Oregon Prohibit Legislature from Making Initiative Process Harder, Measure 96 (2000)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Voting on
Direct Democracy Measures
Direct democracy.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Ballot Law Update
Oregon Constitution
Flag of Oregon.png

The Oregon Prohibit Legislature from Making Initiative Process Harder Amendment, also known as Measure 84, was on the November 7, 2000 ballot in Oregon as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was defeated. The measure would have prohibited the legislature from making the initiative and referendum process more difficult or expensive.[1]

Election results

Oregon Measure 96 (2000)
Defeatedd No866,58862.16%
Yes 527,613 37.84%

Election results via: Oregon Blue Book

Ballot title

Amends Constitution: Prohibits Making Initiative Process Harder, Except Through Initiative; Applies Retroactively[2]


Frank Eisenzimmer and Becky Miller


[3] Supporters of the measure argued that big powers such as the governor and state legislatures are "afraid" of the initiative process because it rightly gives the voters power, and encouraged voters to remember how necessary the process is for balancing power between the elected officials and the citizens of Oregon.

Lloyd Marbet from The Coalition For Initiative Rights reminded voters that "since 1995, the Legislature has sponsored hundreds of bills to make it more difficult to exercise our constitutional right to the initiative and referendum process" and believed it was time to give the legislature the message that the citizens of Oregon don't want their rights to the initiative process changed or taken away. Marbet added, "The initiative and referendum process will always be in jeopardy as long as the Legislature can restrict it. Measure 96 places any proposed restrictions on the initiative process in the hands of the People, where it belongs."

The Committee to Preserve Self Government encouraged voters to think for themselves and embrace the importance of the initiative and referendum process, saying, "politicians don't think we voters are smart enough to make the decisions that affect our lives and those of our children."

Others argued that Bill Bradbury, Oregon Secretary of State is too strict with signature laws. Bill Sizemore of Oregon Taxpayers United, a chief petitioner of this measure and many others in Oregon said,

"Even though voters turned down a proposal by the legislature to increase the signature requirement for placing measures on the ballot, the Secretary of State succeeded in doing so anyway by creating a huge penalty for every duplicate signature..."
"Many experts agree that this penalty is wildly inaccurate, but Secretary of State Bill Bradbury continues to enthusiastically enforce it anyway. Bradbury finds one duplication and he wipes out the signatures of 400 other voters who invested their time and effort to consider the issue and sign the petition. Even the courts have openly criticized Secretary of State Bradbury's policy of not counting the signatures... This year, thousands of registered voters had their signatures nullified...even though they had never been notified that the Secretary of State would not count their signatures."
"Measure 96 simply tells the legislature to leave the initiative process alone. It tells them to stop trying to make it more difficult for voters to have their say."

Toby Grant, who submitted a letter of support for Measure 96 to the Secretary of State, confessed that he would vote against all of Bill Sizemore's other measures because "they act against the greater good of Oregon and benefit those who earn the most." But, Grant admitted that Measure 96 deserved consideration, saying that "the initiative process is an evolution in democracy and can be perfected by legislators who refer proactive reform measures to voters."


[4] Some of those opposed, such as The Oregon Initiative Committee, did not like that Measure 96 strips the legislature of the power to refer measures to the voters that restrict the initiative process. They argued that in that case, the measure also strips the right of Oregon voters to consider those referrals.

Some people in opposition believed that the measure would prohibit the legislature from making laws that force petition campaigns to be accountable to voters. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said:

"Initiative sponsors have a constitutional right to pay petition circulators for signatures. But doesn't the voter have the right to know who is paying for those signatures? Measure 96 is designed to make it impossible for the legislature to pass laws that require greater disclosure of information regarding the special interests funding an initiative proposal. Measure 96 will allow special interest groups, who have a financial stake in getting their proposals on the ballot, to keep voters in the dark."

The League of Women Voters oppose that the measure prevents any reform to this initiative process, even reforms which voters may approve if they were given the chance to vote on them.

Many opposed to the measure claimed they are not against the initiative process in any way; they simply don't believe in amending the constitution to prohibit all reform of the process.

See also

Suggest a link

External links


BallotMeasureFinal badge.png
This historical ballot measure article requires that the text of the measure be added to the page.