Judiciary Failed General Election
✓

PEAPAC Recommends: YES

Judges should be “known among” the people (Deut 1:13); geographic districts allow for better accountability and breaks the incumbency advantage.

Summary

Requires high-level state judges to be elected by geographic districts rather than statewide vote.

Biblical Reasoning

Measure 40 corrects two major problems that have contributed to this growing judicial activism. First, judges are not generally known by the people who vote on them. They should be. Deuteronomy 1:13 says they are to be “wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes.”

Measure 40 creates a situation where people will be more likely to know the judicial candidates, who will be from their part of the state. They will be “known among” the people.

Deuteronomy 1:13 — “they are to be “wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes.””

Election Results

43%
57%
YesNo

Voters rejected electing judges by district (57% No).

Full PEAPAC Analysis

PEAPAC Explanation: Currently, Oregon Supreme Court and Court of Appeals judges are elected by state-wide vote. Under Measure 40 these judges would be elected within a particular geographic region.

PEAPAC Comment: Judges should enforce laws Legislators make. But in just the past two years judges, not lawmakers, have drastically curtailed private property rights, overturned laws prohibiting live sex shows in Oregon, and decided that parents have no right to oversee the sexual education of their children. — On June 23, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court greatly expanded government’s ability to take your land by means of eminent domain. They can now favor one private party who is trying to take a land owner’s property by force. — On September 29, 2005, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that live sex shows are a protected form of free speech in Oregon. — On November 2, 2005, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided parents can’t stop sexual surveys of their elementary school kids.

Measure 40 corrects two major problems that have contributed to this growing judicial activism. First, judges are not generally known by the people who vote on them. They should be. Deuteronomy 1:13 says they are to be “wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes.” Measure 40 creates a situation where people will be more likely to know the judicial candidates, who will be from their part of the state. They will be “known among” the people.

Second, since judges are not known, incumbency is a nearly insurmountable barrier to replacing activist judges. When people don’t know the candidates, they tend to vote for the Incumbent. Candidates are then difficult to recruit, since they know it’s hard to get more votes than the candidate with the “I” (for Incumbent) next to his name. This is why so many judges run unopposed. But in the new districts of Measure 40, none of the present judges will be incumbents. There will be no “I” for Incumbent behind anyone’s name. This will make it much easier to recruit non-activist lawyers to replace the judges who have, for example, overturned laws that would have outlawed live sex shows in Oregon. We strongly urge your Yes vote on Measure 40.

← PreviousMeasure 39 (2006)