2017 SJR 42: Adding rules on how to introduce bills and resolutions.

What SJR 42 Does

Senate Joint Resolution No. 42 was filed by a lot of people including Senator THATCHER, Representative NEARMAN; Senators BAERTSCHIGER JR, HANSELL, KRUSE,LINTHICUM, THOMSEN, Representatives POST, WHISNANT.  This resolution proposes to add to the Oregon State Constitution, a section 34 to Article IV entitled Legislative Branch.  The resolution proposes to add a rule such that when a piece of legislation is introduced, it has to bear the name of a Senator or Representative.  The current practice allows bills and resolutions to be introduced in the name of a committee.  This would no longer be allowed under the proposed amendment.

My View

This belongs in the rules document. (There is one for the House and one for the Senate.)  This is not something that should go into the Constitution.

2017 SJR 41: Oregon Rainy Day Fund

What SJR 41 Does

Senate Joint Resolution No. 41 is listed as being sponsored by the Committee on Finance and Revenue.  This proposes to amend the Oregon State Constitution, Article IX, entitled "Finance".  This changes Section 14 and adds a new sections 16 and 17.  I have previously written about Section 14 here.  This would create a fund, known as the Oregon Rainy Day fund which would be primarily funded by a new tax levied on businesses based on gross receipts.  That's a fancy way of saying it is basically a sales tax and while it would be charged to corporations, they would pass on the costs to consumers in the form of higher prices.

My View

This item has been in the news somewhat and I am providing some links: here, here, and here.  My view is that this is not the best way to do this.  I would hate to give up the fact that Oregon does not have a sales tax, but the level of income taxes is starting to get rather high.  If you will switch to a sales tax, then let's do that openly and with clarity of purpose to also eliminate the income tax entirely for at least individuals.

2017 SJR 40: Section 18, Article II, Recall

What SJR 40 Does

Senate Joint Resolution No. 40 was filed by Senator Roblan.  This resolution proposes to change the Oregon State Constitution, Article II, entitled Elections, section 18.  I have previously written about  section 18 here.  The purpose of this amendment is to correct the situation where an incumbent is re-elected to an office such as Governor.  Under one interpretation, officers are exempt from petitions to recall for the first six months of their tenure.  The point of the resolution is to eliminate that grace period when incumbents are re-elected.

My View

I don't see this as an issue.  I don't think that there is a possibility to get a recall petition organized within 6 months in any case.  I get the point if what is being asked, but alternately I think a judicial opinion where the current text is interpreted in a way that the text of subsection (6) can correctly consider consecutive terms in the way that the resolution suggests would be an adequate solution.

2017 SJR 39: Days of the Legislature, Article IV, Section 10

What SJR 39 Does

Senate Joint Resolution No. 39 was introduced by Senator Devlin.  This resolution proposes to amend the Oregon State Constitution, Article IV, entitled "Legislative Branch", Section 10.  I have previously written about this section here.  The amendment simply move 10 of the days from the odd-numbered year into the even numbered year.  The odd numbered years would be allowed a maximum of 150 rather than 160 calendar days and the even numbered years would be allowed a maximum of 45 rather than 35 calendar days.

My View

The principle here I think is valid.  I do think that sitting for such a short time in the even numbered years is a problem.  My dilemma is weighing the cost of running a vote to change the days vs. how much actual extra value you will get out of it.  There is an allowance that the Legislature can vote to extend the session.  They can convene emergency sessions to take up a specific topic.  There are options other than a constitutional amendment.

2017 SJR 38: 2/3 vote - Section 25, Article IV

What SJR 38 Does

Senate Joint Resolution No. 38 is proposed by Senator Kruse.  This resolution proposes to amend the Oregon State Constitution, Article IV, entitled "Legislative Branch", Section 25 which defines how to pass resolutions.  I have previously written about this section here.  The proposed amendment would require that 2/3 majorities in both houses are required to pass a law declaring an emergency (see Article IV, section 28).

My View

I do not think this is necessary.  I do not think that there is valid reason to distrust that Legislators will declare emergency when it is truly not necessary and thus circumvent the initiative power of the people.  I would think that even emergency laws can be revoked using the initiative power of the people, although the law would likely have been in force for some time.  That would probably strongly reinforce the validity of the initiative to revoke the law.

2017 SJR 37: to create a Board of Education, Article VIII

What SJR 37 Does

Senate Joint Resolution No. 37 was filed by Senator Kruse.  This proposal amends Article VIII (Education and School Lands) of the Oregon State Constitution.  The proposal is to create a Board of Education which is headed by a Superintendent of Schools.  The Governor shall act as Superintendent of Schools until one is appointed.  It should be noted that this amendment does not actually define the composition of the Board of Education nor does it define how the Board members are chosen.  The point of the Board is to have the final say on how education is run in the State.

My View

I do not support this bill.  I do not see what the point of a separate Board of Education and the Superintendent of Schools.  The executive branch already has the function of K-12 education and the Oregon State post-secondary system runs itself.  The lack of details as to the composition and selection of Board members is disturbing.

2017 SJR 36: Guaranteed funding of education and public safety.

Wow!  A hundred posts already!  This is a short one today.

What SJR 36 Does

Senate Joint Resolution No. 36 was filed by Senator Knopp.  This bill proposes to add new sections 16 and 16a to Article IX, entitled "Finance" of the Oregon State Constitution.  See here for discussion on a similar proposal previously.  The proposal defines education and public safety and then mandates that spending on these are to be at a minimum 33% of the budget.  There is a ramp up from where we are currently to 33% over the next 6 years.  This is similar to a previously discussed proposal, see here.

My View

As with the previous proposal, I do not support this bill.

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.