TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

TAPE 48, A

003

Chair Kitts

Calls the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. due to delayed floor session.

009

Chair Kitts

Opens a work session on HJR 7.

HJR 7 – WORK SESSION

Cletus Moore

Committee Administrator.   Reads summary of HJR 7.

014

Chair Kitts

Comments that the $1.3 million fiscal impact on the original measure was for a special election and the amendments take out the special election. 

018

Rep. Lim

HD 50.  Comments that this is a priority bill for him.  It creates the position of lieutenant governor and is a referral of the constitutional change to the people.

Bobby Leach

Staff to Rep. Lim.  Reports that he has worked with Legislative Counsel to draft amendments.  Explains the HJR 7-1 amendments (EXHIBIT A).

040

Rep. March

Comments that certain sections of the -1 amendments become operative at different dates.  Asks if the other bill will be amended to move the election to the primary election date.

Leach

Explains the purpose of the other measure was to enable the special election; they are now proposing there will not be a special election.  The other bill is no longer needed. 

052

Rep. March

States he is supportive of the measure but wants to make sure we do it right but doesn’t see anything in the amendments about the primary.  Suggests Legislative Counsel clarify that it includes the primary.

Leach

Refers to the primary election language on page 2 of the -1 amendments. 

Rep. March

Concludes there would be an election at the next primary election.  States there would an election in the general election if approved in the primary election. 

065

Rep. Dalto

Asks if Rep. Lim gave any consideration to staggering the terms of the election of the governor and lieutenant governor.

072

Rep. Lim

Responds that no other state has election at a different time.

094

Rep. Dalto

MOTION:  Moves to ADOPT HJR 7-1 amendments dated 4/27/05.

VOTE:  6-0-1

EXCUSED:  1 - Rep. Farr

Chair Kitts

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

098

Rep. Dalto

MOTION:  Moves HJR 7 be sent to the floor with a BE ADOPTED AS AMENDED recommendation.

VOTE:  6-0-1

AYE:            In a roll call vote, all members present vote Aye.

EXCUSED:  1 - Rep. Farr

Chair Kitts

The motion CARRIES.

REP. LIM will carry the measure on the floor.

112

Chair Kitts

Closes the work session on HJR 7 and announces that the committee will move HJR 39 to the agenda for Tuesday.

112

Chair Kitts

Opens a work session on HB 2167.

HB 2167 – WORK SESSION

Cletus Moore

Committee Administrator.  Reads the summary of HB 2167 and explains the HB 2167-2 amendments (EXHIBIT B).

Chair Kitts

Comments there were questions at the hearing on this bill and asks John Lindback to respond to questions raised by the committee.

141

John Lindback

Director of Elections, Secretary of State’s Office (SOS).  Introduces Tammy Detweiler and explains that she will explain the amendments. 

Tammy Detweiler

Elections Division, (SOS).  Explains the HB 2167-2 amendments change the deadline for a certificate of limited contributions and expenditures to coincide with the deadline for the first pre-election report, which is filed in lieu of filing the detailed reports and should be filed by the same deadline.  States this was a drafting oversight a couple of years ago when the first pre-election deadline was pushed back by a week.  The -2 amendments also add ORS 260.159, which is the requirement for electronic filing of campaign finance reports, to the range of 260.035 to 260.l56.  States the statutory range is referenced in various places throughout chapter 260 when it is talking about duties and responsibilities of a treasurer; 260.159 should be a part of that range.

161

Lindback

Reminds the committee this is SOS’s housekeeping bill.

189

Rep. March

MOTION:  Moves to ADOPT HB 2167-2 amendments dated 2/15/05.

VOTE:  6-0-1

EXCUSED:  1 - Rep. Farr

Chair Kitts

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

193

Rep. March

MOTION:  Moves HB 2167 to the floor with a DO PASS AS AMENDED recommendation.

195

VOTE:  6-0-1

AYE:            In a roll call vote, all members present vote Aye.

EXCUSED:  1 - Rep. Farr

Chair Kitts

The motion CARRIES.

REP. KITTS will lead discussion on the floor.

198

Chair Kitts

Closes the work session on HB 2167 and opens a public hearing on HB 3021.

