Loading
Measure 40

Argument in Opposition

Oregonians pride themselves on wanting the best whenever possible. So why would we settle for less than the best on the important issue of selecting judges?

Boiled down, that's what Ballot Measure 40 guarantees: that at some point, a less qualified judge will take office over a more qualified judge, and for one reason: his or her ZIP Code.

Logically, the state law is the law for all of the state. We don't have, nor do we want, "Portland law," "Medford law," "Burns law," "Tillamook law" and so on. Yet that's exactly what Measure 40 supporters want, something apparently akin to how justice was doled out on The Dukes of Hazzard.

If you're not following this logic, you're not alone. Measure 40 supporters want to paint a picture that says every lawyer (and potential judge) in the Willamette Valley is a left-wing liberal, and therefore we should appoint and elect judges by geographic district, allowing for cultural differences. Huh? Cultural differences in local statutes may be fine when it comes to barking dogs in Multnomah County vs. barking dogs in Lake County, but state statutes should certainly be interpreted the same for every corner of Oregon.

The bottom line is this: when voters elect a judge, or the sitting governor appoints a judge, that judge should be the best possible judge from the "talent pool." If for some reason two judges in a row happen to live in Forest Grove (or Cottage Grove, or Lake Grove) and they are the best two judges, so be it.

Oregon is largely modeled after our federal form of government, and our judges are meant to be a check and balance to the geographically elected Legislature. This is a fundamental concept that should not be changed.

Vote No! on Ballot Measure 40.

(This information furnished by Don Loving, Oregon AFSCME Council 75.)


Argument in Opposition

DON'T DIVIDE OREGON TO SELECT JUDGES

Voters should reject Ballot Measure 40 because:

APPELLATE JUDGES SHOULD REMAIN ACCOUNTABLE TO ALL OREGONIANS.

The justice Oregonians deserve does not depend on region. All Oregonians deserve that each appellate judge be fair and impartial. This initiative would make appellate judges accountable to only one district's voters.

JUDGES SHOULD BE IMPARTIAL AND FAIR, NOT POLITICAL.

Judges are unlike legislators in a crucial way: Judges should have no political agenda. They are committed only to upholding federal and state constitutions and laws. Appellate judges' constituency is all Oregonians; creating local districts for judges to "represent" threatens their impartiality. Appellate judges should not be more loyal to one region than to another.

SELECTING JUDGES BY DISTRICT WOULD LIMIT AVAILABLE JUDICIAL TALENT.

For any appellate vacancy, the voters or governor can now choose the most qualified person in Oregon. This initiative would limit choice to one district only, regardless of whether the most qualified person resides there. Oregonians deserve the highest quality courts possible. To disqualify 80% or more of Oregonians from each judicial position would defeat that goal.

THIS PROPOSAL PROMOTES PLAYING POLITICS WITH COURTS.

This initiative's sponsors plainly believe it will make judges more fearful of the kind of "attack politics" that FreedomWorks (a Washington, D.C.-based organization) and others recently directed at a Marion County judge. The initiative would make such special-interest attacks on appellate judges easier. By limiting elections to fewer voters, it also would prevent most Oregonians from voting in each election and from deciding who is most qualified.

OREGON'S VOTERS GOT THIS RIGHT TWICE BEFORE.

District elections for appellate judges were abolished by Oregon voters in 1910, and this same initiative to bring them back was voted down in 2002. The initiative's sponsors refuse to accept those votes. Tell them the people have spoken.

Susan Marmaduke, Portland

Bruce A. Bishop, Salem

Arden J. Olson, Eugene

(This information furnished by Arden J. Olson.)


Argument in Opposition

OUR STATE HAS ONLY ONE LAW -- OREGON LAW

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 40 IS BASED ON THE FLAWED IDEA THAT THE LAW SHOULD BE DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON WHERE A PERSON LIVES.

BY POPULATION, OREGON'S APPELLATE COURTS ARE AMONG THE BUSIEST COURTS IN THE COUNTRY.

MEASURE 40 WOULD CRIPPLE THE APPELLATE COURTS' ABILITY TO KEEP UP WITH THE THOUSANDS OF CASES FILED EVERY YEAR, MEANING CITIZENS WILL HAVE TO PAY MORE AND WAIT LONGER FOR JUSTICE.

