A Collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh

Ballot issues ~ Oregon medical malpractice limit amendment too close to call

[JURIST] [JURIST Election Special] Oregon's Measure 35, a tort reform amendment that would limit damages in medical malpractice cases, is on a knife edge at this hour. The "No" votes have overtaken the "yes" votes, which led in early returns. Here are the latest figures from the Oregon Secretary of State's website:

Yes Votes 428,171 49.44%
No Votes 437,919 50.56%

Support is still strong, however, for Measure 36, the same-sex marriage ban:

Yes Votes 491,390 55.36%
No Votes 396,178 44.64%

In California, Propositions 66, 69 and 71 are still leaning "Yes". 69 and 71 seem almost certain to be adopted at this stage. With 9% of the precincts counted, here's the breakdown:

66 3 Strikes Limits 998,449 55.9 790,290 44.1
69 DNA Samples 1,180,327 66.8 586,809 33.2
71 Stem Cell Research 1,091,643 60.1 725,710 39.9

In Hawaii, we have early returns that suggest strong support for making information on sex offenders public:

YES 88,539 70.0%
NO 24,507 19.4%

Hawaii's Amendment 2 on rights of crime victims is also leaning towards passage:

YES 62,938 49.7%
NO 46,174 36.5%

In Nevada, we now have returns for Questions 5 and 7 on the state ballot. Interestingly, Question 5 appears to be headed for defeat. Here's the text:

Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to penalize lawyers willfully involved in vexatious and frivolous litigation, and to prohibit certain changes to limits on recovery of monetary damages?
And now, the returns:

YES 36.74% 127,793
NO 62.26% 216,532

Question 7 asks:
Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to change the provision that prohibits an "idiot or insane person" from voting to refer instead to "a person who has been adjudicated mentally incompetent, unless restored to legal capacity" and to repeal a provision relating to the election of United States Senators by the Legislature that was made obsolete by the adoption of the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution?
The returns so far:

YES 54.35% 184,746
NO 44.46% 151,118

About Paper Chase

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible format.

© Copyright JURIST Legal News and Research Services, Inc., 2013.