HB 3021 – PUBLIC HEARING

Cletus Moore

Committee Administrator.  Reads summary of HB 3021 and notes the measure has a subsequent referral to the Committee on State and Federal Affairs.

210

Annette Newingham

Association of County Clerks.  States their association is neutral on the bill.  States one question they have is on the general election.  If this were to occur, their understanding is that you would have a candidate name that could easily have Democrat and Republican for the party position on the ballot.  States they are concern about confusion by the public and they would receive calls from people thinking their office had made a mistake.    

230

Richard Burke

Executive Director, Libertarian Party of Oregon.  Testifies in support of HB 3021.  Comments it is possible that a person could receive the Democratic and Republican nominations.  There have been candidates in Oregon that received both nominations.  This bill gives everyone more options. 

260

Chair Kitts

Asks if the Libertarian Party would have an opportunity to nominate their own candidate if a person receives the nomination by the Republican and Libertarian parties,

Burke

States that under current law they can hold as many nominating conventions as they like up until the deadline.  States if someone wanted to receive the Libertarian nomination in the primary, that person would have to stage a write-in campaign, which is the way Republicans and Democrats get the endorsement of another party.  On lines 9-12 on page 2 of HB 3021, it says the political parties selected by the candidate shall be added opposite the name of the candidate.  Candidates have the ability to say no, thank you, but if they want it, they have it. 

Chair Kitts

Asks if there is a limit to the number of party endorsements that a candidate can have. 

Burke

Responds there is no limit.  Comments that in New York there have been candidates that are listed with five or six party endorsements.  It is not typical. 

292

Rep. Dalto

Asks why Oregon does not allow minor parties of a certain size, such as the Libertarian Party, to appear on the primary election ballot.

Burke

Responds that the current law places an extremely high barrier for the ability to hold primary elections, and another bill this session addresses that problem. 

338

Chair Kitts

Closes the public hearing and opens a work session on HB 3021.

HB 3021 – WORK SESSION

345

Rep. Thatcher

MOTION:  Moves HB 3021 to the floor with a DO PASS recommendation and BE REFERRED to the committee on State and Federal Affairs by prior reference.

352

Rep. Dalto

Asks what the purpose is of moving the bill to State and Federal Affairs.

Chair Kitts

Responds that it has a prior referral by the Speaker.

355

VOTE:  6-0-1

AYE:            In a roll call vote, all members present vote Aye.

EXCUSED:  1 - Rep. Farr

Chair Kitts

The motion CARRIES.

331

Chair Kitts

Closes the work session on HB 3021 and opens a work session on HB 3090.

HB 3090 – WORK SESSION

345

Cletus Moore

Committee Administrator.  Reads summary of HB 3090 and advises that the committee has the -2 (EXHIBIT C), -3 (EXHIBIT D), -4 (EXHIBIT E), and -5 (EXHIBIT F) amendments.

407

Rep. Thatcher

Explains that the -5 amendments (EXHIBIT F) are a combination of a portion of the -3 amendments, which were changed from the -2 amendments, and the -4 amendments. 

389

Rep. Jerry Krummel

HD 26.  Explains that it is a matter of choosing the -4 or -5 amendments.  The -5 seem to have most of the -4 language.  States they want to supersede the -2 amendments with either the -4 or -5 amendments.  States they talked to Ted Reutlinger, Legislative Counsel, about tightening “gatherings”.  Does not believe the language in the -4 amendments do that.  Believes if the gathering language is removed, the legislature will be back in two years talking about whether to add the language in because some group will have had a party and someone else accused them of having an illegal drop site.  By the way it is crafted in the -4 amendments, it solves the problem.  The -5 amendments seem to have everything else. 

439

Rep. Greenlick

Explains that Section 6 in the -5 amendments is missing the language from the -4 amendments that says, “This subsection does not prohibit the collection of ballots at a gathering at which a place of deposit for ballots is not otherwise provided and where the collection of ballots is incidental to the purpose of the gathering.”

