I strongly disagree with your position on Measure 111. (“Editorial endorsement November 2022: Vote ‘no’ on legally risky Measure 111,” Oct. 19) I’d like to respond to your claim that this measure will lead to expensive lawsuits.

It is true, as mentioned in The Oregonian’s editorial, that the Washington State Supreme Court levied a fine of $100,000 a day against the Washington legislature for failing to comply quickly enough with a K-12 education provision in the state constitution. One critical point not mentioned is a sentence in the state constitution that was cited by the Washington court in its ruling: “It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex.” The use of the word “paramount” is key. “Paramount” means more important than anything else. The language of Measure 111, however, specifies that courts must respect the balance that lawmakers strike between paying for health care and paying for all other essential services. This language protects our state budget, and it is because of this language that we are protected from situations like the one in Washington. Measure 111, rather than outlining “fuzzy, undefined aspirational goals,” as described in the editorial, is carefully worded to help Oregonians get the health care they need without putting the state’s other obligations at risk. Measure 111 demonstrates the urgent need for more access to care, along with demonstrating our state’s values. Join me in voting yes on Measure 111.

Kelly Rowan, Beaverton