an effective tool to streamline state government by cleaning up or getting rid of the rules that create unnecessary problems.

Measure 65 will:

Please join me in voting "Yes" on Measure 65.

Sincerely,

Gary George

State Senate, District 2

(This information furnished by Gary George, State Senator District 2.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

Vote Yes for Quality Education

Vote Yes for Ballot Measure 65

"Oregonians For Excellence In Education" was formed to be an advocate for constructive educational reform. Our goal is to allow parents to have more involvement in their child's education.

Measure 65 would give parents and local communities a stronger voice as Oregon reforms its educational system.

With the passage of Ballot Measure 5 in 1990, a greater portion of education funding now comes from the state, while local school districts have less control over how children are educated.

Measure 65 gives parents and local districts a tool to regain some local control of education lost with the passage of Measure 5.

Measure 65 simply creates a process where parents can be heard. Measure 65 is a constructive and positive way to actualize "excellence in education."

Measure 65 is important for our state's educational future and that is why we are asking you to vote yes on Measure 65.

(This information furnished by Richard Meinhard, Oregonians for Excellence in Education.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

Don't Let Special Interests Mislead You

How can any ballot measure that gives the people the power to petition their state government be anything but good?

Measure 65 gives power back to the citizens

Measure 65 can save the taxpayers money

Measure 65 restores the checks and balances in state

government

Measure 65 breaks the partisan "log-jam" in state

government

Thirty-three other states have now adopted review of state agency laws, because it is good public policy.

Special interests know that Measure 65 would break their monopoly on state agency lawmaking. If you hear outrageous claims against Measure 65, remember, special interests have a great deal to lose when we allow and encourage citizen involvement in state government.

Please Vote Yes for Citizen Involvement

Please Vote Yes on Measure 65.

(This information furnished by Kay Finney.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

VOTE YES ON BALLOT MEASURE 65

Citizens for Accountability in Administrative Rules asks you to Vote Yes on Ballot Measure 65.

BALLOT MEASURE 65 WAS CAREFULLY PREPARED AND REVIEWED BY BOTH PRIVATE AND GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS

Ballot Measure 65 was drafted and prepared jointly by both private and government attorneys. It was carefully reviewed for compliance with both the United States and Oregon Constitutions. Ballot Measure 65 complies with both the United States and Oregon Constitutions.

Other groups may argue that Ballot Measure 65 is unconstitutional. They have no legal authority to back those claims. Their claims may be interesting to talk about in law school, but they have no bearing in the real world.

IF YOU DISAGREE WITH A MEASURE, JUST COME OUT AND SAY IT

Other groups may claim that Ballot Measure 65 "clutters up" the Oregon Constitution. This is silly.

Ballot Measure 65 is an amendment to the Oregon Constitution because that is the only pace that the Measure could be located. It did not fit anywhere else.

We all respect the Oregon Constitution, and do not amend it lightly. Ballot Measure 65 will amend the Constitution in the same section where Oregonians reserve the right to challenge laws passed by our state legislature. All Measure 65 asks is that average Oregonians be given the same right to challenge rules passed by unelected state government officials.

If you want additional information on Ballot Measure 65, please call (503) 620-0258. We will be happy to answer all questions which you have about the Measure, including any legal questions.

(This information furnished by Dave Hunnicutt, Citizens For Accountability In Administrative Rules.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

I'll bet that you didn't know that people who weren't elected can write laws in Oregon. Until recently, I didn't know it, either.

Administrative rules are laws written by unelected bureaucrats. These unaccountable bureaucrats sit in their offices and make up laws, and Oregonians have no recourse to challenge those laws. We can't vote the bureaucrats out. We can't refer the laws to the voters. We can't even demand that the Legislature intervene.

The private lives of Oregonians have become increasingly governed by administrative rule ­ rules that regulate everything from the kind of health care our insurance will pay for to the kinds of plants we can put in our yards.

Every healthy society recognizes the need for rules to protect its citizens' freedoms and safety. But on those occasions when government gets carried away and becomes overly-intrusive, Oregonians deserve to have some way of challenging those rules.

