Sizemore's 2010 ballot initiative petitions

http://egov.sos.state.or.us/elec/web_irr_search.search_form

On this page, just select the year 2010 in the drop-down menu at the top of the form. You'll get all the petitions for ballot measures that have been filed so far. Bill Sizemore is the chief petitioner, or one of the chief petitioners, of 13 of these petitions, numbered 15 through 27.

One petition for a statute is approved for circulation, #19: Establishes Property Tax Exemption For Senior Citizen's Primary Residence; Reduces Local Government Property Tax Revenue. Tim Rohrer is a co-chief petitioner. Does anyone know who he is?

Here are the ones that haven't been approved yet:

#15. Amends Constitution: Requires Sixty-Percent Voter Turnout At Elections, Except General Election, To Pass Property Tax Measures
#16. Amends Constitution: Measures Increasing Ad Valorem Property Taxes Over One Million Dollars Allowed Only At General Election
#17. Requires Court To Instruct Jurors Not To Follow Law If Verdict Against Defendant Is "Unjust"
#18. Reduces Property Tax Revenue; Requires Assessment At Lowest Ratio Between Assessed Value, Real Market Value
#20. Prohibits Information On Election Ballot Giving One Candidate An "Advantage" (Undefined) Over Another, Including Incumbency
#21. Certain Campaign Contributions/Expenditures By Corporations, Public Employee Unions/Organizations, Individual Agents Thereof, Constitute Bribery
#22. Creates An Entitlement To Build Residences, Notwithstanding Otherwise Applicable Land Use Regulations, Under Certain Circumstances
#23. Changes Public Sector Unions' Obligations, Relieves Nonmembers Of Representation Costs, Unless New Election Requirements Met
#24. Overrides 1994 Initiative And Permits Use Of Dogs And Bait To Hunt Cougars And Bears (Timothy Trickey is a co-chief petitioner)
#25. Overrides 1994 Initiative And Permits Use Of Dogs And Bait To Hunt Cougars And Bears (Timothy Trickey is a co-chief petitioner)
#26. Changes Public Sector Unions' Obligations, Relieves Nonmembers Of Representation Costs, Unless Absolute Majority Elects Union
#27. Prohibits Requiring Employees To Share Union Representation Costs; Changes Public Employee Union Obligations To Nonmembers

Here are my immediate, not-necessarily-informed gut reactions to some of these:

#15 appears to try to make a "double majority" requirement to increase property taxes. A similar requirement for bond measures was repealed in November 2008. The measure that repealed it passed with 77.42% support.
#17 is an interesting concept, at least superficially. I wonder what provoked this petition.
#19 seems innocent enough. We'll see, I suppose.
#20 is supposedly meant to mitigate the inherent advantage that incumbents have in elections, though the text of the petition does not include the word "incumbent" or any variation of it. Indeed, "advantage" is undefined, except that party affiliation is explicitly excluded.
#21, #23, #26, and #27 all affect labor unions. Though I haven't looked into the text of these petitions, the titles suggest that they create so-called "right to work" laws.
#24 and #25 are not accidentally duplicated, at least by me. I don't see a difference between these two. The text of both petitions look exactly the same. Anyway, they both override Measure 18 (1994). Does anyone know who Timothy Trickey is?

So... Thoughts?

Almost without exception, anything Sizemore and his cronies propose I'm against. #19 would affect me, as I'm one of those senior citizens who'd get the property tax exemption. Something unfair about it, IMHO, considering the reduction in property tax revenue would negatively impact so many local programs that are dependent on it. But I'll look these over, the one caveat being, I will never sign any petition being circulated by Sizemore and his ilk. Period.

Don't know who Tim Rohrer or Timothy Trickey are, but the name Trickey sounds kinda suspicious. If you find out, let us know.

Thanks again for posting.

that a racketeering charge might prevent this ass clown from further muddying Oregon's political waters.

Thx fer the info. Rec'd.

What will it take to even slow him down?

I did find a PDF document provided by BLET National Legislative Office at this page, listing "anti-worker ballot initiatives" nationwide. It was current as of late 2007, and lists anticipated 2008 initiatives. It has a very large Oregon section, pp. 16–24 of 24, more than one third the length of the document — thanks to Sizemore. Trickey's name appears three times, and Rohrer's once. They appear together on an initiative that looks like Measure 64.

This PDF document was one result I got by Googling Rohrer's name. There's a philosophy professor named Tim Rohrer at the University of Oregon, or there was as late as 1995. Other results came up too, but they didn't seem to be the same guy. It's probably a common-ish name. So this guy remains an unknown to me.

Trickey seems to have made quite a name for himself though. Googling Trickey's name produced these results: this PDF from Democracy Reform Oregon; this one from the sec. of state's office; BlueOregon; the Mercury; and Ballotpedia.

Can anyone help dig up more dirt?

California's prop 13 has been restricting the state from instituting tax increases or even passing a state budget without a 2/3rds majority of the legislature, which has let the Rethugs hold the Dems hostage and not get any kind of decent revenue generating measures passed, which is why they are so much in the toilet now to the point of cutting vital services to many segments of their economy now. I'm now GLAD I moved away from that mess! Do NOT pass that legislation...

