I’ve read through the Voter’s Guide and made my decisions, now that the drop boxes are closed, I’ll make them public (along with my reasoning) for all to see. Voting is supposed to be a private matter, but I really don’t care if people know - I’m proud of my choices.
State Measures:
39: YES - On the surface, this measure looks like an obvious yes. After what happened in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, I am very much inclined to vote for it. On the other hand, the opposition makes a good point that it will cost up to $30 million a year, with a good chunk of that being lawyers fees. The economic development aspect makes sense, but I’m really not sure that I like the idea to begin with. In the end, I’ll make this a reluctant yes.
40: YES - I most certainly understand what the opposition means when they say that electing judges by district will lead to different interpretations, but I think that it is a good thing. Judges are supposed to be non-partisan, but we all know that they lean one way or another. It seems to me that in selecting judges by district, the more rural and conservative parts of the state will have more of a say in how our laws are interpreted. If we can???t pull every bit of politics out of the courts, we should at least balance it. Besides, if it worked so well for years, it should work just as well now.
41: NO - I’m all for lower taxes, I’m all for smaller government, what I’m not for is a huge cut in school funding. This measure could take as much as $337 million from the schools. In Beaverton the amount would be about $21.22 million. I just can’t do that. In Beaverton we have the best public schools in the state, and we’re still hugely overcrowded. My school has just over 2600 students and was built (rather, upgraded for) only 2100. Until we get some real reform in the way the school system is run, schools need every penny they can get. Cut the waste, and then we can cut the taxes
42: No - This is silly, if you ask me. I’m not sure just how good an indicator of likely payouts a credit rating is, but I’m sure there is some sort of correlation. People who are irresponsible with money are probably more likely to have other accidents as well. I just can justify raising rates for responsible people.
43: YES - I can’t see why one wouldn’t support this measure. It does nothing to restrict the availability of abortions, it does not require parental permission, it simply requires parental notification before girl makes one of the most difficult decisions of her life. I understand that some girly come from abusive families, but it seems that the judicial overrides will work just fine.
44: YES - For a measure with no arguments in opposition, it would be hard to vote any other way. It costs the state nothing and will help tens of thousands of Oregonians without insurance get he medications they need.
45: YES - This is a tough one; I see valid points and good arguments on both sides. I very much dislike that some lawmakers seem to do nothing and keep getting re-elected, but at the same time there are many good, multi-term legislators. In the end, new voices win out in my mind.
46: YES - I agree that campaign finance reform is a good idea. Although I think that the legislature should come up with a plan that makes sense (unlike Measure 47) and then send it to the voters, this measure has very high requirement of 75% of both houses. It is the high requirement that makes me feel this is OK.
47: NO - While the idea of restricting campaign financing and spending makes - at least for candidates - some sense, all of the tedious rules and regulations in this measure (it is almost nine full pages in the Voter’s Guide) seem like overkill. I should be able to donate to Political Parties and PAC type organizations without restriction, and it is overkill to require major donor names and businesses in ads. I especially dislike the need for a special number if you donate more than $500 a year. This measure is simply insane.
48: NO - Again, this may come as a bit of a surprise, but I can’t bring myself to vote for this. Our state is growing, but not at an even rate. The Beaverton School District is the fastest growing district in the state and I simply can’t justify cutting millions from school funding. Cutting taxes is one thing, but limiting the spending of existing tax revenue makes no sense to me.
Candidates:
US Representative (District 1): Derrick Kitts - Yes, I’m mostly voting down party lines, but he seems like a good candidate. David Wu’s had his turn, now it’s time for a change.
Governor: Ron Saxton - Again, a somewhat partisan decision, but I’m not much of a fan of our current governor. Besides that, the Oregonian (a fairly liberal paper) endorsed Saxton over the incumbent Democrat Ted Kulongoski - something they very rarely do. I just hope that Mary Starrett doesn’t spoil it.
State Senate (District 17): Piotr Kuklinski - I do like Brad Avakian, but I felt that partisanship was the way to go. Regardless, I’m pretty sure that Avakian will win.
State House (District 34): Joan Draper - I don’t really know much about either of the candidates, but she seems to have a good platform and ideas.
State Supreme Court (Position 6): Jack Roberts - He seems to have good experience and a positive stance on judicial fairness.
State Court of Appeals (Position 9): Ellen F. Rosenblum - unopposed and I don’t know of a good write-in.
Circuit Court (District 20): Charlie Bailey - He seems to have a good background and a slate of endorsements from actual people, not just newspapers.
County Commissioner (Distinct 2): Desari Caldwell - She is running unopposed and seems to be a decent candidate.
METRO (District 4): Kathryn Harrington - She is endorsed by the major local papers and I like her background and previous experience a bit more than Cox.
Local Measures:
34-126: YES - Libraries are an important asset to the community. It seems that $33 a year for the average home is a small price to pay.
34-127: YES - Public safety is perhaps the number one responsibility of government; $81 dollars is nothing for these services.
26-80: YES - Oregon is renowned for its wilderness and conservation; it seems that some more money for wildlife and wetlands won’t hurt.
34-139: YES - This is a no brainier. If you’ve been in a Beaverton area high school in the last few years it is clear how important this is. We desperately need a new school and expansions of existing ones. Either pass this bond or put a moratorium on the construction of new homes in the greater Beaverton area.
34-133: YES - Fire and Rescue is just as important to public safety and well being as police are. To not pass this would be stupid.