Showing posts with label ballot measures. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ballot measures. Show all posts

Thursday, March 1, 2018

New ballot bids on taxes and PERS (Measures 31 & 32)

Ballot Measures 31 and 32 were unveiled in the Bend Bulletin Wednesday by John Davis, a former Republican House member from suburban Portland and a Portland-based partner of Lynch Conger McLane, which has its main office in Bend. Other partners include current House Republican leader Mike McLane and former Republican state House member Jason Conger.
Learn more at Bend Bulletin
Read More......

Friday, February 28, 2014

House OKs rewrite of driver’s license ballot title

SALEM (AP) — The Oregon House voted Thursday to rewrite the ballot title for a referendum to restore driving privileges for people who can’t prove they’re legally in the United States, taking the rare step of throwing out language written by the attorney general. Ballot titles are intended to provide a brief, neutral description of a measure. They’re regarded as crucial information for swing voters or those who haven’t done homework on an issue.
  • The attorney general’s ballot title says the measure “provides Oregon resident ‘driver card’ without requiring proof of legal presence in the United States.”
  • The Legislature’s ballot title say the measure “establishes limited purpose, duration driver card for individuals who prove Oregon residency, meet driving requirements.”
Read more at Hearald And News
Oregon Legislators hoodwinking the low information voter! --bc

UPDATE:  Good job people! This rewrite was so bad-- and the people put up such a fuss-- that the Senate did not pass the House's misleading title change! Read More......

Friday, May 7, 2010

Re: Ballot Measures 68 and 69

LETTER SUBMITTED TO THE GAZETTE-TIMES (Has not been published, yet), 5/7/2010 by John Detweiler, Treasurer, Benton County Republicans - We need to read the sections on measures 68 and 69 in the May election voter pamphlet carefully. The "estimate of financial impact" for both measures says, "There is no financial effect on either state or local government expenditures or revenues." The text of measure 68 -- page 37 of the voter pamphlet -- Article X I-P Section 2 tells us that the money to repay these bonds may come from the general fund including taxes levied to pay the bonds. The text of measure 69 -- page 44 of the voter pamphlet -- Paragraph 1, the second section 1 (3) tells us that an amount of money matching the debt incurred by the borrowing institution may be appropriated from the general fund if specifically designated by the Legislative Assembly.

We have enough trouble allocating our sinusoidal general fund. In up years we start new programs that cannot be sustained and wring our hands in the down years as we cut these programs. If enacting these measures results in more bonds being issued, the payments may compete with other things funded by the general fund. Read More......

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Have you voted yet?

If you haven't gotten your ballot in for the January 26th Special Election on Ballot Measures 66 & 67, the Benton County Republicans strongly recommend that you do so with a "NO" vote on both measures. Read More......

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Letter: Wake up and look at facts about M66 and 67 tax increases

CORVALLIS GAZETTE-TIMES/LETTERS, 1/15/2010 by Lou Copes - Economists have estimated these permanent tax increases would cost 70,000 Oregonians their jobs and the only jobs higher taxes would save are public employee jobs. ∴ The tax increases would be retroactive to Jan. 1, 2009, and no money to cover this tax increase has been with held from Oregonians' paychecks during all of 2009. ∴ Small businesses would be forced to lay off their workers, reduce wages and benefits, or close their doors. ∴ We should not send more money to Salem until state government can get its spending under control. ∴ The state already had $1 billion in extra cash reserves to spend with out enacting $733 million in tax increases. ∴ The Legislature refused to listen. Voters have rejected income tax increases twice before, but the legislature keeps coming back for more. NO MEANS NO!

Lou Copes
Corvallis

Good letter Lou, thanks for submitting it. --bc Read More......