Election Contests and Ballot Measures

November 2, 2010 Oregon General Election

Oregon

Note: Candidate pictures are the most current we have on file. Because this is a past election, they may not show a candidate’s likeness at the time of the election. Likewise, some of the links to websites, emails, and social media may be broken.
US Senate
Compare the candidates
Bruce Cronk - WF
Websiteworkingfamiliesforbrucecronk.org
Marc Delphine - L
Websitemarcforsenate.com
Jim Huffman - R
Websitewww.huffmanforsenate.com
Rick Staggenborg - PRO
Websitestaggenborgforussenate.org
Ron Wyden - D
Websitewyden.senate.gov
68
US House of Representatives
Representative In Congress 1st District
Compare the candidates
Rob Cornilles - R
Websitewww.cornillesforcongress.com
Don LaMunyon - CON
Websitewww.lamunyonforcongress.com
David Wu - D
Websitewww.wuforcongress.com
62
Representative In Congress 2nd District
Compare the candidates
Joyce B. Segers - D
Websitesegersforcongress.org
Greg Walden - R
Websitegregwalden.com
60
Representative In Congress 3rd District
Compare the candidates
Earl Blumenauer - D
Websiteblumenauer.house.gov
68
Jeff Lawrence - L
Websitewww.votejefflawrence.com
Delia Lopez - R
Websitewww.dlopezforcongress.com
Michael Meo - G
Websitemeoforcongress.org
70
Representative In Congress 4th District
Compare the candidates
Mike Beilstein - G
Websitewww.newmenu.org/mikebeilstein
Peter A. Defazio - D
Websitewww.defazioforcongress.org
70
Arthur B. Robinson - R
Websitewww.ArtForCongress.com
75
Representative In Congress 5th District
Compare the candidates
L. Scott Bruun - R
Christina Jean Lugo - G
Websitewww.christina4senate.com
47
Walter Kurt Schrader - D
Websitewww.kurtschrader.com
65
Governor
Compare the candidates
Chris Dudley - R
Websitewww.chrisdudley.com
John Kitzhaber - D
Websitewww.johnkitzhaber.com
70
Greg Kord - CON
Wes Wagner - L
Websitewww.StandingUpForFreedom.org
State Treasurer
Compare the candidates
Walter F. "Walt" Brown - PRO
Websitewww.waltbrown.org
Michael Paul Marsh - CON
Websitempmconstitution.com
69
Chris Telfer - I
Websitewww.christelfer.com
67
Edward T. Wheeler - D
Websitewww.tedwheeler.com
54
Referendums and Ballot Measures
Measure 70 Amends Constitution: Expands availability of home ownership loans for Oregon veterans through Oregon War Veterans' Fund.
Be It Resolved by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon:PARAGRAPH 1. Sections 1 and 3, Article XI-A of the Constitution of the State of Oregon, are amended to read:Sec. 1. (1) Notwithstanding the limits contained in section 7, Article XI of this Constitution, the credit of the State of Oregon may be loaned and indebtedness incurred in an amount not to exceed eight percent of the true cash value of all the property in the state, for the purpose of creating a fund, to be known as the "Oregon War Veterans' Fund," to be advanced for the acquisition of farms and homes for the benefit of male and female residents of the State of Oregon who served in the Armed Forces of the United States. Secured repayment thereof shall be and is a prerequisite to the advancement of money from such fund, except that moneys in the Oregon War Veterans' Fund may also be appropriated to the Director of Veterans' Affairs to be expended, without security, for the following purposes:(a) Aiding [war] veterans' organizations in connection with their programs of service to [war] veterans;(b) Training service officers appointed by the counties to give aid as provided by law to veterans and their dependents;(c) Aiding the counties in connection with programs of service to [war] veterans;(d) The duties of the Director of Veterans' Affairs as conservator of the estates of beneficiaries of the United States Veterans' Administration; and(e) The duties of the Director of Veterans' Affairs in providing services to [war] veterans, their dependents and survivors.(2) The Director of Veterans' Affairs may establish standards and priorities with respect to the granting of loans from the Oregon War Veterans' Fund that, as determined by the director, best accomplish the purposes and promote the financial sustainability of the Oregon War Veterans' Fund, including, but not limited to, standards and priorities necessary to maintain the tax-exempt status of earnings from bonds issued under authority of this section and section 2 of this Article.Sec. 3. No person shall receive money from the Oregon War Veterans' Fund except the following:(1) A person who:(a) Resides in the State of Oregon at the time of applying for a loan from the fund;(b) Is a veteran, as that term is defined by Oregon law;(c) Served under honorable conditions on active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States; and(d) Satisfies the requirements applicable to the funding source for the loan from the Oregon War Veterans' Fund.