Constitutional Amendment 40 would force MOST of the judges of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court to live outside Salem where the appellate courts are located. Measure 40 requires each elected judge remain a resident of the district for the entire term of office. Oregon taxpayers would have to foot the bill for the gross inefficiencies and extra costs that would result -- for no good purpose.

OREGON'S APPELLATE COURTS STRIVE TO DECIDE CASES QUICKLY AND CONSISTENTLY, IN SPITE OF THEIR EXCESSIVE WORKLOADS.

With judges scattered across the state simply because they have to be, Measure 40 will make it even more difficult for the judges to work together to produce a body of law that is internally consistent. Confusion in the law is frustrating and expensive for everyone.

OREGONIANS NOW HAVE THE RIGHT TO ELECT ALL 17 APPELLATE JUDGES. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 40 WILL RESTRICT OREGON CITIZENS' RIGHT TO CONTROL WHO IS ON THE APPELLATE COURTS – FROM ALL 17 TO ONLY THREE.

PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS AND VOTE "NO" ON MEASURE 40

(This information furnished by Laura Graser.)


Argument in Opposition

The League of Women Voters of Oregon urges you to
vote "No" on Constitutional Amendment 40.

Oregonians deserve to have the most competent, experienced judges possible, regardless of where they live. Judges should be selected on merit, not politics. Geography has nothing to do with justice.

  • This unnecessary constitutional amendment would make it more difficult to attract the most qualified judges for the Oregon Supreme Court and the Oregon Court of Appeals.We should be able to vote for the best people for these important positions.


  • This unnecessary constitutional amendment invites politics into our system of judicial selection—which should be as free from political influence as possible. Measure 40 would make it easier for special interest groups to defeat judges whose decisions they don't like. The promoters of this measure are just such special interests with much of their money coming from outside of Oregon.


  • This unnecessary constitutional amendment would upset the constitutional balance of power. The Legislature is designed to be the branch of government that geographically represents state voters. There is nothing geographic or representative about truth and justice. Judges should not represent geographical districts—they should act in the interest of all the people of the State.


  • This unnecessary constitutional amendment would make Oregon courts less accountable to all Oregon's citizens. Our Supreme Court and Court of Appeals judges interpret the laws for the entire state. Oregonians deserve accountable, knowledgeable, experienced judges to ensure all individuals in the state are afforded the rights and protections guaranteed in Oregon's Constitution and laws.

The League of Women Voters of Oregon is a nonpartisan political organization that encourages informed participation in government.

Please join the Oregon League of Women Voters in
voting "No" on Constitutional Amendment 40.

(This information furnished by Margaret Noel, League of Women Voters of Oregon.)


Argument in Opposition

LAW ENFORCEMENT PROFESSIONALS AND
ADVOCATES FOR CRIME SURVIVORS
URGE A NO VOTE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 40

Constitutional Amendment 40 would limit our ability to choose the most qualified judges from across the state to serve on the Supreme and Appellate Courts.

As law enforcement professionals, we believe that Oregonians' safety and security is best served by electing the most qualified judges, whose loyalty is to the law – not to any one group of special interests or constituents.

  • "As a former U.S. Attorney, I have seen the importance of qualified, impartial judges in every court. This is especially true when it comes to Oregon's highest courts. Knowledgeable, accountable, experienced judges are the foundation to ensure each of us will be afforded the rights and protections guaranteed in Oregon's Constitution."
       - Kristine Olson, Former U.S. Attorney for Oregon


  • Constitutional Amendment 40 would limit our ability to choose the most qualified judges from across the state to serve on our Supreme and Appellate Courts. Judges would be excluded simply because of where they live.


  • We are one Oregon; we deserve one court system, undivided by individual agendas or regional priorities. This measure brings politics into the court system by electing judges who will put the interests of their region ahead of the good of all Oregonians.


  • Our judges already do a good job of making the right decisions for all of Oregon. There is no crisis in our courts worth amending the Constitution to make such a major change.

We urge you to vote NO on Constitutional Amendment 40.
Vote NO to weakening Oregon's courts.

Kristine Olson, Former U.S. Attorney
Oregon Council of Police Associations

(This information furnished by Charles S. Tauman, No on Constitutional Amendment 40 Committee.)


Argument in Opposition

Constitutional Amendment 40:
Good deal for corporate special interests,
Bad deal for Oregonians.

