The Oregon Secretary of State wants to curtail misinformation about elections. Steve Novick, Oregon Department of Justice environmental lawyer, may be challenging the definition of misinformation. He wants the legislature to take action to redistribute the kicker more equitable. However, his argument uses “equitable” to replace “equal” in the constitution.

Novick published an article proposing Governor Kotek call a special session to address redistributing the kicker giving the same amount to everyone. He also thinks that by a simple majority vote, the Legislature could make the kicker equitable, since this wouldn’t be a “bill for raising revenue,” it should not trigger the 3/5 vote requirement for tax increases. However, the 2000 ballot measure 86 explanatory statement states, “Ballot Measure 86 would permit the Legislative Assembly, by a two-thirds majority vote of all members elected to each house, to increase the estimates at any time during the two-year state budget period. The effect of an increase in an estimate would be to reduce or eliminate the “kicker” refunds otherwise due taxpayers under Ballot Measure 86.” Technically, distributing an equal amount would result in an increase in the taxable amount for higher taxpayers.

Novick argues that the Constitutional provision on the kicker just says "the total amount of the excess shall be returned to personal income taxpayers," and does not indicate how it should be distributed. When legislators have raised similar ideas, the Legislative Counsel’s office has told them, he presumes, something like “no, you can’t do that, because when the voters put the kicker in the Oregon Constitution they thought they were requiring that kickers be distributed as a percentage of taxes paid.”

However, Article 1, Section 20 of the Oregon Constitution guides the treatment of all people: “Equality of privileges and immunities of citizens. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.—” The Legislative Counsel is thus correct in saying “no” to the unfair distribution of the kicker.

Novick sees no value to fiduciary responsibility in the state economist’s forecasts saying, “If we only hired starry-eyed optimists as state economists, there’d never be a kicker.” Oregon ranks 27 in fiscal stability and 32 in government credit rating. Taking a riskier approach just to reduce the kicker would have effects on the economy.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Novick belittles voters assuming they didn’t grasp the significance of their vote on Measure 86 in 2000, further assuming they were voting only on the money that would be handed out. He refers to the voters pamphlet, claiming it “certainly gave voters no reason to believe they were voting to give huge windfalls to rich people.” However, the arguments in favor state, “Legislators have consistently tried to spend your money…fought hard to return non-budgeted funds back to the people.” “It’s our moral obligation to return the excess. Help curb the growth of government by putting the kicker in the Oregon Constitution.”

Novick further tries to suggest the last statement in the measure, “Ballot Measure 86 would permit the Legislative Assembly to determine the means by which "kicker" refunds are returned to taxpayers”, could be used to mean more than how it is sent back to the taxpayer. However, the text of the measure, Section 14 (5) clearly defines this statement as being how the state processes and returns the kicker.

For what benefit does Novick suggest such a controversial move? It would be the most socialistic move this state has made, which could have an economic impact and stymie growth. Novick repeats that these are his own opinions, but are they mis- dis- or mal-information that may influence voters in an election and subject to the Secretary’s new software? When does bad information become misinformation?


--Dollie Banner

Post Date: 2024-01-04 09:39:09

Last Update: 2024-01-04 14:34:25