[(b) Served honorably in active duty, other than active duty for training, in the Armed Forces of the United States:][(A) For a period of not less than 210 days or who was, prior to completion of such period of service, discharged or released from active duty on account of service-connected injury or illness; or][(B) In a theater of operations for which a campaign or expeditionary ribbon or medal is authorized by the United States;][(c) Has been honorably separated or discharged from the Armed Forces of the United States or has been furloughed to a reserve; and][(d) Makes application for a loan within the 30-year period immediately following the date on which the person was released from active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States.](2)(a) The spouse of a person who is qualified to receive a loan under subsection (1) of this section but who has either been missing in action or a prisoner of war while on active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States even though the status of missing or being a prisoner occurred prior to completion of [the] a minimum length of service or [residence set forth in subsection (1) of this section] the person never resided in this state, provided the spouse resides in this state at the time of application for the loan.(b) The surviving spouse of a person who was qualified to receive a loan under subsection (1) of this section but who died while on active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States even though the death occurred prior to completion of [the] a minimum length of service or [residence set forth in subsection (1) of this section] the person never resided in this state, provided the surviving spouse resides in this state at the time of application for the loan.(c) The eligibility of a surviving spouse under this subsection shall terminate on [his or her] the spouse's remarriage.(3) As used in this section, "active duty" does not include attendance at a school under military orders, except schooling incident to an active enlistment or a regular tour of duty, or normal military training as a reserve officer or member of an organized reserve or National Guard unit.PARAGRAPH 2. The amendment proposed by this resolution shall be submitted to the people for their approval or rejection at the next regular general election held throughout this state
Measure 71 Amends Constitution: Requires legislature to meet annually; limits length of legislative sessions; provides exceptions.
Be It Resolved by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon:PARAGRAPH 1. Section 3, Article III, sections 6 and 10, Article IV, and sections 5 and 14, Article IX of the Constitution of the State of Oregon, are amended to read:Sec. 10. [The sessions of the Legislative Assembly shall be held biennially at the Capitol of the State commencing on the second Monday of September, in the year eighteen hundred and fifty eight, and on the same day of every second year thereafter, unless a different day shall have been appointed by law.-](1) The Legislative Assembly shall hold annual sessions at the Capitol of the State. Each session must begin on the day designated by law as the first day of the session. Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section:(a) A session beginning in an odd-numbered year may not exceed 160 calendar days in duration; and(b) A session beginning in an even-numbered year may not exceed 35 calendar days in duration.(2) The Legislative Assembly may hold an organizational session that is not subject to the limits of subsection (1) of this section for the purposes of introducing measures and performing the duties and effecting the organization described in sections 11 and 12 of this Article. The Legislative Assembly may not undertake final consideration of a measure or reconsideration of a measure following a gubernatorial veto when convened in an organizational session.(3) A regular session, as described in subsection (1) of this section, may be extended for a period of five calendar days by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of each house. A session may be extended more than once. An extension must begin on the first calendar day after the end of the immediately preceding session or extension except that if the first calendar day is a Sunday, the extension may begin on the next Monday.Sec. 3. (1) The Legislative Assembly is authorized to establish by law a joint committee composed of members of both houses of the Legislative Assembly, the membership to be as fixed by law, which committee may exercise, during the interim between sessions of the Legislative Assembly, such of the following powers as may be conferred upon it by law:(a) Where an emergency exists, to allocate to any state agency, out of any emergency fund that may be appropriated to the committee for that purpose, additional funds beyond the amount appropriated to the agency by the Legislative Assembly, or funds to carry on an activity required by law for which an appropriation was not made.(b) Where an emergency exists, to authorize any state agency to expend, from funds dedicated or continuously appropriated for the uses and purposes of the agency, sums in excess of the amount of the budget of the agency as approved in accordance with law.