2017 SJR 35: Legislature blocking rules, Article III

What SJR 35 Does

Senate Joint Resolution No. 35 was proposed by Senator Knopp.  This proposal is to add a new Section to Article III, Separation of Powers, of the Oregon State Constitution.  This proposal adds to the Legislature the power to block a rule prior to its coming into power, or in the case of an emergency rule, within 12 months of its coming into power.  It does not define any need for cause and these would all be simple majority votes.  One thing that is not considered here is whether or not the Governor can veto legislation blocking a rule as defined in Article 5, Section 15b.  There were some number of other bills filed that discuss this same topic that I have reviewed: here, here, and here.

My View

This would fundamentally change the tone of government, which well may be the goal of the writers of the bill.  While it is appreciated that governmental regulations can delve into areas where it does harm rather than good and that the writers of the proposal imagine that the good Legislature will be able to sort these issues out, the reality is that it is unlikely that the Legislature can take on this task without having it run out of time to write actual Legislation rather than just run after the executive trying to stop all the rules that are being promulgated.
Creating laws and regulations is quite hard.  These create unintended and unforeseen consequences that once realized have to then be addressed.  And it can lead to a kind of arms race between those who seek to manipulate the law for their gain vs. those are trying to stop certain kinds of behavior.  There is a calculus that you could try to perform.  Without the law in place, determine the cost to society vs. with the law in place what is the net change of the original calculation.  But you run into problems trying to quantify the effects.  Let me take and example of a proposed rule of using an chemical in apple farming to increase yields.

• This chemical has the following observable effects:
• The manufacture and distribution of the chemical employs 100 people.
• The use of the chemical on average increases apple yields 10%.
• 3 people die annually from poisoning by the chemical: this is accidental overexposure of apple farm workers; for the sake of argument I am assuming it is safe to consumers.
• The chemical interferes with the reproduction of a species of songbird and it has been documented that over the last 10 years of use, areas where the chemical has been used, the population of the songbird has disappeared or become very rare.

So the question is how do you do the math to determine if using this chemical is a net positive or a net negative to society?  Employment and increase in yield are easy to quantify in economic terms.  Premature death is quantifiable in actuarial terms, but is it valid to just simply subtract the actuarial value from value of the wages and increased yields?  And what do we do with the potential extinction of a songbird?  This last issue is an externality that does not have any quantifiable economic value.  It becomes impossible to make the calculation and thus the decision lies on a value judgment between the various factors as well as to the indeterminacy of whether we have all of the relevant information.  Value judgments are moral in nature and depend on the beliefs held by the people.  One of the assumptions of democracy is that the Representatives and Senators (and executive and judicial branch as well) have values that are a good representation of the people who elected them.  Clearly this is also not always true.
Returning back to the bill, I do not think this is a good proposal.  We have to trust that the value judgments being made when creating or amending rules are representative of the social compact which was agreed (See Article I, Section 1) at the formation of this great State of Oregon.

2017 SJR 34: Proposal for controls on administrative rules

What SJR 34 Does

Senate Joint Resolution No. 34 was sponsored by Senator Knopp.  The bill proposes to add a Section 5 to Article III (Separation of Powers) of the Oregon State Constitution which would demand that the Legislature can block Administrative rules that meet certain criteria until such time that the Legislature approves the rule.  After approval, the rule would automatically be revoked after 6 years, and I assume there is nothing that would prevent re-approval.  We have seen similar proposals for allowing the Legislature to get involved in Executive branch business here and here.

My View

This proposal is clearly flawed and serves, I feel, only as a symbolic political document that truly was never intended to go anywhere.  In this proposal the mechanism for prohibiting rules is not spelled out in any way.  Second, if you look at the criteria in subsection (2), these are quite subjective and would lead to wrangling no doubt the first time someone proposed to use this provision.  Third, the writers would have included re-approval in the sunset clause if they had been serious.
The other proposals linked above definitely had more merits that this bill.

2017 SJR 33: Legislative veto on administrative rules

What SJR 33 Does

Senate Joint Resolution 33 was proposed by Senator Knopp and Representative Nearman.  This resolution proposes to add a new Section 5 to Article III of the Oregon State Constitution to add in that the Legislature can repeal administrative rule or amendment to a rule by passing a resolution by a majority in each house.  See also what I have written on SJR 26 which is in a similar vein.  This bill also includes a preamble which explains that the authors believe that the government, specifically the executive branch, has overreached and through this overreach has strangled small business and also raised the cost of living for Oregonians.  Therefore it is imagined by the authors that if the executive passes some egregious rule that burdens people to have to do something, or prohibit some act, this can now be repealed by the Legislature and thereby the Legislature can swoop in like a knight in shining armor to save small business and ordinary residents from the scaly dragon of the bureaucracy which threatens to breath fire and eat them whole.

