Meas 51 & 52

[sandnsea]

I don't understand them, to start with - and they look exactly the same.

Help!!

[LWolf]

1. I was thinking the same thing.

If I don't get some clarity, I'm voting no on both.

[sandnsea]

2. I got a teensy bit of clarity

They change two different sections of the Constitution, which is why they're worded the same.

They have to do with victim's rights. The part I oppose is that victims can refuse to be questioned by the defendant's attorney. Excuse me? Isn't that one of our Bill of Rights, the right to face your accuser. And I hate the way they take people's property without trial as it is, so I'm sure not going to expand that with the other measure. I voted no on all 3.

[LWolf]

3. I 'm right there with you on the property thing.

That one is easy.

When it comes to changing the language in the Constitution, they'd have to make a much stronger case. Those are automatic "nos." I'll probably vote this weekend, when I have time to do so without feeling rushed or burnt out at the end of the day.

I like mail-in ballots. :D

[FreedRadical]

4. It has always been kind of my policy that...

any measure that has "amends Constitution" in it's heading, I vote no on. Unless it really makes since to add that amendment. That said, I
too love mail-in ballots. Gives us the opportunity to be informed of
our choice's, without second guessing ourselves standing in a voter box
sweating it. I was happy to amend the Constitution on that one.

[davidpdx]

5. I voted no on all three of the ballot measures

I'd recommend doing the same.

[Blue Belle]

8. I voted no on them too.

:)

[Tafiti]

6. Um, I voted YES on all three measures.

It sounds like even progressives were duped by Philip Morris during the Measure 50 episode. Ooooh, "change the constitution," ooga booga! The fact is, the Oregon constitution has been changed hundreds of times - in fact, it was meant to be flexible and accommodate many changes, hence the ballot measure system for changing it was adopted in 1902. Judging by this thread, apparently Oregonians, even progressive Oregonians, are strict constitutionalists????? Interesting. Anyway...

51 and 52 are no-brainers - they're simply providing legal redress for crime victims' whose rights are violated during the criminal process - crime victims. There were already constitutional provisions laying out these rights, but the way they were worded precluded a victim from actually enforcing these rights in court. These measures simply correct that by explicitly providing a cause of action for a crime victim whose rights have been violated. They look similar, but 51 amends Section 42 and 52 amends Section 43 of the constitution, which provide different rights. Bottom line, the proposed language should have been included during the initial passage, but unfortunately these measures are needed to correct poor drafting by the legislature.

53 basically prevents meth-dealers from keeping cash they earned selling the bullshit, and also allows abused animals to be confiscated (since pets are legally property) and adopted, rather than "held" by shelters during what can be a pretty long and extensive legal process. This allows families to adopt the pets regardless of whether the person was convicted of a crime yet or not. It's supported by ALDF, so that was enough for me.

So, I guess if you think crime victims' rights and abused animals are less important than amending a fucking state constitution, then vote NO. Otherwise, please vote YES.

[sandnsea]

7. If you care about the federal constitution

and the right of a defendant to question his accuser, then you have to vote no on 51 & 52. You can't have a law that says an accuser doesn't have to talk to the defense.

You also shouldn't be able to have laws that take property without trial, which 53 expands.

It's not about the fucking state constitution for everybody, for some it's about a system that doesn't railroad people. And as for the tobacco tax, I'm not going to put any tax into a Constitution and we can't keep sticking 25% of the population with the medical bills of everybody.