When unelected bureaucrats wrote rules that hindered parents from reviewing the curriculum being taught in the children's schools, parents had no way to force another look at those rules.

When unelected bureaucrats wrote rules that said the Oregon Health Plan might pay for sex change operations, but not for tonsillectomies, the public had no recourse.

Measure 65 is one of the most important government reforms we can make. It makes even unelected bureaucrats accountable to the citizens. It gives the citizens a process whereby they may force the Legislature to vote up or down on administrative rules.

Measure 65 is needed to protect the private lives and freedoms of Oregonians. Please vote YES on Measure 65.

(This information furnished by Becky Miller, Executive Assistant, Oregon Taxpayers United.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

The Former Deans Committee

We believe Measure 65 raises serious issues under the Oregon Constitution and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This Measure proposes to establish a Constitutional initiative process for review of Administrative Rules. Administrative Rules are made after the Legislature adopts a statute. Many times the Legislature does not have time or expertise to draft details of a statute, so the Legislature gives this authority to a State Board, Commission or Department to carry out the intention of the Legislature.

This proposal allows for an initiative petition to refer an Administrative Rule to the Oregon Legislature. If the Legislature, for any reason, takes no vote concerning the Administrative Rule during the legislative Session, the Administrative Rule is repealed. We believe the measure raises serious concerns under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution for it may allow a small group of petitioners to frustrate the implementation of a statute.

We believe the Measure to be an unnecessary amendment to the Oregon Constitution. We believe this Measure would clutter the Constitution, and, if adopted at all, should be considered as a statute rather than amendment to the Constitution.

We provide this information to help fellow voters in understanding this measure. Our comments are designed only to provide objective and careful constitutional analysis of the measure. Collectively we take no position on the other merits of this measure.

Prof. Leroy Tornquist (Chair), Former Dean Willamette College of Law

Rennard Strickland, Dean University of Oregon Law School

Prof. Robert Misner, Former Dean Willamette College of Law

Prof. Emeritus Chapin Clark, Former Dean University of Oregon Law School

Prof. Maury Holland, Former Dean University of Oregon Law School

Robert Ackerman, Dean Willamette College of Law

David Frohnmayer, Former Dean University of Oregon Law School

(This information furnished by Bob Cannon, Treasurer, The Former Deans Committee.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

WHAT COULD MEASURE 65 DO?

RUIN THE OREGON WE LOVE!

Oregon has the nation's strongest program to plan its growth. It protects farmland and forest lands. It stops urban sprawl. It helps guarantee public beaches and makes building affordable housing easier. All these statewide planning goals are administrative rules. (The Legislature itself decided to use rules instead of laws to assure good planning.) Measure 65 would make it easy for a small group of extremist to repeal these goals without a vote of the people or action by the Legislature.

MEASURE 65 ALLOWS A TINY, UNDEMOCRATIC, MINORITY TO OVERRULE THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS, WITHOUT AN ELECTION OR ANY ACTION BY THE LEGISLATURE.

The opponents of planning for growth tried to repeal Oregon's land use planning program by initiative three times and were decisively defeated each time. If Measure 65 passes, it would require only 25,000 people and a single State Senate Committee Chairman to repeal the planning goals that are the heart of the planning program.

MEASURE 65 WAS WRITTEN BY AN EXTREMIST ORGANIZATION THAT HAS NEVER BEEN ALE TO CONVINCE THE LEGISLATURE OR COURTS TO OVERTURN THE PLANNING RULES AND LAWS IT OPPOSES.

Oregonians In Action is working to weaken Oregon's land use planning laws. They tried to persuade the Legislature and Supreme Court to weaken, abolish, or invalidate land use planning rules and they failed. Now they are trying to create a special way to overturn all of the rules without a vote of the people, action by the Legislature or review by the courts.

LOVE OREGON? VOTE NO ON 65

Jackson County Citizens League

Friends of Linn County

Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition

Friends of Eugene

1000 Friends of Oregon

Friends of Yamhill County

Hood River Valley Residents Committee

Alliance for Responsible Land Use in Deschutes County

(This information furnished by Robert L. Liberty, 1000 Friends of Oregon.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

THE UNDERSIGNED FARMERS, RANCHERS AND TREE FARMERS RESPECTFULLY ASK OUR FELLOW OREGONIANS TO VOTE NO ON MEASURE 65 TO PROTECT OREGON'S FARMLANDS, RANCH LANDS, AND FOREST LANDS AND TO ALLOW US TO CONTINUE TO GROW FOOD, RAISE LIVESTOCK AND PRODUCE WOOD.