My View

If I couched the end of the above in overly dramatic terms, it is because I think that this will not, in practice, aid small business and ordinary residents.  Government works through leverage.  Leverage will be applied by those who have it to where it can be applied.  This bill would create a new leverage point in the Legislature which big business, large unions and other powerful interests can exploit through typical lobbying activities already present.  While the executive branch does have some political appointees as well as a few elected officials, by and large, the larger part of the cogs and gears of the executive branch of the government are not political appointees onto which such lobbying tactics can be applied.
In summary, I do not support this bill.  I think that this creates a temptation of large powerful organizations to influence the legislature.  The separation of powers exists for a reason and this bill would meddle too deeply in that balance.

2017 SJR 32: Precision in raising revenue, Article IV, Section 25

What SJR 32 does

Senate Joint Resolution 32 was filed by Senator Knopp and Representative Nearman.  This resolution proposes to amend Section 25 of Article IV (Legislative Branch) of the Oregon State Constitution.  The resolution amplifies what is intended by the term "bills raising revenue".  As original written, the constitution calls for bills that create laws that are sources of revenue for the government must be passed by a three fifths majority of both the house and senate.  This proposal specifies in detail to assure that bills which increase fees and fines, adjust who has to pay a tax, fee or fine, changes in tax rates all have to be passed with 3/5 majority.  Further, if there is a cut to revenue, such a bill has to be passed by a 3/5 majority.

My View

I think that this would be a good bill to pass.  This bill seems to reflect the reality that legislation is often complicated and out of this complication can come attempts to argue that the criteria of "raising revenue" is exempted even though the direct result will do that.  I feel that this amplification of the language is worthwhile.  The notations in the constitution indicate that this subsection was present in the original constitution and was amended in 1996.

2017 SJR 31: Combined City/County Government, Article XI

What SJR 31 does

Senate Joint Resolution No. 31 was introduced by Senator Knopp.  This measure proposes to change Article XI, entitled Corporations and Internal Improvements, Section 2a of the Oregon State Constitution.  This allows municipalities of greater than 500,000 population to essentially become their own counties.  There is also a provision that if there is a municipality that is greater than 700,000, that it can be split so long as the pieces all have more than 100,000 people in them.

My View

I wrote about Section 2a, Article IX here.  There is indeed a problem in that there are multiple levels of government which can end up being redundant.  For large urban areas, the city government, out of need of co-ordination and economies of scale, end up doing a lot of what the county government is responsible for.  Here in Oregon, at least we really only have one particularly serious instance of the question, that being the city of Portland in Multnomah county, although I think that the city also extends into Washington County in a few places.  Overall, having a large urban center being a county all by itself could really be a good thing, however, changing borders is always fraught with emotions and trivial emotional concerns that can end up as effective roadblocks since changing borders on a few things would achieve exactly the same as this proposed amendment.
Subsection (4) of the proposal is virtually a gilded invitation for the rich neighborhoods to secede from the rest of the urban area and is really a bad idea.  Because of that, in its current form, this proposed amendment has got to be a no.

2017 SJR 30: Amending Article IV, Section 25

What SJR 30 does

Senate Joint Resolution No. 30 was introduced by Senator Girod.  This proposes to amend Article IV, entitled "Legislative Branch", article 25 of the Oregon State Constitution which defines how resolutions are passed in the Legislature.  This amendment proposes that during even numbered years, that resolutions all require a two-thirds majority in both houses to pass and be given to the Governor for signature.

My View

I wrote about Article IV, Section 25 here.  There was a different resolution which had the same kind of proposal, although it was more focused whereas this one is uniform.  I think this essentially leads to gridlock during the even numbered years and for that reason, I don't think it is a good idea.

2017 SJR 29: Redistricting - Article IV, Section 6

What SJR 29 does

Senate Joint Resolution No. 29 was introduced by Senator Girod.  This resolution proposes to replace Article IV, entitled Legislative Branch, Section 6 with an entire new tract of text in the Oregon State Constitution.  This proposal is to create a redistricting commission of 11 persons who will review the district boundaries after the decennial Federal Census.  The 11 commissioners will be selected by the county commissioners.

My View

Frankly, having had a look at some of the proposals for redistricting here, this proposal strikes me as being convoluted and opaque.  There are a number of aspects to this which are currently tuned to the state of how things are in Oregon now that could be quite different in 20 or 30 years.  Re-districting is a controversial issue currently and assuring that no gerrymandering happens is important to keeping the flame of representative democracy alive so bringing up as many ideas as possible is a good thing.  Unfortunately, there is not anything in this particular proposal that I feel is better than those so far reviewed by this Blog.

2017 SJR 28: Proposal for protection of religious organizations

What SJR 28 does

Senate Joint Resolution No. 28 was proposed by Senator Girod.  This proposes an new section in Article XV, entitled Miscellaneous of the Oregon State Constitution.  This proposed amendment would limit non-economic damages in lawsuits against Federally tax-exempt religious organizations to $500,000.

My View

If you have read my previous posts here and here, you know what is coming.  The dollar value limit is a problem in the long run.  Also, for the protection afforded here, there is actually, unlike in the case of health service providers, no good case to say that religious organization truly have some special function that would merit it.  This seems motivated by current media stories with regards to awards circulating in the media for cases against the Catholic Church and other organizations of sexual abuse.  My suspicion is that those people who run religious organization do so for other than financial reasons, so there isn't a disincentive to forming religious organizations because of the fact that there is no liability cap.  My opinion on this bill is a no.