TAPE 49, A

007

Rep. Thatcher

Asks that the committee discuss the other parts of the -4 amendments that are changed from the -2 amendments.  States some concerns were raised at the last meeting by the county clerks as it relates to Section 6 (4) about the places of deposit that need to be maintained for a certain size electorate.  The concern was that if one city in the county was having an election they did not want to maintain a place of deposit all over the county.  The language has been changed in the -4 amendments.  The -4 amendments include new language in Section 6(4)(b), “…electors in the county are eligible to vote,…” 

031

Rep. Thatcher

Explains that another change, at the request of the League of Women Voters, to the -4 amendments from the -2 amendments is in Section 8 (3) beginning on page 3 relating to people who are observers.  It clarifies that the training gets scheduled prior to an election and the person is not required to receive training more than once a year. 

Rep. Thatcher

Also explains that Section 9(3) of the -4 amendments clarifies the issue that when there is a recount and extra ballots are found.  This provides an avenue for those found ballots to be counted but takes it out of the purview of the county clerk and puts it in the court. 

039

Rep. Krummel

Explains that Section 11 of the -4 amendments makes sure the court would understand that in the case of a mistake in the nomination of a person, there is a mechanism for fixing it.  Asks that Ted Reutlinger explain the amendments.

047

Ted Reutlinger

Legislative Counsel.  Explains the amendment to Section 11 of the -4 amendments is designed to clarify the election contest statute to apply in a case where ballots were not counted by mistake.  That would be a valid reason for anybody to file a contest of election in circuit court.  The amendment is designed to tell the court that if ballots are not counted by mistake, the court can only overturn the result of the election if the total number of ballots that were not counted, if added to the second place finisher’s total would exceed the number of votes that the winner got.  If someone won by 1,000 votes and the county clerk failed to count 800 votes by mistake, there would be no way, even if all the 800 votes went to the second place finisher that that person could win the election.  The court would not be able to overturn the result in that case.  It is intended to apply only in the case where there has been a mistake in the canvass of the votes. 

073

Rep. Krummel

Asks that Reutlinger explain the amendment on gatherings. 

Reutlinger

Explains that the language in the -4 amendments, with respect to “gathering”, creates an exemption for gatherings where people might be collecting ballots.  It sets two specific limits on that.  It has to be a gathering where a drop site has not been set up, and the collection of ballots has to be incidental to the purpose of the gathering.  This is designed to cover informal situations where people are getting together and if they happen to have their ballots, they can deposit them.  The bill is intended to address drop site situations where people have set up specific sites for the express purpose of collecting ballots.  The gathering language is designed to carve out a small exception to the rule.

084

Rep. March

Ask if this would prohibit his volunteers from going out on election day to people who have called his office to pick up ballots.

Reutlinger

Responds he does not think so because this bill prohibits the establishment of places of deposit for ballots. 

094

Rep. Greenlick

States that the “gathering” bothers him.  Asks if this would prohibit them from having a sign that says unofficial ballot box at their weekly union meeting. 

Reutlinger

Responds he thinks that would be allowed under the language because the collection of ballots would be incidental to the general purpose of the regularly scheduled meeting.  Secondly, it is not a place that has been established for the deposit of ballots by the general public. 

120

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if the language says that.

Reutlinger

Responds that it says it does not prohibit the collection of ballots at a gathering at which a place of deposit for ballots is not otherwise provided.  That language is intended to apply to the general establishment of a place of deposit that members of the public could come and place their ballots.

126

Chair Kitts

Asks if Rep. Greenlick wishes to prohibit such actions.  States he would be open to a conceptual amendment.

Rep. Greenlick

Responds no.  States that the -5 amendments are exactly the -4 amendments with the three and one-half lines about gathering places.  Thinks the gathering language is a terrible exemption.

143

Rep. Thatcher

Comments that they want to avoid a “counterfeit drop site”.  A drop site may have all the appearances of a drop site but is not an official drop site.   It is pretty clear that a drop site at a union meeting is not an official drop site.  When someone is sitting on campus with a drop box that looks like an official drop site it is misleading. 

142

Rep. Greenlick

Comments that any class at a college is a gathering and they could be announcing that they have an unofficial drop site at every class.  States it seems to something that we don’t want to happen. 

Rep. Krummel

States if they are setting up an official drop site, they are in violation whether the gathering language is there or not.  States they are not removing from the bill the part that removes the language altogether about the unofficial drop sites.  Reads the language printed HB 3090, page 4, lines 4 through 6 that is being deleted from the statute.  States they are adding a provision to make it a criminal offense to set up an unofficial drop site.  States he would not go to any function and drop his ballot off. 

