LAWMAKERS CONSIDER DEFYING VOTERS TO SAVE MONEY

Measure 57 Puts People in Jail Longer, Which Costs More

Eyeing ways to cut prison spending, some state legislators want to
slam the brakes on a voter-approved measure that created longer
prison terms for repeat property and drug offenders.

Talk about mothballing Measure 57, which took effect in January,
comes as legislators confront a massive budget shortfall in the next
two-year budget cycle, starting July 1.

Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, said a legislative work group is
considering whether to put the sentencing measure on hold.

"It's on the table for discussion," he said. "We're looking at all
the options we've got to reduce the cost of state corrections."

Prozanski, a former prosecutor, said he favors placing the sentencing
measure on hold for two years, potentially saving $75 million in the
2009-11 budget period.

Anti-crime activists denounce the idea.

Retired Lane County district attorney Doug Harcleroad, now a lobbyist
for the Oregon Anti-Crime Alliance, said it would be a mistake for
legislators to override the decision made by voters.

"They need to find a way to fund it," he said. "It's sort of a
contract with the voters, if you will."

Lawmakers placed Measure 57 on the November ballot as an alternative
to Measure 61, a more expensive version sponsored by Salem Republican
activist Kevin Mannix. Mannix's measure would have imposed mandatory
prison sentences for first-time identity thieves, burglars and drug dealers.

Oregon voters rejected Measure 61 and gave a thumbs up to Measure 57,
which coupled longer sentences for repeat offenders with drug and
alcohol treatment. The new sentencing provisions took effect Jan. 1,
and the first Measure 57 offenders recently started entering the prison system.

Halting the measure would create legal headaches because dozens of
offenders are serving prison terms prescribed by it, Harcleroad said.

Any legislative proposal to suspend Measure 57 faces an uphill climb
because the Oregon Constitution specifies that it takes a two-thirds
vote of the Legislature to change a voter-approved measure.

"I think that's going to make it a tough, hard slog for them," said
Steve Doell, the president of Oregon Crime Victims United, a
victim-advocacy group.

Delaying full implementation of Measure 57 would be "an absolute
insult to the voters," he said.

Doell suspects that a temporary suspension could turn into a
permanent revocation.

Prozanski cited the state's sagging economic fortunes as the reason
for rethinking Measure 57.

"When we were developing the measure, a year ago in February, no one
had any sense of what was going to happen to the economy," he said.
"As we drafted it, it was definitely in good faith as an alternative
for voters to consider as opposed to Measure 61."

Now, Oregon is suffering through an economic downturn that has
triggered one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, as
well as slumping tax revenue for the state. Prozanski envisions
public support for setting aside Measure 57 on a temporary basis,
"with the understanding that we will in fact implement when we get
stabilization in our economy."

Why would Oregonians back away from a get-tough-on-property-crime
measure passed six months ago by 61 percent of the voters?

"Because many people see this for what it is, as a new program, one
that we could actually put on hold," he said. "With the dire straits
of the economy, it's going to be hard to fulfill all of our current
obligations that we have, let alone bringing in and implementing new programs."

[sidebar]

MEASURE 57

In November, Oregon voters approved Measure 57, which pairs longer
sentences for repeat drug and property offenders with treatment. The
new sentencing provisions took effect Jan. 1, and the first Measure
57 offenders recently started entering the prison system.

By 2013, the measure is expected to add 1,600 inmates to the state's
prison population.