Difference between revisions of "Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (2008)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - '==Official Ballot Title==' to '==Ballot title==')
m (Text replace - ""," to ","")
Line 15: Line 15:
 
In a statement, Studer and Rossman said controversy surrounding two tribes’ efforts to establish new casinos in Oregon and Washington made the timing of the ballot measure less desirable.
 
In a statement, Studer and Rossman said controversy surrounding two tribes’ efforts to establish new casinos in Oregon and Washington made the timing of the ballot measure less desirable.
  
The promoters’ statement did not indicate whether they would pursue another ballot measure in 2010, the next statewide election cycle.<ref>[http://www.theoutlookonline.com/news/story.php?story_id=121004216353343800 TheOutlookOnline.com: "Casino backers give up, for now", May 5, 208]</ref>
+
The promoters’ statement did not indicate whether they would pursue another ballot measure in 2010, the next statewide election cycle.<ref>[http://www.theoutlookonline.com/news/story.php?story_id=121004216353343800 TheOutlookOnline.com: "Casino backers give up, for now," May 5, 208]</ref>
  
 
==Ballot title==
 
==Ballot title==

Revision as of 07:38, 21 March 2014

Not on Ballot
Proposed allot measures that were not on a ballot
This measure did not or
will not appear on a ballot

Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (2008) or The Oregon Revenue Enhancement And Protection Act of 2008 was an initiated state statute that did not appear on the November 4, 2008 ballot. It would have allowed a privately owned casino near Portland, Oregon. The casino would have had a 15 year renewable license.

This measure went hand-in-hand with Oregon Ballot Measure 38, which would have amended the constitution to allow this casino in Oregon. The establishment of casinos was prohibited in the state under the constitution. Measure 37 could only be valid if Measure 38 passed. The constitutional amendment would have only allowed the building of this particular casino, and would not permit operation of other casinos within the state.[1]

No public funds would have been used to build, operate, or regulate the casino, except for initial funds from the lottery commission that were subject to repayment by the casino. The lottery commission would have regulated the casino. 25% of casino's gross revenues would have been payed to the commission. The legality of Tribal casinos was in no way affected by this measure.[1]

These measures were very similar to measures 35 and 36 and were proposed by the same people. It is common in Oregon for proponents to submit multiple measures to the Secretary of State with slight changes in the ballot title or text of the initiative in order to have a higher chance of making the ballot.

Measure 37 set aside 25% of revenue to go to the lottery commision, whereas Measure 35 gave that 25% to a variety of state funding, including education.

Status

The proponents decided not to pursue signature gathering on this measure.

In a statement, Studer and Rossman said controversy surrounding two tribes’ efforts to establish new casinos in Oregon and Washington made the timing of the ballot measure less desirable.

The promoters’ statement did not indicate whether they would pursue another ballot measure in 2010, the next statewide election cycle.[2]

Ballot title

Measure 37: Established Single Privately-Owned Casino Near Portland; Allocated Percentage Of Casino Revenue To Lottery Commission Measure 38: Amended Constitution: Replaced Constitutional Ban On Casinos With Provision Requiring The Authorization Of One, Privately Owned Casino[3]

Proponents

Matt Rossman and Bruce Studer

References

External links

See also