Oregon Mandatory Minimum Prison Sentences, Measure 61 (2008)
|Not on ballot|
- 1 Election results
- 2 Background
- 3 Text of measure
- 4 Specific provisions
- 5 Support
- 6 Opposition
- 7 See also
- 8 External links
- 9 Additional reading
- 10 References
Measure 61 sought to enact law to create mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain theft, identity theft, forgery, drug, and burglary crimes.Measure 57, which was approved, dealt with similar issues, but in a different way.
- Election results from Oregon Secretary of State
In 1994, Measure 11, another initiative proposed by Kevin Mannix, was passed, which set mandatory minimum sentences for violent crimes. It is responsible for 28% of today's prison population. At the time, Oregon used the highest percentage of its state budget to lock up criminals and supervise parole of any state. Oregon has seen a growth in prison inmates from about 4,000 to more than 13,500.
With the approval of Measure 57, Oregon's prison population and percentage of state budget was expected to become more pronounced. At the same time, Oregon had seen a greater drop in violent crime than the rest of the country on average since Measure 11 passed.
Measure 61 versus Measure 57
In February 2008, some members of the Oregon State Legislature proposed a bill to put a legislatively-referred ballot measure, Measure 57, on the November 2008 ballot that would compete with Measure 61, but which would have less stringent mandatory minimums in it. In response, Mannix said that this "stinks of political manipulation."His concern is with how the competing measure's ballot title is set. If the ballot title sounds tough-on-crime, voters--many of whom will judge the measure simply based on its title--might vote for it, even though (Mannix alleges) the competing legislative measure is "wimpy."
The key difference between the competing measures lies in how they treat first-time offenders. Measure 61 would have required mandatory jail time for some first-time offenders; the competing measure did not.
Supporters of Measure 61 believed that the method of establishing the ballot title for Oregon ballot measures was unfair and gave the legislatively-referred Measure 57 an undue advantage at the polls. For a citizen-initiated measure in Oregon, the ballot title is determined by the state's Attorney General. In the case of the measure that competed with Measure 61, the claim had been made that the legislature planned to set the ballot title without going through those normal channels.
Text of measure
The official ballot title of Measure 61 was:
The full text of the legislation enacted by Measure 61 is available here.
|historical ballot measure article requires the text of the measure to be added to the page.|
Ballot Measure 61 enacted the following provisions:
- Sets mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug and property crimes and for identity theft.
- It establishes a new felony crime of motor vehicle theft.
- A person sentenced under Measure 61 sentencing guidelines must serve his or her full sentence--the sentence could not be reduced for any reason.
- The sentences must be served in state prison facilities and work camps.
- The state is to reimburse counties for the cost of pre-trial detention for persons sentenced under Measure 61.
- Manufacturing or dealing heroin or ecstasy requires 36 months in prison.
- Manufacturing or dealing meth or cocaine within 1000 feet of a school requires 36 months in prison.
- Persons convicted of burglarizing a residence or identity theft must serve a 36-month sentence.
Estimated fiscal impact
The state's Financial Estimate Committee prepares estimated fiscal impact statements for any ballot measures that will appear on the ballot. The estimate prepared by this committee for Measure 61 said:
- Measure 61 would require additional state spending of between $8-$10 million in the first year.
- In the second year, it would cost from $67-$88 million.
- In the third year, the cost would be $122-$178 million.
- In the fourth and subsequent years, the cost would rise to $164 million and on up.
The state's Criminal Justice Commission said that the Mannix measure will cost between $128-$200 million a year, whereas the competing measure, Measure 57, would cost between $65-70 million per year.
Kevin Mannix said that Oregon's incarceration rate is below the national average and that the costs are high because of well-compensated corrections officers. "You get what you pay for," Mannix argued, adding that state prisons are among the most drug-free in the country.
Oregon prison officials questioned the Pew Center's numbers, mentioned below, and also pointed out that the Department of Corrections funnels about 20 percent of its budget directly to counties for jails and parole.
Notable arguments in opposition to the measure included:
- Prison budgets take away from other government programs.
- "The point is getting tough on crime has gotten tough on taxpayers."
- It is one-size-fits-all and doesn't take account of differing circumstances.
Defend Oregon, as a committee, fought seven different ballot measures, and supported two others. As a result, it is not possible to discern how much of its campaign money was going specifically to defeat Measure 59. Altogether, the group raised over $6 million in 2008.
Major donations to the Defend Oregon group as of October 8 included:
- $4.1 million from the Oregon Education Association.
- $100,000 from School Employees Exercising Democracy (SEED)
- $100,000 from the AFL-CIO.
- $50,000 from Oregon AFSCME Council 75.
- Oregon 2008 ballot measures
- List of Oregon ballot measures
- 2008 ballot measures
- Laws governing the initiative process in Oregon
- Oregon Ballot Measure 408 (2008)
- List of Oregon ballot measures
- Chief Petitioner Kevin Mannix
- Oregon Voters' Pamphlet for Measure 61
- 2008 General Election Measures: Voter Guide
- Full text of the initiative
- 2008 Election Results
- Status and information on this initiative from the Secretary of State
- StatesmanJournal.com: "Kroger backs alternative to crime measure," July 17, 2008
- "Either anti-crime measure will cost over $1 billion, state says," Oregons Against Measure 11
- The Oregonian, "Loren Parks begins spending on Oregon crime measures," August 14, 2008
- OregonLive.com: "Mannix's tough-on-crime measure will be on Oregon ballot," The Oregonian, April 11, 2008
- Crime measures will fight it out come fall The Oregonian, February 23, 2008
- Mannix says Ore. lawmakers stacking the deck against his measure
- Developing hard, Democrats avoiding review process again! Ted Piccolo, February 16, 2008
- Salem Democrats to give Republicans the perfect issue
- Oregon Blue Book website, accessed December 12, 2013
- Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
- Specific provisions of Measure 61
- Estimated fiscal impact statement for Oregon Measure 60
- Bill poses crime-fighting choice Edward Walsh, The Oregonian, February 13, 2008
- The Oregonian: "Loren Parks adds $100,000 to crime measures," September 4, 2008
- [*Hillsboro Argus, "Measure 57 Yes, Measure 61 No," October 7, 2008
- Campaign finance history of Defend Oregon for 2008
- Record of donations to Defend Oregon
- Oregon Live, "Teachers, nurses add $2.5 million to campaigns," September 10, 2008
- The Oregonian, "OEA puts $4 million into ballot measure fight," October 8, 2008
- Oregonian, "School workers add $100,000 to campaign," August 25, 2008
State of Oregon
List of Oregon ballot measures | Local measures | School bond issues | Ballot measure laws | Initiative laws | History of I&R | History of direct democracy | Campaign Finance Requirements | Recall process |
|State executive officers||
Governor | Lieutenant Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Treasurer | Auditor | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Administrator of Insurance | Director of Agriculture | Director of Fish and Wildlife | Commissioner of Labor and Industries | Commissioner of Public Utilities |