The OC Blog Back Issues Our Mission Contact Us Masthead
Sudsy Wants You to Join the Oregon Commentator

Last-Minute Ballot Measure Rundown

Measure 31: YES
This one’s a tough call. Under current law, if the challenger dies during a campaign, the incumbent keeps the office. This encourages an incumbent running a losing campaign to murder the challenger and retain office. If 31 passes, though, it’s more of a gamble. A murdered challenger would be replaced by another challenger — a total wild card for the incumbent. What if the new guy’s an even better candidate? Would any incumbent risk it? So vote YES and discourage political murder.

Measure 32: NO
This is pretty cut and dried. You can argue till the cows come home about how mobile homes are no longer mobile. They all stay in the park and some are even triple-wides with a patio. Fine. But as long as getting them from Palm Harbor Homes to Shady Acres involves clogging up both lanes of I-5 on my Friday afternoon, you bastards are gonna have to pony up some highway funds. Deal with it.

Measure 33: NO
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t have anything against marijuana, or honest efforts at legalization. But as long as we’re stuck at this “medicinal” dog and pony show, which offers very little for me personally unless I catch glaucoma, I’m gonna be skeptical. And skeptical Danimal doubts very much that Granny Mae, dying of cancer, really needs to have 10 plants and a pound of wowie kicking around the convalescent home. Nobody needs a pound. Not even Damon Stoudamire.

Measure 34: NO
Dude, you know what would be cool? What if we just, like, once and for all split the forests right in half? Just right down the middle like that Suleiman dude did. Just half for us, half for the lumberjacks. Then there’d be no worries, man. Gold mine and shaft. That’d be tight.

Measure 35: NO
I guarantee, you’d all feel differently about limiting “pain and suffering” damages if a doctor recklessly cut off your third leg instead of your left one. Half a million starts to sound rather paltry when you’re in that trench. I could go on but I’d get less funny. Leave it to juries.

Measure 36: YES
Psych! What I meant was no, no, no, no, no. Wait. Actually, sure, YES. Why not? Let it pass, so that any court case brought in Oregon to declare gay marriage constitutional will have to go forward on federal grounds. In federal court. To the 9th Circuit. Then, instead of just having gay marriage legal in Oregon, under Oregon law, we’d have ourselves a ruling with some effect over the entire western end of the nation. Which would just go to show: jumping the gun can cut both ways on this issue.

Measure 37: NO
If you understand what this measure means, and you support it, please get out of my state. If you don’t understand it, vote no. That’s the Basic Rule of these here ballot measures: If you don’t get it, don’t give it to them. This measure is such a disaster I can’t even joke about it.

Measure 38: MEH
I’ll be honest: I don’t know shit about SAIF one way or the other. I suppose I detest state monopolies, which would command a YES vote. But I’m also fearful of unintended consequences. And, as I said, I don’t know shit. And, again, if I don’t get it, I’m not giving it to them. But that’s just me.

  1. ko says:

    And if we’re doing vocabulary, filicide would be killing one’s son. Patricide, on the other hand, would be killing one’s father.

  2. Olly says:

    If we’re doing spelling, I have to say: Tim, it’s hilarious. One “l”.

  3. Timothy says:

    Andy: You were obviously not at that party. And you misspelled “Y’all.” It’s a contraction for “you all” so the apostrophe goes after the “y,” I just thought you should know.

  4. Melissa says:

    Bah. Melissa no like reading. Especially since Melissa no have to be literate to vote. That’s a law, eh Dan?

  5. Andy D says:

    Ya’ll love Ayn Rand so much here? Check out Ludwig von Mises is where she solidified a lot of here ideas for her philosophy. If you are a student of capitalism, read Human Action…its only 950+ pages..

  6. Andy D says:

    We all know that she wouldn’t win a state primary…this country is at about page 400….after kerry, probably more like 600.

  7. Big D says:

    AYN RAND is the shit!!!! I’d vote for her, though I don’t believe in women’s suffrage.