Rep. Krummel

States if it is the wish of the committee to adopt the -5 amendments, the clerks’ issues are taken care of and the amendments also address the issue of ballot security, and recounts. 

191

Rep. Dalto

Comments there are a lot of issues on this bill and is not sure the committee is prepared to move the bill forward at this time.  States he would like to take the weekend to review the amendments. 

Chair Kitts

Asks the committee to stand at ease at 2:26 p.m.

212

Chair Kitts

Reconvenes the meeting at 2:37 p.m. and  asks Reutlinger to speak to the enforcement issue. 

Reutlinger

Explains that Section 6(1) prohibits establishing a place of deposit by someone who is not an elections official.  If there is no kind of exception for gatherings, it seems there will be a question in cases where people in their homes have invited people over to collect ballots, to have a party.  Believes if there is an exception for gatherings or not, there will still be enforcement issues that arise on a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not something is a ballot drop site, or if you have the exception in addition whether it is a gathering that fits into the exemption.  In either case the SOS that is charged with enforcing election laws, if they receive  a complaint about this section, would have to determine whether or not the specific facts of the case fit within the prohibition or exception.

248

Chair Kitts

Asks Reutlinger if either the -4 or -5 amendments are legally thorough.

Reutlinger

Responds he cannot answer that; it is a policy decision, not a legal decision.

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if there is a definition of a gathering in the statute.

261

Reutlinger

Responds there is no definition.  However, in chapter 260, there is a reference to a gathering.  It is in the statute that prohibits candidates from giving people things of value—the undue influence statute.  There is an exception that says it is okay for candidates to give refreshments, beverages, etc. that are incidental to a gathering.  That exemption is discussed in the Campaign Finance Manual.  SOS may not have experience in enforcing the law with “gathering” in it.

Chair Kitts

Asks Lindback to speak to the difference between the -4 and -5 amendments and the enforcement by the SOS.

304

Lindback

States there are a lot of election laws that do not have bright lines which they like for enforcement purposes.  States if they get a complaint, they would have to reconstruct what happened.  If there is no bright line, it is often difficult to make a determination whether there was a violation of election law.

334

Chair Kitts

Asks which amendment has the brighter line.

Lindback

Responds that if the committee wants to cast a bright line, just say no unofficial drop sites.  States they will do the best they can if the line is not so bright.  Questions whether the line is really bright in either the -4 or -5 amendments. 

332

Rep. Greenlick

Comments he does not see how the line could be any brighter than the -5 amendments that say, “… a person except an election official may not establish a place of deposit for ballots.”

Lindback

Apologizes and states he mischaracterized the -5 amendments.

390

Rep. Dalto

MOTION:  Moves to ADOPT HB 3090-5 amendments dated 4/28/05 and that the -5 amendments supersedes prior amendments to this bill.

VOTE:  6-0-1

AYE:            In a roll call vote, all members present vote Aye.

EXCUSED:  1 - Rep. Farr

Chair Kitts

The motion CARRIES.

413

Rep. Greenlick

MOTION:  Moves HB 3090 to the floor with a DO PASS AS AMENDED recommendation.

420

Rep. March

Comments he thinks this bill will go a long way to fix the election system that is not broken, and he will be a no vote just to prove that every bill coming out of this committee does not have to come out on a unanimous vote.

436

Chair Kitts

Thanks Rep. Krummel and Rep. Thatcher, the Secretary of State’s office and Ted Reutlinger for their work on the bill.

440

VOTE:  5-1-1

AYE:               5 - Dalto, Greenlick, Holvey, Thatcher, Kitts

NAY:               1 - March

EXCUSED:     1 - Farr

Chair Kitts

The motion CARRIES.

REPS. KRUMMEL AND THATCHER will lead discussion on the floor.

450

Chair Kitts

Closes the work session on HB 3090 and opens a public hearing on HB 3128.

HB 3128 – PUBLIC HEARING

Cletus Moore

Committee Administrator.  Reads summary of HB 3128 and notes that the bill has a subsequent referral to the Committee on State and Federal Affairs.

