Measure No. 61

Explanatory Statement

Arguments in Favor

Arguments in Opposition

Measure Contents Page

Proposed by initiative petition to be voted on at the General Election, November 3, 1998.

BALLOT TITLE

61

CHANGES MINIMUM SENTENCES FOR LISTED CRIMES, INCLUDING CERTAIN REPEAT OFFENSES

RESULT OF "YES" VOTE: "Yes" vote changes minimum sentences for listed crimes, including certain repeat offenses.
RESULT OF "NO" VOTE: "No" vote retains present sentencing statutes and guidelines for listed crimes, including repeat offenses.
SUMMARY: Establishes minimum sentences for crimes listed as "major crimes." Provides one to three year proportionally increased sentences for major crimes, aggravated murder or murder if person has one to three prior convictions for major crime within past 10 years. Prior juvenile court adjudications involving major crimes apply to increase sentence. Treats prior conviction for driving under influence of intoxicants as major crime if current conviction is for criminally negligent homicide using vehicle. Prohibits temporary leave or other reduction in additional prison time imposed under measure.
ESTIMATE OF FINANCIAL IMPACT: The mandatory and presumptive sentences imposed under this measure are estimated to require 4,300 new prison beds by 2006, with direct state expenditures for prison construction and start-up of $470 million by 2006.
Direct state expenditures for prison operating costs and debt service are estimated at $21 million in 1999-2000 and $40 million in 2000-2001, growing to $125 million in 2005-2006. Community corrections payments from the state to counties for probation and post-prison supervision are estimated to be reduced by $800,000 in 1999-2000, $1.9 million in 2000-2001, and $1.4 million in 2005-2006.
Under this measure, direct state expenditures for court operations are estimated at $100,000 in 1998-1999 and $175,000 in each of the next two years. State expenditures for indigent defense are estimated at $350,000 in 1998-1999 and $900,000 in each of the next two years.

Major factors affecting this estimate include:


TEXT OF MEASURE

REPEAT OFFENDERS INITIATIVE

SECTION 1. The purpose of this Act is to protect the public by imposing tougher sentences on criminals who repeatedly violate major criminal laws and to ensure that all criminals are held accountable and punished for major crimes including for killing people while driving intoxicated.

SECTION 2: (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a person is sentenced for a major crime, and the person has been convicted of a major crime, aggravated murder, or murder, the court shall impose the sentence under the sentencing guidelines or any greater sentence permitted or mandated by law and, in addition, shall impose a consecutive period of imprisonment as follows:

A. An additional one year imprisonment for one previous conviction for a major crime occurring within ten years prior to the commission of the major crime or prior to sentencing.

B. An additional two years imprisonment for two previous convictions for a major crime occurring within ten years prior to the commission of the major crime or prior to sentencing.

C. An additional three years imprisonment for three or more previous convictions for a major crime occurring within ten years prior to the commission of the major crime or prior to sentencing.

(2) A conviction for a major crime shall include any prior sentence imposed during the same proceeding provided that the prior sentence is based on a crime committed in a separate criminal episode. Post prison supervision shall be as determined by the sentencing guidelines and shall follow the additional period of imprisonment.

SECTION 3: If the conviction is for Criminally negligent homicide and the crime involved the use of a vehicle any prior conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants shall be counted as a previous major crime under Section 2.

SECTION 4. For purposes of this Act, a major crime includes:

Robbery in the first, second or third degree,

Burglary in the first or second degree,

Assault in the first, second or third degree,

Arson in the first degree,

Compelling prostitution,

Promoting prostitution,

Aggravated theft,

Unauthorized use of a motor vehicle committed by taking, operating or exercising control over a motor vehicle,

Theft by extortion,

Criminal mistreatment in the first degree,

Felon in possession of a firearm, where the felony is an A or B felony,

Criminally negligent homicide,

Conspiracy, attempt or solicitation to commit aggravated murder or murder,

Manslaughter in the first or second degree,

Rape in the first, second or third degree,

Sodomy in the first, second or third degree,

Unlawful sexual penetration in the first or second degree,

Sexual abuse in the first or second degree,

Escape in the first degree,

Bribe giving, bribe receiving, bribing a witness,

Perjury,

Criminal mischief in the first degree where the aggregate value of the damage or destruction of property exceeds $10,000, and

Any attempt, conspiracy or solicitation to commit aggravated murder, murder, or a Class A or B felony listed in this section.

