Oregon's voters face an odd array of statewide ballot measures. Here's Isaac's take on two of them.
Measure 111 would add this sentence to the state constitution: "(1) It is the obligation of the state to ensure that every resident of Oregon has access to cost-effective, clinically appropriate and affordable health care as a fundamental right." The measure would also add a weakish qualifier: "(2) The obligation of the state described in [section 1] must be balanced against the public interest in funding public schools and other essential public services, and any remedy arising from an action brought against the state to enforce the provisions of this section may not interfere with the balance described in this section." The statement of financial impact states "The financial impact to state and local expenditure and revenue is indeterminate. The measure does not require additional state government revenues or expenditures. The impact of the measure will depend on future legislative action to establish additional health benefits and determine how they will be paid for." The legislative argument in support of Measure 111 states that the measure "protects state spending in other critical areas by requiring that health care spending be balanced with funding all other services the state provides, like schools and public safety. This measure also does not increase any taxes, and that is because it does not make any changes to current health programs or policies." Most of the published arguments in support likewise claim that the measure is a lofty aspirational statement, not a budgetary mandate.
The legislature got this one wrong, both in the drafting and in the argument. First, the drafting. Section 1 obligates the state to ensure that Oregonians have access to "cost-effective" and "affordable" health care, which implies that if an Oregonian cannot afford health care, the state is required to pay for the care. I don't object to national health care as a general policy (Western Europe has got on quite well with national health care) but the wording creates an unfunded mandate with no cap. The legislative statement in support misreads the measure because the measure does not allow the state to balance health care spending against "funding all other services the state provides," but only against "public schools and other essential public services."
I read the measure to prohibit Oregon from spending any money on anything other than public schools and "essential public services" until the state has provided affordable and accessible health care to every Oregonian. But what is an "essential public service"? Nowhere in Oregon law does the term appear. The state performs many desirable and frequently laudable functions, such as subsidizing public television and radio (ORS chapter 354), providing loans to veterans (chapter 407), administering wildlife laws and operating wildlife refuges (chapters 496 to 500), and regulating wages and hours (chapters 651 to 653). None of those functions can fairly be called an "essential public service" similar to education, highway maintenance, and law enforcement, however.
I see Measure 111 as inviting litigation over what the legislature can and cannot fund, and pitting the beneficiaries of some government programs against the beneficiaries of other government programs. I recommend voting NO on Measure 111.
Measure 112 is much more straightforward. In 1857 the framers of the Oregon constitution prohibited slavery in the state "otherwise than as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." The 13th Amendment to the United States constitution, adopted in 1865, used almost the same language: it prohibited slavery nationwide "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."
The only argument filed against Measure 112 is from a group of county sheriffs who oppose slavery and involuntary servitude, but believe that the measure, as worded, would force them to end in-prison work programs. I understand their concern; I believe that they are misreading the measure.
Oregon has not seriously tried to impose slavery as a punishment for crime, and the words that legislators chose in 1857 and 1865 are now outdated. It's time to remove "slavery" from the constitution. Isaac has voted YES on Measure 112.