    AYN RAND! AYN RAND! (strikes pose)

  8. Timothy says:


  9. Danimal says:

    Ayn Rand for President!

  10. Andy D says:

    All im saying is that there is nothing bullshit with a roof over your head and a warm bed. I’ve spent months of my life without, of course semi-vollentarily, but depravity teaches so much appreciation.

  11. Timothy says:

    and here we come to the question of absolute versus relative poverty, but normative economics is a discussion for another day…err…post. Well, no, let’s never discuss normative economics because it is bullshit.

  12. Andy D says:

    If you’ve ever read Atlas Shrugged, one of my most favorite quotes is in there, “No man can be bigger than his money.”

    So lets think about the rich. Typically, they are self made, disciplined and highly educated. If you’re smart enough to get that money, would you be stupid enough not to protect it?
    The lowest mc donalds worker and welfare recipiant still lives like a king to 85% of the worlds population.

    That is an interesting point on 35. i’ll get back to you..

  13. Danimal says:

    Dammit, Movable Type! All of the above after the colon is my Dad’s words; the quote doesn’t end after the first graf.

  14. Danimal says:

    Continuing on my last comment to Sho, here’s what my dad says about tort reform in general. Now, he is a flaming liberal, but he’s also an MD, for what it’s worth:The rich have deep pockets to pay high fees for the best legal talent available. So do insurance companies and corporations.

    But when little people are injured by medical malpractice, they cant afford representation by lawyers of similar competence and investigative resources. Hence the use of contingency fees.

    Running tort lawyers off the playing field, through award caps or any other measure, will simply solidify the advantage of the well to do as the only people who can afford top notch legal aid.

  15. Danimal says:

    Looking at the various discussions on the net concerning the ballot measures, I think the only people who are going to vote Yes on 35 are doctors, people in the medical business and children of people involved in the medical business (who will be disowned if they don’t vote Yes). I belong in that last category.

    Sho, my father is a doctor and my mother a social worker. Both are voting no on 35. Just because it sounds good doesn’t mean it’ll do what supporters tell you it will. The tagline: “end frivolous lawsuits.” Balls. Look closer and be careful.

  16. Danimal says:

    Houston’s an interesting case study for me because personally, I’d rather solve land use problems, as much as possible, privately, through easements and covenants, etc. And Houston is sort of that taken to its illogical extreme, for better or worse. However much I philosophically favor the private solutions, like Tim I acknowledge that they have their limits.

  17. Timothy says:

    Andy: Houston has been a mess forever, free-market forces have cleared some of it up. All-in-all, even as a libertarian, I’d rather deal with some mild zoning. Go to Houston, see what a pit huge parts of it are: Literally things like, “I run a petshop out of my garage.”

  18. Melissa says:

    I empathize with you there, Sho. You should see what happens in my parents’ house if I tell my father that Rush Limbaugh is a blustering bag of bullshit and painkillers…

    Speaking of which, anyone know what Limbaugh has to say on 35? I can’t listen to him with my father for fear of filicide.

  19. Sho says:

    Looking at the various discussions on the net concerning the ballot measures, I think the only people who are going to vote Yes on 35 are doctors, people in the medical business and children of people involved in the medical business (who will be disowned if they don’t vote Yes). I belong in that last category.

  20. Melissa says:

    Glaucoma is actually one of the afore mentioned areas of self-neglect. I have horror stories, man. Horrific ones. When people don’t take care of themselves. About little known procedure called a “trabeculectomy,” and another one called a “scleral flap.” Anything involving blades and my eyeballs, and it’s enough to keep me taking those preventative care steps.

  21. Andy D says:

    So houston is a mess but free market forces are clearing it up? I never would have thought..

  22. Melissa says:

    Sorry Dan. I didn’t know about your cat.

    Sir, you are mistaken. I voted this year.

  23. Danimal says:

    You know, let’s not get too into who blew up whose cat right now. Because I have an observation. The great bulk of the chatter on this post has come from:

    1. Tim, a Texas resident and voter;
    2. Melissa, an avowed non-voter (‘less I’m mistaken); and
    3. Olly, that dirty limey bastard.

