The following "In My Opinion" column was published in The Oregonian newspaper on September 25, 2000 under the title "Petitioner's don't have to be out in the cold." It is reprinted here with permission of the author.

Property Rights Trump Petitioners' Convenience

You won't find a stronger advocate of Oregonians' initiative rights than I am.

Oregon has a long tradition of placing the people on the same level as the Legislature when it comes to proposing laws and Constitutional amendments. We should keep that tradition, and protect it from arbitrary rules and regulations which limit our ability to place measures on the ballot.

But I part company with some of my fellow initiative supporters when it comes to forcing private businesses to allow signature gathering on their premises.

The Oregon Supreme Court recently reversed its 1993 opinion which had required some private businesses (primarily shopping malls) to allow petitioning. The Oregonian correctly editorialized in favor of the new ruling ("The shrinking public square" Sept. 21) but worried that it will "drive up the costs of initiatives, restricting access to the ballot to those with lots of money to spend."

It doesn't have to. In fact, this ruling can be the impetus to enact some sensible policies that could dramatically decrease the cost of gathering signatures.

In California, Washington and other states some petition drives are now conducted on line. Voters are free to download petitions off the Internet and just sign them individually, or circulate them among their friends, family and colleagues. Such downloaded petitions are virtually costless to the groups working to get initiatives on the ballot, and are more convenient for the growing number of web-savvy voters.

We could encourage the same on line low-cost petition access in Oregon, if the secretary of state's office would liberalize the often picayune regulations requiring that only approved paper stocks, of certain thickness and glossiness, etc., be used to collect signatures.

The cost of petitioning is, however, not nearly as important as the issue of protecting property rights. A civilized society depends on a well-defined concept of property rights so that individuals can work, live, and plan for the future free from arbitrary government intrusion into their lives, homes and businesses.

Just because you can gather signatures from your fellow citizens doesn't give you the right to walk into your neighbor's home uninvited and ask for her signature. Neither should it mean that you can walk into her business and gather signatures from her customers without her permission. Whether a home-based business, a small stand-alone store or a huge shopping mall, the same private property rights should apply.

If you question the rights of a business owner in this situation, does it make a difference if the owner strongly opposes the measure being promoted? What if, for example, the owner is gay and the Oregon Citizen's Alliance demands access to gather signatures for one of its anti-gay measures? Whose rights take precedent then, the signature gatherer's or the owners right to control his own property?

If property rights don't come first, then we've already lost a large part of what it means to live in a free society.

The Oregon Supreme Court has done us all a huge favor by recognizing that private property rights are more important than the convenience of political campaigners. We can only hope that this ruling is the beginning of an increased respect for property rights across the board. When we all have more control over our property, including our homes, our businesses and our incomes, government will be smaller and less intrusive.

In the long run, stronger respect for property rights and a less intrusive government will help depoliticize controversial issues, allowing them to be dealt with voluntarily instead of ending up on our ballots as initiatives.

That will be a victory for everyone.