Constitutional Amendment 40 would allow special interests to gain more power over Oregon's judiciary.

  • Makes it easier for big corporate interests like tobacco and pharmaceutical companies to influence the makeup of our courts.


  • Is largely funded by the same special interests who want more control over our courts


  • Makes it easier for special interests to defeat judges that have ruled against them.


  • Makes it easier for corporate America to avoid being held accountable in Oregon courts.

In 2002, these same special interests put a nearly identical measure on the ballot. Oregonians defeated the measure, largely because we want less special interest influence on our courts – not more.

Medford Mail Tribune:
"Contrary to what…proponents contend, the changes are more likely to increase the political nature of selecting judges than reduce it." October 2, 2002

The Daily Astorian:
"…[T]his initiative is an attempt to put a judge beholden to a special interest on the state's high court." October 18, 2002

The Bend Bulletin:
"We do not want judges ruling on constitutional questions…while looking over their shoulders at the latest polling numbers or while taking calls and contributions from their supporters in the upcoming election.

"[The initiative serves] not to improve the judiciary…but to make it far more political than it already is." September 26, 2002

Constitutional Amendment 40 is a good deal for corporate special interests, but a bad deal for Oregonians.

Join the Oregon Consumer League
and Oregonians across the state
in voting NO on Constitutional Amendment 40.

(This information furnished by Charles S. Tauman, No on Constitutional Amendment 40 Committee.)


Argument in Opposition

Seniors OPPOSE Constitutional Amendment 40

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

For many, many years, Oregon's judicial system has served us well.

By electing Appeals and Supreme Court judges in a non-partisan, statewide vote, Oregonians ensure that we get the most qualified, experienced judges who will rule impartially for the good of all of us.

Constitutional Amendment 40 would radically change all that, instead electing judges in a way that would be more political, and more open to the influence of special interests.

The same special interests behind Constitutional Amendment 40 put a nearly identical measure on the ballot back in 2002 that was rejected by Oregon voters. The Register-Guard newspaper editorialized about the measure, saying:

"The current system works well....As the old saying goes, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'

"Oregon judges aren't supposed to act like legislators, heeding special interests of constituents…Judges are supposed to uphold the constitution and hold sacred the rule of law, not keep voters happy back in the home district."

The Register-Guard, October 6, 2002

We agree.

These days it seems like everything in our government is getting more and more political. Let's keep our judicial system impartial, and our judges accountable to ALL Oregonians.

Portland Gray Panthers
Oregon State Council for Retired Citizens
Gray Panthers of Oregon

Urge You to please Vote NO
On Constitutional Amendment 40

(This information furnished by Charles S. Tauman, No on Constitutional Amendment 40 Committee.)


Argument in Opposition

Former Governors
and other statewide elected officials
Republicans and Democrats
ask for your NO vote on Constitutional Amendment 40

Constitutional Amendment 40 is an attempt to divide our state even more along urban and rural lines.

As a group, we've run dozens of statewide elections in Oregon from both parties during the past four decades. We know Oregonians value their right to choose the most qualified candidate. Constitutional Amendment 40 limits Oregonians' right to choose the most qualified judges. The result will be a loss of experienced judges and an injection of politics into Oregon courtrooms like never before.

Constitutional Amendment 40 takes away Oregonians' rights to vote for the most qualified judges and places regional politics ahead of justice.

Oregon voters appreciate the right to elect the most qualified judges, whether they're from Bend, Portland, Gresham, Coos Bay, or Pendleton. Constitutional Amendment 40 will force Oregonians to select their judges from a list of candidates based on where they live, rather than their qualifications.

Constitutional Amendment 40 is backed by special interests that want greater influence over Oregon's courts.

Without a statewide vote of the people, it becomes much easier for powerful special interests to influence judicial elections. These special interests will work to defeat judges who rule against them, and avoid accountability in state courts.

Judges must be able to rule on merits of case, letting the Constitution serve as their guide, without fear of political retaliation in their next campaign.

>We should be working toward One Oregon – and voting for measures that heal the divide, not fracture the state even more along rural and urban lines.

Constitutional Amendment 40 is a step in the wrong direction. We strongly urge your NO vote.

