BY SARAH ROSS

SALEM- Some in the state’s political sphere are concerned by the inability of citizen review organizers to limit review bias.

The Citizen Initiative Review pilot project came about as a result of a piece of 2009 legislation that gave the Secretary of State the ability to “designate organizations to establish citizen panels to review and create statements on a specified number of initiated state measures.”

The pilot project passed both the State House and the State Senate with bipartisan support, receiving only 22 “no” votes, all Republican, in the whole body.

“The voters of Oregon don’t need any self-appointed ‘neutral’ referees to interpret ballot measures for them. Only elitists think that way,” said Rep. Matt Wingard, R-Wilsonville, in an e-mail to The Oregon Politico.

This legislation allowed the Healthy Democracy Oregon (HDO) organization to create panels of “randomly selected” voters to debate and to decide on two positions on ballot initiatives.

The panelists hear testimony from and are allowed to question witnesses on both sides of an issue. Then they debate the issue among themselves and come to their own conclusions.

HDO seeks “trustworthy, concise, and easily accessible” written statements from panelists, one statement opposing the initiative and one supporting it, which are printed in the Voter’s Pamphlet.

Doug Harcleroad, a Senior Policy Advisor for the Oregon Anti-Crime Alliance and a private practice attorney, voiced his concerns with the review process, which he said is “totally flawed.”

Harcleroad’s main concern is the organizers’ inability to screen potential panelists for bias.

“It’s important to have a fair and impartial group of twenty-four people,” said Harcleroad. “But they don’t have that, and they will never have that unless they screen for bias about the measures they’re having these people work on.”

Elliot Shuford, Legislative Coordinator for Healthy Democracy Oregon, said Harcleroad’s comparison of the process to a jury trial is not what HDO is aiming for.

“Our goal is to assemble a fair cross section of Oregon voters with a wide range of views,” said Shuford, adding the process is “totally different” from a trial jury.

Harcleroad was also concerned that witnesses brought in to testify before the panelists have no consequences for lying or misrepresenting the truth.

“The quality of the information can be variable or just plain wrong and you’re stuck with it,” he said. “So there’s no real screen on the information.” He added that the only screen is for who testifies, which is decided by the Citizen Initiatives Review panelists.

Shuford said he sees no problem with witnesses misrepresenting the truth, comparing it to an election process where candidates and political action committees discuss issues during an election.

Calling the accusation of no accountability a “baseless claim,” Shuford said because witness testimony is available online for anyone to see and because witnesses are allowed to refute each other’s statements, there is enough accountability.

Shuford noted that the HDO is done with reviewing for the year, having looked at both Measure 73 and Measure 74 but that they are looking forward to the process in the future if it is deemed a valuable public service.