We are Oregonians who make our living by growing crops, livestock and timber. Oregon's land use planning rules are what has protected our land from urban sprawl and from rural homesite development. These laws has been essential to maintaining the basic livelihood of thousands of Oregon families who earn their living in agriculture and timber.

The sponsor of Measure 65 have made it very clear that they intend to use the Measure to weaken or repeal the rules that protect farm, range and forest lands.

Please vote no on Measure 65.

Bob & Ken Bailey

Cherries

Wasco County

Barb Iverson

Horticultural Products

Clackamas Counties

Sydney & Richard Blaine

Pears, Cherries, Apples & Cattle

Hood River County

Lois and Clif Kenagy

Row Crops

Benton County

Judson & Diana Parsons

Pears, Timber

Jackson & Marion Counties

Ambrose & Susan McAuliffe

Cattle & Calves

Klamath County

Donald Logan

Christmas Trees, Hay, Timber

Washington County

David & Diana Lett

Wine Grapes

Marion County

Gary L. Harris

Onion & Carrot Seeds

Jefferson County

Ron R. Olson

Grass Seed, Garlic, Mint

Jefferson County

Michael McCarthy

Cattle, Timber, Hay, Apples, Pears

Hood River County

(This information furnished by Robert L. Liberty, 1000 Friends of Oregon.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), Planned Parenthood, the Oregon State Council of Senior Citizens and others who care about health care say:

MEASURE 65 COULD BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH

There is a lot the supporters of Measure 65 won't tell you. Perhaps they are just interested in avoiding some of the rules they don't like. But in doing that, they will destroy a system that is absolutely critical for a safeguarding the health of Oregonians.

Just about everything to do with protecting health and safety in Oregon comes through the administrative rules process. There is a good reason for that: these rules must be developed by professionals in health care, public health and other specialties. But if Measure 65 passes, anyone can try to overturn rules such as:

It is easy to imagine those who wish to increase their profits or reduce their responsibility challenging these rules and hundreds like them. It is also easy to imagine those with religious or ideological agendas using this measure to force their beliefs on others -- including trying to limit or disrupt access to family planning or other services that should be a matter between an individual and their doctor.

This is not a scare tactic: Measure 65 poses a direct threat to the system that protects the public's health in Oregon. It doesn't matter what the authors intended ­ this is what it actually could do.

Please don't be reckless with the health and safety of you and your neighbors.

Vote NO on Measure 65

James A. Davis, Oregon State Council of Senior Citizens

Marion Esty, American Association of Retired Persons (AARP)

Mary Nolan, Planned Parenthood of the Columbia Willamette

(This information furnished by James A Davis, OR State Council of Senior Citizens.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

From the desk of John A. Kitzhaber, M.D.

Dear Oregon Voter:

I am writing to ask you to oppose Measure 65--an unnecessary and burdensome measure which is really just a back-handed assault on Oregon's quality of life. Measure 65, like Measure 27 which we overwhelmingly defeated in 1996 by more than 70 percent, would allow the rejection of administrative rules. These rules are vital tools to protect kids, provide for clean air and water, preserve farm land, prevent sprawl and protect health and safety.

Let me cite a few examples of the kinds of rules which would be at risk:

If passed, Measure 65 would allow any special interest which can pay to collect about 25,000 signatures (less than 1.3% of voters) to place any of these rules in jeopardy. Then, if the legislature simply fails to act on these rules they are rejected. That is not the right way to challenge rules implementing democratically passed legislation.

We all know how easy it is for a single powerful committee chair or a special interest to block a measure from even being considered. As I stated in 1996, that's not accountable. The legislature already has oversight over agency rulemaking. If the legislature doesn't like a rule, it can change or clarify a statue so the agency must correct its regulations.