Former Governor Vic Atiyeh
Governor Barbara Roberts
Former Governor John A. Kitzhaber, MD
Former Oregon State Treasurer Bill Rutherford

(This information furnished by Charles S. Tauman, No on Constitutional Amendment 40 Committee.)


Argument in Opposition

PROTECT OREGON'S HIGH STANDARDS FOR JUDGES BY
OPPOSING CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 40

The Oregon State Bar advises AGAINST making these unnecessary and extreme changes to Oregon's Constitution.

We now select the best for our statewide judges – in a nonpartisan statewide vote. This process results in the election of the most qualified judges, possessing great integrity, knowledge and experience.

When Oregonians cast their votes for judges under our current system, we choose judges for their qualifications and experience, not by where they live.

Constitutional Amendment 40 unnecessarily limits Oregonians' choices to selecting only Appeals and Supreme Court judicial candidates that live in our own local area, making geography more important than qualifications.

Constitutional Amendment 40 would unnecessarily change this system to one that would be less fair, more political, and hinder our ability to attract the most qualified judges to the bench.

Further, Constitutional Amendment 40 would give special interests even more power in judicial elections that rightly should be based on "what you know," not "who you know."

The way judges are elected now works. Our Appellate and Supreme Court judges make decisions, based on the right things: the Constitution and established legal precedent.

Constitutional Amendment 40 would make it more difficult to elect the most qualified, experienced judges.

That's why the Oregon State Bar strongly recommends a NO vote on Constitutional Amendment 40.

(This information furnished by Dennis P. Rawlinson, President, Oregon State Bar Board of Governors.)


Argument in Opposition

Vote NO on Constitutional Amendment 40
Because there are more important things than where you live.

Imagine you land a job interview for your dream job. You are exceptionally qualified for this job. In fact, you've been preparing for it your whole life.

You walk in to the interview and begin to explain your qualifications. The interviewer stops you.

Interviewer: "Yes, yes. But where are you from?"
You: "Well, I was born and raised in Oregon and I've lived and worked in just about every corner of the state – Central, Eastern, Southern, the coast…"

You are interrupted again.

Interviewer: "Yes, yes – very impressive. But where do you live NOW?"
You: "Well, now I live in Eugene, but as you can see from my resume…"
Interviewer: "I think we're done here."
You: "But I really do have all the qualifications you specified in the job description: I'm thoughtful, practical, knowledgeable about the issues at hand…"
Interviewer: "Actually, you'd be perfect. But you live in the wrong place – we already have people who live in Eugene. Let me know if you decide to move somewhere else in Oregon. Thanks for your time. Goodbye."

Under Constitutional Amendment 40, this is how we would select our Appeals and Supreme Court judges. It's unfair, and it makes no sense.

Under the current system, we can vote for judges based on qualifications, like fair-mindedness, balanced approach, thoughtfulness, accountability, knowledge of the law, experience, and background.

Under Constitutional Amendment 40, which judges we can vote for is based on one thing: LOCATION.

Vote NO on Constitutional Amendment 40
Because there are more important things than where you live.

SEIU Local 503

Oregon Education Association

(This information furnished by Charles S. Tauman, No on Constitutional Amendment 40 Committee.)


Argument in Opposition

Rural Judges Ask You to
Keep Our Nonpartisan, Statewide Judicial Elections.

Say NO to Constitutional Amendment 40.

As judges ourselves, we understand that it is our duty – and the duty of all judges, regardless of where they live – to make critical decisions that are right for all of Oregon.

Whether from Klamath Falls or Newport, Beaverton or Baker City, we must act as impartial interpreters of our state Constitution and the Oregon's statewide law, not representatives of regional concerns.

That is why we oppose Constitutional Amendment 40, which would replace our current nonpartisan, statewide election of Supreme and Appellate Court judges with a more political – and fragmented – "judges-by-district" system.

This measure brings politics further into the court system, and may well result in the election of judges who will put the interests of their region ahead of the good of all Oregonians, or ahead of the Constitution.

Increasing diversity in regional representation on Oregon's courts is a fine objective – one on which we can all agree. But we must not sacrifice Oregonians' right to select the most fairminded, balanced, thoughtful judges in the process.

Unfortunately, Constitutional Amendment 40 asks Oregonians to give up too much choice, it compromises the independence of our courts from politics, and it has the potential to divide our state even more along urban and rural lines.