TAPE 48, B

002

Richard Burke

Executive Director, Libertarian Party of Oregon.  Testifies in support of HB 3128.  States that HB 3128 makes it practical for well established minor parties with a significant base of voters to become a major political party.  The only difference between a major and minor party is that major parties nominate their candidates in the vote by mail primary election while minor parties must hold candidate nominating conventions.  States they need the bill because a number of inequities need to be addressed.   Vote by mail primary elections that are funded by the tax dollars of voters belonging to every party.  Republicans and Democrats can choose their nominees in the comfort of their homes.  Minor party voters must often travel hundreds of miles, adapt their schedules and sometimes spend hundreds of dollars to participate in candidate nominating conventions.  States that the Libertarian Party would qualify immediately, soon to be followed by the Pacific Green Party, but any party would be able to select its candidates in a primary election if it met the two standards: stability and a significant base of supporters.  States there are 16 states where Libertarians can nominate at primary elections.  It has never been demonstrated that the ability of smaller parties to hold primaries has negatively impacted the larger parties.  This will make it easier for the Republican and Democratic candidates to factor in third party candidates in their campaign plans.  Under current law, minor parties can nominate candidates as late as August. 

059

Rep. March

Asks if the 12 consecutive years is too high a bar, whether there is a more reasonable bar, or whether there should be any bar.

Burke

Responds they have no problem with anyone participating.  States they floated this bill in the Senate last session and they have talked to dozens of legislators and the staff of two governors.  The general consensus is that those they talked to will support the bill if the party has a record of 12 years. 

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if the bill has a fiscal impact.

095

Moore

Advises the committee there is no fiscal or revenue impact on HB 3128.

100

Annette Newingham

Association of County Clerks.  Comments she believes there would be a fiscal impact.   Explains that currently for primary elections, county clerks have to produce a ballot unique for the Republican Party and one for the Democratic Party and the nonpartisans.  Any major party can open their primary to the nonpartisans, which would create another ballot style.  If this lowers the bar to enable minor parties to qualify as major parties, there would be another set.  There would be a fiscal impact but she does not know what it is.  They would have to poll the county clerks.  Believes the impact would be significant and the counties pay for that.   

141

Chair Kitts

Closes the public hearing and opens a work session on HB 3128.

HB 3128 – WORK SESSION

146

Rep. Dalto

MOTION:  Moves HB 3128 to the floor with a DO PASS recommendation and BE REFERRED to the committee on State and Federal Affairs by prior reference.

151

VOTE:  6-0-1

AYE:            In a roll call vote, all members present vote Aye.

EXCUSED:  1 - Rep. Farr

Chair Kitts

The motion CARRIES.

150

Chair Kitts

Closes the work session on HB 3128 and opens a public hearing on HJR 43.

HJR 43 – PUBLIC HEARING

164

Cletus Moore

Committee Administrator.  Reads summary of HJR 43 and notes that the companion bill is HB 3238.

167

Rep. Thatcher

Testifies in support of HJR 43.  Quotes Article I of the U. S. Constitution and Article I, Section 3 of the Oregon Constitution relating to separation of powers of branches of government.  States she thinks a lot of the blame lies with the legislature and wants the legislature to take back the law making power.  The proposal is to review the rules.  It is calling on the agencies to suggest ways of making the laws workable and the legislature would ratify those. 

211

Rep. Thatcher

States that even the governor has recognized there is an over burdensome nature to our current process.  In February 2003, the governor signed Executive Order 03-01 which requires state agencies that regulate business activities to review their regulations and regulatory processes in order to reduce the burdens.  States that it should not be in the purview of the agencies to create policy.  Laws do require interpretation but the job of a law interpreter in the Executive or Judicial branch is to look backward to what lawmakers intended rather than looking forward. 

241

Chair Kitts

Asks if Rep. Thatcher wants the legislature to review every administrative rule for every state agency.

Rep. Thatcher

Responds that is what they do in Idaho and it has been on Idaho’s books since 1969.  It was challenged and upheld in 1999 as constitutional.  Explains that the rule goes to both houses in the Idaho legislature.  They look at the rules for legislative intent and the legislature either affirms or rejects the rules based on the intent of the legislation.

