Five Oregon Counties vote to Join Idaho

[Dtn]

You can't pass a law at all with a referendum.

According to the Constitution of Oregon it’s required on most bills

No it's not.

There are three ways to bring a measure to the ballot in Oregon. None of them are automatic.

The first is referral from the legislature, which requires a majority vote of both houses.

The second is the veto referendum for laws passed without emergency clauses. Again this process isn't automatic, four percent of voters who participated in the last governor's election must sign a petition.

Even laws passed with emergency clauses can be overturned with an initiative, which requires the signature of six percent of voters who participated in the last governor's election.

There's not much difference between four and six percent.

[Thermodolia]

IRV isn’t going to solve shit. MMP, STV, or Party list PR are the only way. Outside of overthrowing the government

What’s wrong with Irv?

It trends towards the same two party system as FPTP. Just look at Australia. It’s a two party system

[Galloism]

The majority is attempting to deny them the right to vote on new legislation as guaranteed under the Oregon constitution?

The requirements for state ballot initiatives are clearly stated in the Oregon constitution, and the Greater Idaho movement hasn't come close to fulfilling them. Not sure why people keep throwing the term referendum around.

The state legislature also hasn't stopped the counties in question from holding biannual meetings on the issue, which is what the counties actually voted to require. Exactly what the county commissions are supposed to do in these meetings is unclear even to the county commissioners.

It might be worth asking if movements like this are why the GOP has steadily lost its majority since controlling both houses of the Oregon legislature quite recently.

Yeah, not what I was talking about. I was talking about the "emergency" cap and trade bill - crafted as an emergency to avoid the people being given the ability to vote on it as is traditional with new legislation.

[San Lumen]

What’s wrong with Irv?

It trends towards the same two party system as FPTP. Just look at Australia. It’s a two party system

True but some third parties have won seats . I’m in favor of IRv or mmp. The later gives both sides what they want. Those that want proportional are statistics and those who desire to keep districts get what they want.

[Dtn]

The requirements for state ballot initiatives are clearly stated in the Oregon constitution, and the Greater Idaho movement hasn't come close to fulfilling them. Not sure why people keep throwing the term referendum around.

The state legislature also hasn't stopped the counties in question from holding biannual meetings on the issue, which is what the counties actually voted to require. Exactly what the county commissions are supposed to do in these meetings is unclear even to the county commissioners.

It might be worth asking if movements like this are why the GOP has steadily lost its majority since controlling both houses of the Oregon legislature quite recently.

Yeah, not what I was talking about. I was talking about the "emergency" cap and trade bill - crafted as an emergency to avoid the people being given the ability to vote on it as is traditional with new legislation.

It was made mildly more difficult for the people to vote on - opponents would have to gather ~100,000 signatures on a petition rather than ~70,000. If you can't gather that a ballot measure is unlikely to succeed.

[Thermodolia]

It trends towards the same two party system as FPTP. Just look at Australia. It’s a two party system

True but some third parties have won seats.

But they don’t actually serve a purpose in the government. Outside of being token opposition or a token coalition partner.

I’m in favor of IRv or mmp. The later gives both sides what they want. Those that want proportional are statistics and those who desire to keep districts get what they want.

MMP with IRV for the districts is far better than IRV or what we have now.

If we where to change to MMP I’d increase the house to 500 seats and the senate to 250. For the senate each state gets five seats elected by STV, 5x50 is 250. Now for the house id have MMP with 250 elected by district seats, with every state and territory receiving at least one seat, and the other 250 seats would be elected by national popular vote lists

[Galloism]

Yeah, not what I was talking about. I was talking about the "emergency" cap and trade bill - crafted as an emergency to avoid the people being given the ability to vote on it as is traditional with new legislation.

It was made mildly more difficult for the people to vote on - opponents would have to gather ~100,000 signatures rather than ~70,000.

