Oregon Mandatory Minimum Prison Sentences, Measure 61 (2008)

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 22:45, 24 February 2014 by Colin O'Keefe (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
Voting on
Law Enforcement
Law enforcement.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Measures
Oregon Mandatory Minimum Prison Sentences, Measure 61 was on the November 4, 2008 ballot in Oregon as an initiated state statute. It was defeated.

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.[1]

Election results

Measure 61
ResultVotesPercentage
Defeatedd No887,16551.1%
Yes 848,901 48.9%
Election results from Oregon Secretary of State

Background

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.[2] 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".[3]

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.[4][5]

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title of Measure 61 was:

Creates Mandatory Minimum Prison Sentences for Certain Theft, Identity Theft, Forgery, Drug, and Burglary Crimes.[6][7]

Full text

The full text of the legislation enacted by Measure 61 is available here.


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

Specific provisions

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.[8]

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.[9]

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.[10]

Support

Supporters

The chief petitioners for Measure 61 were Kevin Mannix, Duane Fletchall and Steve Beck.

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.

Loren Parks, the biggest political contributor in Oregon history, donated over $100,000 to the campaign for this measure.[11]

Opposition

Arguments against

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.[12]

Donors

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.[13]

Major donations to the Defend Oregon group as of October 8 included:[14]

See also

External links

BP-Initials-UPDATED.png
Suggest a link

Basic information

Opposition

Additional reading

References