    It’s odd, is all.

  24. Timothy says:

    Olly: Just like that, only from somebody who can spell correctly.

    Casey: I’m originally from Houston, which you’d think would be some sort of Libertarian paradise because it doesn’t have zoning laws to speak of. In reality, though, the place is a fucking mess and parts of it are truly horrid to try and live in. A sort of de facto zoning has arisen because people don’t want to live next to warehouses, but it’s still a mess. I’m agreeing with you, is what I’m saying.

    Dan: How the hell did your cat’s eye explode? Did you put an M-80 in there?

  25. Danimal says:

    Look, folks, this isn’t funny. My cat’s eyes exploded once, alright? Cut it out.

  26. Sho says:

    Exploding eyeballs would be so sweet. Except if the eyeballs in questions were mine. Or the guy sitting next to me on the train.

  27. Melissa says:

    Just when you thought the flu was bad….I guess it’s only funny to me from the medical standpoint.

  28. Danimal says:

    Oh, it would be a blast for us all.

  29. Melissa says:

    Dude. Totally. But wouldn’t contagious glaucoma be interesting?

  30. Olly says:

    I’m not a lawyer, but I’m assuming “imminent domain” is like “eminent domain”, only they’re coming to take your house away really soon.

  31. Danimal says:


    I have no quarrel with you about the effect the malpractice threat has on doctors. But is Measure 35 the solution? Caps on nonecon damages can have the effect of discouraging the most serious, and justified, cases without having any effect on the frivolous nickle-and-dimers.

    It is also a constitutional amendment restricting what juries can do in certain cases. That’s bad principle and precedent.

    Finally, I don’t have all the facts, but I’ve heard tell that similar caps in other states have had exactly no effect on malpractice insurance rates. A damages cap is an indirect approach that puts a little too much faith in the good intentions of your insurance company.


    “Catch glaucoma” was a, how you say, joke. Dude.

  32. Casey says:

    Finally, a Lib that understands the horrible consequences that 37 will impose. After attending aroud 100 land use hearings (don’t ask) in Clark County (WA), I can attest to the fact that some of the rules are moronic, but most make sense. As much as I like the idea of having a strip club next to the high school I work at, it doesn’t make much sense to basically throw away 50 years of good planning so some a-hole can cash in on land that he/she doesn’t use anyway.

  33. Melissa says:

    “…unless I catch glaucoma, I’m gonna be skeptical. ”

    Danimal. You can’t “catch” glaucoma. But with the recent lack of global conspiracy-driven epidemics, a severe contagious form of glaucoma resulting in the vitreous pressure EXPLODING THE EYEBALLS in granny’s head would make a pretty exciting antithesis to flu season.

  34. Melissa says:

    It isn’t the voter’s guide, but I found it on the lib party website.

  35. Melissa says:

    Oh, and I belive the libertarian position on 37 in the voter’s pamphlet is in favor. It’s in the Voter’s Guide volume 2. It isn’t online yet, so I could be wrong.

  36. Melissa says:

    As a certified medical assistant, both in the administrative and the physical back-office sense, I’m going to have to disagree with you on 35, Dan.

    Sure, there are corrupt doctors who screw up. And they pay the price: criminal charges, negligence, etc, etc. Unfortuanely, although it’s another story for another day, they all come running to OREGON to set up fraudulent practices. But I have run into my fair share of patients who are out for deep pockets and vengence, who can’t take responsibility for their own well-being and readily blame health care staff.
    Case and point: we had a patient with DM II, who was 20/80 one visit and then, despite repeated calls to make a follow up check for his retinopathy, could not be reached. California medical law says we only have to try three times before we are exempt from responsibility for the fate of this man’s vision.
    However, he shows up a year later, 20/200, unable to work due to legal blindess, and who do you think he blamed for it? Us. Do you think he won in court? No, because I did my job and recorded all my phone calls and documented the letter releasing him from care due to patient health negligence. The same rule applies, especially, to post-surgical patients and patients with complicated health problems.
    Doctors are not gods. They aren’t perfect. And they can’t fix everything a patient does to their body.