The constitution does not state that there's a referendum ability on new legislation passed within 90 days with 6% of signatures. You just made that up. You are disingenuously trying to equate "making a referendum out of whole cloth", which is 6%, with "causing a referendum to happen on a piece of legislation passed by the legislature" which is specifically only allowed for bills that take more than 90 days and, to up or downvote that particular act, which is at 4%.

https://sos.oregon.gov/blue-book/Docume ... tution.pdf

The relevant section is page 16. There is no "referendum on an act" for acts put in using emergency powers - which means less than 90 days.

[San Lumen]

True but some third parties have won seats.

But they don’t actually serve a purpose in the government. Outside of being token opposition or a token coalition partner.

I’m in favor of IRv or mmp. The later gives both sides what they want. Those that want proportional are statistics and those who desire to keep districts get what they want.

MMP with IRV for the districts is far better than IRV or what we have now.

If we where to change to MMP I’d increase the house to 500 seats and the senate to 250. For the senate each state gets five seats elected by STV, 5x50 is 250. Now for the house id have MMP with 250 elected by district seats, with every state and territory receiving one seat, and the other 250 seats would be elected by national popular vote lists

Each state only gets one representative?

[Thermodolia]

But they don’t actually serve a purpose in the government. Outside of being token opposition or a token coalition partner.


MMP with IRV for the districts is far better than IRV or what we have now.

If we where to change to MMP I’d increase the house to 500 seats and the senate to 250. For the senate each state gets five seats elected by STV, 5x50 is 250. Now for the house id have MMP with 250 elected by district seats, with every state and territory receiving one seat, and the other 250 seats would be elected by national popular vote lists

Each state only gets one representative?

I meant at a minimum. Each state, territory, and federal district will each receive one representative at minimum. With only territories and federal districts being limited to one representative

[San Lumen]

Each state only gets one representative?

I meant at a minimum. Each state, territory, and federal district will each receive one representative at minimum. With only territories and federal districts being limited to one representative

Would California still get the most representatives?

[Thermodolia]

I meant at a minimum. Each state, territory, and federal district will each receive one representative at minimum. With only territories and federal districts being limited to one representative

Would California still get the most representatives?

Probably. Since it would still be based on population. I think I ran the numbers and California had about half of what they have now

[Dtn]

It was made mildly more difficult for the people to vote on - opponents would have to gather ~100,000 signatures rather than ~70,000.

The constitution does not state that there's a referendum ability on new legislation passed within 90 days with 6% of signatures. You just made that up. You are disingenuously trying to equate "making a referendum out of whole cloth", which is 6%, with "causing a referendum to happen on a piece of legislation passed by the legislature" which is specifically only allowed for bills that take more than 90 days and, to up or downvote that particular act, which is at 4%.

https://sos.oregon.gov/blue-book/Docume ... tution.pdf

The relevant section is page 16. There is no "referendum on an act" for acts put in using emergency powers - which means less than 90 days.

Of course there's no referendum. It's an initiative - ie, a new law which may repeal a law already passed. You're just using the term referendum incorrectly.

[Galloism]

The constitution does not state that there's a referendum ability on new legislation passed within 90 days with 6% of signatures. You just made that up. You are disingenuously trying to equate "making a referendum out of whole cloth", which is 6%, with "causing a referendum to happen on a piece of legislation passed by the legislature" which is specifically only allowed for bills that take more than 90 days and, to up or downvote that particular act, which is at 4%.

https://sos.oregon.gov/blue-book/Docume ... tution.pdf

The relevant section is page 16. There is no "referendum on an act" for acts put in using emergency powers - which means less than 90 days.

Of course there's no referendum. It's an initiative - ie, a new law which may repeal a law already passed.

Yes, which means making a new initiative out of whole cloth, which is distinctly different than a referendum on a law already passed, which the legislature was attempting to deny them the right to do using machinations to avoid giving them their customary referendum rights under the Oregon Constitution.

IE, they were attempting to deny them the right to vote in a manner as guaranteed under the Oregon Constitution.

Their only redress would be an entirely new initiative process, which is wholly different, and not comparable.

[Dtn]

They're the exact same procedure with different signature requirements lol

[Galloism]

They're the exact same procedure with different signature requirements lol

If anything the initiative is easier because it doesn't have a time limit.

Looking at the handbook from the oregon secretary of state, it doesn't look quite the same.