2017 SJR 27: Amendment to protect health care providers

What 2017 SJR 27 does

Senate Joint Resolution No. 27 was proposed by Senator Girod.  This resolution proposes an amendment to Article XV (Miscellaneous) of the Oregon State Constitution.  The amendment would limit non-economic damages in suits against health care providers to $500,000.  The terms non-economic damages, health care provider and medical liability action are defined.

My View

This is a bad idea for a few reasons.  First, having a fixed numerical limit in a constitutional document is usually a bad idea.  As sometimes these documents exist for a hundred years, the numbers, especially dollar values, will go out of date.  Secondly, this is an attempt to protect hospitals and large health care corporations.  While it seems, especially in the list of protected types of health care workers, to be people focused, it does end up that if you sue the hospital, this limit would also apply.  Lastly, I have a concern that this would legitimize some fringe/alternative health practices, specifically, chiropractors, naturopaths, and acupuncture.  I don't actually know what a polysomnographic technologist is; my best guess is an interpreter of dreams.  Massage therapy, for me is on the fence.  I feel great after a massage, but is it therapeutic?  Hard to say.
Overall, this bill is a no for me.

2017 SJR 25: Proposal for each county to have a senator

What SJR 25 does

Senate Joint Resolution No. 25 has been proposed by Senator Girod.  This proposal is to amend Article IV, sections 2, 3, 6 and 7 of the Oregon State Constitution.  Article IV is about the Legislative Branch.  I have written about these sections here and here. This proposal is to have each county have its own Senator.  There are changes required to all of the referenced sections to align all the text.

My View

What this does is to change the balance to lean towards the Rural and away from the Urban counties within the Senate.  I think this is a good thing.  It also has the side effect of making State Senate seats immune to gerrymandering.  It increases the total number of Senate seats to 36 which upsets the 2 to 1 ratio between House and Senate, but this was an arbitrary ratio in the past anyway.

2017 SJR 26: Proposal for new Section 5, Article III

What SJR 26 does

Senate Joint Resolution No. 26 is proposed by Senator Girod.  This resolution proposes to add a new section 5 to Article III (Distribution of Powers) of the Oregon State Constitution.  This states that if so written in a law, the implementing administrative rules may be subject to Legislative approval prior to going into effect.  This essentially allows the Legislature to have a veto over the writing of the implementing rules that is done by the Executive branch.  There is a clause for allowing exceptions where not adopting rules would cause significant issues, but in this case, approval is still required afterwards or else the rule becomes invalid after 12 months.

My View

I do not think this is a necessary amendment partly because I don't think there is any problem with inserting this kind of language into a law in the first place.  It is not normal for the Legislature to micromanage the writing of rules which implement laws, but there is nothing currently to prevent it in the first place.  These kinds of parliamentary procedure amendments to the constitution are a big waste of time.

2017 SJR 24: Article IX, Section 16 - Cap on spending growth

What SJR 24 does

Senate Joint Resolution No. 24 was proposed by Senator Girod.  This resolution proposes to add to Article IX, Finance, a new section 16 to the Oregon State Constitution which tries to limit the growth of government spending to the lesser of the increase in personal income, the rate of population growth or the increase in gross domestic product.  A lot of the text is definitions and how to arrive at the calculation.  Which appropriations this proposed limit is applicable to takes 12 lines.  Finally, there is an escape clause in subsection (6).

My view

This is a kneejerk reaction to budget problems being currently experienced by the Oregon state government.  In the current text, subsection (2) seems to be missing a word in the first part.  I believe it should read "Each biennium, the increase in state government appropriations..." These kinds of hard limits are can result in undue hardships to the poor and most vulnerable.  The current budget problems are significant and there needs to be a long term solution found.  The people of Oregon need to understand that it may involve additional revenues especially if there is not a collective decision to stop some entitlements.
The proposal does not have any real merits and it is perhaps even dangerous since it is a relatively understandable and straightforward solution to a complex problem.  I am sure the Senator knows how complicated balancing the priorities to make a workable budget is.  But this kind of a proposal, if passed, would have cruel and unintended consequences nearly immediately.

2017 SJR 23: A new miscellaneous section

What Senate Joint Resolution 23 proposes

Learned a new word today: Eleemosynary.  Senate Joint Resolution No. 23 is proposed by Senator Girod.  This resolution proposes to amend the Oregon State Constitution by adding a new section to Article XV (Miscellaneous).
This Resolution proposes to cap non-monetary awards in judgments against non-profit corporations at $500,000.  A nonprofit organization is one that is so classified by Federal Tax code and pays no income taxes on revenues.

My view

I have hesitations about this proposal for a couple of reasons.  First, I am not sure why this is coming up as a topic of discussion.  In the news lately has been allegations against the Catholic church.  Also in the news have been the Boy Scouts of America.  Many health care providers are non-profits and I would imagine that any wrongful death suit brought against a hospital would hit this limit pretty regularly.
Second, there is no inflation adjustment.  These kinds of hard and final limits are though to be useful to drive home a point.  But in reality to make things work, you need to provide cost of living adjustments (COLA).  All dollar figures in legislation start to look wrong or bad after 10 years without having some kind of COLA mechanism.
I don't know what the supporting arguments for this proposal are.  I'd like to support anything that might reduce the tendency of frivolous or nuisance lawsuits as a negotiation tactic.  But I am not convinced this proposal is yet correct or necessary.

