PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

Foe me, the question in the headline arose in response to a Washington Post piece about the fact that, yes, more and more legislators are doing just that – turning their back on the will of the people expressed at the polls..

Is it wise to do so? Well, the answer depends on the specific, individual circumstances in various states.

In Oregon, the answer is probably not a wise move in general, but, during my career as a lobbyist, I was involved in one of the major cases where legislators asked voters to decide an issue a second time.

This was a controversial one – the voter-backed initiative to allow physician-assisted suicide in Oregon back in 1994. Oregon was the first state to allow the practice, though the proposed law passed at the polls by only a 51 to 49 per cent margin.

In the spirit of full disclosure, the company where I was a partner ran the opposition campaign and I was heavily involved in what eventually was an unsuccessful effort NOT to allow physician-assisted suicide in Oregon.

So, to put it specifically, I have a bias in what I am writing here, given my role in the ballot measure campaign.

In 1994, the measure passed only by a couple percentage points, so legislators agreed to send it out to the people again, which some said was a violation of the “will of the people.”

As I remember it, legislators took the action for at least two basic reasons:

• The margin was so close.
• And, assisted suicide was a very controversial procedure that, up to that time, was not legal anywhere in the country,

In November 1997, in the second time around, voters expressed a clear preference, passing the measure by a 60-40 margin.

Here’s the way the Washington Post described the national situation today:

“The strategy of putting policy questions directly to voters has become more popular in recent years. In 2016, some 76 initiatives appeared on ballots across the country. That’s the highest number in a decade.”

NOTE; In Oregon, initiatives, by contrast to the national scene, have been a way of political for more than 20 years.

“So have attacks on the results. In the past two years alone, legislators have filed more than 100 bills across 24 states aimed at reversing ballot measures, according to the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, which focuses on advancing progressive priorities through ballot initiatives.”

To close the loop in Oregon, let me recite one last development. After passage of assisted suicide by a landslide in 1997, I went to the Capitol on behalf of my client, Providence Health System, to contend that, in what passed at the polls, the “immunities clause” was poorly drafted.

The “immunities clause” we wanted to revise would better allow, for reasons of ethics and conscience, an organization to avoid becoming involved in assisted suicide. In this case, Providence, which was and is a health care provider affiliated with the Catholic Church, wanted to get out from under operating with a law it considered unethical.

With help from one of the best legislators at the Capitol, Senator Neil Bryant, R-Bend, we crafted language that allowed Providence and others to avoid assisted suicide if they chose to do so on ethical grounds. This pertained to assisted suicide:

• On the grounds of property it owned.
• By employees who worked for Providence.
• By contractors for Providence “within the course and scope of their contract.”

In return, Providence and others had to agree out to refer patients out to reputable assisted suicide resources if patients wanted such services.

Given the political reality that the “people had spoken,: it was an excellent compromise, though referral was hard for Providence to swallow because it felt it was unethical to refer out for such a practice. Still, with Senator Bryant’s credibility, we were able to usher the protections toward final passage and they remain in law today.

If there a moral to this story? Probably not. Except to say that, in Oregon’s specific circumstance back in the mid to late 1990s, legislators recognized the will of the people, but took steps to improve on what had passed at the polls