Latest news with #HJR3
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The weighted vote — or veto
Pronghorn antelope roam near Rome in eastern Oregon. Two proposed constitutional amendments before the Legislature would give rural residents more power to determine which initiatives make the ballot. (Photo by Laura Tesler/Oregon Capital Chronicle) The premise behind two constitutional amendments proposed by Republican lawmakers is that it's too easy to place an initiative on the ballot in Oregon. Buried inside that premise is that idea that some Oregonians' clout in the initiative process should count more than for others. Both House Joint Resolution 3 and HJR 11 aim to change the number of petition signatures needed for initiative backers to win a spot on the ballot. Now, Oregonians who want to pass laws at the ballot need to gather valid signatures from 6% of the total number of votes cast for governor during the last gubernatorial election — just more than 88,000 signatures. The threshold for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments is higher at 8%, or nearly 118,000 signatures. HJR 11 would raise the initiative requirement from 6% to 8% — increasing the requirement by a third — and require the signatures be 'divided equally' among Oregon's six congressional districts. For citizen-proposed constitutional amendments, the requirement would rise from 8% to 10%. HJR 3 would require initiative backers to collect signatures from 6% of voters in each of Oregon's 36 counties — an even more difficult mark to reach in a politically polarized state. A March 10 hearing on both measures showed widespread opposition and, at the Legislature at least, limited support. HJR 11 drew 104 testimony submissions, with just 24 in support (and two neutral). For HJR 3, 78 witnesses submitted testimony — all in opposition. The level of criticism shouldn't surprise, given Oregon's historical background with ballot issues. Oregon was one of the first states to adopt the idea of developing legislation or constitution changes directly to the public. Throughout the state's history, voters have decided 881 ballot issues (almost a quarter of them related to taxes), but reaching the ballot has been no guarantor of passage. Fewer than half (411) of the measures won voter approval, which has evidently given no one a slam dunk at the polls. The argument that it's too easy to place an issue on the ballot might have some currency if the number of initiatives on the ballot has been exploding. But it hasn't: In fact, the number continues to fall. After a large number of initiatives presented shortly after the method was started, the number of initiatives slumped in the mid-20th century, then grew in its latter third, to 92 ballot issues in the 1970s, 73 in the 1980s and 105 in the 1990s. Then, in this century, the number has fallen steadily, from 86 in the 2000s, to 39 in the 2010s and just 13 so far in this decade. Besides that, significant numbers of ballot issue campaigns fall short of the ballot qualification even under current rules. The stronger support for these new resolutions — at least to judge from the amount of supportive testimony received — seems not to be for raising the overall petition signature level, but rather ensuring that every county provides significant support for it. Sen. Todd Nash, R-Enterprise, argued for example: 'This should be more representative from all of Oregon to gather those signatures. Right now, we're not seeing that shape up that way. It's coming from one concentrated area.' Eastern Oregon rancher Katie Baltzor said many ballot initiatives, 'are crafted by extreme groups that have a specific agenda that would be harmful to specific livelihoods, such as ours. Many conservative and moderate Eastern Oregonians feel they do not have a voice in the legislative or initiative process. It is too easy for these groups to gather all the signatures they need for a ballot initiative by going to a highly populated area.' Some of this ties into the Greater Idaho protest, or the idea that eastern Oregonians aren't being adequately heard in Salem — and there's a good argument that they sometimes aren't. In Idaho, because of legislative action, rural votes do count more because of per-county signature requirements, which have reduced the number of initiatives that hit the ballot. That, of course, has come at the expense of urban and suburban dwellers. The core problem the Oregon initiative limitation backers have is simply the large number of people in the more urban and suburban areas, mostly in the Willamette Valley: They're outvoted. The only way around that is to weigh some votes (or petition signatures) more heavily than others. Dan Meek of the Independent Party of Oregon offered an analogy: 'If HJR 11 is a good idea, then let's apply it to votes in the Oregon Legislature: In order to pass, a bill must be approved by members of the Legislature representing every CD. If the 10 state representatives and 5 state senators who represent districts within any of the 6 CDs do not provide majority votes in favor of a bill, then the bill fails. Thus, representatives and senators within each CD get to veto every bill. That is equivalent to the system proposed by HJR 11.' People cast votes, and make other decisions in state politics. Land acreage doesn't. Most likely, the Oregon Legislature will factor in those directions when it comes to these two resolutions. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
04-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Green amendment gets grilled, but moves forward
