This is the archived site for the ACLU of Oregon. Information and links are not updated. For the most current information, please go to http://www.aclu-or.org.

One of our biggest victories in the past decade is now in jeopardy because the 1999 Oregon Legislature referred seven separate constitutional amendments to this November's special election ballot that would greatly erode the Oregon Bill of Rights.

In 1996 voters approved Measure 40, the so-called "victims' rights" measures. We challenged Measure 40 in court on the basis that it contained multiple amendments which should have been voted on separately. The Oregon Supreme Court agreed with us and threw out Measure 40 last year. Unfortunately, Rep. Kevin Mannix and other supporters of Measure 40 convinced the Legislature that most of this flawed measure should be referred directly back to the voters.

While the overzealous prosecutors behind these constitutional amendments like to hide behind the banner of crime victims, the truth is that Measures 69-75, won't do anything for crime victims that isn't already provided for in current law. What these measures will do is degrade the state constitution and needlessly erode our Bill of Rights by giving unprecedented power to state and local prosecutors while taking power away from judges and individual citizens.

The ACLU has joined a new crime victims group called Crime Victims for Justice that opposes Measures 69-75. Led by Arwen Bird and other survivors of crime (SAFES, an organization she co-founded) Crime Victims for Justice supports the Bill of Rights and is blowing the whistle on the Spawn of 40.

Measure 69: Victim Notification & Involvement in Trials
Oregon law already provides that victims of crime are to be notified and kept apprised of criminal proceedings. Measure 69 would enshrine these rights into the Oregon Constitution and it would supersede any conflicting sections of the constitution. Ironically, if this constitutional provision is violated, victims are explicitly barred from seeking any remedy; a victim has absolutely no legal recourse or ability to enforce any of these provisions. Measure 69 is really a prosecutors' rights amendment. Under Measure 69, prosecutors are the only ones who decide who is and who is not a victim, and can designate the state as the victim if it is a victimless crime. Additionally, a defendant can never be a victim, even in cases of self-defense or domestic violence.

Measure 70: State "Right" To Jury Trial
Currently, the Oregon constitution allows a defendant, with the approval of the judge, to waive a trial before a jury and proceed with a trial before the judge. Measure 70 would subvert that guarantee by giving the state the right to demand a jury trial even if the defendant wants to waive a jury trial and proceed before a judge. As in Measure 69, this right is given only to prosecutors, not the real crime victims. In fact, prosecutors can override the victim's wishes. For example, if, because of the sensitive nature of the crime (such as rape, incest or child abuse) the victim and the defendant agree to a trial before the judge, the prosecutor can ignore the victim's wishes and demand a jury trial. Measure 70 also grants the state the right to trial by jury "without delay," which conflicts with the defendant's rights and could cause an unfair rush to trial.

Measure 71: Expands Denial of Bail
Currently, the Oregon Bill of Rights allows the denial of bail in charges of murder or treason when "the proof is evident or the presumption strong." Measure 71 would place "preventive detention" into our constitution by prohibiting citizens accused of non-murder crimes from posting bail if there is "probable cause" of their guilt, without requiring clear and convincing evidence of guilt. This measure undermines the presumption of innocence and could lead to innocent people being jailed for months until they go to trial. The proponents argue that this will allow the court to take into consideration the safety of the victim when making a release decision. However, current law already requires the court to consider the safety of the victim and the community when determining release conditions. The real danger to the community arises if this measure passes. As Benton County Sheriff Stan Robson states, Measure 71 "would require our county, and many others with overcrowded jails, to release criminals to make room for those awaiting trial. As sheriff, I want to protect my community from the most dangerous offenders, not release them early because of Measure 71."

Measure 72: Non-Unanimous Juries
Since 1859, the Oregon Constitution has required unanimous convictions in cases of murder. Measure 72 would allow murder convictions by 11-1 verdict, still requiring 12-0 in aggravated murder charges where the death penalty is an option. We would join only one other state, Louisiana, in allowing convictions for murder on less than a 12-0 verdict. This destroys the fundamental requirement "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." This is not a crime victims' right, particularly if innocent people are wrongfully convicted by this less exacting standard.

Measure 73: Forced Testimony
Measure 73 would repeal the section of the Oregon Bill of Rights that protects citizens against self-incrimination. Currently, the Oregon constitution requires "transactional" immunity if someone is forced to testify against themselves. The federal standard, called "use" immunity, is less protective to citizens. If Measure 73 is passed, it would erode Oregon's constitutional protection against self-incrimination by granting the unusual power to the state to compel accused citizens to testify against themselves. This is not a crime victim's right. Instead, it gives to Oregon prosecutors the same kind of unbridled power which Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr used in the Whitewater investigation.

Measure 74: Requires Full Sentence Imposed To Be Served
Measure 74 requires the term of imprisonment announced in court to be fully served without modification of any kind. The result is to lock the sentences of convicted persons in stone, removing the power of the voters or the legislature from changing sentencing laws without first amending the constitution. For example, if the voters or the legislature agree to modify Measure 11, they would be required to pass a constitutional amendment to effect that change for people who have already been harshly sentenced. In addition, it removes the ability of corrections officials to use alternatives to incarceration or good time credit and other incentives with prisoners. As the prison population grays, Measure 74 will force us to keep prisoners incarcerated even if they are no longer a risk or are gravely ill.

Measure 75: Limits Jury Membership
The Oregon Constitution has no bar on who can serve on criminal or civil juries. Measure 75 would prohibit citizens convicted of felonies from serving on criminal juries for fifteen years or citizens convicted of misdemeanors involving "violence" or "dishonesty," neither of which is defined, for five years. This amendment to our Bill of Rights is entirely unnecessary as a bar on felons already exists in statute, allowing the voters or legislature to modify it if necessary. Neither the state nor the counties presently track misdemeanor convictions, let alone convictions for "certain misdemeanors involving dishonesty or violence." Court officials will have no idea who to exclude from juries unless potential jurors self-report. The only way Measure 75 can truly to be enforced is for the government to institute background checks of every person called for jury duty.

Survivors Advocating For an Effective System (SAFE)
is an organization of crime victims who oppose these ballot measures.
Read a statement by Arwen Bird, co-founder of SAFES.

For more information visit the Crime Victims for Justice website.