This is Floyd Wynne with THE VIEW FROM HERE

This is Floyd Wynne with THE VIEW FROM HERE.

Have you thoroughly read the pros and cons of the ten statewide measures on your ballot?

Admittedly Oregon’s Initiative process permits a number of these special issues on the ballot. Some of them are contentious and some are well meaning, but all require that you study them and then cast your ballot.

Let’s take a look at them.

Measure 39 would prohibit public bodies from using the power of eminent domain to seize private property if it intends to convey it to a private party. The Constitution says they may do this for “public purposes”. Recently the courts have interpreted public purposes to mean turning it over to another private interest. We would definitely vote YES on this measure.

Measure 40 amends the constitution to require certain judges to be elected by districts rather than statewide. Obviously in the past such judges have solely been from the more populous areas of the state. This measure would give other areas of the state, including ours, more say in electing future judges of the Oregon Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. We would cast a YES vote on this issue.

Measure 41 allows income tax deduction equal to federal tax exemptions rather than state level. It is true that it seems only fair that one should be able to deduct federal tax exemptions on state tax returns. Obviously such a measure would reduce state revenues. We have always felt that this should be the case, and while it will reduce state revenues we would vote YES on this measure.

Measure 42 would prohibit insurance companies from using credit scores or credit worthiness when setting rates or premiums. Existing law restricts, but does not prohibit the use of credit worthiness in calculating insurance rates or premiums. Believing that an outright prohibition of such things as credit worthiness would result in higher insurance rates, we would vote NO on this measure.

Measure 43 would require 48 hour notice to parents before providing an abortion to a minor 14 years or younger. Those 15 and over may have physician notifying parents. This issue is self explaining. We would vote YES on this issue.

Measure 44 would permit any Oregon resident without prescription drug coverage to take part in Oregon’s Drug program. Existing law authorizes residents over age 54 whose gross annual income does not exceed 185 percent of the federal poverty guidelines and who have not had prescription drug coverage for the past six months. This would authorize those who have no prescription drug coverage outside medicare to participate. We would vote NO since it prescribes no limitation.

Measure 45 would limit state legislators to six years as representatives, eight years as a senator and a total of fourteen years in the Legislative Assembly. I’ve always felt that while the elections provide for needed change, non-the-less endless service in the legislative process is not in the best interests of the state. We would vote YES.

Measure 46 amends the State Constitution to permit laws regulating election contributions if adopted by initiative or by three fourths of both Legislative bodies. A prior attempt to pass this legislation was declared un-constitutional unless passed by the Legislative Assembly. There is no question but what elections today are becoming more and more expensive and require commitments to companies or unions or other sources for campaign finances. 46 and 47 both deal with campaign contributions. Measure 47 is more restrictive, and we would vote NO on 46 but YES on 47.

Measure 47 also deals with limitation of election financial contributions . It prohibits corporate, union, or organizational contributions except through committees funded solely by individuals. It allows unlimited contributions by small donor committee, individual contributions not to exceed $50.

Finally, Measure 48 amends the Constitution to limit biennial percentage increase in state spending to a percentage increase in state population plus inflation. Current statutes limit state appropriations to 8 percent of projected personal income in Oregon. The Governor, in an emergency, may exceed limitations by a 60 percent vote in both Legislative houses. Measure would permit limit to be exceeded with two thirds vote of the Legislature, and approved by a majority of voters. We would vote YES on this.

Summarizing our view of the measures we would vote YES on measures 39 –40-41-43-45-47– and 48. We would vote NO on 42-44 and 46.

Again these our views. Study them all carefully and then vote your conscience.

This is Floyd Wynne and that’s THE VIEW FROM HERE.

Text Box:

This is Floyd Wynne with THE VIEW FROM HERE.
             Have you thoroughly read the pros and cons of the ten statewide measures on your ballot?
             Admittedly Oregon’s Initiative process permits a number of these special issues on the ballot. Some of them are contentious and some are well meaning, but all require that you study them and then cast your ballot.
             Let’s take a look at them.
             Measure 39 would prohibit public bodies from using the power of eminent domain to seize private property if it intends to convey it to a private party.   The Constitution says they may do this for “public purposes”. Recently the courts have interpreted public purposes to mean turning it over to another private interest.   We would definitely vote YES on this measure.
Measure 40 amends the constitution to require certain judges to be elected by districts rather than statewide. Obviously in the past such judges have solely been from the more populous areas of the state. This measure would give other areas of the state, including ours, more say in electing future judges of the Oregon Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. We would cast a YES vote on this issue.
Measure 41 allows income tax deduction equal to federal tax exemptions rather than state level. It is true that it seems only fair that one should be able to deduct federal tax exemptions on state tax returns. Obviously such a measure would reduce state revenues. We have always felt that this should be the case, and while it will reduce state revenues we would vote YES on this measure.
Measure 42 would prohibit insurance companies from using credit scores or credit worthiness when setting rates or premiums. Existing law restricts, but does not prohibit the use of credit worthiness in calculating insurance rates or premiums.   Believing that an outright prohibition of such things as credit worthiness would result in higher insurance rates, we would vote NO on this measure.
Measure 43 would require 48 hour notice to parents before providing an abortion to a minor 14 years or younger. Those 15 and over may have physician notifying parents. This issue is self explaining. We would vote YES on this issue.

Measure 44 would permit any Oregon resident without prescription drug coverage to take part in Oregon’s Drug program. Existing law authorizes residents over age 54 whose gross annual income does not exceed 185 percent of the federal poverty guidelines and who have not had prescription drug coverage for the past six months. This would authorize those who have no prescription drug coverage outside medicare to participate.   We would vote NO since it prescribes no limitation.
             Measure 45 would limit state legislators to six years as representatives, eight years as a senator and a total of fourteen years in the Legislative Assembly. I’ve always felt that while the elections provide for needed change, non-the-less endless service in the legislative process is not in the best interests of the state. We would vote YES.
Measure 46 amends the State Constitution to permit laws regulating election contributions if adopted by initiative or by three fourths of both Legislative bodies. A prior attempt to pass this legislation was declared un-constitutional unless passed by the Legislative Assembly. There is no question but what elections today are becoming more and more expensive and require commitments to companies or unions or other sources for campaign finances.    46 and 47 both deal with campaign contributions. Measure 47 is more restrictive, and we would vote NO on 46 but YES on 47.
Measure 47 also deals with limitation of election financial contributions . It prohibits corporate, union, or organizational contributions except through committees funded solely by individuals. It allows unlimited contributions by small donor committee, individual contributions not to exceed $50.
Finally, Measure 48 amends the Constitution to limit biennial percentage increase in state spending to a percentage increase in state population plus inflation.   Current statutes limit state appropriations to 8 percent of projected personal income in Oregon. The Governor, in an emergency, may exceed limitations by a 60 percent vote in both Legislative houses. Measure would permit limit to be exceeded with two thirds vote of the Legislature, and approved by a majority of voters. We would vote YES on this.
Summarizing our view of the measures we would vote YES on measures 39 –40-41-43-45-47– and 48.   We would vote NO on 42-44 and 46.
Again these our views.   Study them all carefully and then vote your conscience.
This is Floyd Wynne and that’s THE VIEW FROM HERE.