2017 SJR 22: Proposal to amend Article IV, Section 1

Senate Joint Resolution No. 22 is sponsored by Senator Thatcher.  This resolution proposes to amend the Oregon State Constitution Article IV (Legislative Branch), Section 1.  My original post on this subject is here.  This resolution proposes to add a subsection 4(e) which states that the Legislature cannot amend or repeal a law passed by initiative for the first two years in which it is in force.

My View

The idea of passing a law by initiative rather than a constitutional amendment does not currently make sense and this proposed amendment does not really change the calculus involved to any great extent.  The permanence of a constitutional amendment vs. that of a statute is significantly more benefit for the little extra effort required to bring the amendment to a vote.

2017 SJR 21: Proposal to amend Article IX, Section 16

Senate Joint Resolution No. 21 was proposed by Senator Thomsen.  This resolution proposes to add sections 16 and 16a to Article IX of the Oregon State Constitution.  Article IX is entitled "Finances".

What SJR 21 does

The proposed new section define that the Oregon Legislature pass a budget that provides for 33% of spending to be in the categories of Education and Public Safety.  However, recognizing that there is a bit of a transition, it also provides stepped requirements for the 2019-2021 and 2021-2023 biennium's to be able to go from the current level which I guess is around 25% up to 33% over the next 6 years.

My View

I think this is founded on a "Think of the Children!" type argument.  Imposing hard limits like this is dangerous since if something comes along federally and significantly shifts spending in some area, then compliance could be difficult to achieve.  This mandates that funding gets shifted into Education and Public Safety but you have to ask, where will it come from?  Reduction in other spending? New taxes?  What is going to be the split between Education and Public Safety?  I assume there would be debate on which should get priority.
This would be a bad amendment to pass.  If there is a desire to increase Education or Public Safety funding, this should be done on the merits of the proposed spending not on some appeal to emotion that boosts the budget that now has to be spent, very possibly on some pet projects which otherwise would not have received funding.

2017 SJR 20:Proposal to add new Article VIII, Section 9

Senate Joint Resolution No. 20 was introduced by Senator Ferrioli.  This resolution proposes to amend the Oregon State Constitution by adding a new Section 9 to Article VIII.  Article VIII is entitled "Education and School Lands".

What SJR 20 does

This amendment says that the Legislature has to appropriate funds for K-12 education by the 65th day of each odd-year session.  If they do not, then the Legislators don't get paid until they do.  Of course there are some details regarding a veto by the governor that are detailed in the language.

My View

I am completely on the fence with this one.  I think it makes a statement about the important of K-12 education, but threatening Representatives and Senators with not being paid is probably unlikely to be effective.  They are faced daily with all kinds of pressures from media, constituents and lobbyists such that financial threats are not that significant.

2017 SJR 19: Proposal to amend Article II, Section 8

What SJR 19 does

Senate Joint Resolution No. 19 was introduced by Senator Boquist.  This resolution proposes to amend Article II, Section 8 of the Oregon State Constitution.  The topic here is campaign donations by a labor union, for-profit corporation, nonprofit corporation, company, incorporated or unincorporated association, general or limited partnership, society, joint stock company or any other organization or institution.  The idea is that an official who is being elected cannot accept campaign donations from organizations with whom the official has "done business".

My View

This bill is playing politics.  I suspect that it has been crafted in a way to limit unions' ability to be involved in elections.  There are several workarounds to the proposed rules, paragraph (b) of subsection (2) even provides one.
That's not to say that there may be a need for campaign reform, but this proposed amendment to the Oregon Constitution is not it.

2017 SJR 18: Proposal to add new Section 9 to Article VIII

Senate Joint Resolution No. 18 proposes to add a new section 9 to Article VIII of the Oregon State Constitution.  Article VIII is entitled "Education and School Lands".  This resolution was filed by Senators Ferrioli and Olsen.

What SJR 18 does

This new section requires that in the regular session of odd numbered years, the Legislature has to pass funding for K-12 education first before they pass appropriations bills for anything else.  Subsection 2 discusses what to do in the event of a gubernatorial veto.  Subsection 3 affirms that violation of subsection 1 and 2 would cause any bill to be considered null and void.  Finally subsection 4 defines the term "State Agency".

My view

The thought is a good thought in that I agree that K-12 education needs to be given priority for funding.  What I am unsure of is whether it will make any difference.  When the Legislature signs into law more appropriations than there is revenue, the real limiting factor ends up being how many checks the Treasury can write before it runs out of cash.  I don't really see that there is anything stopping the Legislature from passing appropriations until the cows come home.  Because of this, it doesn't really matter in what order the appropriations bills are passed and hence, this amendment does not provide any additional assurance that education is funded better.  Maybe the intent was to prevent it from it being used for political purposes by one or another party.

