Oregon Voters Reject Ballot Measure on Insurance Industry Use of Credit Scores

by Scott Nelson

Yesterday I reported that the only consumer protection measure on any state ballot yesterday was Oregon's Ballot Measure 42, which would have prevented insurance companies from using credit scores in setting premiums.  Although Oregon's vote-by-mail system means that complete results are not yet available as of this writing, the ballot measure is on its way to a resounding defeat, by a margin of about 65-35.  Updated results are available here.

The lopsided vote suggests that Oregon voters thought this was kind of a crazy idea.  Indeed, the margin was almost identical to the margin by which Arizona voters rejected one of the truly crazy ideas I mentioned in yesterday's post - a proposal to pay a randomly selected voter in every general election $1 million, which lost by a 66-34 margin.  Meanwhile, Oregon voters approved, by 67% to 33%, a measure to prevent state and local governments from using their eminent domain powers to condemn property for private uses.

In other words, Oregon voters were up in arms about a governmental practice that very rarely occurs and would affect almost no voters, but were seemingly unconcerned by an insurance industry practice that affects thousands of consumers.  Why?

Perhaps Oregon voters made a rational decision that the arguments of Measure 42's opponents that it would raise insurance rates and harm consumers were correct.  (Some of those arguments can be found in the opponent's website and the Oregon voters' pamphlet; counterarguments favoring the measure can be found in the voters' pamphlet, a comment on my blog posting from yesterday, and a Consumer's Union website).

Or maybe the arguments got drowned out by the multimillion dollar television advertising campaign the insurance industry mounted against the measure (examples of which can be seen on the opponent's website that is linked to in the previous paragraph).  And it surely didn't help, in a state that was apparently suspicious this year of measures sponsored by out-of-state interests, that Measure 42 got its financial backing from a Nevada millionaire and that its principal local backer was a controversial figure known for backing other ballot measures (especially tax-cutting measures) that are less than popular among progressives.  Even the state's leading newspaper, the Portland Oregonian, felt it had to apologize for the measure's association with its leading proponent in its editorial endorsing the measure.

Whatever the reasons, the failure of Measure 42 only underscores what was already obvious.  This year's elections, whatever one thinks of the results more generally, hardly struck any blows for consumers.

By the way, for those interested in the fates of some of the other ballot measures I mentioned yesterday, here's a brief run-down:  Arizona voters came through for protection of the living space of pregnant pigs, and Michigan voters refused to allow hunting of mourning doves.  Massachusetts voters denied themselves the privilege of buying wine in grocery stores, but Oregon voters struck a blow for residents without prescription drug coverage, allowing them to enroll in a state program.  Marylanders limited jury trials to cases involving claims exceeding $10,000.  Smoking bans passed in all three states where they were on the ballot; measures loosening restrictions on marijuana use failed in all three states where they were on the ballot.  Voters in six states approved minimum wage increases.  And in an encouraging outburst of sanity, South Dakota voters overwhelmingly rejected "Jail 4 Judges" by a margin of nearly 90-10.  A complete summary of ballot measure results can be found here.