1996 Oregon Ballot Measure 40 and subsequent measures

Ballot Measure 40 was an Oregon ballot measure in 1996. The measure brought sweeping reforms to Oregon's justice system, generally in an effort to promote victims' rights.

Measure 40 passed with 58.8% of the vote, but was overturned by the Oregon Supreme Court in 1998, on the grounds that it contained more than one amendment to the Oregon Constitution.[1]

Measure 40 case precedent has since been cited as the basis for overturning several voter-approved initiatives. Among these are term limits for state office-holders in 2002 and Measure 3, the Oregon Property Protection Act of 2000.

Kevin Mannix, the state legislator behind Measure 40, shepherded many of its provisions through the Legislature as statutory enactments (in Senate Bill 936 of 1997) while Measure 40 was being considered in the courts, placing many of the constitutional provisions of Measure 40 into statutory law.[2]

Armatta v. Kitzhaber

The 1998 Oregon Supreme Court ruling Armatta v. Kitzhaber[1] was a landmark decision for constitutional amendments. A similar decision in California, Jones, had recently upheld the "single subject rule," which essentially states that a single constitutional amendment measure cannot affect more than one subject in the Constitution.[3]

But the Oregon decision went further, stating that a constitutional amendment cannot affect more than a single clause of the Constitution, even if multiple clauses affect the same subject. The decision has had a significant impact on the way initiative drafters have approached their work in the years since.[3]

Mannix subsequently brought seven more measures (Measures 69-75) to voters in 1999 via legislative referral, each originally part of Measure 40. All seven would have amended the Oregon Constitution. Four of the measures were approved by voters. Campaigns for these measures were primarily funded by conservative millionaires Loren Parks and Mark Hemstreet.

Meas
num
passed?YesNo%Ballot Title
69YES40639329241958.15Grants Victims Constitutional Rights In Criminal Prosecutions, Juvenile Court Delinquency Proceedings
70NO28978340742941.56Gives Public, Through Prosecutor, Right To Demand Jury Trial In Criminal Cases
71YES40440429269658.01Limits Pretrial Release Of Accused Person To Protect Victims, Public
72NO31635138268545.26Allows Murder Conviction By 11 To 1 Jury Verdict
73NO32016036984346.4Limits Immunity From Criminal Prosecution Of Person Ordered To Testify About His Or Her Conduct
74YES36889932507853.16Requires Terms Of Imprisonment Announced In Court Be Fully Served, With Exceptions
75YES39967129244557.75Persons Convicted Of Certain Crimes Cannot Serve On Grand Juries, Criminal Trial Juries

See also

References

  1. Armatta v. Kitzhaber Archived 2009-03-25 at the Wayback Machine, 327 Or. 250, 959 P.2d 49 (1998)
  2. "Desperate Measures". Willamette Week. October 20, 1999. Archived from the original on September 29, 2007. Retrieved 2007-03-12.
  3. Manweller, Mathew (2005). The People Vs. the Courts: Judicial Review and Direct Democracy in the American Legal System. Academica Press. pp. 220–221. ISBN 1-930901-97-6.


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.