[Dtn]

A petitioner for referendum or initiative measures must file prospective petitions with the Secretary of State, who then sends the prospective petitions to the Attorney General. The Attorney General creates a draft ballot title for each measure, which is then open to written public comment. If no comments are received on a draft title, the Attorney General may certify the title. If public comments are received, however, the Attorney General may choose whether to incorporate the comments or not. If a voter has submitted comments on a draft title but is dissatisfied with the Attorney General’s title after the public comment period, the voter may petition the Supreme Court for review.

For a referendum to qualify for the next regularly scheduled General Election, chief petitioners must receive written approval from the Secretary of State to circulate the text of the Act among registered voters. Chief petitioners must then obtain the necessary number of valid signatures and submit them to the Secretary of State no later than 90 days after the Legislature adjourns.

For an initiative to qualify for the next regularly scheduled General Election, chief petitioners must receive written approval from the Secretary of State to circulate signature sheets in order to collect signatures from registered voters. Chief petitioners must then obtain the necessary number of valid signatures and submit them to the Secretary of State no later than four months prior to the date of the next regularly scheduled General Election.

The process is exactly the same except the initiative has a higher signature requirement but more generous time requirements.

[Galloism]

A petitioner for referendum or initiative measures must file prospective petitions with the Secretary of State, who then sends the prospective petitions to the Attorney General. The Attorney General creates a draft ballot title for each measure, which is then open to written public comment. If no comments are received on a draft title, the Attorney General may certify the title. If public comments are received, however, the Attorney General may choose whether to incorporate the comments or not. If a voter has submitted comments on a draft title but is dissatisfied with the Attorney General’s title after the public comment period, the voter may petition the Supreme Court for review.

For a referendum to qualify for the next regularly scheduled General Election, chief petitioners must receive written approval from the Secretary of State to circulate the text of the Act among registered voters. Chief petitioners must then obtain the necessary number of valid signatures and submit them to the Secretary of State no later than 90 days after the Legislature adjourns.

For an initiative to qualify for the next regularly scheduled General Election, chief petitioners must receive written approval from the Secretary of State to circulate signature sheets in order to collect signatures from registered voters. Chief petitioners must then obtain the necessary number of valid signatures and submit them to the Secretary of State no later than four months prior to the date of the next regularly scheduled General Election.

The process is exactly the same except the initiative has a higher signature requirement but more generous time requirements.

It really doesn't look that way when you look at the secretary of state's guidance. It appears that there are multiple extra steps with the initiative process compared with the referendum process, and more room for dragging feet and fuckery on the part of the AG's office or Elections Division when comparing the two processes.

[Dtn]

And yet initiatives appear on the ballot about six times as often as referenda.

[Galloism]

And yet initiatives appear on the ballot about six times as often as referenda.

The crucial similarity between a referendum and initiative, though, is that neither takes effect until they appear on the ballot and win in the next general election. A veto referendum is nothing like a governor's veto which prevents a bill from becoming law altogether.

Which still means the people were being denied their normal referendum rights under Oregon law.

Because, as you said:

Of course there's no referendum. It's an initiative - ie, a new law which may repeal a law already passed.

They're not the same thing.

[Dtn]

Unfortunately the people of Oregon waived their referendum rights to laws with emergency clauses when they voted via initiative to "reserve to themselves the referendum power, which is to approve or reject at an election any Act, or part thereof, of the Legislative Assembly that does not become effective earlier than 90 days after the end of the session at which the Act is passed."

The best response to abuse of the emergency clause power (more than half of Oregon legislation has emergency clauses) would be to change the constitution via initiative rather than theatrics.

[Galloism]

Unfortunately the people of Oregon waived their referendum rights to laws with emergency clauses when they voted via initiative to "reserve to themselves the referendum power, which is to approve or reject at an election any Act, or part thereof, of the Legislative Assembly that does not become effective earlier than 90 days after the end of the session at which the Act is passed."

The best response to abuse of the emergency clause power (more than half of Oregon legislation has emergency clauses) would be to change the constitution via initiative rather than theatrics.