(c) In the case of a new activity coming into existence at such a time as to preclude the possibility of submitting a budget to the Legislative Assembly for approval, to approve, or revise and approve, a budget of the money appropriated for such new activity.(d) Where an emergency exists, to revise or amend the budgets of state agencies to the extent of authorizing transfers between expenditure classifications within the budget of an agency.(2) The Legislative Assembly shall prescribe by law what shall constitute an emergency for the purposes of this section.(3) As used in this section, "state agency" means any elected or appointed officer, board, commission, department, institution, branch or other agency of the state government.(4) The term of members of the joint committee established pursuant to this section shall run from the adjournment of one odd-numbered year regular session to the organization of the next odd-numbered year regular session. No member of a committee shall cease to be such member solely by reason of the expiration of his term of office as a member of the Legislative Assembly.Sec. 6. (1) At the odd-numbered year regular session of the Legislative Assembly next following an enumeration of the inhabitants by the United States Government, the number of Senators and Representatives shall be fixed by law and apportioned among legislative districts according to population. A senatorial district shall consist of two representative districts. Any Senator whose term continues through the next odd-numbered year regular legislative session after the operative date of the reapportionment shall be specifically assigned to a senatorial district. The ratio of Senators and Representatives, respectively, to population shall be determined by dividing the total population of the state by the number of Senators and by the number of Representatives. A reapportionment by the Legislative Assembly becomes operative as described in subsection (6) of this section.(2) This subsection governs judicial review and correction of a reapportionment enacted by the Legislative Assembly.(a) Original jurisdiction is vested in the Supreme Court, upon the petition of any elector of the state filed with the Supreme Court on or before August 1 of the year in which the Legislative Assembly enacts a reapportionment, to review any reapportionment so enacted.(b) If the Supreme Court determines that the reapportionment thus reviewed complies with subsection (1) of this section and all law applicable thereto, it shall dismiss the petition by written opinion on or before September 1 of the same year and the reapportionment becomes operative as described in subsection (6) of this section.(c) If the Supreme Court determines that the reapportionment does not comply with subsection (1) of this section and all law applicable thereto, the reapportionment shall be void. In its written opinion, the Supreme Court shall specify with particularity wherein the reapportionment fails to comply. The opinion shall further direct the Secretary of State to draft a reapportionment of the Senators and Representatives in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1) of this section and all law applicable thereto. The Supreme Court shall file its order with the Secretary of State on or before September 15. The Secretary of State shall conduct a hearing on the reapportionment at which the public may submit evidence, views and argument. The Secretary of State shall cause a transcription of the hearing to be prepared which, with the evidence, shall become part of the record. The Secretary of State shall file the corrected reapportionment with the Supreme Court on or before November 1 of the same year.(d) On or before November 15, the Supreme Court shall review the corrected reapportionment to assure its compliance with subsection (1) of this section and all law applicable thereto and may further correct the reapportionment if the court considers correction to be necessary.(e) The corrected reapportionment becomes operative as described in subsection (6) of this section.(3) This subsection governs enactment, judicial review and correction of a reapportionment if the Legislative Assembly fails to enact any reapportionment by July 1 of the year of the odd-numbered year regular session of the Legislative Assembly next following an enumeration of the inhabitants by the United States Government.(a) The Secretary of State shall make a reapportionment of the Senators and Representatives in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1) of this section and all law applicable thereto. The Secretary of State shall conduct a hearing on the reapportionment at which the public may submit evidence, views and argument. The Secretary of State shall cause a transcription of the hearing to be prepared which, with the evidence, shall become part of the record. The reapportionment so made shall be filed with the Supreme Court by August 15 of the same year. The reapportionment becomes operative as described in subsection (6) of this section.