Why We Won’t Be Participating in the “Citizens Initiative Review” Process
SHARE:
Our Oregon and the Corporate Kicker for K-12 campaign won’t be participating in the so-called “Citizens Initiative Review” process because it’s a poor use of public resources and campaign time, and there’s no evidence that it has any impact on voters.
Since 2010, the CIR project has cost at least a half a million dollars, costing at least $210,000 just for the two upcoming panels. If the backers of the Citizens Initiative Review were serious about increasing public engagement, they could spend that money instead on voter registration. With $210,000, they could have registered some 30,000 Oregonians to vote.
The CIR is funded in large part by private organizations, but staffing has been paid for by a loan from the state. So far, no accounting has been made public about how much of that money has been paid back, if any.
While Oregon is facing ongoing cuts to schools and basic services like health care and public safety, the state shouldn’t be giving or loaning money to ineffective projects like this one. How ever much money or staff time has been given or loaned to the project is money that should have been spent in Oregon classrooms or on critical projects.
It’s also a waste of campaign time and resources. With fewer than 90 days before ballots come out, our campaign has limited time and money to spend talking with voters, and we’re going to spend those resources in the most effective way possible. Instead of spending a week in a Salem conference center with 30 people, we will spend our time talking to thousands of voters in their own communities.
Finally, there is very strong evidence that the output of Citizen’s Initiative Review has zero impact on shaping the opinions of voters. Their recent track record is 0-2.
In 2010, the review panel was opposed to Measure 73 (Kevin Mannix's mandatory minimums) by a vote of 21-3. The measure passed with 57% of the vote. On Measure 74 (medical marijuana), the panel supported the measure by a vote of 13-11. That measure failed with about 56% of the vote.
This abysmal track record shows that the panels are far from representative of the voting public, and that the materials they produce don’t have any impact on how voters make their decisions.
Add comment
Receive our daily news clips!
Email jenny@ouroregon.org to be added to our daily news clips list.
Comments
I agree with Our Oregon's decision not to present to the CIR and to concentrate scarce campaigning resources of time on taking this initiative to Oregonians. As it stands now, the CIR agreed with the intiative without the presentation.
I know very little of the CIR. It has only caught my attention over this initiative which I am following. I applaud the goal of increasing understanding by the use of accessible language but do not agree with use of the CIR. I like the non-partisan attempt; however, I feel that too many times we only see a two-sided partisanship when we are so much more complex than rural/urban, etc. so it is difficult to attempt to represent all Oregonians with just two dozen people.
The CIR appears to me to risk exerting an undue impact because it is essentially allowing two dozen Oregonians to vote on a matter before the election and publishing their votes right there in the pamphlet. I would hope that it would have little impact on how Oregonians vote.
I applaud an attempt to increase citizen engagement which is requisite for a free and fair society; however, I believe this top-down approach may not be the way to accomplish this. From my perspective, I see many more people being civically active locally. Hard times tend to concentrate the mind.
I will look at the CIR again more closely because it is obvious that a great deal of effort went in to setting it up. I am for anything that helps citizens become more involved. However, I do not want to see it presenting as an obstacle to citizen's initiatives or having a sponsor's demural of participation become a point of criticism as that recently leveled by The Oregonian editorial board. Not all states have our precious right of citizen intiative. We ought to change that process only very carefully.
--Stephanie Hampton
"Finally, there is very strong evidence that the output of Citizen’s Initiative Review has zero impact on shaping the opinions of voters. Their recent track record is 0-2."
That's not evidence of zero impact. That's evidence that the CIR does not, by itself, determine elections.
Our Oregon folks -
Maybe not participating in the CIR makes sense for Our Oregon's budget priorities - that's your call. But please reconsider your position on the CIR.
The CIR is not a "so-called" citizen's initiative review. The process has been carefully researched and implemented to be a painstakingly non-partisan, fair process for a subset of citizens to evaluate ballot initiatives.
The CIR's track record is not yet statistically significant - it's only been in two Voter's Pamphlets and it's very early yet and the CIR is not well-known. Maybe these are impenetrable barriers, but the concept is sound and Oregon voters want a place to find a fair evaluation of the initiatives they must vote on.
Please look again at the CIR.
I am affiliated with Healthy Democracy, the non-profit that runs the CIR, my husband is on the board and we were early financial supporters. We do it simply because we're trying to help make this crazy Oregon democracy work.
--Caroline Borduin