I actually agree with you on fixing the abuse of the emergency clause power (and it's actually a problem that's broader than Oregon - hell, Arkansas did an emergency ballot canvassing law, I shit you not) needing to be done.

But, when it comes to rights being violated, "right to vote as designated under the law" is a pretty serious one, even if it's technically legal via some machinations.

I don't think voter ID laws as currently implemented in a lot of states are anything less than rights stomping either, even if they are technically legal.

[Dtn]

It's nothing new - the first challenge to the emergency clause in Oregon was about moving a county seat from one town to another. The Oregon constitution has fairly narrow exceptions to the emergency clause power, giving the legislature broad discretion.

Abuse of the emergency clause versus abuse of the referendum (a very small minority could stall overwhelmingly popular legislation for years) is a difficult balance to strike.

[Your Own Private FlorIDAHO]

Pretty sure the original state has to approve it for it to go into effect, which renders this vote null and void in practice.

There were some fun civil war exceptions though like Virginia and West Virginia.

Wild and Wonderful. Most anyone who's visited the two states know which is which, though one claims to be both.

[The Republic of Fore]

Can we please stop having these threads every single time this happens? Oregon will never agree to it anymore than California would agree to It's northern counties becoming a separate state. There's nothing to discuss.

[Forsher]

Different situations. DC and PR don’t have representation.

Even then; I don’t know how the counties aren’t being represented……

Because we live in an FPTP system and if you're in the minority you functionally have no real representation or power. This is basic politics.

No.

The US is an anti-majoritarian system, so the minority is given representation far beyond what it's entitled to (barring Jim Crow esque shenanigans).

Similarly, in a classic FPTP system, you only have "no representation" if you live in a safe seat... which causes your vote to become wasted. Due to the anti-majoritarian design, the presidency (and due to reforms, the vice-presidency, also) aren't safe seats (you can tell by the way the US spent 12 of the last twenty years have been in Republican administrations).

The US, of course, also has more layers of political representation than just the national constituencies of the presidency and vice-presidency. There are also national senators, the last time a Republican won in Oregon was in 2002... though the GOP candidates got stomped in the 2016 and 2020 senate races.

In terms of the national house of representatives, the current group of five representatives features one Republican whose district has (a) never elected a Democrat and (b) includes all of all of the five counties this thread is about. I am shocked at this revelation. Absolutely shaken to my core. I think I will have to lie down.

*three hours later*

Having managed to slow my racing heart, I'm back to have a look at the state level representation.

In the state house, the most recent Republican majority was back in 2005-6, but there was also a "hung house" in 2011-12. The lowest number seats won by the Republicans in the state house in this fifteen year period is 22. In terms of how are counties vote:

• Lake is in the 55th... no Democrat representative since at least 2000, in that time period, only one GOP candidate has won less than 70% of the vote (Gilman in 2002, with 64%)
• Sherman is in the 57th... GOP candidates usually run unopposed in the last 20 years other than write-ins, they've always rumped home with at least 66%
• Grant, Baker, Malheur and a bit of Lake are in the 60th... where GOP candidates again normally face only a write-in opponent and win at least 71% of the vote

If someone in Grant, Baker, Malheur, Lake or Sherman is unrepresented, they're a Democrat.

Of course, the state legislature also has a senate so let's look at that:

• Lake is in the 28th... had a Democrat back in the late 1980s, since then the GOP's twice stood unopposed and once had an all GOP showdown, which the GOP won
• Sherman in the 29th... spent most of the 1980s with a Democrat but since then has had several unopposed elections where the Republicans won
• Grant, Baker, Malheur and a bit of Lake are in the 30th... no Democrats allowed

And if we look at the state senate as a whole there isn't any anti-majoritarian biasing as far as I can see.

Once again, if anyone isn't represented, it's the Democrats.

And, finally, I'll look at the Oregonian Governor... all Democrat since 1987.

But this whole line of inquiry is a strawman position. The problem with FPTP is "wasted vote", which is when someone's voice isn't heard, not that they're not represented. As I explained in my previous post, politicians represent all their constituents... the only question is who are there constituents, not which constituents represent them.