|
||||||
|
Note: Guest Opinions are added to this page on an intermittent basis. Question is when? Court should act expeditiously on legislative term-limits issue We are not fans of the term limits imposed on state legislators by a voter-approved ballot measure. But we think Secretary of State Bill Bradbury is right when he says term-limited lawmakers should be prevented from filing for election until a court ruling is finalized. A Marion County judge ruled on July 20 that the 1992 measure was invalid because it contained too many constitutional changes. His decision was immediately appealed to the state Supreme Court, which will have the final say. But when that say will be said is uncertain, and therein lies the rub. Legislative candidates are preparing to launch their campaigns for the May 2002 primary amid the uncertainty of term limits. It seems unfair to prohibit term-limited candidates from filing if term limits are going to be lifted. But it also seems unfair to allow term-limited candidates with greater name familiarity to run off other candidates when there is no certainty that the former will even be able to run if nominated or to serve if elected. The Supreme Court should move expeditiously to resolve the issue. The ultimate deadline is the March 12 filing deadline but, realistically, candidates need many months more than that to put together a campaign. If term limits are lifted, 26 current legislators, all term-limited, would become eligible to run in 2002 - Republican Sen. Lenn Hannon, for example. In addition, there are dozens of previously term-limited politicians who could re-enter the arena. Among those who have indicated they would consider doing so are Democrat Judy Uherbelau, whose last House session came in 1999. We miss the experience of Uherbelau and would miss Hannon if the term limits are upheld. But we still agree with Bradbury that, until this is resolved, term-limited legislators should not be allowed to file. We have supported the idea that constitutional ballot measures should be limited to one change, and it may be that the '92 measure did not meet that standard. But it is clear by the 70 percent support in 1992 that voters wanted to establish term limits. That was the main thrust of the measure, not a side issue that slipped past the electorate. If it turns out the term limits law is invalid, former lawmakers will still have the opportunity, either in this election cycle or the next, to run. But until this is finally resolved, the state and the courts should honor the voters' wishes. Parking fine multiplier is too steep We agree with a proposal to increase parking fines in downtown Medford, where the penalty now for overstaying your limit is almost insignificant. But we do have a problem with the multiplier effect. A proposal by the Medford Urban Renewal Agency would increase basic parking fines from $5 to $10. That seems reasonable at a time when a couple of cups of coffee - or at least mocha cappuccinos - can cost that much. But we're not so sure about the rapid escalation of fines for those who don't pay on time. Under the proposal, if you wait more than 10 days, the fine doubles. Wait more than 30 days and it quadruples. That seems a bit too steep. Wait 31 days to pay an overdue traffic ticket and you'll owe $40. Of course, you shouldn't wait to pay, but we all know people - maybe even by looking in the mirror - who put things off too long. They're not criminals or even scofflaws, just normal folks who are busy or forgetful. We suggest instead that the fine double after 30 days and quadruple after 60 and that a note go out midway in those periods warning of the impending increase. Downtown Medford is turning around, thanks in large part to the establishment and management of the urban renewal district. Medford has sent out the message that downtown is a good place to be. Raising the parking fines a bit won't diminish the message. Raising them a lot just might. |
Click here to contact your elected representatives To participate in National polls & discussions, or to start a petition or contact elected officials, go to "e-thepeople interactive town hall"
The Mail Tribune welcomes letters on any topic of general public relevance and interest. Please include a daytime phone number and address for verification. We cannot print letters, even e--mail letters, without verification. We're interested in the comments of all our on--line readers, but we can only publish letters from residents within our Southern Oregon and Northern California circulation area. Sorry, we cannot publish poetry. Writers are limited to one letter every 30 days. Address your letters of 250 word or less (150 words for thank you or election letters) to: Letters to the editor Or send your e--mail letter to: The Mail Tribune offers its opinion pages to stimulate discussion and understanding of issues important to our community. Editorials in this column reflect the opinions of the Mail Tribune.
|
|||||
