I’m an attorney with a lot of election law experience and I’m personally committed to direct democracy. I’ve worked on and drafted statewide ballot measures, Public Utility District formation petitions, recall and referral petitions and local initiative drafting for 30 years.

I was the sponsor of the petition drive to form the Independent Party of Oregon, the IPO has taken no position on the so-called “open primary,” Ballot Measure 65 on the November ballot in Oregon, because of a split among the voting delegates, but I do not want to see the Constitution, Green, Working Families and Peace parties silenced. My opposition is not based on “sour grapes”– In fact, IPO is one of only 2 of the minor and emerging parties in Oregon which would survive the effects of BM 65, which will wipe out parties with fewer than 10,000 registered members who now maintain their legal status by running candidates who receive at least 1% of the vote in statewide general elections.

I have absolutely no financial ties to BM 65, pro or con, and I am not being paid for this post–I am opposed to BM 65 because it’s poorly drafted. It will reduce meaningful citizen involvement in collective action and direct democracy. It was put on the ballot by big money interests which will get the candidates they “want” under BM 65.

BM 65 Makes Special Interests Even More Powerful in Picking Candidates.

Now, why would Oregon’s largest land speculators, industry lobbyists, and a smelter owner pay a lot of money to get BM 65 on the ballot?

OR has no campaign contribution limits at all–none. Most of you reading this live in the 45 states that actually limit money in state races, so you may not realize how totally corrupting unlimited money from special interests can be.

OR votes by mail exclusively. The May primary ballots go out to voters in April. That means the money race for enough cash to make the top-two will start in the winter. The big funders will “anoint” the top-two and then “elect” the winner in the (even more) expensive November general election.

Stifles citizen voices.

Independent voters engage in personal democracy, they want their votes to count. But actual political strength and the power to change history come from the other great parts of the First Amendment–our freedoms of association and to collectively petition the government.

A vote is an individual act, concerted action is what brought about Abolition, women’s suffrage, trust busting, the social safety net, environmental proctection, the end to the last tragic, pointless war.

A robust democracy needs more voices, often brought to prominence through political campaigns. Killing minor parties and wiping out citizen sponsored candidates (in Oregon candidates can now get on the ballot thru petition or through assemblies of 1000 voters) is bad for Oregon.

In practice, the need for insurgent and competitive candidates cannot be known until after the May primary. In Oregon, citizens (led by the Grange) had to draft a candidate for goivernor by petition in 1930 because the major party candidates were hand-picked by corporate interests and opposed rural power development and action to lift Oregon out of the depression. Julius Mieer won by 54% of the total vote, more than the other candidates combined vite.

Too many drafting flaws to describe in detail.

The Bill is poorly drafted. It fails to integrate dozens of current state election law statutes.

It deprives the existing parties of the right to “nominate” candidates at all, a federal First Amendment violation which caused the State of Virgina to alter its compulsory open primary system after losing at the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (the appeals level just below the US Supreme Cout).

It does not harmonize with federal election law. In particular, by not allowing party nominations, it thrreatens the rights of parties to support their federal candidates becasue FEC rules allow coordinated financial support only by state parties in support of their “nominees.” The top-two runoff candidates are not party nominees.

If you live in Oregon–Voting for a hastily designed measure in the hopes it will get “fixed” is a bad idea. Do we want elected legislators to vote for any old thing and then promise to “fix” it somehow, sometime? As citizen legislators who vote of laws before us, we should hold ourselves to a high standard.

Read BM 65 and understand it before you vote. If it needs “a fix” to make it work, then vote “NO.”