News and information from our partners

EDITORIAL: Oregon’s municipal courts at risk

Albany Democrat-Herald, Sept. 6, on the plight of municipal and justice courts:

Linn County Justice of the Peace Jad Lemhouse paints the issue in fairly stark terms, and he’s right to do that.

Unless the state figures out a way to wean itself from using fines imposed by local courts to fund a variety of programs — often with little or no connection to the violations that have triggered those fines — the future of Oregon’s municipal and justice courts is in jeopardy.

The threat isn’t theoretical: During the decade ending in 2005, one in five municipal courts in Oregon closed.

That means all legal matters in those counties, including things such as traffic tickets, flow to already-overburdened circuit courts — which often require parties to travel to county seats to take care of legal issues.

And handling, say, a traffic case in circuit court is considerably more costly than dealing with it at the municipal level.

At issue is what’s known as the priority levy, the cut the state takes from fines levied in municipal and justice courts. In the mid-1980s, the state started taking a cut of $10 from fines to help pay for certain programs.

You probably can guess how the rest of the story goes: As the years went by, and state government found a ready source of fresh revenue, it kept drinking more and more deeply from that particular well.

By the time the calendar had flipped to 2011, the priority levy had increased to $60 — and, to make matters worse, the state got to move to the front of the line. The state got its money first, and the local courts had to make do with what was left.

And the list of programs funded through the priority levy has grown over the years as well. Originally intended for the state’s Department of Public Safety Standards and Training facility, which helps to train Oregon law officers, the list now includes about 10 programs.

The result, in Lemhouse’s apt metaphor: The state is on the verge of killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.

Lemhouse has been on a lonely crusade on this issue for years, as Democrat-Herald reporter Alex Paul noted in a Sunday story. In the legislative session just past, he gained an ally, Democrat Rep. Phil Barnhart, who helped pass a bill that reduced the priority levy to $45.

It’s a start. But more work needs to be done.

We have no beef with the variety of state programs that draw some of their funding from the priority levy. But legislators need to find other sources of money for those programs. We fail to see how anyone comes out ahead by placing our local courts in a fiscal stranglehold.


The (Eugene) Register-Guard, Sept. 6, on marijuana legalization:

One of the safest predictions in politics is that Oregonians will consider a proposal to legalize recreational use of marijuana next year. Rep. Phil Barnhart, D-Eugene, shows foresight in suggesting that the Legislature write the proposal in its session next February. State lawmakers are best equipped to ensure that a marijuana measure would be legally sound, would avoid conflict with federal authorities and would be consistent with state interests.

Legalization advocates have proved they can place a marijuana initiative on the ballot — they did it last year. Measure 80 was defeated by the voters but received 47 percent of the vote despite its poor wording and over-reach. More carefully crafted proposals passed in Washington state and Colorado. At least two pro-legalization initiatives are in the early stages of the process of qualifying for next year’s ballot.

A U.S. Justice Department memorandum recently indicated how it will respond to state marijuana laws — including those in Oregon and 18 other states that have legalized marijuana for limited medical uses. The memo provides useful guidance in how to write a state marijuana law without triggering enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act.

Barnhart says an Oregon marijuana law should focus on breaking criminal organizations’ control of the drug, establishing a system of regulation and taxation, and keeping marijuana out of the hands of children. Those aims are consistent with some of the Justice Department’s priorities. The Legislature could write a proposal that would attempt to serve the state’s interests while at the same time furthering the federal government’s goals.


DanaC 4 years, 7 months ago

If the law doesn't allow small scale home growing, the measure will fall short. Using Colorado's bill as a model is more in line with the ideology and fiscal capabilities of Oregonians. A corporate style of regulation like Washington's will be a huge disappointment. We are perfectly capable of doing for ourselves and don't need some corporation wedging in between us and our rights. I won't work towards a corporate bill, or vote for it.


Sign in to comment


Information from The Chronicle and our advertisers (Want to add your business to this to this feed?)