Oregon Court of Appeals and Supreme Court judges decide cases for all Oregonians. They should be elected by all Oregonians.

As judges from rural areas, we strongly encourage Oregonians to vote NO on Constitutional Amendment 40.

Deschutes County Circuit Judge Michael Sullivan
Deschutes County Circuit Judge Stephen Tiktin
Umatilla County Circuit Judge Garry Reynolds
Baker County Circuit Judge Gregory Baxter
Crook County Circuit Judge Gary Thompson
Jackson County Circuit Judge Mark Schiveley
Josephine County Circuit Judge Lindi Baker
Curry County Circuit Judge Howard Lichtig
Coos/Curry County Circuit Judge Richard Barron
Clatsop County Circuit Judge Paula Brownhill

(This information furnished by Charles S. Tauman, No on Constitutional Amendment 40 Committee.)


Argument in Opposition

Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette
Opposes Constitutional Amendment 40:
Don't damage our non-partisan, merit-based judicial system!

Oregon's independent judicial branch provides an important and impartial check on the Legislature and Governor.

Even with the best of intentions, our Legislative and Executive branches have been known to pass laws that are unconstitutional. That's why it's so important to have independent judges, especially on the Appeals and Supreme Courts.

Our judges do a good job protecting our civil rights and making the right decisions.

Under the current system of non-partisan statewide elections for Appeals and Supreme Court judges, we can be certain we're voting for the most qualified judges, regardless of where they – or we – live. These judges are accountable to the law, and to making the right decisions for ALL Oregonians.

Constitutional Amendment 40 is unnecessary.

Constitutional Amendment 40 would unnecessarily make radical changes in our judicial system. It would prioritize where a judge lives over his or her merits and abilities, and make judges accountable to interest groups and to constituents in a specific geographical area – like the Legislature.

Constitutional Amendment would make the courts more political, not less.

As newspapers around the state said about a nearly identical measure in 2002:

"Judges on the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals are meant to serve all Oregonians without partiality. Judges shouldn't have constituents. Being accountable to a geographic area is right for legislators, but it's wrong for judges." Statesman Journal, October 22, 2002

Please don't damage our non-partisan, merit-based judicial system. Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette urges a
NO vote on Constitutional Amendment 40.

(This information furnished by Charles S. Tauman, No on Constitutional Amendment 40 Committee.)


Argument in Opposition

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 40 IS UNNECESSARY
AND WOULD WEAKEN OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM

Our current nonpartisan, statewide method of electing judges works well.

Today, all Supreme Court Justices and Appellate Judges are elected by a nonpartisan, statewide vote of the people. This ensures that every Oregon citizen has the opportunity to vote for the most qualified judges, regardless of where they live.

Constitutional Amendment 40 would place unnecessary limits on which judges Oregonians could vote for – based solely on geographic location.

Constitutional Amendment 40 would politicize the judicial system.

The backers of Constitutional Amendment 40 are special interest groups who want to bring their agenda into Oregon's courtrooms.

But the judiciary was set up as an impartial branch of government for a reason: to serve as a check on exactly the kind of political wrangling that Constitutional Amendment 40 would introduce into Oregon's highest courts.

Judicial elections should be about legal expertise, not about partisan politics.

Judges are not like legislators, who are charged with representing the will of regional constituents. The proper role of a judge is to apply the law fairly and equally across the state, without regard to political ideology.

Judges do not – and should not – represent people, regions or political viewpoints; they must represent and uphold the constitution and the law.

Constitutional Amendment 40 threatens to diminish the quality of our Supreme and Appeals Courts.

Please join the Multnomah Bar Association, Deschutes County Bar Association, Marion County Bar Association, the Oregon Association of Defense Counsel, the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association and the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association in
OPPOSING Constitutional Amendment 40.

(This information furnished by Judy Edwards, Multnomah Bar Association.)


Argument in Opposition

ADDRESS MAY MATTER,
BUT QUALIFICATIONS MATTER MORE.

RURAL OREGONIANS URGE A NO VOTE
ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 40.

Constitutional Amendment 40 would make unnecessary major changes to our legal system, and put a system that is more political and more divided in its place.

  • All Oregonians, no matter where they live, should keep the right to vote for the judge they believe is most qualified. Constitutional Amendment 40 would take that right away, forcing Oregonians to vote only for judges that live in their particular region of the state.


