Editorial by the News-Register, August 11, 2007

Drama continues to surround the fate of Oregon land use law: A federal judge ponders constitutionality of the proposed ballot title; a highly combative campaign waits in the wings; it's possible that the entire election will be scuttled.

Oregonians in Action wants to put a spike through the heart of Measure 49, the Oregon Legislature's remodel of complex land use law passed by ballot measure in 2004. If OIA has its way, voters will not see a ballot title, summary statement or estimate of financial impact — only the words "Measure 49" / "Yes No," and full text of the complex compromise law.

The property rights organization has filed suit in federal court challenging the three ballot-related statements, but not the measure itself. It's a unique twist in its battle to defeat Measure 49 and, says OIA President David Hunnicutt, it's a way to encourage voters to read the 24-page measure that would stand alone in the Voters Pamphlet. He figures it would swing the majority to his side.

However, if U.S. District Court Judge Michael R. Hogan upholds OIA, odds are that Measure 49 will be completely off the Nov. 6 ballot. There would be a trial on the merits of OIA's case, but a temporary restraining order on the language would violate Oregon's ballot requirements, and officials likely would just pull the election. A trial on the merits then would follow. If the judge rejects OIA's arguments, then the election proceeds as originally planned.

Federal court seems like a strange place to denounce a state ballot by contending the statements violate basic due process rights embodied in the U.S. as well as the state constitutions. Legislators apparently didn't envision that fate when, in their rush to get Measure 49 to a public vote, they enacted HB 2640 as a barrier to the regular appeal route to the Oregon Supreme Court. However, that prohibition is standard operating procedure when legislators refer a measure to the ballot. The ban also applies to the tobacco tax increase in the Nov. 6 election and the six other measures scheduled for 2008 ballots.

Legislators have enacted only one specific exception, at least in the past 10 years, and that was for the Death with Dignity measure in November 1997. The facts run counter to OIA's contention that the trust and traditions of Oregon's initiative and referendum systems have been violated by the Measure 49 process.

"Inaccurate, unfair and underhanded" are the kindest words OIA has about Measure 49's ballot title and summary. Its word choice becomes even more negative in discussing provisions of the measure itself.

Measure 49, however, represents a middle ground in this feisty land use debate, which isn't a bad place for Oregon's land use legislation to occupy. It's a compromise that was hammered out in umpteen meetings, but which reached the ballot on a strictly partisan vote — 31 Democrats to 29 Republicans in the House.

Thursday, the state and OIA agreed to drop Oregon's county clerks from the list of defendants, which removed considerable anxiety and financial pressure from local election officials such as Yamhill County Clerk Jan Coleman.

Meanwhile, we're only 16 days from Aug. 28, the secretary of state's "drop-dead" date for filings and arguments in the Voters Pamphlet, and then ballots and the pamphlet must be printed. The sooner the judge issues his decision, the better, but either way that decision will launch even more election drama.