Laserfiche WebLink
H. USE OF THE INITIATIVE PROCESS, ELECTION REFORM <br /> <br /> Oregon has two systems of lawmaking: one by the people themselves (the initiative process) and <br /> one by their elected representatives (the State Legislature and local government bodies). This <br /> dual system serves the public interest best when the strengths of each system offset the <br /> weaknesses of the other. <br /> <br /> The number of statewide initiatives measures has steadily increased in recent elections. As a <br /> result, some problems have arisen that affect both state and local government in Oregon. While <br /> state and legislative bodies are required to balance budgets, initiative lawmaking is under no such <br /> constraints. Some initiative measures have imposed heavy financial burdens on state and local <br /> governments, and yet made no provision to paying the cost of those burdens. Several initiatives <br /> have enacted new programs or policies directly into the state constitution rather than by statute, <br /> creating difficulties of interpretation, implementation and financing. The ability of the State <br /> Legislature to respond is also limited. <br /> <br /> Initiative campaigns are increasingly placed on the ballot by private sponsors, without public or <br /> legal review, and are promoted by professional high-tech campaigns. Voters are faced with a <br /> dizzying array of complex measures on their ballots. Reforms are needed to ensure that the <br /> initiative process is no longer distorted and balance is returned to the system. <br /> <br /> Recommendations: <br /> <br /> 1. Support proposals to increase the number of signatures required for an initiated <br /> constitutional amendment. <br /> <br /> 2. Support proposals to limit the extent to which an initiated constitutional amendment can <br /> require the state and/or local governments to make appropriations or incur expenditures <br /> in excess of a certain amount to be fixed by law. <br /> <br /> 3. Support legislation requiring that prospective petitions be submitted to an appropriate <br /> state agency (Legislative Counsel or Attorney General) for advisory technical review <br /> prior to approval for circulation. <br /> <br />City of Eugene Legislative Policies, 2005 Session 54 <br /> <br /> <br />