  • All Oregonians want the choice to vote for the judge they believe to be the most fair, the most impartial, the most balanced, the most thoughtful, the most experienced and the most knowledgeable. Constitutional Amendment 40 would unnecessarily limit our choices.


  • Limiting our choices will hurt our ability to elect the best judges to the bench, resulting in the election of less qualified judges.


  • Our Supreme Court and Appeals Courts, the highest courts in Oregon and important checks on the other, more political, branches of government, are too important to gamble on such a risky scheme.

Rural Oregonians – like all Oregonians – want a court system that is fair and independent. A statewide vote of the people is the best way to keep our courts accountable to all of us.

PLEASE VOTE NO ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 40,
BECAUSE QUALIFICATIONS MATTER MORE THAN ADDRESS.

Rural Organizing Project

(This information furnished by Charles S. Tauman, No on Constitutional Amendment 40 Committee.)


Argument in Opposition

Keep Special Interests Out of Our Courts.

Passing Constitutional Amendment 40 will make it much easier for powerful special interests, like tobacco and pharmaceutical companies, to influence our court system.

If Constitutional Amendment 40 passes, and judges are no longer elected by a statewide, nonpartisan vote of the people, it becomes much easier for pharmaceutical companies, big tobacco, or other powerful corporations to defeat any judge who might rule against them.

That's why corporate interests such as the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries, who don't want to be held accountable by Oregon's courts, are lining up to support Constitutional Amendment 40.

Judges must be able to rule on merits of case, without fear of political retaliation. Constitutional Amendment 40 would hinder judges' ability to remain impartial.

By changing our current statewide, nonpartisan election of judges to small regional districts like the Legislature, powerful outside special interests would have a much greater opportunity to influence the outcome of judicial elections.

Constitutional Amendment 40 might be good for the special interests, but it's no good for Oregonians.

Preserve the integrity of our judicial system and keep special interests from gaining more power over our courts by voting NO on Constitutional Amendment 40.

(This information furnished by Charles S. Tauman, No on Constitutional Amendment 40 Committee.)


Argument in Opposition

Retired Supreme Court Justices, Trial Judges and Law Professors
Urge a NO Vote on Constitutional Amendment 40

Judges and legal experts agree: There is no crisis in our courts to justify such a major change to our judicial system and amend Oregon's constitution.

Oregonians deserve the most qualified, professional, and impartial judges – regardless of where they live.

But Constitutional Amendment 40 would make geography more important than experience, integrity, background and other qualifications.

Constitutional Amendment 40 turns judges into local politicians.

Legislators and Congress members are elected by districts to be political representatives of those districts. Judges are no one's political representatives. They must act as impartial interpreters of our state Constitution, and apply the law equally for the whole state.

The Medford Mail Tribune said it well when they editorialized:

"Electing Supreme Court justices and appellate judges by district would diminish the courts, which after all are supposed to represent the best legal minds in the state. If two of those great minds live in Medford – or Portland or Lakeview – only one would be eligible to serve. These are not positions selected to represent the provincial interests of a geographical corner of Oregon, but rather to represent the best interests of all Oregonians through a thorough understanding of the law." October 2, 2002

The judges of the Oregon Court of Appeals and Supreme Court decide cases for all Oregon citizens. They should be elected by all Oregon citizens.

Please vote NO on Constitutional Amendment 40.

Betty Roberts, Former Supreme Court Justice
Edwin J. Peterson
Former Supreme Court Justice Berkeley Lent
Hans Linde, Former Supreme Court Justice
Susan M. Leeson
Harl H. Haas, Retired Judge
Valerie J. Vollmar, Professor of Law
Susan F. Mandiberg, Professor of Law
Laird Kirkpatrick
William Funk, Professor of Law

(This information furnished by Charles S. Tauman, No on Constitutional Amendment 40 Committee.)


Argument in Opposition

Judges should be accountable to ALL Oregonians, regardless of where we live.

Right now, they are.

We should ALL have a voice – and a vote – in electing ALL of Oregon's Supreme Court and Appellate Judges.

Right now, we do.

But with Measure 40 We Won't.

With Measure 40, these judges' elections would change - permanently; and most of them won't be elected by you.

Measure 40 Cuts You Out.

Out of seven judges on Oregon's Supreme Court, you will only get to vote for one.