Oregon faces many challenges in the coming year: juvenile crime prevention, education, managing growth. Let's focus on meeting these challenges instead of this unnecessary measure.

Please join me in voting no on Measure 65.

Sincerely,

John A. Kitzhaber, M.D.

(This information furnished by John A. Kitzhaber, M.D.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Oregon's Business Community Urges You to Vote NO on 65

As members of Oregon's business community, we are proud of our role in making Oregon work. Oregon succeeds when business, government and citizens can work in a partnership, creating an environment that makes our state a great place.

For business, a critical part of that environment is a stable, rational system for making rules we must follow on a day-to-day basis. That includes health and safety rules, tax accounting procedures, air and water pollution control, food growing and packaging standards, and just about anything to do with employees' insurance coverage.

Right now, these rules are made by Departments, Boards and Commissions that have expertise in their respective area. And there is a process for us to work with those officials as rules are drafted. We may not always agree with them. But there is also a process to appeal. Most important, the system is stable and predictable.

Without that stability, it could be difficult ­ or nearly impossible ­ to manage our businesses. And it's precisely that stability which Measure 65 would destroy. It is a threat to every Oregon business, those who are employed by them and those who depend on our products and services.

Imagine playing a game where the rules changed whenever someone decided they didn't like them. Imagine having to make massive investment decisions based on rules that could be put in limbo for almost two years. It would create an intolerable mess. It would also turn Oregon from a state with an attractive business environment and strong economy into a place in which any prudent person would have serious concerns about locating a business..

Whatever the proponents thought Measure 65 would do, it will harm Oregon's economy. We urge you to defeat this measure.

Vote NO on 65. Bad for Business. Bad for Oregon.

Fred Miller, Senior Vice President

Portland General Electric

Ron E. Timpe Chairman, President and CEO

Standard Insurance Company

(This information furnished by Fred D. Miller, Portland General Electric.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION BY FORMER OREGON APPELLATE JUDGES

MEASURE 65 IS UNNECESSARY: COURTS CAN ALREADY TEST RULES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE

The Oregon Legislature often assigns to state agencies the task of interpreting and carrying out laws, sometimes by administrative rules. Agencies can adopt permanent rules only after public notice and giving any citizen the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. An oral hearing must be held if requested by ten or more people or an association having at least ten members.

Anyone affected by a rule who believes that it is unauthorized or contrary to a law passed by the Legislature can have it reviewed in court.

We heard many challenges to rules when we were active judges. Oregon courts invalidate rules that are not authorized or are inconsistent with the law.

THE LEGISLATURE CAN ALREADY REPEAL OR AMEND AGENCY RULES

Anyone can ask the Legislature to repeal or amend any rule that departs from the Legislature's policies, without collecting 24,000 signatures.

A FEW PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO STOP STATE AGENCIES FROM CARRYING OUT THE LAW

To permit a few people to stop agencies from administering existing statutes would be a radical and harmful departure from Oregon's constitutional separation of powers.

George M. Joseph

Chief Judge & Judge

Oregon Court of Appeals

1977-1992

Hans Linde

Justice

Oregon Supreme Court

1979-1990

William L. Richardson

Chief Judge & Judge

Oregon Court of Appeals

1976-1997

Betty Roberts

Justice

Oregon Supreme Court

1982-1986

Jacob Tanzer

Justice

Oregon Supreme Court

1980-1983

(This information furnished by Robert Liberty.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

The Oregon Environmental Council

Urges You to Vote NO on Ballot Measure 65

With Measure 65 a few wealthy special interests are threatening Oregon's clean air and water. They think that developers and polluters shouldn't have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. Seventy five percent of Oregonians rejected a similar measure in 1996, but these special interests are at it again. Here is what's at stake:

Clean Water - Measure 65 threatens Oregon's rules that implement the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, limiting the pollution allowed into our rivers, streams, and even our household tap water. Under Measure 65, polluters could simply exempt themselves from these rules, taking us back to the days when our rivers flowed with raw sewage and toxic waste. Rules adopted to protect Oregon's declining runs of salmon and steelhead would be likely targets for repeal, as well.