SECTION 5: The sentence for a major crime committed on or after January 1, 1999 shall be no less than fourteen months and within thirty days after the passage of this Act the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission shall so provide.

SECTION 6: Whether a person has another conviction under Section 2 of this Act shall be determined by the sentencing court of current conviction. The court shall make this determination accurately and no district attorney shall fail to disclose or conceal knowledge of or otherwise negate such a conviction. Other convictions need not be pled in the charging instrument, but shall be disclosed to the defense by the district attorney as soon as is reasonably practical. No challenge to the validity of a conviction shall be permitted except to the extent constitutionally required and upon written notice by the defendant to the district attorney seven days in advance of sentencing.

SECTION 7: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the additional period of imprisonment imposed under Section 2 may not be reduced for any reason whatsoever and the person sentenced shall serve the entire period of additional imprisonment without any release on post-prison supervision or any form of temporary leave from custody.

SECTION 8: The convictions under Section 2 of this Act include convictions for major crimes, aggravated murder, murder, and juvenile court adjudications for offenses which if committed by an adult would constitute aggravated murder, murder or a major crime. Out-of-state adult convictions and juvenile adjudications shall constitute a conviction under this Act if the offense would constitute a major crime, aggravated murder, or murder under current Oregon law.

SECTION 9: Imprisonment means time in secure prison custody and does not allow any form of release, leave, or furlough as to the additional period of imprisonment under Section 2.

SECTION 10: The sentences set by this Act apply to all crimes committed on or after January 1, 1999. Other convictions under Section 2 of this Act include convictions for crimes occurring before, on, or after January 1, 1999.

SECTION 11: Notwithstanding Section 2 of this Act, imprisonment under this Act shall not exceed the maximum indeterminate sentence under ORS 161.605 in effect on July 1, 1997. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to reduce any mandatory minimum sentence or any other sentence previously enacted. The sentence or portion of the sentence under Sections 2 and 5 of this Act, other than the additional period of imprisonment shall be subject to modification under the sentencing guidelines rules for departures and Section 14 of Senate Bill 936 (1997), unless it is otherwise prohibited by law including, but not limited to, ORS 137.700 and ORS 137.707.

SECTION 12: These sections shall supersede any other provision of the Oregon Revised Statutes with which they conflict. If any subsection, clause or part of these sections is held invalid under the United States Constitution or Oregon Constitution, the remaining subsections, clauses and parts shall not be affected and shall remain in full force and effect.


EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

This measure creates a statute that sets minimum sentences for "major crimes," as defined in this measure. In addition, the measure requires the imposition of an additional sentence of one to three years of imprisonment for any offender who is convicted of a "major crime" and who was convicted of one or more "major crimes" within the previous 10 years.

The measure requires that a presumed sentence of at least 14 months imprisonment be imposed for "major crimes" committed on or after January 1, 1999. A court may impose more or less than the presumed sentence only upon a finding of substantial and compelling reasons.

The measure also provides that when an offender is convicted of one of the "major crimes," and before sentencing the court determines that the offender was previously convicted of a "major crime," murder or aggravated murder, the court must impose a sentence to serve a period of imprisonment that is in addition to the sentence imposed under sentencing guidelines or other law. The mandatory additional sentence is imposed only if the other crime was committed within 10 years before the commission of the "major crime," or within 10 years before the date of sentencing. The mandatory additional sentence is one year if the offender has one previous conviction for one of the specified crimes within that period, two years if the offender has two previous convictions for the specified crimes within that period and three years if the offender has three or more previous convictions for the specified crimes within that period.

