Pioneer LogLewis & Clark College’s Student-Run Newspaper

Can voters read abbreviations?

September 10, 2010

by Andrew Lyle

Standing shoulder to shoulder, steadfast in purpose and song, the cast of the musical RENT invites the question: How do you measure, measure a year? Daylights and midnights? Sunsets or cups of coffee? Why not frequent and costly lawsuits brought forth against the Oregon Secretary of State? It is election season, and the office responsible for the acceptance or rejection of hard-fought petition sheets and ballot initiatives must certainly expect to see their name imprinted upon innumerable complaints of declaratory and injunctive relief. As one suit is dropped, so another materializes from the political periphery, this time concerning an ostensibly invidious rule change in the November election cycle. Whereas Oregon law stipulates that the “name” of candidates and political parties must be printed upon the ballot, only abbreviations of political parties will be printed next to the candidates names on the ballot this November.

The reason for the change is space constraints. Due to Oregon’s “cross-nomination” rules (minor parties may nominate candidates from larger parties, essentially expressing an endorsement), up to three party names may appear next to each candidate. The decision to abbreviate all of the party-names has aggravated minor parties, who already have less name recognition and whose abbreviations are therefore unfamiliar to voters. More importantly, however, is that the rule change can be interpreted as a violation of the Oregon statute that regulates the names of parties on the ballot. But just because there are some legitimate premises to sue someone does not mean you are obliged to. I say this because lawsuits are expensive, and if the lawsuit involves the state, it is expensive to tax payers. In this case, I question the motivation and rationale for the suit.

The most troubling feature of the complaint is the Herculean assumption of voter stupidity, suggesting the most absurd possible interpretations of the abbreviated party names. I should perhaps avoid rehearsing such a simple opposition, but I do wish the plaintiffs would show some more respect for the evolved, upright, and often sensible animal that is the Oregon voter. The injunction memo refers to the abbreviations as unintelligible (Can you decipher DEM and REP? Could IND be the abbreviation for the Independent Party?). The filed complaint argues that the abbreviations will “confuse voters at the time most critical to their democratic decision making” (here’s to hoping that voters have some idea of the parties and, more importantly, names of candidates before stepping into that booth), and the plaintiffs have notably stated that LBT, the abbreviation for the Libertarian Party, could be conceivably misread as the initials for a  Bacon Lettuce and Tomato sandwich (Voters who misconstrued a voting precinct for a Quiznos, perhaps?).

I am not expressing outright confidence in the genus homo, but with the inclusion of a key in both the voter pamphlet and the official ballot, it seems that voters could, as John Locke suggests, simply consult their reason (the executive power, the law of nature) if and when they are in doubt whether PGP refers to a “street drug” and not the Pacific Green Party. The plaintiffs argue that they are helping all Oregonians by clarifying these confusing syllabary triptychs. The alleged altruistic motivation of their complaint therefore entitles them to a reimbursement of their legal fees, paid for by, who else, Oregonians. It is, I suppose, more agreeable to fight for justice when the work is gratis.