2017 SJR 17: Proposal to amend Article IV, Section 10

Senate Joint Resolution No. 17 proposes to amend the Oregon State Constitution, Article IV, Section 10.  This resolution was introduced by Senator Johnson.

The SJR 17 Proposal

What this resolution proposes is to add a subsection (4) which limits what kinds of bills can be passed in the Legislature on a simple majority vote during the regular session of an even numbered year.  Specifically, these would be bills that deal with appropriations, conformance of Oregon laws with new Federal requirements and corrections to recent Oregon laws where they don't materially change policy.  As you may know, during even numbered years, the legislative session is short as members of the Legislative look towards re-election in the fall of that year.  There can be significant pressures during an election year and so for these reasons this has been proposed.

My View

I do not think this is necessary.  Even numbered years, with the short sessions and the election can be problematic to be productive in the Legislature.  I don't think this proposal will make the Legislature any more productive.

2017 SJR 16: Providing for impeachment of the Executive Branch

Senate Joint Resolution No. 16 provides for a mechanism to impeach members of the executive branch of the government through an amendment to the Oregon State Constitution.  This resolution was filed by Senator Ferrioli and is also sponsored by Senators Nearman and Whisnant.  There is a public hearing tentatively scheduled for March 22nd, 2017.

The SJR 16 proposal

The resolution proposes to add a Section 34 to Article IV (Legislative branch).  This defines it the authority of the House of Representatives to make an accusation of malfeasance, corruption of negligence which would be approved by a three-fifths majority and then the case would be tried by the Senate which would have to approve it by a two thirds majority to remove a duly elected member out of office.  Insofar as criminal charges, these would have to be filed separately by law enforcement and conviction by the Senate is not included from the point of view of the double jeopardy clause in Article I.

My view

I think that this would be significantly abused for political purposes.  Of course the House and Senate would provide a suitable pretense on which to accuse and convict...something that seems at least legitimate, but frankly, it would be rare for actual criminal charges to follow and have a politician thrown in jail.  This seems in some way to be a reaction to the whole Kitzhaber debacle, but I don't think it is a workable mechanism.  We are going to have contentious politics for some years to come.  Let us not also make it into an era of an escalating legislative arms race.  If you look at, for example, Belgium, political dysfunction can become normalized.  Providing weapons such as this impeachment that can be used through party-line votes is a step that would end up normalizing such dysfunction because it only radicalizes everyone rather than being an incentive to compromise.

2017 SJR 10 thru 14: Independent commission for redistricting

In this post, we will look at Senate Joint Resolutions No. 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.  All of these resolutions are intended to establish independent commissions to perform the redistricting following the decennial census by the federal government and thus change the current provisions of redistricting in the Oregon State Constitution.  I had looked only at SJR 9 and when I wrote the previous post, I did not realize that 10 through 14 would be dealing with the same subject matter.  I will review briefly what are the differences to SJR 9 of each.

SJR 10

This version does not have calendar dates, but rather just elapsed days since the publishing of the results of the decennial census.  Also, there is a requirement to publicize the results.

SJR 11

This seems to be the most trimmed down version of the amendment.  Since it is missing quite some details, I think it is too vague.

SJR 12

This version includes a 9 person panel rather than a 5 person panel.  I do think that the smaller group is better.  This version also allows office holders to be appointed to the panel.  This version has, in subsection (8)(b), an even more details list of characteristics that a legislative district should have than in SJR 9.

SJR 13

This version includes that the Judicial branch creates a pool of potential commissioners and then certain persons in the Legislative branch then selects among those candidates.  Also, this version has a clause for removal of a member of the commission that is doing the redistricting.  This version seems to have the strictest prohibitions against members of the commission being office-holders either before or after the process of redistricting.

SJR 14

This version is by far the lengthiest of the lot.  There are a few things in here, but I am of the opinion that some of it should be at the level of statutes rather than in the Constitution such as the compensation rate.  It also calls for a 14 member panel of people drawn randomly from a pool.  And there is a panel to review the candidates in the pool.  This is too complicated.

My View

I don't see why Senator Ferrioli filed all of these different versions.  It seems to be rather wasteful.  There are some good things that come of you these different versions, and here is the parts I would want to incorporate into a final bill:

• Publication of the final re-districting plan:  In SJR 10, subsection 10, there is a requirement to publicize the re-districting plan.  I think this is a good idea, although, nowadays, newspapers are rather quaint and really the right way to do this is via web pages and social media feeds.
• Clause for removal:  In SJR 13, subsection 8, there is a mechanism for removal of a member of the panel for non-performance.  This is necessary.
• I would stick with a panel of 5 and make it a simple nomination process.  There does need to be some restrictions on eligibility and the 2 year non-partisan, non-office holding requirement seems to me to be sufficient.  If the D's and R's go at this to nominate partisan commissioners, this will end up on the supreme court's doorstep.  Frankly, that's where it probably should be in the first place.