Maya van Rossum is the founder of the nonprofit Green Amendments for the Generation and author of The Green Amendment: The People's Fight for a Clean, Safe, and Healthy Environment. She is working to pass Green Amendments in New Mexico and across the country. (Courtesy photo) A proposed so-called 'Green Amendment' to enshrine a right to 'clean and healthy air, water, soil and environment' in the New Mexico Constitution moved through its first committee Monday, but not without bipartisan questioning signaling a possible uphill battle. The committee voted 6-3 along party lines to approve the bill, but as a 'no recommendation' vote, which means the committee will neither endorse nor oppose the bill, which heads to the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee. House Joint Resolution 3, sponsored by Sen. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez (D-Albuquerque) and Democratic Reps. Joanne Ferrary of Las Cruces, Patricia Roybal Caballero of Albuquerque and Farmington's Joseph Franklin Hernadez, if passed, would place a constitutional amendment on the next general election ballot. HJR3 would allow New Mexico voters, in turn, to adopt additional language for the state's constitution and add rights to 'to clean and healthy air, water, soil and environments; healthy native flora, fauna and ecosystems; a safe climate; and the preservation of the natural, cultural, scenic and healthful qualities of the environment.' Maya van Rossum, an environmental lawyer and author who has pressed for green amendments in other states, as well as in New Mexico previously, said the amendment would put environmental rights on 'equal footing' with civil rights and property rights. With the federal government poised to roll back environmental standards, HJR3, if passed by the Legislature and then adopted by voters, would provide the state more control, said Cliff Villa, a University of New Mexico environmental law professor and senior climate policy advisor. 'The New Mexico Green Amendment does not depend on the federal government to protect our health and environment,' Villa told the committee, ' it allows New Mexicans to protect New Mexicans and exercise existing authorities across our state government.' Public comment supporting the bill came from representatives in environmental nonprofits, church groups, teachers and Democratic party members from across the state. As in years past, critics expressed concern that a Green Amendment could thwart developments, and put the state at risk for increased financial liability from litigation. Opposition speaking on Monday included lobbyists for the New Mexico Chamber of Commerce and realtor groups, the Cattle Growers Association – which often oppose environmental bills – as well as several clean energy companies. Both Pattern Energy, a wind, solar and transmission construction company – which is constructing the controversial SunZia transmission line – and Interwest Energy Alliance, which promotes wind and solar in the intermountain west, spoke against the bill, saying the groups are concerned the amendment could be used to block development of renewable energy projects. 'The language in the proposal is so broad, neither government-decision makers nor private developers can accurately guess what it requires, leading to incredible inefficiencies, uncertainty and legal risk in the context of renewable energy development,' said Deborah Condit, a lobbyist for Interwest Energy Alliance. The advocates tried to counter concerns about renewable energy projects, noting that nuisance laws, not green amendments, had been used in some of the examples critics cited. 'We have to acknowledge that clean energy projects are already being challenged under a wide variety of theories,' van Rossum told the committee. 'But with the passage of HJR3, as long as government fulfills their duty to fully assess and minimize environmental impacts, government and proponents of clean energy projects would be better prepared to avoid and defend against community concerns.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE Lawmakers asked about the potential for higher liability costs or increases in lawsuits against state or local governments should the constitutional amendment be adopted. Sedillo Lopez countered by saying the amendment 'is not a way for people to get monetary damages, it's a way for people to ensure that the state of New Mexico protects our air, land and water.' Rep. Cynthia Borrego (D-Albuquerque) voted to pass the bill, but said there may need to be further amending to assuage renewable energy industry concerns. 'I think there are significant questions in my mind still regarding local agencies, state agencies, and the questions they've raised,' she told the sponsors. 'I think those questions need to be answered, and hopefully will be, in the next committee.' A similar version of the amendment has been introduced for the past five years, but has never made it beyond committees on either side of the Roundhouse. If passed by New Mexico voters, the state would join Montana, New York and Pennsylvania as the fourth to have a Green Amendment. Debate and comments over the bill stretched the hearing to the full two hours, meaning the rest of the committee's agenda – which included expanding felony voting rights and installing a climate health program – got bumped to Wednesday's meeting. With a slew of bills assigned to the remaining agendas, the committee's chair, Rep. D. Wonda Johnson (D-Rehoboth) warned the committee may have to meet over the weekend. van Rossum, in a call with Source NM Monday, said she was satisfied with the committee outcome, given that the ultimate goal is to place the proposal before voters. She also said that the Green Amendment has not been used to stop any clean energy projects, calling statements otherwise a 'scare tactic.' 'Really what's happening here is there really is a misrepresentation of what are the impacts or the implications of the New Mexico Green Amendment, particularly we hear a lot about advancing clean energy,' she said. 'It's really a line of misinformation that's being used to…dissuade people from being in support based on false claims.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