The mandatory additional sentence for previous convictions may not be reduced for any reason. The mandatory additional sentence must be served in secure prison custody and the offender serving the sentence may not be released for furlough, post-prison supervision or any form of temporary leave.

For the purposes of the mandatory additional sentence for previous convictions, juvenile court adjudications are treated as previous convictions. Previous convictions for driving under the influence of intoxicants are treated as "major crimes" for purposes of the mandatory additional sentence if the offender is thereafter convicted of criminally negligent homicide and the crime involved the use of a vehicle. The validity of any previous conviction may be challenged by an offender only to the extent that there is a constitutional requirement that the offender be allowed to make that challenge.

The mandatory additional sentence for previous convictions applies to the sentencing for all "major crimes" committed on or after January 1, 1999. In imposing a mandatory additional sentence for a "major crime" committed after that date, the court is required to consider previous convictions for "major crimes," murder or aggravated murder committed before January 1, 1999.
Committee Members:Appointed by:
Steve DoellChief Petitioners
Kevin MannixChief Petitioners
Ingrid Swenson*Secretary of State
John Tyner*Secretary of State
Tom Clifford**Secretary of State

*Member dissents (does not concur with explanatory statement)

**5th member appointed by Secretary of State because committee members could not agree on selection.

(This committee was appointed to provide an impartial explanation of the ballot measure pursuant to ORS 251.215.)

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

When someone breaks into your home, and steals your jewelry, family heirlooms, and other prized personal possessions, insurance may cover the cost of replacing some or all of the property. But insurance will never replace the personal mementos. Insurance will never restore your sense of personal security. That sense of security will be taken away forever. Yet current sentencing laws assume that it is no big deal for someone to break into a house and steal everything, break into a business and vandalize it completely; or steal a car. Oregon's current sentencing laws say that these kinds of criminals, after conviction, should be set free. The theory seems to be that giving them a break, sending them back out on the streets will somehow cause them to stop preying on innocent citizens.

Measure 61 will change all of that. It will impose a basic tough sentence of 14 months in prison for first convictions for major crimes, and higher sentences, with mandatory minimums, for repeat convictions. On the very first conviction, Measure 61 allows the Judge some leeway to reduce the sentence ­ even to probation. For repeat offenders, however, tougher mandatory minimum sentences are needed, because these serious criminals obviously did not get the message the first time.

A vote for Measure 61 is a vote to protect your personal security, and to give victims of crime true justice by holding criminals accountable. Vote yes on Measure 61.

(This information furnished by Kevin L. Mannix, Justice for All, Director.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

Measure 61 protects your neighborhood. Are you worried about people breaking into houses? You should be. Under current sentencing laws, these kinds of serious "property" criminals are set free after they are convicted. Are you worried about having your business broken into? You should be. Criminals who burglarize businesses also are set free. Somehow the sentencing laws pretend that property is not owned by real people.

Do you worry that someone will trash your house, doing thousands of dollars worth of damage? Do you worry about someone stealing your car? Yes, you do, and if you can afford it, you spend increasing amounts on insurance to try to protect yourself from the losses. Imagine your feeling when you find out that, under current sentencing laws, a criminal can do over $10,000 worth of vandalism to your house ­ and be set scot free. A criminal can steal your car, get caught, get convicted ­ and be set free.

This "catch and release" system may be great for fly fishing, but it does not work in the criminal justice system. Remember, when you engage in catch and release in fly fishing, you are trying to increase the fish population. When you engage in catch and release in regard to serious crime, you are contributing to the increase in the population of criminals on the streets.

A vote for Measure 61 is a vote to protect our homes, our businesses, our neighborhoods, our communities ­ and our families. Vote yes on Measure 61.