(b) Original jurisdiction is vested in the Supreme Court upon the petition of any elector of the state filed with the Supreme Court on or before September 15 of the same year to review any reapportionment and the record made by the Secretary of State.(c) If the Supreme Court determines that the reapportionment thus reviewed complies with subsection (1) of this section and all law applicable thereto, it shall dismiss the petition by written opinion on or before October 15 of the same year and the reapportionment becomes operative as described in subsection (6) of this section.(d) If the Supreme Court determines that the reapportionment does not comply with subsection (1) of this section and all law applicable thereto, the reapportionment shall be void. The Supreme Court shall return the reapportionment by November 1 to the Secretary of State accompanied by a written opinion specifying with particularity wherein the reapportionment fails to comply. The opinion shall further direct the Secretary of State to correct the reapportionment in those particulars, and in no others, and file the corrected reapportionment with the Supreme Court on or before December 1 of the same year.(e) On or before December 15, the Supreme Court shall review the corrected reapportionment to assure its compliance with subsection (1) of this section and all law applicable thereto and may further correct the reapportionment if the court considers correction to be necessary.(f) The reapportionment becomes operative as described in subsection (6) of this section.(4) Any reapportionment that becomes operative as provided in this section is a law of the state except for purposes of initiative and referendum.(5) Notwithstanding section 18, Article II of this Constitution, after the convening of the next odd-numbered year regular legislative session following the reapportionment, a Senator whose term continues through that legislative session is subject to recall by the electors of the district to which the Senator is assigned and not by the electors of the district existing before the latest reapportionment. The number of signatures required on the recall petition is 15 percent of the total votes cast for all candidates for Governor at the most recent election at which a candidate for Governor was elected to a full term in the two representative districts comprising the senatorial district to which the Senator was assigned.(6)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a reapportionment made under this section becomes operative on the second Monday in January of the next odd-numbered year after the applicable deadline for making a final reapportionment under this section.(b) For purposes of electing Senators and Representatives to the next term of office that commences after the applicable deadline for making a final reapportionment under this section, a reapportionment made under this section becomes operative on January 1 of the calendar year next following the applicable deadline for making a final reapportionment under this section.Sec. 5. An accurate statement of the receipts, and expenditures of the public money shall be published with the laws of each odd-numbered year regular session of the Legislative Assembly.[-]Sec. 14. (1) As soon as is practicable after adjournment sine die of [a] an odd-numbered year regular session of the Legislative Assembly, the Governor shall cause an estimate to be prepared of revenues that will be received by the General Fund for the biennium beginning July 1. The estimated revenues from corporate income and excise taxes shall be separately stated from the estimated revenues from other General Fund sources.(2) As soon as is practicable after the end of the biennium, the Governor shall cause actual collections of revenues received by the General Fund for that biennium to be determined. The revenues received from corporate income and excise taxes shall be determined separately from the revenues received from other General Fund sources.(3) If the revenues received by the General Fund from corporate income and excise taxes during the biennium exceed the amount estimated to be received from corporate income and excise taxes for the biennium, by two percent or more, the total amount of the excess shall be returned to corporate income and excise taxpayers.(4) If the revenues received from General Fund revenue sources, exclusive of those described in subsection (3) of this section, during the biennium exceed the amount estimated to be received from such sources for the biennium, by two percent or more, the total amount of the excess shall be returned to personal income taxpayers.(5) The Legislative Assembly may enact laws:(a) Establishing a tax credit, refund payment or other mechanism by which the excess revenues are returned to taxpayers, and establishing administrative procedures connected therewith.(b) Allowing the excess revenues to be reduced by administrative costs associated with returning the excess revenues.