Sat 9 Aug 2008
The Wilde Early Ballot Measure Review, Volume 3 (Measure 56)
Posted by Marshall Wilde under Random Bus Stops , Election ReformAt last some controversy! Measure 56, another legislative referral, attempts to repeal the double majority requirement for property tax measures. The “double majority” requires that in elections other than even year general elections, property tax measures that fund government services must be passed by more than 50% of the voters in an election where 50% or more of the qualified voters actually vote. Oregon voters passed the double majority requirement in 1996 as part of the Oregon tax revolt facilitated by racketeer/activist Bill Sizemore and Oregon Taxpayers United.
Measure 56 is a legislative referral of a constitutional amendment. The legislative explanatory statement adopts the “not voting is a no vote” language favored by opponents of the double majority. The legislature claims no direct financial impact, which is true enough, but the likelihood is that it would effectively increase both taxation and local government spending as it becomes easier to get property tax measures on the ballot.
This referral proves that Democratic state legislators read the newspapers. The double majority has always been unpopular on the left and, smelling conservative blood in the water and wishing to capitalize on an anticipated large turn out of progressive voters, they’re looking to reverse some of the conservative populist gains of the 1990s. I don’t mean to denigrate their motives. The double majority arbitrarily recruits lazy voters to the anti-tax cause, just as a measure counting all non-votes in recall election as yes votes would. Roughly 15% of all property tax ballot measures fail because of the double majority requirement. However, the last attempt at repeal, Measure 53 in 1998, received only 49% of the vote.
As always, the views expressed here are my personal opinions and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
On Sizemore’s “Not voting is a no vote”:
Not voting is a disenfranchisement with the system or a lack of substantive information about the measures. This means they are explicitly not part of the process of voting when they do not vote. The voting public should not have measures they vote on voided due to those outside the process not voting. The real question is how to get them re-involved with our election process.
There’s just as much of a case to be made for “Not voting is a yes vote”? Okay, almost as much of a case.