(This information furnished by Dana C. Baugher.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

Some opponents of Measure 61 say that we should apologize to criminals because they had a bad childhood, and their bad childhood is what turned them into criminals. However, those us who support Measure 61 believe that everyone needs to be held accountable for their decisions--decisions that hurt other people. So called "property" crimes involve real victims--innocent people who own homes that are burglarized, businesses that are broken into, and cars that are stolen.

When you leave your home in the morning and find that your car isn't where you left it,, do you stop to analyze the motives of the criminal and sympathize with them? or do you want the is criminal caught and put in prison?

Once these major property criminals are put in prison, we can try to address the "root causes" of their problem. We can try to rehabilitate them from drug and alcohol addictions, and give them a basic education, all as part of the prison work program, which teaches criminals responsibility, work ethic and makes them help pay for their keep.

The answer to serious property crimes is not to apologize to the criminals for their past, but to hold them responsible and put them somewhere where there is no opportunity to victimize property owners, and there is some opportunity for rehabilitation: Prison.

Vote yes on Measure 61.

(This information furnished by Ronda L. Buffington.)


(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.) The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

TOP TEN REASONS TO VOTE YES ON MEASURE 61

10. Oregon is ranked ninth in the nation for property crime (Testimony; Professor James Heuser, Ph.D., Portland State University, July 22, 1998, Oregon Criminal Justice Commission).

9. Oregon property crime rates have risen 25.6% since 1991 (Oregon State Police, LEDS).

8. Losses to Oregonians since 1991 have exceeded $1.25 billion (OSP, LEDS).

7. Since the voters approved Measure 11 in 1994, violent crime hasdecreased 11%, while property crime has increased.

6. Serious property crimes are felonies. Real victims have their security and family heirlooms stolen in home burglaries, and transportation taken in car thefts.

5. Property criminals currently receive Probation (no prison time) for breaking into your homes, stealing your possessions, and stealing your automobiles. The message- "Go ahead, you won't go to prison!"

4. Oregon is among the nation's leaders in taxpayer money spent on social programs---yet we still have increases in felony property crimes. Social spending is not the only answer.

3. The American Civil Liberties Union doesn't want you to vote for Measure 61 because they consider the liberty and rights of criminals more important than yours.

2. The Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association doesn't want you tovote for Measure 61 because they make more money revolving their clients through the system so they can offend again.

1. Politicians who are weak or cheap on the criminal justice issues don't want you to approve Measure 61 because they want to scare you into thinking we are spending too much on prisons. However, in the current state budget we are spending 58% of the state budget on education, that's $58 out of every $100 you pay in state income tax. The Department of Corrections is currently funded with only $7 out of every $100 you pay in state income tax.

Vote yes on Measure 61 for a safer Oregon and better quality of life for our communities.

(This information furnished by Steve Doell, Crime Victims United.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

Measure 61 means less business for criminal defense attorneys. Why? They are appointed to represent people who steal from you and, ironically, you, the taxpayers, are required to pay for them. When their clients are found guilty, set free only to commit more crimes, you pay again. This is big business for criminal defense lawyers. No wonder they oppose Measure 61.

What is good for the criminal defense lawyers is not good for society. We need to stop criminals, such as car thieves and burglars, from repeating their crimes by imposing tougher sentences on them. Measure 61 will do that. First offense: the criminal receives a presumptive sentence of 14 months (giving the judge discretion to go as low as probation, i.e., no prison). After that, for a first repeat offense involving a major crime, the criminal will get a mandatory minimum additional sentence of one year. For a second repeat major crime, the criminal will get a mandatory minimum sentence of two years. For three or more prior major crimes, the criminal will have a mandatory minimum sentence of three years added to his sentence.

These mandatory minimum add-on sentences cannot be reduced for any reason. This means that criminals will no longer be allowed to continue committing crimes with no accountability. Stopping, rather than encouraging, criminal behavior is the only solution for a workable society. Don't allow those who encourage and financially benefit from criminal behavior fool you any longer.

