4A
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2015 Baker City, Oregon
sA~ERoTr — /
j
-
j
/
Serving Baker County since 1870
EDITORIAL
Write a letter news@bakercityherald.com
OQQ15
8RC,orq/IC Itlst IIIIEitsj Fsstmss
ou er onra is s Oregon law is too coddling to rapists. Especially rapists who don't leave DNA evidence. House Bill 2317, under consideration in the Legislature, would make our state less attractive to rapists by doubling the statute oflimitations for firstdegree rape and some other felony sex crimes. The House earlier this month approved the bill by a 59-0 vote. The bill doesn't go far enough, but it's a significant improvement. We hope it becomes law. Right now, Oregon has one of the shortest statutes oflimitations for rape, at six years. (This applies to cases without DNA evidence; for crimes with DNA evidence, there is no statute oflimitations.) HB 2317 doubles the time frame for prosecuting rapists to 12 years aker the crime in cases where the victim is 18 or older. If the victim is younger than 18, the statute oflimitations lasts until the victim turns
30. We think rape is suKciently serious that, like murder and attempted murder, it should have no statute oflimitation. However, changing from six years to 12 years almost certainly would bring to justice rapists who otherwise would get away with their crimes. That's because rape is so traumatic for many victims that they either never report it, or they are mentally unable to do so for many years. We find abhorrent the notion that a rapist should be immune from prosecution aker six years simply because the victim couldn't meet an arbitrary deadline. Victims certainly don't magically emerge untainted from their ordeal after six years. Neither should rapists.
GUEST EDITORIAL Editorial from The (Bend) Bulletin: Gov. Kate Brown wants to start a conversation on campaign finance reform. But it's hard to see that pieces of it will, or should, go very far. "No one should be able to buy a megaphone so big that it drowns out every other voice," she said recently. 'The First Amendment was intended to protect political discourse for all Oregonians, not just those with the deepest pockets. Truly representative leadership requires meaningful change to the status quo." She testified in support of two bills. Senate Joint Resolution 5 would let voters change the Oregon Constitution to allow campaign contribution limits. Senate Bill 75 would put limits in place if SJR 5 passes. How will they hit the right balance and satisfy the Constitution? For instance, what if a potential Democratic candidate forgovernor was given $10,000 by Comcast between 2006 and 2012? It happened. That potential candidate — Brown — wrote a glowing letter of support to the Federal Communications Commission supporting Comcast's merger with Time Warner Cable. The letter that Brown wrote was mostly a copy of one drafted by Comcast's lobbyists. Is that a part of the status quo that requires no meaningful change orshould itbe addressed by the bills? Campaign finance reform has worked, somewhat. Public disclosure of what is spent and where it comes from has passed Constitutional muster. But when laws have gone much further than that, the U.S. Supreme Court has said no. It would be a truly odd thing for the court to rule that political speech is somehow a crime. And giving money to candidates or paying for political advertising is political speech. So where does that leave the two bills? SJR5 contains no limits and it may be safe. It's the specifics of the limits in SB 75 that matter. The path, though, is full of pitfalls. Will it cover spending by corporations and by unions? Brown's office said it's their understanding that they would be covered. There are more significant challenges. Remember what political strategist Ralph Reed said: "Money is like water down the side of the mountain. It will find a way to get around the trees." His point is that as campaign finance laws are erected, the money moves around. If there is a limit placed on spending of some political committees, other political committees form. Then there's the problem of rich candidates. How can the government tell a rich candidate that it's illegal for him to spend his own money to get himself elected? Many have argued that the ultimate solution to the challenges of campaign finance is to have publicly financed campaigns. That's a curious, problematic arrangement. Candidates would then be going to the government to ask for money to change the government. We are yet to hear any solution better than prompt, public disclosure of campaign spending.
• 0
•
Uraniunt 25Q-Gh
ki Ilarim 2G1.ID
Naet Rad Mckive
NDP.
Rd3tmctlv<
Rdkicacklv<
Your views Work together, not against each other: Yes on 1-63 After much research and soul searching this letter is meant to address two very important issues. In Baker County, I believe, they are related. Eastern Oregon has been under assault since 1973 when Gov. McCall mandated the L.C.D.C. The county was governedby ajudge and two part-time commissioners. At this time thegoalsand objectives w ere to protectprime ag land and use of our natural sources. From that time until 1997, the planning process, meetings, scoping, comments were hashed over. Baker County was issued a moratorium to stop all building because we did not submit our "plan" to the state on time. At this time the order from the state was issued. The Commission would consist of a full-time chair and two part-time commissioners. This was entered into the minutes by Diane Stone, planning director, and the statute was
sive process. Not exclusive. We should celebratethe existence ofdifferent views,perspectives,and positions.W e can only achieve this by adopting a nonpartisan basis for selecting our County Commissioners. A vote for Measure 1-63 will give all registered voters of our County the opportunity to vote their convictions. It will strengthen the democratic process in our county, making the citizens and Baker County the big winners. 28 of 36 Oregon counties have already made this important move forward. So too, should Baker County. Vote Yes on Measure 1-63. Thank you. Steve and Mickey Edwards Baker City
cal manipulation was at the forefront oflocal elections. The influence of the political"boss" machine limited choices for voters. Citizens challenged a broken system. This resulted in open elections in local municipalities where any registeredvotercould casta ballot. We do not want a small number in either political party manipulating our Baker County Commissioners. By voting to make our commission positions nonpartisan, we ensure that every voter has a voice in primary elections. County Commissioners should be electedby the peopleand for the people, regardless of the voter's political affiliation. I urge you to vote yes on measure
Measure 1-63 gives everyone a voice in county affairs
1-63.