    35 protects good doctors from further increasing medical malpractice rates. Belive me. I just left a 6-doctor practice in Springfield because the penalties and stresses of keeping up with trying not to be sued wore my medical-records patience thin, and HIPAA is enough to deal with on it’s own. My mother is an NICU and Labor/Delivery RN at Sacred Heart, and my sister is a supervising CNA at a care home in Santa Clara. This whole thing affects my family and friends. Sure, it keeps me employed, but the situation is a bitch.

  37. Timothy says:

    Dan: Consider the point on 36 understood, good observation. And now the no-on-37 position makes a lot more sense, thanks. The reason I say that the right of imminent domain is theft is that you don’t have any recourse, the state says “yup, we’re taking this, here’s the money.” You can’t tell them to fuck off, short of litigation (unless I’m missing one of those lawyer things and/or my understanding of imminent domain is flawed). However, I think you’re right about 37 now that I understand it better. I might be against certain types of land-use regulations on principle, but if they’re going to exist it’s better that they be enforced consistently instead of through a “forest of arbitrary variances.”

    Further, I think the last thing Oregon needs is another drain on the state coffers. Although, compensating private land owners for the cost of regulation might seem in principle like a good idea, it could undermine the point of some regulations. A lot of land-use and pollution-control measures are meant to impose costs on the owner to reduce negative externalities, and subsidizing them afterwards doesn’t achieve much of a net welfare gain.

  38. Danimal says:


    36: No, I don’t want to federalize marriage. I voted no on 36. But I just thought it was a good thing to point out to supporters of 36 that supporting it might, in the end, backfire in a way they hadn’t thought of.

    Even if the 9th Circuit does do what I said they might (and, aside, does that really make them wackos, Tim?), I still see the FMA as a hopeless long shot.

    37: No, you’re missing all of the non-obvious stuff only lawyers get.

    When it comes to the actual physical taking (or stealing, er, with compensation) of property, “just compensation” equals “fair market value.” This measure has nothing to do with that.

    Measure 37 would require the same compensation for any state regulation that reduced a property’s value by any measure (without affecting ownership). This goes beyond current federal constitutional jurisprudence, and would either (a) bankrupt state and local gov’ts or (b) force the repeal of all land use regulations. In short, it might be manna for anarcho-capitalists, but for anyone short of that way of thinking, it’s a disaster. I’m not sure where you stand on that spectrum, but stay with me . . .

    Beyond the blanket threat to Oregon government, Measure 37 threatens litigative gridlock in two ways.

    First, it would cost state and local governments between $64 million and $344 million per year just in litigation costs. That’s a lotta lawsuits; anyone in favor of tort reform with any intellectual consistency should see this as a nightmare.

    Second, because 37 operates to allow individual landowners to opt out of regulations which would still bind their neighbors, it could lead to an impenetrable forest of arbitrary variances. As with the masses of litigation, this forest of arbitrary variances would cost everyone — gov’t and private parties alike — a whole lot more money on guys like me.

    This is why I said what I said.

  39. Timothy says:

    All right, having looked up 37 and reading the synopsis, it seems like it’s forcing government to pay land owners “fair market value” instead of “just compensation” when stealing their property via the right of imminent domain. There’s also the forego enforcement bit, is that where the problem lies? Am I missing something obvious again?

  40. Timothy says:

    Dan: Okay, so 36 passes, the case goes to the 9th circuit because, duh, and the weirdos on that court legalize gay marriage in Oregon on federal grounds. Do you think that gives or takes momentum from the FMA? Do you really want to federalize marriage?

    And what is 37 about anyway? I’m no longer an Oregon voter, so I’m missing out on this.

  41. Andy D says:

    Any chance I have to take the government out of the market im happy with, so I encourage a yes vote on 38. SAIF is totally corrupt, with millions being paid to child molester goldschmidt. Kill it.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.