239

Rep. Greenlick

Comments his understanding of the separation of powers is that we could not implement this as a statute.  If it were not a violation of the Constitution, we could have it as an Act.

Rep. Thatcher

Responds that apparently it is being interpreted that way now. 

283

Rep. Greenlick

States that only the legislature can make a law.  The rule has to do with how it is implemented. 

Randy Hildebrand

Staff to Rep. Kim Thatcher.  States it is his understanding from opinions he has received from Legislative Counsel that administrative rules do carry the full effect of law.

278

Rep. March

Comments the key point is “of the law” and asks if Hildebrand knows of any prohibition to the legislature changing the law or redirecting the agency to change the rules based on the law.

Hildebrand

States that currently the legislature cannot do that unilaterally.  The House and Senate could pass a resolution suggesting that an agency amend a rule, but it would take the signature of the governor to amend or repeal the rule.

313

Rep. March

Comments the legislature could change the law to narrowly define what the legislature wants in rule. 

Hildebrand

Responds that he would argue the legislature needs the governor’s approval to do that and if the governor wanted to do that, he could do it without the assistance of the legislature. 

326

Matt Winger

Staff to Rep. Thatcher.  Comments he thinks we are talking about where the onerous is place.  The legislature passes the law and the executive branch writes the rules to interpret how that law is going to be implemented.  Under the current system, it is incumbent  upon the legislature to re-muster a majority vote in order to overrule an interpretation of its own law.  This would simply switch that onerous and require the executive branch to come back to the legislature for approval of the interpretation they have written of the law. 

315

Rep. Greenlick

Comments this amends Article III of the Constitution which defines separation of powers.  Asks if the Constitution can be amended to do away with one of the branches. 

Hildebrand

Responds that he thinks there would be problems in  trying to do away with one of the three branches of government. 

400

Chair Kitts

Notes the time and the schedule of another committee to meet in the room.  States the bill will be rescheduled. 

The following material is submitted for the record without public testimony:

Don Schellenberg

Oregon Farm Bureau.  Submits a prepared statement suggesting an amendment to HJR 43 (EXHIBIT G).

Chane Griggs

Department of Administrative Services.  Submits a prepared statement in opposition to HJR 43 (EXHIBIT H)

412

Philip Schradle

Special Counsel to the Attorney General.  States he will be glad to come back to help the committee. 

Chair Kitts

Thanks the witnesses for being willing to return at a later meeting.

391

Mark Karson

Liquor store owner.  States his interest is on administrative rules and abuse of them through the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC).  Comments on history of his liquor store and rules adopted by the OLCC over time directed to his store, including signs and sales of related items.  States there is no way for the agents to win; OLCC creates their own rules and the agents have no recourse.     

TAPE 49, B

012

Karson

Continues explaining problems he has encountered because of rules written by the OLCC. 

061

Chair Kitts

Closes the public hearing on HJR 43 and opens a work session for the purpose of introduction of a committee measure.

INTRODUCTION OF COMMITTEE MEASURE

085

Chair Kitts

Tells members that he will entertain a motion to request of the Speaker permission to introduce LC 3610 as a committee bill.  Adds that additional language will be added to the bill summary on reciprocal benefits on hospital visits.

NOTE:  LC 3610 dated 5/2/05 including the additional language in the measure summary is hereby made a part of the record (EXHIBIT I).

085

Rep. Kitts

MOTION:  Moves LC 3610 including the revised summary BE INTRODUCED as a committee bill.

093

VOTE:  5-0-2

EXCUSED:  2 - Rep. Farr, Greenlick

Chair Kitts

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

Chair Kitts

Closes the work session on introduction of a committee measure and opens a work session on a request for approval of a drafting request.

APPROVAL OF DRAFTING REQUEST

091

Chair Kitts

Advises members they have been provided information on a drafting request relating to mutual utility (EXHIBIT J).

091

Rep. Kitts

MOTION:  Moves the committee request permission from the Speaker to request a Legislative Counsel draft relating to mutual utility.

100

VOTE:  5-0-2

EXCUSED:  2 - Rep. Farr, Greenlick

Chair Kitts

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

105

Chair Kitts

Closes the work session on approval of the drafting request and adjourns meeting at 3:28 p.m.