Prop 21 looks a little like it might have some sort of public campaign financing legislation? Most public campaign financing doesn't allow any organization, whether they be unions or corporations from funding candidate's campaign outside of the state funds provided through the program. So it might not be just union-focused. Haven't had time to look at that yet. I'll have to check and see.

If you read it is all about restricting a Union from being involved in political activity. It has some restriction on Corporations but only as it relates to their being awarded a contract by a specific politician. So corporations that are not involved in a major contract approval can continue to pour money and power unabated while Unions get completly neutered from all but very generic activity.

was suspect. Even if a measure seemed harmless on the surface, an attorney would usually be able to explain what the hidden bomb was.

Frankly, I would love to see the following two laws added to the books in Oregon:

1. No paid petition gatherers, period. If a petition drive cannot recruit volunteers, then it is not the genuine voice of the people.

2. All petitions that would require state and local governments to spend money or lose revenue must specify how the measure will be paid for. If the measure cuts revenue, it must specify what government programs will be cut to pay for it. If the measure requires government expenditures, it must specify what taxes would be raised or what other government services would be cut.

I think that either or both laws would take a lot of wind out of Sizemore's sails.

We don't have legislation by initiative in Minnesota, and I would fight against introducing it without those safeguards.

It seems like every place we have state propositions, they are becoming so complex and loaded down with "gotcha" details by the authors that are serving special interests' agendas, that the whole process is so open for abuse any more. On the other hand, I do see people wanting to have more of a voice in telling state government what they'd like put into law, and the proposition process has been an avenue for that.

I was thinking that perhaps each proposition in effect have two votes instead of one. The first vote would require a single paragraph or less statement that would be the "mandate" portion of the proposition, to keep it as simple and understandable as possible. The second vote of the proposition would have the actual legal language in it and would presumably support what the "mandate" portion of the proposition was asking to be put in to law. Voting yes or no on the first part of the proposition would have no direct effect on any state law, etc., except perhaps if a sizable majority of it gets voted yes, then it might have some effect to mandate that the state government bodies do something with this issue in their legislative actions, or perhaps that it goes up for vote in the following election if the second part of the vote fails.

The second part of the vote would be on whether to put that legal language in to law or not.

What splitting it up like this would do is:

1) provide the state citizens a voice to express opinion to their state government on some issue that they might feel strongly about by saying yes or no on the "mandate" issue, independent of whether they feel the proposition's proposed law itself isn't what they want or not.
2) If the voter finds that they support the "mandate" part of the proposition, but find the actual legal language of it too confusing or perhaps doing some manipulative things that they don't want seen put into law, they won't feel pressured into voting in "bad law" just to provide a "mandate" to the state government that they feel a certain way on a big issue that the proposition deals with.
3) It would incentivize those authoring propositions to make the binding law portion of the proposition to be simpler to understand and less "polluted" with double-speak if they want to get a proposition passed, since people can vote emotionally and still not vote a prop into law that perhaps is bad law as a result.
4) Propositions that get turned down because they are badly written, but are on the topic of an issue that the state population might otherwise feel strongly for, won't be a signal to state government that the people don't care about an issue any more, if the "mandate" portion of these votes might get voted "yes" in these situations, even if the law portion gets voted down. That tells state government that there is something that needs to be worked on from the point of view of the people instead of ignored.

Perhaps this could be tried out as a set of two linked state propositions (instead of being "split" into two) that would in effect work this way, to help voters understand how it might work.

Every household with registered voters gets a booklet containing the texts and explanations of every measure on the ballot, as well as paid arguments for and against. The Guide also includes statements from all the national, state, and local candidates that voters in that precinct will be voting on.

The information is therefore available, but in getting petitions on the ballot in the first place, petition gatherers often LIE about the content of the petition.

For example, there was a crazy petition a few years ago to void ANY state administrative rule with 25,000 signatures and keep it rescinded unless the legislature passed it as a law. Yet the petition gatherers presented it as "a petition to keep government from harassing small businesses."

And even if someone understands a T Bone Pickens prop that one concludes is more designed to help his financial stakes in natural gas than it is to help fight global warming, many are tempted to vote for it, because they don't want everyone to conclude that the state doesn't want to fight global warming when they vote props like this down.

That's why having a vote that tabulates peoples' feelings on a short statement of the intent of the proposition itself (that itself is non-binding), give the chance for the voters to express their feelings to the rest of the state and to the state government about what they care about and not have to vote in they might understand as bad law, or they might not understand at all (the details) to make their feelings known.

Right now, yes, most states have a booklet that tries to "explain" what these props are, but I would warrant that 95% of the people don't really understand what 95% of these props really do, no matter how much they read these pamphlets. And I believe the sponsors of these petitions actualy COUNT on this confusion to sneak in their hidden agenda. They need to have an incentive to make their props less confusing and have less hidden agenda items, which they don't have now.

As for what petitioners have to circulate around to get signed, perhaps they'd have to circulate the very paragraph that the mandate portion gets to make sure that people know what the intent of the proposition is before signing it.

If the real language of the proposition doesn't match what the mandate paragraph says it should be doing, then that will show when most people vote down the "law" part of the petition, and only vote in the non-binding "mandate" part to show where they stand on the issue.