HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RULES AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS

 

March 11, 2003   Hearing Room E

1:00 PM  Tapes 21 - 22

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:            Rep. Dan Doyle, Chair

Rep. Linda Flores, Vice-Chair

Rep. Laurie Monnes Anderson, Vice Chair

Rep. Vic Backlund

Rep. Phil Barnhart

Rep. Betsy L. Close

Rep. Joanne Verger

 

STAFF PRESENT:                  Cara Filsinger, Administrator

Annetta Mullins, Committee Assistant

 

MEASURE/ISSUES HEARD:  HB 2144 – Public Hearing

HB 2142 – Public Hearing

HB 2141 – Public Hearing

 

 

These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules.  Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words.  For complete contents, please refer to the tapes.

 

TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

Tape 21, A

004

Chair Doyle

Calls meeting to order at 1:08 p.m. and opens a public hearing on HB 2144.

HB 2144 – PUBLIC HEARING

009

Bill Bradbury

Secretary of State.  Explains why he has introduced HB 2144.   Presents conceptual amendments to HB 2144 (EXHIBIT A).   

069

Bradbury

Continues explanation of the conceptual amendments (EXHIBIT A).

110

Rep. Verger

Comments on ballot measure requiring everyone in prison to have a job, and asks if there was knowledge that supervisors would be required for each group.

 

Bradbury

Comments that supervision of a work crew would be described as a logical cost of the measure.

 

Elizabeth Harchenko

Director, Department of Revenue.  Explains that Rep. Verger’s question is what the bill is intended to fix.  Explains restrictions on the committee in drafting impact statements.

148

Chair Doyle

Asks how the committee would deal with a situation to maintain neutrality.

 

Bradbury

Explains there may be a range of costs, depending on implementation, and the committee is limited to commenting on the direct costs; the committee cannot make assumptions. 

 

Harchenko

Explains that the amendments state that the statement must be impartial, simple and understandable.  Comments on ballot measure on genetically engineered foods in the 2002 General Election. 

265

Harchenko

Comments on Treasurer Edward’s support of HB 2144.

270

Chair Doyle

Closes the public hearing on HB 2144 and opens a public hearing on HB 2142.

HB 2142 – PUBLIC HEARING

288

John Lindback

Director, Elections Division, Secretary of State’s office.  Presents section-by-section analysis of HB 2141 (EXHIBIT B).

324

Lynn Rosik

Department of Justice.  Comments on ruling by the Oregon Supreme Court rulings that the Secretary of State has the obligation to determine if a proposed initiative measure complies with the procedural constitutional requirement of initiatives.  Explains that the legislature has not adopted language on the duties of the Secretary of State.  Comments on administrative rule adopted in 1986 and functions by the Secretary of State.  HB 2142 codifies the time to challenge the decision of the Secretary of State, pre-election.  States there are administrative rules and court cases but they feel it would be good have it in statute.

373

Chair Doyle

Asks what kind of timeframe they are looking at when there are appeals.

 

Rosik

States they are not seeking to change the timeframe.  Explains the process of reviewing titles. 

396

Rep. Barnhart

Asks when the 60-day period starts.

 

Rosik

Explains procedures of serving notice of decision.

Tape 22, A

013

Rep. Flores

Asks about the filing and appeal timeframes.

 

Rosik

Explains that an appeal can start on the 60th day.

019

Lindback

Continues review of HB 2142 (EXHIBIT B, page 1).

067

Lindback

Continues review of HB 2142 (EXHIBIT B, page 2).

086

Lindback

Presents review of (EXHIBIT B, pages 2 and 3).

102

Lindback

Explains Sections 12 through 17 (EXHIBIT B, pages 3 and 4).

122

Chair Doyle

Asks if they had discussions about judges being classified as other elected officials are classified.

 

Lindback

Responds they did not have discussions.  They recognize the different treatments but were not willing to suggest changes.

 

Rep. Monnes Anderson

Asks what happens if a candidate does not want to be considered independent.

130

Lindback

States that if the person is not nominated by a political party, they are considered to be independent.  Adds that the Elections Division has an administrative rule.

145

Rep. Close

Comments she has concerns about putting independent by a person name; it creates a party.

 

Lindback

Comments that the meaning of the word independent is that they are not affiliated with a political party.

 

 

 

 

Rep. Close

Comments that there is a big difference between non-partisan and independent.

162

Rep. Backlund

Comments he agrees with Rep. Close. 

 

Rosik

Comments on wording “not affiliated”.

178

Rep. Backlund

Asks if Rosik believes independent is a better word than not affiliated.

 

Lindback

Responds they have no attachment to the word independent and have no objection to non-affiliated.

200

Lindback

Explains Sections 19 and 20 (EXHIBIT B, page 4).

220

Chair Doyle

Asks why the language to be deleted in Section 20 was put in the statute.

 

Lindback

Comments that it is old and no one knows why it is there.

228

Lindback

Explains Sections 21 through 30 (EXHIBIT B, pages 4 and 5).

306

Rep. Barnhart

Asks if the provision on presidential elections is required by federal law.

 

Lindback

Responds he does not know of any federal law.

 

Rep. Barnhart

Asks if the votes for president by out-of-state people are sent to the state where the people reside.

 

Lindback

Explains they would check to make sure the people did not vote in another location, and they would be counted in Oregon’s total.

 

Barnhart

Comments on trading votes in different states.