(c) Permitting a taxpayer's share of the excess revenues not to be returned to the taxpayer if the taxpayer's share is less than a de minimis amount identified by the Legislative Assembly.(d) Permitting a taxpayer's share of excess revenues to be offset by any liability of the taxpayer for which the state is authorized to undertake collection efforts.(6)(a) Prior to the close of a biennium for which an estimate described in subsection (1) of this section has been made, the Legislative Assembly, by a two-thirds majority vote of all members elected to each House, may enact legislation declaring an emergency and increasing the amount of the estimate prepared pursuant to subsection (1) of this section.(b) The prohibition against declaring an emergency in an act regulating taxation or exemption in section 1a, Article IX of this Constitution, does not apply to legislation enacted pursuant to this subsection.(7) This section does not apply:(a) If, for a biennium or any portion of a biennium, a state tax is not imposed on or measured by the income of individuals.(b) To revenues derived from any minimum tax imposed on corporations for the privilege of carrying on or doing business in this state that is imposed as a fixed amount and that is nonapportioned (except for changes of accounting periods).(c) To biennia beginning before July 1, 2001.PARAGRAPH 2. The amendment proposed by this resolution shall be submitted to the people for their approval or rejection at the next regular general election held throughout this state
Measure 72 Amends Constitution: Authorizes exception to $50,000 state borrowing limit for state's real and personal property projects
Result of "yes" vote"Yes" vote authorizes exception to $50,000 state borrowing limit for state to issue lowest-cost bonds to finance state real and personal property projects. Prohibits property tax for repayment. Limits amount borrowed.Result of "no" vote"No" vote retains state borrowing limit prohibiting state from issuing lowest-cost general obligation bonds except for certain purposes.SummaryCurrently, the state constitution forbids lending the state's credit or borrowing in excess of $50,000, with some exceptions. The measure would amend the state constitution to add a new exception to allow the state to issue general obligation bonds to finance acquisition, construction, remodeling, repair, equipping or furnishing of state owned or operated property. General obligation bonds are the cheapest method of borrowing the state may use and would cost less than the certificates of participation the state currently uses. The bonds would save an estimated $5 million on interest costs for each $100 million issued. The measure does not authorize any specific bonds, but authorizes the Legislative Assembly to enact implementing legislation. The measure prohibits the levy of property taxes to repay the bonds and limits the amount of outstanding bonds to one percent of the real market value of property in the state.Estimate of Financial ImpactMeasure 72 has no direct financial effect on state or local government expenditures or revenues. General obligation indebtedness authorized by this measure typically provides the lowest-cost method of financing. If the State of Oregon uses this authority to issue general obligation indebtedness or refinance current debt, the state should experience lower financing costs.Explanation of Estimate of Financial ImpactThis measure allows the Legislature to use lower-cost general obligation bonds for future building projects and to refinance current state debt to avoid future interest costs or realize interest savings through lower interest rates. Any savings would be redirected at the discretion of the Legislature. Had this measure been in place during 2009, the state would have realized interest savings of about $38 million over the life of bonds issued that year.
Measure 73 Requires increased minimum sentences for certain repeated sex crimes, incarceration for repeated driving under influence
Result of "yes" vote"Yes" vote increases minimum sentences for certain repeated sex crimes (300 months), imposes minimum incarceration sentence for certain repeated driving under influence convictions (90 days).Result of "no" vote"No" vote retains mandatory-minimum sentences of 70 to 100 months for certain sex crimes, provides no mandatoryminimum incarceration sentence for driving under influence.SummaryCurrent law imposes mandatory-minimum sentences of 70 to 100 months for certain sex crimes; no mandatory-minimum incarceration sentence for driving under influence of intoxicants (DUII). Measure imposes mandatory-minimum sentence of 300 months for person convicted of "major felony sex crime" if previously convicted of major felony sex crime; defines "major felony sex crime" as first-degree rape, first-degree sodomy, first-degree unlawful sexual penetration, using child in sexually explicit display; previous conviction includes statutory counterpart in another jurisdiction, and separate criminal episode in same sentencing proceeding. Measure makes DUII a class C felony if defendant previously