2017 SJR 9: Proposal to amend Article IV, Sections 6 and 7

In this post we will look at Senate Joint Resolution No. 9 which was proposed by Senator Ferrioli.  This resolution proposes to amend Article IV, Sections 6 and 7 of the Oregon State Constitution.  Article IV is entitled "Legislative Branch".  Sections 6 and 7 have to do with re-apportionment of districts for Senators and Representatives.

The effect of the change

Currently, the re-apportionment of districts is performed by the Legislature by way of passing a law.  This is achieved after each decennial census conducted by the federal government.  The fact that the legislature does it makes it susceptible to being politicized.  Further, the party in power may be able to force re-apportionments that are politically motivated so as to gain an edge that allows them to keep their majority or plurality.
Under the amendment, the apportionment is performed by a committee of 5 people, of which 4 are voting members.  3 have to be able to agree to pass a re-apportionment.  The members of the committee are not allowed to have held significant elected office for at least 2 years.  The idea here is that these people should not be politicians and hence able to be bipartisan such that they are able to arrive at a plan that actually makes sense for the people and is not slanted in a partisan way.  If the commission is deadlocked, the Supreme Court must step in to provide a plan for re-apportionment.  However, the Legislature still has the final say and can amend the plan by a two thirds majority vote of both houses.  The governor may not veto.

My view

I agree that when allocating districts, this must be done with the least amount of political interference as possible so as to limit gerrymandering.  This proposal does have some merit in insulating the process from overt political influences.  The requirements in subsection 6 are good requirements such that there is sense in how the boundaries are drawn and this is an improvement on the existing constitution.
The only improvement I could suggest is that the process be not done by a special purpose committee, but have it done by the Supreme Court from the outset.  Deliberate belligerence can be introduced from the Legislative side no matter what preventative measure might be put in place.  I'm of the opinion that having a completely different branch of the government draw up the boundaries could substantially enhance the democratic traditions.  Some may argue that the role of the judicial branch should not be drawing up the boundaries of electoral districts, but as they are so named as a contingency plan, they will, from time to time have that role anyway.  I suggest, just give the supreme court the task from the outset.  While this may, to some, risk politicizing the court, I do think that the court generally has the integrity and farsightedness not to allow this to happen.  Certainly more so than the Legislative or Executive branches.

2017 SJR 8: Proposal to add new Section 5 to Article III

In this post we look at Senate Joint Resolution No. 8 which was introduced by Senator Olsen.  This proposal is to add a Section 5 to Article III of the Oregon State Constitution.  Article III is entitled "Distribution of Powers." This amendment is different that that one being proposed in SJR 5.  The proposal both add Section 5's but if it were the case that both were to pass a referendum, then someone would do the needful and give them different numbers.

What this affects

The proposed amendment is such that if one Senator and one Representative petition the assembly about an administrative rule that has been passed by an executive branch agency, there is a requirement that the Legislature pass a confirming resolution or else the rule ceases to be in force after the Legislature adjourns the regular session.

My view

This is utterly ridiculous.  This is prone to abuse to an absurd degree.  All it takes is two legislators who want to destroy the government to file petition after petition for every single rule that has been adopted by the executive branch agencies and it will basically stop the Legislature from doing anything else other than passing confirming resolutions to prevent the rules from expiring.
I cannot imagine that any serious legislator thinks this is a good idea.  It may please some people's libertarian ideals, but it would more than likely result in anarchy.  Just think if someone decided to petition all the rules regarding driver and vehicle licensing and have them expire.  You would be taking your life in your hands to go to work and I am sure insurance rates would go through the roof.

2017 SJR 7: Proposal to amend Articles IX and XI

Introduced into the Senate by Senator Riley in a pre-session filing, Senate Joint Resolution No. 7 which proposes to amend the Oregon State Constitution.  The proposal amends 2 different Articles: IX and XI.  In Article IX, there is the addition of Section 16.  In Article XI, there is the addition of Section 11m and 11n.

The effects of the changes

The main idea behind this amendment is to change the nature of taxation in Oregon to add a Sales tax and based on the additional revenue created by that, reduce property taxes on owner occupied houses to zero.  The sales tax would be exempt on transfer of real property, sale of water, food, clothing drugs, medical and mobility equipment and utilities.
This reduces the tax burden on home owners and increases it on those who rent.  As such it taxes the poor more heavily based on the idea that those who can afford it, buy and those who are too poor to buy, rent.  A potential side effect would be to temporarily raise demand for purchase of housing.

My view

This is an ill-considered piece of legislation and imposes a significant burden on the least wealthy Oregonians.  I also really do not like paying sales tax even though there is a good chance I would be ahead if this was passed.  I would not vote for this proposal, but it does not seem to be moving very far in this session, so I suspect it will die in committee.

2017 SJR 6: Resolution regarding Student's overloaded backpacks

In this post we look at Senate Joint Resolution No. 6 which discusses the horrors of overloaded K-12 student backpacks and how something needs to be done about it.
Essentially, this resolution, unfortunately, is simply hand waving freak outery.  There is a true issue here with students having to cart around a lot of materials to school every day.  One of the sources of that issue is the fact that in many high schools, there are no lockers.  When I was in high school, I had a locker and had to take minimal stuff back and forth to school or to classes.  Post-secondary, I did not have a locker and my backpack which now came everywhere with me, was pretty heavy.
I do not see that this resolution will achieve anything, in the end, it requests that the superintendent of schools communicate to principles, teachers and students about the dangers of overly heavy backpacks.
One math class in every school should do a project to create pie charts which show for an average student what is the weight of books, computers, papers, lunchbox, etc. that is carried.  Also what is the weight of an average empty backpack.  This could provide some interesting data for those who plan the curriculum.