Clean Air - Oregon's rules implementing the federal Clean Air Act and other clean air programs have successfully reduced field burning, toxic industrial emissions, and summer smog that can cause asthma, lung disease, and cancer. Under Measure 65, massive field burning could quickly return, along with a toxic stew of other pollutants like mercury, dioxin, and lead.

Clear Thinking - Oregon's rules to protect the environment are the result of years of research, thoughtful negotiation among all stakeholders, and public meetings. Measure 65 would allow any well-funded group with a bone to pick to destroy all that hard work and shift these decisions from experts to politicians. Throwing problems back to our citizen legislators, who already have over 3,000 bills to review when they meet every other year, will add nothing but delay, confusion and bad law.

Measure 65 is a back-door attempt to let special interests re-write the rules that protect Oregon's clean air, clean water, and quality of life for their own private benefit.

Don't let them do it! Please vote no on Measure 65.

This message furnished by the Oregon Environmental Council and is supported by the Oregon League of Conservation Voters.

(This information furnished by Jeff Allen, Executive Director, The Oregon Environmental Council.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

A MESSAGE FROM OREGON LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS

Measure 65: A Recipe for Legislative Chaos

The Oregon League of Women Voters is dedicated to making sure our political process is open, fair and effective. For that reason, we urge Oregonians to vote NO on Measure 65.

The time and resources of the legislature are already strained by efforts to deal with the critical issues facing Oregon, such as education, public safety and others. Measure 65 would make it easy for groups or individuals to literally paralyze the legislative process by referring large numbers of administrative rules.

There are good reasons that we have an administrative rules system. Please Vote NO on Measure 65.

A MESSAGE FROM OREGON PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNION AND AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN

Measure 65: Unnecessary and Dangerous

Oregon's administrative rules system is based on a sound principle: those with expertise in an issue should make the rule governing it. And there is nothing wrong with improving it.

But Measure 65 doesn't seek to improve the system: it will destroy it. That poses a serious threat to Oregonians.

Any organization or individual, no matter how extreme, can put any rule into the hands of politicians to decide. That means politicians deciding technical, detailed rules about:

This is just a sample of rules that could be decided by politicians in the legislature instead of experts.

The people who put Measure 65 on the ballot may only be trying to take control of Oregon's land use planning system. But whether or not it's their intention, their measure is reckless, and a recipe for legislative chaos. It is a bad idea that would be an even worse reality.

VOTE NO ON MEASURE 65

(This information furnished by Alice M. Bartelt, Oregon - American Association of University Women; Paula Krane, League of Women Voters of Oregon.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

HUMAN SERVICES COALITION OF OREGON OPPOSES MEASURE 65

MEASURE 65

ENDANGERS CITIZEN PROTECTIONS

Many Oregon rules exist because citizens have asked their legislators for laws that protect abused children, safeguard the developmentally disabled, provide services to the mentally ill, expand health care services to the working poor, establish patients' rights and create standards for child care. If any of these or other rules receive the required number of signatures under Measure 65 and the legislature fails to act, the rule implementing the law loses its force and effect. Inaction by the legislature could also mean inaction by the state in protecting and serving our most vulnerable citizens.

MEASURE 65

DISCOURAGES CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT

Oregon has a history of citizen involvement in its rule making process. There are public notices and hearings with opportunity for written comments. Also many agencies have citizen boards and commissions that are responsible for adopting the rules. History demonstrates that this citizen involvement does result in rule modification. Measure 65 could well encourage special interests who don't want a rule to wait and channel their energies into petition gathering rather than reshaping the rules during the adoption process.

MEASURE 65

DISTORTS SEPARATION OF POWERS

Measure 65 doesn't meet the tests for constitutional integrity. It doesn't distribute power among the branches of state government with equity. Rather legislators are being placed in the position of being micro-manager. Oregon law currently provides for court challenges if a rule is thought to violate legislative intent. And if the legislature believes a rule is inappropriate, it can change the enabling statute.

CURRENT LAW DISTRIBUTES POWER WITH EQUITY

PLEASE VOTE NO ON MEASURE 65

(This information furnished by Ellen C. Lowe, Human Services Coalition of Oregon.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.