Often judges on Oregon's Court of Appeals you will only get to vote for two.

Measure 40 Brings More Politics and Partisanship into Our Judicial Elections

The legislature will be in charge of creating and "regularly" adjusting these new judicial districts.

Just like the partisan shenanigans we've seen in the creation of congressional and legislative districts, special interests will work to create custom-designed districts to get their candidates elected.

What kinds of court decisions will we get then?

Instead of sound, fact-based judgment, we'd be left with a judiciary that operates like the legislature, accountable to certain voters and special interests, instead of ALL Oregonians.

Measure 40 Has Been Rejected by Oregon Voters Before

Oregonians rejected a measure just like this in 2002. Now the same special interests, out-of-state corporations that don't want to be held accountable in Oregon's courts, are at it again – because they have something to gain.

These special interests want more control over Oregon's judges. And more control for them means less judicial accountability to the people and the Constitution.

Protect Your Right to Vote for ALL Judges.

Working families of the Oregon AFL-CIO urge you to Vote NO on Measure 40.

(This information furnished by Tom Chamberlain, President, Oregon AFL-CIO.)


Argument in Opposition

Address May Matter,
But Qualifications Matter More.

The Oregon Business Association
Urges your NO vote on Constitutional Amendment 40.

In business, nothing compares to the value of experience and true credentials.

Leading businesses succeed by hiring the best and the brightest. We would never unnecessarily limit candidates for an important position solely based on geography, when there are countless more important factors to consider – like work ethic, intelligence and integrity.

The same should hold true for our courts.

We must always elect the most qualified judges to serve on Oregon's Appeals and Supreme Court, regardless of where they are from.

Constitutional Amendment 40 would limit our ability to "hire" the most qualified judges in the state.

In our justice system, as in business, qualifications matter most.

Please join the Oregon Business Association in opposing Constitutional Amendment 40.

(This information furnished by Lynn Lundquist, President, Oregon Business Association.)


Argument in Opposition

Judges should be selected based on their merits,
not where they happen to live.

Vote NO on Constitutional Amendment 40.

(This information furnished by Charles S. Tauman, No on Constitutional Amendment 40 Committee.)


Argument in Opposition

"JUSTICE" FOR SALE OCCURS UNDER DE-FACTO ARTICLE VII (AMENDED) JUDGES

Measure 40 operates on the flawed assumption that Article VII (Amended) is lawfully part of the Oregon Constitution. Article VII (amended) is fatally flawed because it eliminates separation of powers. Under Article VII (Amended) the Legislative Assembly can arbitrarily change the Oregon Constitution without our vote. Additions to the flawed amendment are extensions of the government de-facto, that unlawfully replaces our State Government, and will also be void.

For additional details on supplanting (usurpation) see Legislative Counsels' notice appearing between the two articles designated as Article VII in the Oregon Constitution.

Why is this state's government uniquely corrupt? In 1878 Oregon's Supreme Court (staffed by Justices elected from districts), was unlawfully replaced. By 1906 Oregonians were, rebelling, using the remaining State Courts to complain. Article VII (Amended), eliminating all State Courts, appears on 1910-ballot; the voters rejected "it" - but fraud was used to alter Oregon's Constitution. Under de-facto Article VII (Amended) the Legislative Assembly now controls this state's judicial system, eliminating rule by law and constitutional government.

Recent cases question existence of Article VII (Amended). De-facto court's response: "In 1962 voters approved a change to Article VII (Amended)." "Thus, even if the adoption of Article VII (Amended) was originally flawed – that portion of it [approving in 1962 inferior legislative de-facto courts] is now firmly established." Quoting CAREY (Dec. 2005) A117696. That flawed decision violates federal guarantees that no "judge" shall decide he has a job, and sets a pattern; Article VII (Amended) de-facto judges will use a favorable vote on measure 40 to claim Article VII (Amended) de-facto courts now exists.

Federal Guarantees extend to assure no State will operate (as Oregon is) under government de-facto. We should not vote for this band-aid measure; we should at every opportunity question jurisdiction and work to return Oregon to a State in good standing under the United States Constitution.

(This information furnished by Curtis Hart.)

 

Oregon Secretary of State • 136 State Capitol • Salem, OR 97310-0722
© 2014 State of Oregon All Rights Reserved​