THE CYNICAL SHELL GAME THAT IS MEASURE 57

Crime and Punishment and Charades

What's with the two crime measures on the November ballot -- you know
Measures 57 and 61? Has Oregon's high property-crimes rate finally
sparked a tough-on-crime competition? Has the Legislature suddenly
become so concerned about break-ins, car thefts, identity fraud and
drug crimes that it felt compelled to send out a legislative referral
(Measure 57)?

Not at all. Measure 57 is not on the ballot because its advocates
care about combating nonviolent crime here. The Legislature itself
could have made all the criminal sentencing changes that it's asking
voters to do in Measure 57. That's what legislators are supposed to
do -- write criminal sentences into law. No, Measure 57 is on the
ballot for one reason only: to keep Kevin Mannix' Measure 61 -- true
mandatory minimum sentences for certain property, identity theft and
drug crimes -- from becoming Oregon law.

Measure 57 is brought to you by legislators, public employee unions
and soft-on-crime activists who really don't believe Oregon has a
crime problem -- at least not one that can't be solved by a warm meal
and a social program. They put up Measure 57 in the hope that their
faux crime package would get more votes than Mannix' mandatory
minimums and trump Measure 61. They knew they couldn't defeat his
initiative so they backed an alternative that they either don't
believe in or see as "window dressing."

How do we know? How can we be sure their Measure 57 is a charade and
not just Mannix-lite?

Well, the difference is clear in the ballot titles. Mannix' Measure
61 sets a "mandatory minimum for certain crimes -- burglary, forgery,
theft and drug crimes." Measure 57's doesn't include the term
"mandatory minimum" because mandatory minimums for drug-,
identity-theft and property crimes aren't included in the substance
of the referral. The ballot title talks about increasing sentencing,
but even this is deceiving. The increased sentences are
"presumptive." Judges are free to hand out lesser sentences, and
sentences can be cut up to 40 percent for good behavior and
participation in drug treatment.

But here's how we really know that Measure 57 is a cynical shell game
to nullify real property-crime reform. Its boosters have said so --
sometimes in public documents they've tried to keep secret. In a
January 2008 e-mail to folks involved in the legislative referral,
Joe O'Leary of Gov. Ted Kulongoski's staff wrote that one goal "we
are trying to accomplish" is to produce something that "supersedes
other measures that impose minimum sentences."

Why was this necessary? Why not simply try to defeat Mannix's
minimum-sentences measure? Pollster Lisa Grove had given opponents of
the Mannix measure some bracing news. It was all but impossible to
defeat the measure: A sample from her briefing:

"Mannix has a fairly easy argument to make: Oregon needs to do more
to hold predators accountable and stop revolving door justice,
especially as it relates to meth and identify theft. ... We are
concerned that voters do not know the current sentence structure for
meth and identity theft -- and will be infuriated once they do. ...
After voters hear the arguments in favor of the measure, opposition
to mandatory minimums drops by seven points .. . We are significantly
outgunned in the message department. We are not convinced that it is
possible to defeat this initiative. ... [T]he arguments against the
initiative are not nearly as effective as reasons to support it. ...
To be abundantly clear, many of the messages we are using or want to
use run the risk of actually costing us votes."

What to do? Send out an alternative that looks plausible and says it
will go into effect if both pass and it receives more votes than
Mannix's measure.

In a "Please do not share this memo with anyone" communication that
Measure 57 proponents tried to keep secret under Oregon's public
records law, David Rogers of the Partnership for Safety and Justice
- -- a dainty-on-crime outfit involved in Measure 57 effort -- laid out
the game in all its cynical detail.

"The ... second poll did ... help prevent legislative leadership from
getting cold feet," Rogers told his board of directors. "They need
more confirmation that a referral was the best strategy to beat [the
Mannix measure] and that it was winnable. Lisa Grove, our pollster,
was successful at delivering that message in legislative briefings.
It is amazing how much power she and her polls have in the
legislative process. It is a disheartening dynamic."

He was troubled. "By supporting the referral, we are advancing
notions and messages that we fundamentally disagree with. ... , he
said. Yet, he wrote, the referral is "Oregon's best shot at beating" Mannix.

The cynicism extended to the referral's specifics. Looking at the
drug trafficking section, Rogers wrote, "Our analysis is that this is
mostly for show and this would impact a very small number of people."

Nor was his view unique. Another document that Measure 57 sponsors
tried to hide came out of the office of Rep. Chip Shields,
D-Portland. It was a "working draft" of the referral. In the margin
of the heroin-trafficking section are the scrawled words, "window dressing."

Window dressing for Oregon's broken car windows and other property crimes.

Measure 57 -- its own kind of crime.