Our society has pretended for too long that we know how to prevent crime by not holding criminals accountable. Incarceration with treatment is a more responsible way to protect the public and deter crime.

Vote Yes on Measure 61

Bob and Dee Dee Kouns

Crime Victims United

(This information furnished by Bob & DeeDee Kouns, Crime Victims United.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR

Some critics of Measure 61 say it will cost a lot of money. They ignore the fact that it costs innocent citizens much more if government fails to incarcerate these hardened, repeat criminals who prey on our society. An auto thief will steal 10 to 20 cars before he is caught. Right now, when he is caught and convicted, he will be set free, only to steal more cars. Each one of those cars represents the property of an innocent citizen who may or may not have insurance ­ and who pays for these crimes through high insurance rates, deductibles on insurance, or, worse yet, the cost of immediate replacement of the car.

When you count up the tremendous cost to society of letting people break into houses, burglarize businesses, and steal cars, and compare it to the cost to the state to pull these serious, repeat offenders off the street, the equation is simple: For every dollar it may cost the government to incarcerate these criminals, we are saving citizens several dollars.

The cost to government to implement Measure 61 is a great benefit to all citizens in our society. We are not simply spending money to put away serious criminals; we are spending the money to protect all of our society.

Consider this: At present, 58 cents out of each state budget dollar go to education, and 24 cents go to human resources programs. Only 7 cents go to the Department of Corrections. Measure 61 will probably increase this 7 cents to almost 8 cents per dollar. Juveniles are not affected by Measure 61; we will continue to allow county juvenile departments and the Oregon Youth Authority to deal with juvenile property offenders. It is worth one penny out of the budget dollar to achieve justice.

A vote for Measure 61 is a vote to hold criminals accountable, to give justice to victims, and give justice to all Oregonians.

(This information furnished by Steve Doell, Crime Victims United.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Oregonians be on the alert! Measure 61 is the latest attempt by a small, but vocal group of individuals with special interests to control criminal justice policies in this state. Having failed to get the Legislature to accommodate their extreme views, they are once again trying to sell Oregonians a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Supporters of 61 want you to believe that by passing this measure, which requires mandatory minimum prison sentencing, it will address the problem of property crimes in Oregon. What they don't say is that only 7 listed are property crimes and the majority of the other 35 plus ALREADY require mandatory minimum sentencing. We don't need this law.

The likelihood that someone will needlessly or unjustly be sent to prison increases with every mandatory minimum sentence Oregonians create because a judge is UNABLE to consider the circumstances of the crime and make the punishment fit.

Parents Against Cruel and Unusual Punishment (PAC-UP) consists of thousands of individuals who have watched mandatory minimum sentencing nationwide, as well as statewide with Oregon's Measure 11, and believe studies show such laws DO NOT LOWER CRIME RATES.

Finally, there is a cost impact this measure will have on Oregon. Measure 61 will require more judges, more prisons, more prison guards etc. This money will be used to warehouse NON- VIOLENT, FIRST TIME OFFENDERS.

Please do not assist them in the creation of bad and costly laws. SAVE taxpayers money. Support prevention and treatment programs which CAN lower the crime rate, not more prisons which will not.

VOTE No on Measure 61.

(This information furnished by Cathi Lawler, Parents Against Cruel & Unusual Punishment.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

The Oregon Association of Community Corrections Directors is a professional organization comprised of County leaders in probation and parole. Collectively, we supervise more than 30,000 offenders. We have dedicated our careers to the public safety of our communities. We ask you to cautiously weigh all factors concerning Measure 61. Our organization opposes this measure for the following reasons:

1. Similar legislation has been enacted within the last three years. In 1995 Measure 11 dramatically increased sentences for person to person offenders. In 1997 House Bill 3488 imposed longer sentences for property offenders. This legislation has not been in existence long enough to determine its effect on reducing crime in our communities. Measure 61 proposes to further increase the sentences of many of these same offender and add mandatory sentences for some additional crimes. Before Oregonians approve Measure 61, let us be sure this strategy is effective.

