Four deserve `no' votes.

Byline: The Register-Guard

The ballots still sitting on most Oregonians' kitchen counters ask voters to register their opinions on a dozen state measures, down from 26 in the 2000 general election and 23 in 1998. The reduced number is helpful, because among the 12 proposals are several questions that have not come before the public until now. And among these are four that The Register-Guard recommends for rejection:

Measure 21 would amend the Oregon Constitution in ways that would politicize the state's judiciary.

The measure's most novel provision would add a "none of the above" option in all judicial elections. If more voters punched their chad for "none of the above" than for any candidate, another election would be held the following November or May. The judicial position would remain unfilled until an actual, live human being won more votes than the "none of the above" option.

The foreseeable consequences of this are all bad. One is that Oregon's judiciary would be riddled with long-term vacancies. Another is that all candidates for judicial positions would have to mount political campaigns, even if they were running unopposed, in efforts to outpoll the "none of the above" choice. The already worrisome prospect of judges being beholden to campaign contributors would be greatly amplified. There are other problems with Measure 21, but these are enough to justify a no vote.

Measure 22 asks Oregonians to give up the right to vote for most of their appellate court judges.

The measure would require that Oregon's appellate judges be elected from geographic districts. The Oregon Court of Appeals currently has 10 judges; two would be elected from each of the state's five congressional districts. The Oregon Supreme Court has seven justices; Oregon would be divided into seven districts, each of which would elect one justice to the court. Positions on both courts are currently filled by statewide votes.

The premise of the measure is that lawyers from Portland and Salem dominate the appellate courts, to the detriment of rural Oregonians' interests. The premise is faulty: Laws are made by legislators representing geographic districts, but once laws are enacted they apply to the entire state and should be interpreted by appellate judges with statewide accountability. What's more, 70 percent of the geographic districts created by Measure 22 would still be centered in the Willamette Valley, because that's where 70 percent of the state's population lives.

Measure 22 asks voters to surrender their right to vote for eight out of 10 Appeals Court members and six out of seven Supreme Court justices. Voters currently elect all 17 appellate judges; if Measure 22 is approved Oregonians would get to vote for only three. Any takers? Vote no.

Measure 23 promises to create a comprehensive, affordable, universal health care system in Oregon. While it might be universal, it could not be both affordable and comprehensive for long.

The proponents of Measure 23 were honest enough to include a financing mechanism, rather than leaving it to the Legislature to fund their plan. But it's hard to see how the numbers add up. The proponents say an average Oregonian with a yearly income of $48,000 would pay $2,200 in taxes under Measure 23, less than half the current $4,600 cost of insurance and other health-care costs. That same Oregonian, and every other citizen of the state, would have access to every type of medical service, from kidney transplants to acupuncture.

Pay less, get more: Shoppers are suspicious of such claims, and voters should be, too. Proponents say savings in administration, overhead and bureaucracy would close the gap. But the board that would administer the universal plan would quickly find itself forced to limit services, impose co-payments, raise taxes or take other steps toward cost containment. Sensible cost containment provisions should have been part of the proposal from the start - but that would have detracted from its political appeal. Vote no.

Measure 27 requires that genetically engineered foods sold in or distributed from Oregon be labeled as such.

The opponents, mainly funded by the agro-industrial complex, have done a terrible job of fighting this measure, just as they've done a terrible job of introducing genetically engineered foods to the world. Opponents haven't effectively addressed the fact that much of the world already requires the labeling of genetically engineered foods. And they've promoted laughably inflated estimates of the costs of Measure 27 to consumers.

This is frustrating, because there's an effective argument to be made against Measure 27. The measure's standards for labeling are out of line with those in other countries, and its definitions are so broad as to undermine the usefulness of the labels. Moreover, an important new labeling requirement is already in effect: Unless a food item bears the U.S. Department of Agriculture "100 percent organic" label, chances are good that it contains some genetically engineered ingredients.

Ideally, Measure 27 will win too many votes to allow concerns over genetically engineered foods to be dismissed as a fringe issue, but not enough to subject Oregon food producers and retailers to a competitive disadvantage through a labeling requirement that would be unique to a single state. Vote no.