Inbox

[May 14th, 2008]

OBJECTION!

I need to correct the statements in the April 30 issue [“For the Love of Politics”], which implied or stated that ACLU is supporting Measures 51, 52 and 53. ACLU is officially neutral on all three Legislature referrals.

As for Measures 51 and 52, which would permit crime victims to seek redress if their constitutional rights as victims are violated, these improvements are a good idea. The ACLU Board decided to stay neutral because the original constitutional amendments (approved in 1999) eliminated important state constitutional rights of criminal defendants. Measures 51 and 52 don’t change those essential defects and that is the reason for our neutrality.

As for Measure 53, we strongly disagree with WW’s editorial staff which stated that the approval of civil forfeiture reforms in 2000 (Measure 3) was a “blunder” that had unintended consequences. Civil forfeiture reform was badly needed and long overdue.

Measure 53 is consistent with a 2005 compromise we reached with law enforcement while a legal challenge to Measure 3 was still pending in the Oregon Supreme Court. ACLU promised at that time that we would not oppose a constitutional amendment consistent with that compromise if the Court eventually upheld Measure 3—which it did. If Measure 53 is approved, it will require new laws to implement it and ACLU will do what we can to ensure the most essential safeguards of Measure 3 are preserved. If Measure 53 is defeated, and law enforcement agencies continue refusing to do civil forfeitures because they can’t keep any of the money, the world will not end.

David Fidanque
Executive director
ACLU of Oregon

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

I guess I’m flattered that Willamette Week’s editorial staff thinks that I, “a [mere] Eugene lawyer,” wrote Ballot Measure 3 (2000), which reformed the state’s asset forfeiture law. I did not! A very competent Portland lawyer hired by the backers of the measure drafted it. I was one of the volunteer advisors.

It’s unfortunate WW staffers didn’t bother to research facts. If they had spoken to anyone involved with drafting the measure, they would have learned that the backers wanted a bright line separating law enforcement from the use of forfeited funds. (They rejected my suggestion that part of the forfeited proceeds be allowed to be used for law enforcement purposes after a criminal conviction.)

The so-called fumbles of Measure 3 were considered, but backers chose to write a strict measure that required a criminal conviction before the government forfeited any private property.

Measure 53 will allow for forfeiture without a conviction in two limited areas: abandoned or abused animals and abandoned personal property. It also allows local governments to share a portion of the proceeds in federal cases. In all other cases, a conviction is still required. I support these changes.

As a prosecutor and legislator, I cannot fathom why WW opposed Measure 3. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a basic principle of our legal system. One would think that all good progressives would agree that the government should first obtain a criminal conviction before forfeiting private property. Indeed, Oregon voters of all political stripes overwhelmingly passed Measure 3.

Sen. Floyd Prozanski
Eugene

The editor responds: State Sen. Prozanski is responding to WW’s endorsement in the April 30 paper of Ballot Measure 53. The 2007 Legislature referred Measure 53 to reform Ballot Measure 3, a constitutional amendment that voters passed in 2000. Measure 3, which tried to limit the seizure of property that was taken before anyone was convicted, was so poorly written that it needed rewriting. In our endorsement of that rewrite—Measure 53—we called Measure 3 “Prozanski’s blunder,” because he was a principal author of Measure 3. And we felt Prozanski, as a lawyer and public official, should have known better than to put something so seriously flawed before the voters. In his letter, Prozanski seeks to distance himself from Measure 3, which we find puzzling. Everyone we spoke with says Prozanski played a central role in the drafting of Measure 3, including Dave Fidanque, head of the Oregon chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. In addition, Prozanski (along with Fidanque) helped write the explanatory statement that appeared in the 2000 Voters’ Pamphlet. In sum, we believe Prozanski doth protest too much.