2. The cost of Measure 61 is extremely high, an estimated $470 million over the next eight years, for construction and operation of prisons.

3. No money has been allocated to fund Measure 61. Therefore, the estimated $470 million may come at the expense of education, transportation, mental health, and economic development, which are already inadequately funded.

4. Limited tax dollars need to be invested in programs that prevent crime. Today, when children have increased exposure to drugs, alcohol, sexual experimentation, and violence, we provide them with less supervision than at any time in our nation's history. We support funding for mentoring, after school activities, and other prevention programs that we believe will allow more youth to avoid criminal activity and live productive, healthy lives.

5. Will Measure 61 reduce crime? Longer sentences provide a legitimate strategy for punishment and incapacitation. However, they have not proven effective in altering criminal behavior. We owe it to ourselves, as judicious tax payers, to invest in strategies that will reduce crime.

(This information furnished by Bob Grindstaff, Oregon Association of Community Corrections Directors.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

From the Desk of John A. Kitzhaber, M.D.

I urge you to vote "NO" on Measure 61. It isn't the kind of public safety investment Oregon needs.

This measure costs too much. If Measure 61 passes, Oregon will spend $1.4 billion more on prisons over the next 10 years--funds taken from other efforts that truly would make us safer. The $83 million this measure costs in the next two years could be used to add 500 State Troopers, triple juvenile crime prevention funding or teach 9,000 students.

This measure means putting another new prison in another Oregon community. Nobody wants a prison in their community, but we must site new prisons if we increase sentences. I have sited 13 adult and juvenile prisons during my administration. Isn't that enough?

This measure isn't necessary. A new law increasing sentences for repeat property offenders took effect last July, and has sent hundreds of repeat offenders to prison.

Crime already is going down in Oregon without building more new prisons. There were 16,000 fewer serious crimes between 1995 and 1996, the most recent year for statewide statistics. That includes 3,200 fewer burglaries, 5,500 fewer thefts and 5,300 fewer car thefts.

Oregon's burglary rate is at a 25-year low. Your chances of becoming the victim of a burglary are the lowest they have been in 25 years.

This measure isn't well thought out. Measure 61 would increase sentences for Ballot Measure 11 crimes, already the toughest "one strike and you're out" law in the country. We need to be more than tough on crime, but we need to be smart too.

We can reduce crime without building prisons. New York State has led the nation in reducing its crime rate. They did it by putting more police on the street­not by increasing sentences or building prisons. We should do the same.

Let's prevent crime and not just punish criminals.

Let's spend money wisely to reduce crime.

Please vote NO on Measure 61.

(This information furnished by John A. Kitzhaber, M.D.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

Vote NOon Measure 61

MEASURE 61 IS A BAD INVESTMENT!

The cost is staggering, over $1 BILLION in the next ten years for more prisons. This is ONE BILLION additional dollars for prisons beyond the prisons already being built or waiting to be sited.

We need to invest in PREVENTING CRIME. We need to KEEP KIDS IN SCHOOL, not prison. We need to HIRE MORE TEACHERS, not guards. We need to HELP FAMILIES, not hurt them.

Dollar for dollar, money spent on education is the most effective crime prevention strategy available. (1996 Rand Corporation study)

Oregon already has the harshest "one strike" law in the country, known as Measure 11. We are already sentencing kids to long terms in prison with no time off for good behavior. We are already in the midst of the largest prison building boom Oregon has ever seen.

We don't need more prison, we need more schools. We don't need tougher sentences, we need more teachers. We don't need to spend ONE BILLION dollars unwisely.

MEASURE 61 IS A BAD INVESTMENT!

Vote NO on Measure 61

Michael Dugan

Deschutes County District Attorney

Chris Beck

State Representative

JoAnn Bowman

State Representative

Dan Gardner

State Representative

Sid Lezak

Former U.S. Attorney for Oregon

Avel Gordly

State Senator

Bryan Johnston

State Representative

Beverly Stein

Portland

(This information furnished by Ingrid Swenson.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

IF YOU CARE ABOUT OREGON'S KIDS AND OREGON'S SCHOOLS, VOTE "NO" ON MEASURE 61!

