Reversing the Sizemore-ization of Oregon Politics

Sizemore helped establish a norm of using any means possible to score political victories, even if those victories did not reflect the true will of the Oregon people.

Political norms are shaped by democratic processes (plural) for a reason. Pro-democratic (lowercase d) norms are strongest when a menu of processes exist such that officials and residents alike can turn to the right process for a particular matter.

Sam Coons and Richard Neuberger employed this rationale in selecting a series of debates for their discussion on hydroelectric power. They confined the conversation to impacted parties, adhered to a relevant agenda, and involved social institutions and community members in a meaningful way. In stark contrast, Bill Sizemore opted for the convenience of the initiative rather than actually win an election to air his views in the State Legislature or even Congress. 

Harkening back to the earliest days of the Oregon’s initiative system—when Oregonians faced as many as 37 measures on one ballot in the early 20th century, Sizemore had no qualms with loading up ballots with various measures. To give you a sense of Sizemore's prolific (and careless) use of the initiative, consider that in the 2000 election Sizemore was responsible for more than 10 percent of all statewide ballot initiatives in the nation. If you squint, you can strain your perspective to see Sizemore as the embodiment of several values and norms at the heart of the Oregon Way. 

You could try to see Sizemore as a modern equivalent of William U'Ren, the father of Oregon’s initiative system. After all, U'Ren, as the author of several initiatives himself, likely would have celebrated the fact that since 1904 Oregonians had voted on more initiatives than anyone else—Sizemore was just adding to that total.

Sizemore could also be seen as channeling the localism espoused by Oregon's earliest lawmakers. But what you stop squinting and take in the scenery, context reveals that Sizemore does not deserve such associations.

U'Ren championed the initiative as a way to ensure action on the desires of a representative majority of Oregonians. Sizemore knew that his use of the initiative had less rosy aspirations as he sought to advance what pleased a majority of voters (but not necessarily a majority of Oregonians). Oregon’s first lawmakers may have celebrated the wisdom won by placing power in the hands of local communities but they dared not try to map the values of single communities onto the rest of the state as Sizemore did.

"Taxes!" by soukup is licensed under CC BY 2.0

Vague and simple measures introduced by Sizemore and his crew shrouded massive and difficult to reverse outcomes. Measure 91, placed on the 2000 ballot, exemplified the lack of nuance in a Sizemore-authored measure. If passed, Measure 91 would have made federal income taxes deductible on state personal income and corporate income tax returns. Further, the Measure would have caused the state to lose around $1 billion in revenue. If he had succeeded, Sizemore would have told you that Oregonians were simply adhering to broadly-held values.

Sizemore mischievously cloaked his absolutist measure in the values of state-rights and fiscal conservatism—which surely did appeal to many around the state. Sizemore's ballot pamphlet statement in support of Measure 91 was grounded in seemingly sensical values: 1) "double taxation is wrong"; 2) state taxes are too high; and, 3) legislators aren't listening to the will of the people. He concluded his statement by warning voters to not be "fooled by the other side's scare tactics" perhaps hoping that this would cover his own fear-laced "facts."

One could forgive Oregonians for finding Sizemore’s statement compelling, which gets to the point of how easily individuals can manipulate democratic processes if pro-democratic norms aren’t followed. When it becomes the norm to prioritize electoral victory over truly garnering community support, you get statements that are coded to incite votes rather than to inform voters.

When values of honesty and non-partisanship go missing, folks like Sizemore are not held accountable for violating what many would say constitutes good behavior. And, when social institutions are forced to take sides on value-laden measures, they lose the ability to provide unbiased, broadly received evaluations of measures.

Sizemore helped establish a norm of using any means possible to score political victories, even if those victories did not reflect the true will of the Oregon people. Let’s elect people dedicated to reversing that norm and restoring a culture of collaboration.

---

This is an excerpt of a series of posts. Find links to the full series here.

Kevin Frazier helped started The Way. He edits pieces between classes at the UC Berkeley School of Law.