Of the 10 initiative petitions facing Oregon voters, we see only one winner. The rest may have been drafted with worthy and earnest motives, but they are so fraught with flaws and the likelihood of unintended consequences, they're unworkable.

Only Measure 44 - which would enable those without prescription drug insurance coverage to tap into the state's buying power to obtain cheaper medicines - is a practical idea.

We've already stated our objections to Measure 45, the return of term limits. Term limits would return Oregon to a revolving door of having legislators forced out even if they are doing a great job. Because voters already have the power to impose term limits with every election, this measure actually is a limit on voter power.

Measure 43, which would require medical personnel to notify parents within 48 hours that their unemancipated teen had sought an abortion, is being sold as a parental-notification bill.

The measure, however, doesn't ensure sufficient protection for those young women who are pregnant through incest. Such teens would be required to appeal the parental-notification requirement to the backlogged quagmire of the Oregon Department of Human Services.

Realistically, this measure would not have a widespread impact on teens seeking abortions. It would serve to intimidate all of the physicians in Oregon who perform abortions. They would face a greater theat of lawsuits and other sanctions for providing abortions to young women who misrepresent their ages to obtain abortions.

The measure would further winnow the ranks of physicians who perform abortions, which is, we suspect, its true intent.

Measures 41 and Constitutional Amendment 48 are poorly crafted tax amendments that contain hidden daggers aimed at the heart of Oregon's economic vitality. Measure 41 would mess with the state tax laws in a ham-fisted fashion that ultimately would require making up lost tax revenue in a different way.

Constitutional Amendment 48 imposes a rigid and artificial spending cap that would limit our ability to manage the state's finances. It is sure to have a negative effect on the state's "credit rating" and bonding authority while doing little to ensure savings to taxpayers.

Measure 46 and 47, which purport to offer campaign finance reform, are Draconian and messy.

In the case of Measure 47 in particular, you know the measure is flawed when both NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon and Oregon Right to Life agree it's a bad idea.

We agree that campaign finance reform is needed, but suggest its proponents go back to the drawing board.

Measure 42, which prohibits using credit ratings as a basis for deciding insurance rates, is the brain child of beleaguered tax activist Bill Sizemore, and it makes no sense at all: Credit ratings already are used as an evaluation tool precisely because they are a reliable indication of a person's willingness and ability to honor obligations and manage personal finances. Those with good credit deserve to be rewarded with favorable rates on insurance.

Measure 40, which seeks to artificially impose geographic requirements on the election of state appellate judges, would cost the state more and yield little in the way of benefits to the majority of residents. We recognize that there is a "continental divide" of sorts between rural and urban Oregon, but doubt that the high courts are the place where that inequity needs to be remedied.

Measure 39, which would prevent public bodies from condemning private real property to benefit another private party, is both unnecessary and excessive. The Oregon Legislature already has acted to shield property owners from the type of condemnation that led to the contentious Supreme Court decision upholding the rights of cities to condemn the houses of some Connecticut residents to clear the way for an office complex to enhance the city's tax base.

Such condemnations are a non-starter in Oregon, but this measure could complicate the purchase of any land for public use.