Oregon Ballot Measures 51, 52 & 53

PSJ is taking no position on these measures or any other ballot measure in the May election. Our focus right now is on defeating Mannix’s Mandatory Minimum Measure in November.

Background on 51 and 52: In 1999 two “victims’ rights” measures were passed by voters. They give victims of crime rights in criminal proceedings including enforceable rights to be present at hearings of the person accused of a crime. While generally victims’ are notified of these hearing, for example, and can choose to exercise their right to be present, if they are not notified they have no way of enforcing that right. Measure 51 and 52 allow victims to appeal to the courts to have their rights enforced.

We are taking no position on Measures 51 and 52 for several reasons:

1) We do not feel we have sufficient understanding of how these rights will be enforced (nor does anyone else we’ve talked to). These measures are written so broadly that the legislature needs to pass companion legislation in 2009 that define how these rights will be enforceable. The details of that legislation will prove whether the impact of these measures will be positive or problematic.

2) While we know the criminal justice system is often unfair to crime survivors, we are not sure this adequately addresses what crime survivors truly need from the system such as greater support services.

3) We are deeply concerned by the people who are backing these measures, most significantly Steve Doell and his organization Crime Victims United. CVU has a history of promoting regressive policy proposals, which makes us incredibly skeptical.

PSJ is taking no position on Measure 53, mostly because of the lack of time allowed for us to fully engage in a policy position process.

What Measure 53 would do: Measure 53 amends Oregon’s constitution to permit forfeiture of property without the conviction of a crime in certain cases such as if a defendant doesn’t show up for a court appearance. It also allows the forfeiture of animals without a criminal conviction. The amendment would also allow state and local governments to get a cut from the Department of Justice for state or local law enforcement participation in federal forfeiture. Federal law says the money should go directly to law enforcement which Oregon law currently doesn’t allow. The amendment shifts the burden of proof from the state to the property owner.

We do have concerns about 53. The state should not be able to take the property of someone who was not convicted of a crime. Measure 53 would permit that if it passes. There’s a potential for conflict of interest when law enforcement receives some of the money from the sale of forfeited items. Right now, the funds from forfeitures go to drug treatment programs.

For more information about these bills we suggest you go to ACLU-OR website and the League of Women Voters of Oregon.