This November, Oregon voters will have a chance to change the way Judges are elected to the Oregon Supreme Court. (Yes, we elect our Supreme Court Justices here.) Right now, OSC (Oregon Supreme Court) Justices are elected by the entire state. If Ballot Measure 24 (pdf link) passes, however, the seven judges on the OSG (and also the ten judges on the Oregon Court of Appeals) will be elected by districts determined by population.
In other words, if Measure 24 passes, Oregon will be divided into seven Supreme Court districts, each containing one-seventh of Oregon’s population; and each district will get to elect one Supreme Court Justice.
The idea is to let people in rural Oregon feel like they have representation on the OSC. (Oregon, in a much oversimplified nutshell, can be divided into “liberal Portland” and “conservative the rest of Oregon,” so Portland’s influence annoys the rest of the state). However, Randy at Ridenbaugh Press points out that Measure 24 might work to weaken, rather than expand, the influence of rural Oregonians:
The up-side to the initiative, from the rural interest viewpoint, is that they’d be guaranteed a presence on the court. The downside is the limitation of that presence. On even the 10-member Court of Appeals, all of Oregon east of the Cascades would get just about . . . one seat. And that’s as much as they’d ever be able to get; under the present plan, you could in theory elect judge after judge from the big wide open. They’d get less than that on the Supreme Court. Meantime, under the new plan, the Portland metro area’s domination of the courts would be locked in.
It seems to me that this plan could make it far easier to elect at least a couple of progressive Judges, as well – it’s a lot easier for a progressive to get elected if they only have to get a majority of Portland voters, rather than a majority of Oregon voters.
So if you want Eastern Oregon to have guaranteed representation on Oregon’s highest Court, vote for Measure 24. And if you want to guarantee that the Court will always be dominated by Portlanders… vote for Measure 24.
Curtsy: Blue Oregon.
Creative Destruction 
What’s a “progressive”?
Ahh, you mean someone who supports the jewish agenda.
I would suggest various rural peoples to ditch the jew friendly “conservatism” and get with the “evil racist” program, visit sites like: antiwar.com, nationalvanguard.org, and the Mundi Club.
Comment by Republican Shabbos Goyim — August 7, 2006 @ 3:05 pm |
As a troll of a different and more irrevrent kind (breaking the holyest commandment: thou shalt never discuss the kike) I am not a troll of Deadbeat’s character nor do I support him. Deadbeat may very well be a neocon.
People can be racist, misogynistic, it’s not shocking. It’s never as bad as pointing out that this Iraq war was started by jews for jewish interests with the support of jew-sucking “judeo-christianity” of Bush and his flag-waving morons; pointing out the truth is shocking.
Comment by Republican Shabbos Goyim — August 7, 2006 @ 4:08 pm |
Ohh wait, I can tell definitively he is a neocon through use of outdated terms such as “communism” and “liberal”.
“Liberals” are his enemy. That’s a hoot. I can tell this guy is not blonde, not light eyed, nor even has a straight european nose.
“Fags”, “Sand Niggers” Rumsfeld, Pipes, Krauthammer derived diversions.
I would agree with you Amp if you find this guy a dangerous psychopath, or find much to dislike in the “white race” if you believe this guy to be white.
Comment by Republican Shabbos Goyim — August 7, 2006 @ 4:18 pm |
Lastly:
Disrespect for wildlife: the guy is definately under the hebrew line of thought, see, jews such as Deadbeat are racist pricks, not whites.
Gehennah, was once a physical location on earth, a gigantic litter zone for jewish trash, now they make Qana the same. Jews never had respect for nature. All other humans are just ‘nature’ to the jew.
Jews regard all other humans as animals. If you beat a dog, he may bite, and that bite is “anti-semitism”, nothing “irrational” or “hate passed on from generation to generation” at all. “Anti-semitism” is a natural reation to stimuli.
Comment by Republican Shabbos Goyim — August 7, 2006 @ 4:32 pm |
This is somewhat offtopic, but much less so than the trolling above —
I have heard the same criticism made of “majority minority” voting districts: that while they do get minorities elected they also make it much easier for the dominant majorities to elect representatives with no concern for minority issues and even hardcore racists. I’ve never looked into this argument carefully, but I’m sure that someone reading this site has — is this a valid objection?
Comment by David — August 8, 2006 @ 9:39 am |
I think so, David. See “Liberal Racism” by James Sleeper.
Comment by Robert — August 8, 2006 @ 11:31 am |
Robert, “majority minority” districts have been strongly supported by conservatives as well as liberals. So to refer to it as an example of “liberal racism” seems a bit odd.
David, I think the parallel is valid, and interesting. However, as in the case of rural Oregonians, I don’t think it’s clear that either way of doing things is wrong (or racist). It’s a trade-off; which is better, a guarantee of someone from your area on the Court combined with no chance of having multiple reps, or a chance of multiple reps combined with a chance of no local reps at all?
Comment by Ampersand — August 8, 2006 @ 3:46 pm |
“Liberal Racism” is the title of the book, dude. Take it up with Sleeper. And yeah, we accept the districts (particularly when they end up boosting conservative power) but we didn’t invent ’em.
I agree that it’s a tradeoff; what’s more important, representation or potential for control.
Comment by Robert — August 9, 2006 @ 12:33 am |