|
It's not been a good week for those who are trying to build opposition to the tax fairness bills passed in the Leg last year and now referred to January's ballot. In two separate rulings at both the lowest and highest levels of Oregon's court system, teabagging plaintiffs who had sued for a change in the ballot titles were dealt strong rebukes--all but ensuring that the original (or even improved) titles will remain intact. Our friends at Yes For Oregon have the details on both. First, their statement on last week's OR Supremes ruling {google doc}, which not only rejected plaintiffs' arguments about the titles, but to my mind actually improved them in a way that is not only more accurate but a boon for M66/67 proponents: In short, the Court ruled today that the opponents challenge was without merit. The core of the argument made by the opponents -- -- Oregonians against job killing taxes -- -- was that voters should be made aware that the revenue from measures 66 and 67 will be spent to protect education, healthcare, and public safety.
The Court rejected that argument for both measures, changing only the phrase "maintains funds currently budgeted for education, healthcare, public safety, other services" to "provides funds currently budgeted for education, healthcare, public safety, other services."
The court also ordered a modification in the "Result of a No" statement on both measures. "Reduces funding currently budgeted for education, healthcare, public safety, other services by estimated $472 million" is now "leaves amount currently budgeted for education healthcare, public safety, other services underfunded by estimated $472 million."
The Vote Yes for Oregon coalition agrees that this language is a more clear and accurate way of describing to voters what's at stake in January. [emph orig]
As it appears the coalition believes, the change from "reduces funding" to "leaves underfunded" is not only closer to the real truth of the matter, it better highlights the consequence--UNDERFUNDING. Reducing funding is one thing, and can sound like a prudent savings, but nobody should think leaving something "underfunded" is a good thing. To put it another way, would you like your caloric intake reduced, or would you prefer to take in fewer calories than you need? And yesterday, a circuit court judge in Marion County refused to place an injunction on the ballot title process, essentially clearing the decks for moving forward on the matter. In the aftermath the coalition's Scott Moore had some snark to throw down: "The corporate lobbyists had spent weeks misrepresenting the ballot titles in the process, and the courts have now thrown out all of their arguments" says Scott Moore, spokesperson for the Vote Yes for Oregon Coalition. "It's too bad there isn't a process that also allows the Supreme Court to throw out their committee name -- -- Oregonians Against Job-Killing Taxes -- -- for misrepresenting the impact of the measures."
Moore has a valid point of course, but it's hard to avoid the sense that they're gloating a little bit over the epic fail of the plaintiffs. That's usually how these kinds of things go when one side really doesn't have much of a leg to stand on, but throws whatever it can at the wall anyway. So I don't blame 'em for letting a little giddiness slip. Feeling legalo-wonky? The two OSC decisions are readable in their entirety here {pdf}, and also here {pdf}(there were two rulings, one for each Measure.) The Marion County decision can be found in this Google Doc.
|
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