convicted of DUII, or statutory counterpart, at least twice in prior 10 years; imposes mandatory-minimum sentence of 90 days, at state expense. Other provisions.Estimate of Financial ImpactThe measure will require additional state spending of $1.4 million in the first year, $11.4 million to $14.6 million in the second year $13.9 million to $21.0 million in the third year, $16.7 million to $26.6 million in the fourth year and $18.1 million to $29.1 million each year after that.The measure does not require additional local government spending. The measure directly reduces expenditures for local government by $0.4 million in the first year and $3.2 million to $4.6 million each year after that, primarily by shifting costs to the state.The measure does not increase the amount of funds collected for state or local government.Explanation of Estimate of Financial ImpactState ImpactThere will be no immediate cost to the state for the repeat sex offender provision of the measure because the few offenders subject to the measure are sentenced under current law to an average of 15 years. As such, no new prison beds would be needed for the 25-year sentences required by this measure until after 2017.The driving under the influence provisions of the measure will increase costs to the state in a number of ways. Offenders will spend more time in prison, which increases the cost of running prisons as well as administrative overhead. The state will be required to pay all county costs for jail time. The courts will incur added costs to try offenders covered by this measure. Finally, the measure will increase costs for court appointed attorneys for defense of felony charges.These costs will be $1.4 million in the first year, and increase to between $18.1 and $29.1 million per year after the fifth year. Actual costs will depend on the number of individuals who are charged and convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicants as a felony.Local ImpactThe measure does not require additional spending by local government. The measure directly reduces expenditures for local government by $400,000 in the first year and $3.2 to $4.6 million each year after that. The state will pay for local jail and probation costs for offenders who would have been convicted previously of misdemeanors. Currently, this is a county cost.Implementing the MeasureThe current prison population is around 14,000. Over the next five years, the measure could require between 400 and 600 additional prison beds, depending on the number of people convicted of crimes under this measure.The measure does not identify a funding source. Today the costs of prisons are paid for out of the state General Fund, which comes mostly from income taxes. The General Fund is also used to pay for public education, services for children, the elderly, and the disabled (including medical care), public safety, and other programs.
Measure 74 Establishes medical marijuana supply system and assistance and research programs; allows limited selling of marijuana
Result of "yes" vote"Yes" vote establishes supply system, low income assistance program for medical marijuana cardholders; establishes research program; grants limited state regulation authority; allows limited marijuana sales.Result of "no" vote"No" vote retains current law without: supply or assistance programs for medical marijuana cardholders; or authorization for state organized scientific program; or medical marijuana sales.SummaryCurrent law allows specified individuals to become registered growers of medical marijuana by meeting criteria; does not allow marijuana sales or state assistance to cardholders in obtaining marijuana; limits growers to six mature plants and 24 ounces of useable marijuana for each cardholder; limits certain growers to growing for four cardholders; limits growers' reimbursements. Measure creates medical marijuana supply system composed of licensed dispensaries and producers. Establishes licensing guidelines. Producers and dispensaries can possess 24 plants and 96 ounces of marijuana. Allows limited sales (by expanding cost categories currently not reimbursable). Exempts dispensaries, dispensary employees, and producers from most marijuana criminal statutes. Establishes low income cardholders' assistance program. Allows state to conduct or fund research of cardholders' marijuana use. Retains grow registration system. Other provisions.Estimate of Financial ImpactThe measure will require estimated state expenditures between $400,000 and $600,000 each year beginning in 2012. These costs are to be paid only from program fees required by the measure.The exact amount by which the measure will increase state revenues cannot be determined. Potential additional state revenue could range from a minimum of $400,000 to a maximum of between $3 million and $20 million in the first year. The amount of revenue will be affected by the number of dispensaries, number of participants, pricing and costs of production.The measure has no direct effect on local government spending or revenues.