When fully implemented, Measure 61 will require the State to spend an additional $250 million per biennium on prison operating costs and debt service. Where will this money come from? Schools and other state services? Higher taxes?

DO WE WANT TO BUILD MORE PRISONS OR IMPROVE OUR SCHOOLS?

Oregon has adopted higher academic standards for our students to meet. How will our children meet these high standards if we continue to drain resources from the school system?

We need smaller classes, better teacher training and more resources in the classroom. These improvements to our educational system will help reduce and prevent crime. Uneducated, neglected children are more likely to commit crimes as adults. A quality educational system is the foundation for crime prevention.

Do we really need more prisons? Here is what Measure 61 may mean to education:

Education should be our top priority now, not more prisons. Measure 61 locks more prisons into our Constitution as a top priority above education, the environment, and health and human services.

DO YOU WANT THE STATE TO BUILD A PRISON IN YOURNEIGHBORHOOD? Or, do you want more teachers, smaller class sizes, and better schools?

NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS OR NEIGHBORHOOD PRISONS? THE CHOICEIS YOURS. VOTE "NO" ON MEASURE 61!

(This information furnished by William R. Hallmark, Linda Olson, George Mardikes, Scott Bailey.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

MEASURE 61 IS BAD FOR SCHOOLS!

VOTE NO ON MEASURE 61

Measure 61 will require a $1.4 billion increase in state general fund spending over the next 10 years. That's money that could be used to improve Oregon's schools.

MEASURE 61 ROBS MONEY FROM OREGON'S SCHOOL CHILDREN!

VOTE NO ON MEASURE 61

Measure 5 and Measure 47 moved most funding for Oregon's elementary and secondary schools from the local property tax to the state general fund. Any new mandated spending requirements, like Measure 61, takes available money away from schools and services for children and their families.

MEASURE 61 IS BAD FOR OREGON!

VOTE NO ON MEASURE 61

State support for K-12 schools now takes up 45 percent of the state's general fund and lottery resources. Measure 61's $1.4 billion increase in state spending will cause a disproportionate amount of spending for prisons - taking money away from schools!

IMPROVE OREGON SCHOOLS!

VOTE NO ON MEASURE 61

Reducing class size, raising student achievement and making schools clean and safe are all important goals for Oregon schools. These goals can be achieved. But only with adequate and stable funding. Measure 61 will divert money to criminals and away from Oregon's school improvement efforts!

DON'T HARM OREGON SCHOOLS!

VOTE NO ON MEASURE 61

(This information furnished by Ingrid Swenson.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION

VOTE NO ON MEASURE 61!

I support efforts to improve public safety. I oppose Measure 61. As a public safety measure, Measure 61 is expensive, impractical, complicated and unnecessary.

As Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1995, I helped to implement the voter approved "Tough on Crime" initiatives. The State legislatures heard the voters' message on crime loud and clear. In Oregon, if you do the crime, you will do the time. However, as Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, I have come to realize -- we do not need and cannot afford Measure 61 for the following simple reasons:

We must continue to work on reducing crime and not simply warehousing criminals once they have broken the law. Increasing prison sentences may look like a quick, easy solution, but the solutions that Measure 61 offers are confusing and unnecessary and would cost more than a billion dollars.

I want to be tough on crime, but I also want to be smart on crime. Please join me in voting "No" on Measure 61.

Sincerely,

NEIL R. BRYANT

Senator, District 27

Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee 1995

Chair, Interim Budget Committee 1998

(This information furnished by Neil Bryant, State Senator, Former Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee.)

(This space purchased for $300 in accordance with ORS 251.255.)
The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by the State of Oregon, nor does the state warrant the accuracy or truth of any statement made in the argument.