[T]hey don’t expect voters to support the proposal. They point out that a 2000 ballot measure allowing the Legislature to limit the recovery of damages in civil “cases failed, getting only one-quarter of the vote. “‘It’ll be injured people who will most object to this ballot measure because if you deny people access to the justice system, you can’t compensate them for injuries they received,’ said Alan Tresidder, a lobbyist for the trial lawyers’ group.” An Oct. 2003 newsletter by the Oregon Associstion of Hospitals and Health Systems says the draft ballot titles are worded as follows: I’m not sure p/i lawyers should be quite so confident. Not only is the public far more aware of rising health care costs and insurance rates, but a measure to limit lawyer fees to an amount that sounds quite large to much of the populace may be far more popular than one limiting the amount of non-economic damages received by victims of medical malpractice. I always wince when trial lawyers equate reducing “access to justice” with their receiving lower fees. What they are saying here is that they are not willing to take cases that might result in less than a $100,000 pay day. Since p/i lawyers already screen out cases that they do not believe are winners, that refusal to assist injured parties might seem like pure greed to much of the public.
As for the status of the initiative, the Oregonian explained that “Because the initiative would amend the state constitution, organizers will need 100,840 valid signatures by July 2 to put it on the November ballot. The initiative has not been approved for signature-gathering because opponents have challenged the proposed ballot title. The state Supreme Court is reviewing the challenge.” Stay tuned.