2017 SJR 5: Proposal for new section 5 to Article III.

Senate Joint Resolution No. 5 proposes to add a Section 5 to Article III of the Oregon State Constitution.  Article III is entitled Distribution of Powers.  The sponsoring Senator is not listed in the information provided on the Bill on the Internet.

The Proposal

This proposal is to add in a feature reminiscent of the "Congressional Review Act" that has been passed at a Federal level which is to allow more control of Executive branch actions by the Legislative Branch.  This is part of a broader conflict on the limitations of executive power.  I will try to explain the conflict.  So the Legislature creates a law that defines a kind of a broad policy regarding some thing.  For a facile example, let's take speeding.  The law says something like, "Local municipalities shall determine in consultation with subject matter experts, maximum speeds for roads, shall enforce those speeds and local law enforcement can issue fines."
So here the Legislature, because they did not go into details, have left open the determination of various aspects to the executive branch.  Maybe some municipality decides that an appropriate speed limit for a road is 80 mph.  Maybe some other municipality decides that they will fine speeders $1000.  Consideration of these hypotheticals in isolation and current known (Willamette valley) norms make these seem to be crazy.  But perhaps there are perfectly valid reasons and reasoning that have led the local officials to believe that these actions are appropriate.  So my first point here is that if the Legislature wanted something specific, inadequately considered potentially different interpretations and simply did not include the level of detail you often see in tax law, then it is on the Legislature.
The second point here is that I am not aware of any impediment that should the Legislature or a committee have valid concerns as to the Executive's promulgation of rules related to a piece of Legislation, then this kind of pre-emptive review of promulgated rules could be built into the Legislation in the first place.  I don't see that a constitutional amendment is necessary.

My View

As mentioned above, unless there is something explicitly that prevents the Legislature from implementing this under current law, this is just for public relations purposes to satisfy voter's sentiments that there are too many regulations and rules and the Legislature should do something about them.

2017 SJR 4 & 15: Proposal to amend Article IV, section 28 of the Oregon State Constitution

Senate Joint Resolution No. 4 has been filed to make an amendment to Article IV, Section 28.
  Article IV, section 28 of the Oregon State Constitution discusses when laws come into force and has a provision for emergency laws that come into force before 90 days after the end of the legislative session.  The reason for the 90 days comes from Article IV, section 1, subsection (3) wherein the people have the power to have a referendum on laws passed.
Additionally, Senate Joint Resolution No. 15, which is proposed by Senator Hansell and Representative Barreto is the same as SJR 4.

The proposed changes

In this resolution, it is proposed that in the case of an emergency law, instead of the usual simple majority or three-fifths majority for appropriations bills, a two-thirds majority is required for any bill that is an "emergency" bill.  The proposal provides for an exception when the Governor declares a "catastrophic disaster" under Article X-A, that bills passed with relation to that are exempt from the requirement.

My View

The intent of this change is to restrict the possibility of action by those who have a majority, but not a two-thirds majority.  It is to protect the interests of the minority.  It depends which side you are on as to whether this is considered a good or bad thing.  Since there seems to be so much enmity between the reds and the blues, this would be leveraged as a stalling/blocking tactic always.  As such, I think that it is not a good idea to pass this amendment.  I feel as though that might opinion would not change even if the shoe was on the other foot.

2017 SJR 3: Affecting Section 11, 11k, 11L of Article XI of the Oregon State Constitution

The Bill proposing Senate Joint Resolution No. 3 in the 2017 regular session does not have a sponsor's name on it.  This resolution is directed at the property tax provisions in Article XI of the Oregon State Constitution.  Article XI is entitled "Corporations and Internal Improvements"

The effect of the changes

In Section 11, Article XI currently there was essentially a reset in property value and a cap as to growth of the tax value of the property.  Since times are good and governments are cash-strapped, subsection (1) of the proposed amendment now says that all properties will be taxed at market value which will likely jump property taxes significantly.  Although it appears that the limits of the rates of taxation are left alone in subsection (5), it is not entirely clear.
In subsection (6), it discusses indebtedness due to bond issues wherein ad valorem tax revenue was pledged.  In mentions different rules for indebtedness before and after 1990.  That was 28 years ago.  Is this mean to imply that there are some debts that the taxpayers have been financing for 28 years or longer?  Although a typical mortgage is expected to run 30 years, I think most get paid off early.  If the state finance people are setting up bond issues where it rolls over the bonds for 5 years, pays the fees and just pays the interest, then the lessons of the 2006 Financial crisis were not learned.
In subsection (8), there is an addition for an exemption of a "homestead".  Frankly this is misleading and someone is just trying to placate rural citizens who might be sympathizing with the protestors in Malheur county.  An alternate reading provides more clarity if you insert "principal residence" in place of "homestead".
Subsection (10) takes exception to the equality provisions in Article I.  Some how, a lot of people seem to interpret "all men are equal under the law" when it comes to tax matters as "all men shall pay equal amounts of tax".  With any tax scheme, there are those who pay more taxes and those who pay less.  If everyone acted like Jack Welch's GE and paid no taxes whatsoever, how would government work?
This adds a Section 11m which has a sunset clause of January 2, 2021 because if the revised section 11 comes into force, immediately effective legislation needs to be written and passed.
Finally, this proposed amendment makes a change to section 11L where the voter approval requirement is such that proposed taxes have to be passed by voters in an election that has 50% or greater participation unless it is held in May (primaries) or November (general election) of any year.  I wish I had some voter participation numbers handy.  I think this is a dangerous change that makes it possible for small motivated groups to stealthily pass through bond measures in the dark of an off-year primary.