We arewriting today to address concerns raised by some other writers about Baker County Measure 1-63, and to ask our friends and neighbors in Baker County to vote "yes" on the passed. The only elected officials in the coun- measure this May. First, there seems to be some confuty that are partisan are the commissioners. The City Council is not partisan. sion about what the measure actually Most of the time the state is NOT our does. Measure 1-63 opens up the county friend. We should not be divided against commissioner elections in Baker to each other in a county this small. everyone by making commissioner Our main problem is ego. I love this positions nonpartisan. This prevents county and the people and seek to presituations like what we saw last year, serve our unique way oflife. We need to where roughly half of Baker County use our energy to reverse the issues that voters could not vote in the primary that are strangling all of us. decided who would become our next Please join me on voting"yes" on 1-63. county commissioner. Alice Knapp What the measure does not do is Baker City allow the governor to appoint anyone to the county commission when our comMeasure 1-63 strengthens missioners resign. The governor already democratic process has that power under existing law when We support Measure 1-63 and urge two commissioners resign at once. you to vote yes. Nor does it limit the information votA basicpremise ofdemocracy is ers have about candidates. Candidates citizens have the right to participate arefreetoidentify themselves asbein the selection of their leadership. longing to a political party in the Voter's This idea has been around for a long Guide and in their campaign materials. time. The slogan"no taxation without So those who want to vote for a commisrepresentation" was a rallying cry of our sion candidate along party lines will still forefathers in the Revolution that lead be able to do so. More importantly, we don't think to the establishment of a new nation — our United States of America. That party affiliation says anything useful was a long time ago, but this principle about how a person would approach the is as valid today as it was then and is issues our commission usually deals particularly important in Baker County with. What we need are competent administrators on the county commission, today. Our primary system disenfranchises regardless of political party. 28 percentoftheregistered Baker Those who know us know that we County voters in the primary elections. have variously been small business owners, ranchers, parents to three chilHow? Our current primary system is based on an outdated view that only dren, PTA members and law enforceregistered Republicans and Democrats ment officers in Baker County over the have the right to consider County Com- last 15 years. Our family is deeply inmission candidates forwarded by their vested in this community and we want party in primary elections. All other to ensure that everyone has a voice in registered voters, including Indepencounty affairs going forward. Anyone who wants to know more dents, nonaffiliated voters and members can visit the website for the measure at ofseven other politicalpartieshave no POPBakerCountycom. We know that vote in the selection of the candidates who will oppose each other in the genwe are voting"yes" on Measure 1-63. eral election. Thomas and Jodie Averett In the last primary election, 49 perBaker City cent of Baker County voters had no real Commissioners should be voice in the primary election for County elected by all voters Commissioner. We are not saying the outcome was I am casting my vote in favor of Ballot bad. We are saying government of the Measure 1-63. In early 20th century America, politipeople, by the people should be an inclu-
• 0
•
Carmen Ott Baker City
Measure 63 aims to solve a problem that doesn't exist In a short time Baker County residents will receive ballots for Measure 1-63, the measure to change the county commissioner position from partisan to nonpartisan. The chief petitioner for Measure 63, Mr. Randy Joseph, feels the current systems is flawed and "needs to be fixed." I respectfully disagree. Although the partisan system maybe flawed, it is much superior to the nonpartisan system. This last week I read two letters to theeditorexpressing extreme disappointment in going from a partisan to a nonpartisan system on the election process for the County Commissioner. Ask the residents of Josephine County how "bitter they feel" or how well the nonpartisan system is working out for them! In 2012 when Commissioner Dr. Carl Stiff, a Republican, became ill and resigned,thereplacement processwas left up to the Baker County GOP central committee. The special meeting was attended by over 50 GOP members who had a chance to listen to 10 people interested in filling Dr. Stiff's position. Mark Bennett was selected asthatreplacement. Mr. Bennett has served the needs and interest of Baker County residents very well, in my opinion. A wise old scholar once said, no one among us is as smart as the sum of all of us. Or in electing Mark Bennett, 50 people vs. the two remaining County Commissioners, which would happen under the nonpartisan system. In the case if there were two commissioner vacancies at once the governor would choose. Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber recently resigned and his actions as the governor are beinginvestigated by the FBI. In a nutshell, it sounds like Mr. Joseph appears have a case of"sour grapes." Going toa nonpartisan selecting process for to fix Mr. Joseph's perceived flaws in the current system is the same as "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." As for me and my household, we are voting no on Measure 63. Arvid E. Andersen Baker City
• 0
•