Vote NO on Oregon Ballot Measure 53
The State of Oregon has three ballot measures in the current election which are constitutional amendments and are billed as “housekeeping” measures. I am usually hesitant to amend our constitution without a very good reason, and I am usually suspicious of anything that is supposed to be a “correction” of a previous problem. This is the beginning of why I recommend a NO vote on Ballot Measure 53.
This ballot measure relates to the civil forfeiture law, which allows the police department to seize the personal property of persons who they accuse of committing crimes. I am strongly opposed to these laws, since it allows an accuser to inflict a penalty upon the accused without the benefit of the accused to have due process or a court hearing. The most serious problem with most of these laws is that the forfeiture will stand, even if the accused is later found to be not guilty of the crime for which they were accused.
Fortunately, in 2000, Oregon amended these laws to allow civil forfeitures to go on only if the accused is found guilty of a crime. Like many new laws, though, this one was found to have a number of defects. This amendment attempts to correct these defects. However, of the three things this proposed amendment changes, I am opposed to two of them.
First, measure 53 fixes a problem where law enforcement is not allowed to take custody of abused animals through civil forfeiture until a guilty conviction is reached. This could allow the animals to suffer longer than necessary. I am not opposed to this portion of the amendment. However, in light of the issues with the remainder of the amendment, I cannot vote for this. I do believe that there must be some way to deal with this problem, either through a separate constitutional amendment, or by working through existing animal welfare regulations until that can happen.
Second, the amendment allows civil forfeiture to occur for crimes that do not result in a conviction if they are “related to” a crime of which the accused was convicted. I am not really comfortable with this concept. We seem to be heading back toward allowing forfeitures for crimes for which there was no conviction.
To clarify a point, I am not opposed to any forfeiture where a judge has ruled that the accused should forfeit the property. In the case of a civil forfeiture for a related crime, we are back to law enforcement making the decision as to what a penalty should be for an action. Why can there not be a legal hearing to determine whether the forfeiture should occur?
Third, there is a provision that would allow a law enforcement agency to keep the proceeds of any civil forfeiture that they are allowed to go forward on. If you ask any law enforcement official today, they will tell you that their agency is short of operating funds. Are we really prepared to allow law enforcement to increase their funding by the amount of property they can seize? This seems to be analogous to allowing officers to keep the fines generated from the traffic tickets they write. If we thought that was happening, we would be appalled.
If we intend our law enforcement officials to have more funding, let’s legislate them more funding. Let’s put the proceeds of civil forfeitures into the General Fund. That way, perhaps law enforcement might derive a benefit form the forfeitures, without the appearance of a direct benefit from them.
I say we properly fund law enforcement in Oregon, and not have their funding depend upon how many convictions or forfeitures they can make. I would prefer to promote fairness by law enforcement over an emphasis on number of arrests or convictions..
Please vote NO on Oregon Ballot Measure 53, a flawed constitutional amendment.
Leave a Reply