Measure 75 Authorizes Multnomah County casino; casino to contribute monthly revenue percentage to state for specified purposes
Result of "yes" vote"Yes" vote authorizes a single privately-owned casino in Multnomah County; requires casino to give percentage of monthly revenue to State Lottery for specified purposes.Result of "no" vote"No" vote maintains the current state of the law, which does not authorize any privately-owned casino or casinos anywhere in the State of Oregon.SummaryCurrently, Oregon Constitution prohibits establishing casinos within state. Under measure, State Lottery shall issue renewable 15-year lease permitting owner of former Multnomah Kennel Club in Multnomah County to operate gaming devices, table games, keno, other games of chance at that site. Measure would become operative only if constitution is amended to permit casino or casinos within state. Casino operator shall pay 25% of adjusted gross revenues each month to State Lottery. Lottery shall deposit money into a Job Growth, Education and Communities Fund (separate from general fund), annually shall apportion half of fund for classroom instruction expenditures, 30% to counties. Casino operator initially shall pay $1 million, subsequently shall pay $2 million annually, to Lottery to administer measure. Other provisions.Estimate of Financial ImpactTo implement the measure, state government would be required to spend approximately $1 million in the first year. If a casino is licensed, state government would be required to spend between $4 million and $6 million in the following twoyear period; and between $4 million and $8 million in each two year period after that. These costs will not be incurred unless a state constitutional amendment, separate from this measure, authorizes implementation of this measure.The measure would not require any local government spending. The measure, alone, will have no direct effect on state or local revenues. If a casino is licensed, state and local revenues would be increased between $13 million and $68 million each year. However, the measure would result in a shift of funds from the state to local governments which would leave the state with a gain of no more than $1.8 million and a possible loss of $26.2 million.Explanation of Estimate of Financial ImpactIf authorized by the state constitution, this measure would allow one privately owned casino in Multnomah County.The committee estimated that regulation for a casino, as required in the measure, would cost approximately $1 million in the first year, and between $4 million and $6 million in the next two-year period, and between $4 million and $8 million for each two-year period after that, depending on the size of the casino and the number of gaming devices and other games offered. The estimates were based on cost information from the Oregon State Police, which currently regulates gaming at tribal casinos in Oregon. The measure limits the amount of money that the casino operator would be required to pay for regulation to $4 million in a two year period, and specifies that no other public funds may be used to pay for regulation.The measure requires the casino operator to transfer 25% of the casino's net gaming revenues to the state for specific purposes. The committee estimated that the total amount that would be transferred would be between $83 million and $147 per year depending on the size of the casino, and on its gross revenues.A casino would be expected to compete with the Oregon State Lottery for business. The committee estimated that state and local government payments from lottery revenues would decline between $72 million and $79 million each year.The measure also directs the use for the transferred casino revenues. Depending on the size and gross revenues of the casino, the committee estimates that each year between $4 million and $7.5 million would go to state programs; between $37 million and $67 million would go to local governments; and between $40 million and $74 million would go to schools.Oregon State Lottery revenues are used for a variety of purposes. These include funding schools, parks, economic development and fish habitat. To the extent that the casino authorized under the measure would have the effect of reducing lottery revenues, these programs would be affected.
Measure 76 Amends Constitution: Continues lottery funding for parks, beaches, wildlife habitat, watershed protection beyond 2014; modifies funding process
Result of "yes" vote"Yes" vote continues constitutional dedication of 15 percent of lottery proceeds for parks, beaches, wildlife habitat, and watershed protection beyond 2014. Modifies funding process, allocations.Result of "no" vote"No" vote retains current constitutional provision dedicating 15 percent of lottery proceeds to parks, beaches, wildlife, and watershed protection through 2014. Continuation requires voter approval.SummaryUnder current constitutional provision, 15 percent of net lottery proceeds are placed in a Parks and Natural Resources Fund, half for state parks, beaches, historic sites and recreation areas, and half for restoration and protection of natural resources, including fish and wildlife habitat and protection of watersheds. Currently, funding ends after 2014 unless voters approve continuation beyond that date. The proposed measure continues 15 percent funding for the same purposes beyond 2014. State agencies receiving monies from the Fund are required to use the money only for the specified purposes. The proposed measure also identifies eligible grant recipients and establishes minimum allocation levels of grant funding for local and regional park projects that protect and restore fish and wildlife habitats, and protect watersheds. Other provisions.Estimate of Financial ImpactThe measure makes permanent the dedication of 15% of state lottery proceeds each year to parks and natural resources. For the year 2011 this amount is estimated to be $87 million.The measure dedicates a minimum amount of funds for local parks.The measure does not produce additional revenue for state government.The measure does not require additional state or local government spending, but would require adjusting spending between programs or funding sources.
We Need Your Help