The Oregonian
October 23, 2015
Portland lawyer Jill Gibson has, as she'd promised, filed another initiative petition to make Oregon a "right to work" state, at least for public employees. Similar petitions filed this spring endured an eyebrow-raising journey through the state attorney general's office, which produces the all-important ballot titles voters read when deciding to say "yes" or "no." Gibson's latest proposal will give Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum's attorneys another chance to produce a ballot title that exhibits the neutrality the process is supposed to ensure.
The attorneys who produce ballot titles have at the very least a perception problem when it comes to handling initiatives that affect public employee unions. That's because the attorneys themselves are represented by a union – the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. Meanwhile, ballot initiatives that interest public employee unions are commonplace and include tax hikes proposed by union-affiliated groups and proposals, like Gibson's, that could reduce union funding.
The ballot title for Gibson's most recent proposal was overseen by an AFSCME member. It received a clear and straightforward draft ballot title, but the final, or certified, title was skewed to such a degree in favor of unions that the underlying conflict begged to be discussed. And it was, by us and others.
This month, Gibson filed a substantially equivalent initiative. It would allow public employees in unionized workplaces who don't belong to unions to withhold "fair share" payments, which unions may collect even from nonmembers to cover the cost of representation. The measure also would prohibit unions from representing these employees.
Time will tell whether Rosenblum's office produces, at last, a neutral ballot title. What we do know, however, is that the attorneys who produce ballot titles don't enjoy having their conflict of interest discussed and their work held up for scrutiny. We get it. And as we've said in the past, the fact that union members have produced unbalanced ballot titles for initiatives that interest public employee unions does not prove ill-intent or anything more serious.
However, the conflict is real, and public scrutiny of the ballot title process is not only appropriate but, given Gibson's experience, necessary. We don't blame Rosenblum's attorneys for disliking the attention they've received as a result. But a solution is available to them. They could begin the process for decertification.