My View

I think this proposal has some challenges and it not ready to be sent to the voters.  If it was sent in the current state, I would be in the "no" camp.  Specifically for the change to 11L and also, because it seems to me to potentially cause a big jump in property taxes.

2017 SJR 2: Proposal to amend Article II, Section 2

Senator Monroe has proposed Senate Joint Resolution No. 2 to amend Article II, Section 2 of the Oregon State Constitution.  This Section deals with the qualification of electors.  In addition to a grammatical correction, the proposed amendment would also allow electors to register the day before the election.  Currently the law is that voter registration closes 20 calendar days before the election.

My view

Good idea, there are some practicalities that need to be worked out.  First, with the advent of automatic registration for those people who get a motor vehicle license, there is probably not a whole lot of need for this.  But, nonetheless, registration should not take very long since everything is electronic databases now.
The day before the election is going to be a busy day, and I have to assume that if someone registers to vote on that day, the person who registers that person will need to give the voter a ballot.  Effectively, the office will become a polling place and I don't know if there are good safeguards in place to assure that no hijinks happens.

2017 SJR 1: Proposal to amend Article I, Section 9

Senate Joint Resolution No. 1 was proposed by Senator Monroe to amend Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon State Constitution.  Article I, Section 9 provides the right against unreasonable search and seizure.  This is mirrored in the US Bill of rights as Amendment IV.  Senator Monroe proposes that a second subsection be added to Article I, Section 9 that specifically makes an exemption to this right in the case of sobriety checkpoints.

My View

Firstly, I am not aware of any studies into the efficacy of sobriety checkpoints.  However, since I am aware that this practice continues in some places, I have to assume that they indeed have some effect to reduce the incidence of drunk driving and to the extent that drivers out on the road are unimpaired, I would support that effort.  Although, in reality, I also think that drivers who have been drinking are aware that there are checkpoints and then making alternate arrangement is where the deterrence actually makes a difference.
Secondly, I profess ignorance of just how reasonable of a search it is to conduct a sobriety checkpoint.  In some respect, a cop standing on a street corner stopping people at random and asking them to produce identification is one possible analogy.  But I think that it is flawed.  Perhaps a better analogy might be a cop standing outside of a retail store which has been known to be frequented by shoplifters.  Nonetheless, especially since the permission to drive is less of a right and more of a privilege, I do not see any reason that sobriety checks are unreasonable searches.
However, I would argue that if there are issues with sobriety checkpoints such that the honorable Senator and those who have supported this particular resolution feel that these issues are resolved by adding in an exemption clause, the reality is that it is all for naught.  The existing section of the Oregon Constitution is word for word the same as Amendment IV and unless the US bill of rights is amended, objectors simply have to move the jurisdiction to have rights enforced with regards to sobriety checks.

Article XVIII, sections 6 to 11 of the Oregon State Constitution

In this final post on the Oregon State Constitution, we look at Article XVIII, sections 6 to 11.  Article XVIII is entitled "Schedule" and discusses some administrative items regarding the constitution when it was originally being proposed to the people living in the Oregon Territory.

Section 6

This section defines that if the constitution is ratified by all those necessary, including the people of the territory, then elections will be held at a specific time (June 1858) to elect state and federal representatives.

Section 7

This section includes the provision that adopting the constitution does not repeal any of the laws of the Territory.

Section 8

This section states that all people who are in government (elected or appointed thereto) shall continue until such time elections are held or they are replaced by the new authorities.

Section 9

This section states that any crimes against the territory are automatically continued as crimes against the state and that in no way would there be cause to have charges dropped due to the change of status from territory to state.

Section 10

This section guarantees that the territorial government obligations will be taken over by the State.

Section 11

This section defines judicial districts at the time the State was created.

The end of the constitution, so now what?

Well, we have reached the end of a long tour around the constitution and there were some sections where I thought I might have provided an interesting opinion and other sections where additional insight seemed lacking.  Nonetheless, it has been a learning experience for me to review and then try to dissect and correlate with other relevant section as to the topics being discussed.  What I am going to propose to do next with this blog is to look at some resolutions in the legislature that are proposing amendments to the Oregon Constitution.  We'll see if we get into any controversy or not!