321

Rep. Flores

Asks if they have statistics on how often Oregon allows presidential-only votes in Oregon.

 

Lindback

Responds that he will check with the county clerks to see if they have information.

340

Chair Doyle

Suggests it would be good to eliminate the language if it is not needed.

 

Lindback

Explains Section 31 (EXHIBIT B, page 6).

355

Rep. Flores

Comments that as a legislator she was required to report on January 1 but was not sworn until January 13, and asks why that is.

 

Rosik

Explains that the language in ORS 260.076 was pulled out of the old statute that banned contributions during legislative sessions.  Advises that banning contributions during the legislative session was declared unconstitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.  States that the desire was to transfer the ban on contributions into a reporting requirement. 

398

Rep. Flores

Comments that the Assembly did not convene on January 1.

 

Rosik

Reads language and states it is January 1 of the odd year when the time starts.

406

Rep. Close

Also expresses concern with the time from January 1 until the start of session.

 

Chair Doyle

Suggests the discussion will continue when the committee considers a bill on contribution and expenditure reports. 

441

Lindback

Explains Section 32 (EXHIBIT B, page 6).

 

TAPE 21, B

002

Rosik

Explains Sections 33 (EXHIBIT B, page 6).

026

Rep. Close

Asks if there is any proof of selling or purchasing of ballots.

 

Rosik

Responds there have been complaints where people have half-heartedly said their ballots are for sale but they have never prosecuted a case.  Explains that in Section 33 (8) they are consolidating statutes that included the various offenses. 

042

Rep. Monnes Anderson

Asks if the secrecy envelop is the envelope inside the mailing envelope.

 

Rosik

Responds it is the one that the elector signs.

047

Rep. Monnes Anderson

Comments on ballots being tossed onto the counter at the post office. 

 

Rosik

Responds that she has never heard of ballots being discarded.  Notes that if someone changes their mind and decided they want to vote, they may obtain a replacement ballot. 

058

Rep. Close

Notes that absentee ballots language is being deleted.  Asks if there are technically no absentee ballots.

 

Rosik

Explains that an absentee ballot goes out of state or out of the country; the new language covers everything.

043

Lindback

Explains Sections 34 through 37 (EXHIBIT B, page 7).

109

Chair Doyle

Asks why we would have non-partisan positions. 

 

Lindback

Responds that he believes the designation of non-partisan positions have an impact on the ballot.  Adds that this is a free-speech issue.

 

Rep. Close

Questions whether the repeal would say people are giving truthful information.

139

Rosik

Comments that this would allow a non-partisan candidate to say they have been with a certain party.

164

Rep. Close

Suggests an amendment to the non-partisan part instead of repeal of the statute.

 

Chair Doyle

Notes that on page 3 of HB 2142, (7) shows the non-partisan offices. 

174

Rep. Monnes Anderson

Asks if a non-partisan office candidate could include their major party in the Voters' Pamphlet.

 

Lindback

Responds that the Voters’ Pamphlet would not label the office as non-partisan.  States that the candidate can say they are a Republican or Democrat if they want in the summary; currently they cannot.

184

Rep. Barnhart

States he shares Rep. Close’s concerns.  States that he thinks the first sentence of ORS 249.015 seems to be appropriate even with the concerns about speech.  Suggests the second sentence would need to be reworked to apply only to false statements. 

 

Lindback

Clarifies Rep. Barnhart’s suggestion. 

 

Rep. Barnhart

Expresses his concern to get rid of the unenforceability and still prohibit false statements.

207

Rosik

Reviews Section 37 (EXHIBIT B, page 7).

252

Annette Newingham

Association of County Clerks.  States they are generally in support of HB 2142.  Comments on deletion in Section 20 and presidential limited ballots. 

288

Rep. Verger

Asks if many people know they can still vote in Oregon when they are in another state.

 

Newingham

Comments on interests in presidential elections. 

304

Rep. Verger

Asks if people might think they have to be a resident for a full year.

 

Newingham

Responds that she has not had this situation.  Comments on helping people and asking questions.  Believes people are also interested in voting on the local issues and they want to vote where they are actually living. 

322

Rep. Verger

Comments on residents in Central Oregon who are only there for part of the year, maybe a few months or for the summer. 

330

Rep. Close

Asks how many county clerks worked on this bill and if all the county clerks have signed off on the bill. .

 

Newingham

Explains that their association has reviewed portions of the bill and does not have objections to the bill.  Comments on involvement by their association.

390

Rep. Close

Comments she feels it is inappropriate for the bill to say it is at the request of the county clerks when they only voted on part of it.

 

Chair Doyle

Closes the public hearing on HB 2142, comments on testimony at the next meeting, and opens a public hearing on HB 2141.

TAPE 22, B

HB 2141 – PUBLIC HEARING

043

Annette Newingham

Association of County Clerks.  Testifies in support of HB 2141.  Comments their association has reviewed only a portion of HB 2141.  Explains Section 5 and Section 18.

053

Chair Doyle

Closes the public hearing on HB 2141 and announces that testimony will be continued on Thursday, along with HB 2929.

052

Chair Doyle

Adjourns meeting at 2:37 p.m.

 

 

EXHIBIT SUMMARY

 

A – HB 2144, conceptual amendments, Bill Bradbury, 1 p

B – HB 2142, section-by-section analysis, John Lindback, 8 pp