There are 5 ballot measures for Oregon voters to decide on in the 2024 election.  COIN has endorsed Measure 115 and has taken no position on the others.  

We also hosted a panel discussion on October 15 with members of the COIN Legislative Team discussing the pros and cons, supporters and opponents of each ballot measure. If you missed it, you can view the recording HERE.  The first portion is an interview with Tobias Read, Democratic candidate for Secretary of State. The portion on the ballot measures begins at 24 minutes in.  

Measure 115, Impeachment of Elected State Executives Amendment  would amend the Oregon Constitution to allow impeachment of elected state executives. If approved, the amendment would be Section 34 of Article IV of the Oregon Constitution. The measure was referred to the voters by the legislature which passed it unanimously.

Oregon is the only state that does not allow for impeachment of elected state executives. The grounds for impeachment would be for “malfeasance or corrupt conduct in office, willful neglect of statutory or constitutional duty or other felony or high crime.”  It would require a ⅔ vote of the state House of Representatives to impeach and ⅔ vote of the state Senate to convict. The Oregon Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court would preside over the trial in the Senate. The penalty upon conviction would be removal from office and disqualification from holding any other public office in the state. The official removed could still be subject to criminal or civil liability. 

There is no organized opposition to this measure. 

Measure 116, the Independent Public Service Compensation Commission Amendment, would amend the Oregon Constitution by adding Section 2 to Article XIII; this amendment would establish the Independent Public Service Compensation Commission to determine salaries for the Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, Attorney General, Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries, Judges of the Supreme Court and lower courts, state legislators, and district attorneys. 

The legislature would determine the number of persons on the Commission and eligibility requirements, but no member could be an officer or employee of the state, a registered lobbyist, or an immediate family member of either an officer or employee of the state or registered lobbyist. Judges' salaries could not be reduced during their term. 

Proponents of the measure cite a need for fairness, transparency, and accountability as well as the need for an independent process to set appropriate salaries to attract qualified candidates. It is supported by Chief Justice Meagan Flynn, Oregon League of Conservation Voters, among others. There is no organized opposition to this measure. 

Measure 117, Ranked Choice Voting for Federal and State Elections Measure, asks voters to decide if they want to have ranked choice voting (RCV) in primary and general elections for federal and state offices. It would not apply to the state legislature. Measure 117 would also allow local governments and districts including counties, cities, and school districts to adopt RCV unless home rule charters preempt it. If approved by voters, the measure would go into effect in 2028.

Here’s how RCV would work under Oregon’s proposed scheme:  Voters would rank in order of preference as many candidates including write-in candidates as practicable. If a candidate receives a majority of votes, they will be declared the winner. If no candidate receives a majority of votes, then the candidate with the least support is eliminated. The votes of the eliminated candidate’s voters are then transferred to the voters’ second choice candidates. The votes are counted again, and the process is repeated until a candidate receives a majority of the vote.   

Measure 117 also provides for a proportional methodology to be determined by the Secretary of State for counting votes under RCV when more than one person is to be elected to a single office. 

The RCV measure 117 was referred to voters by the state legislature. The measure also requires the Secretary of State to set up a program to educate voters about RCV. Ranked choice voting is already used in local elections in Multnomah County, Benton County, and Portland.  

Two states, Maine and Alaska, also use ranked choice voting though there is a ballot measure this year to repeal its use in Alaska. Hawaii uses RCV for certain elections. Local jurisdictions in numerous states like Oregon use RCV or have approved its use. 

RCV has been approved once by Nevada voters and a measure is on the ballot there this November for final approval. RCV is also on the 2024 ballot in Idaho where it is currently prohibited.  

In addition to Idaho, several other states ban RCV - Montana, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee. A measure to ban RCV is on the ballot this year in Missouri. 

The Oregon RCV ballot measure was referred to voters by the legislature in a vote along party lines. Democrat legislators were joined by the teachers union, the ACLU of Oregon, Common Cause Oregon, Fair Vote Action, League of Women Voters of Oregon, among others, in supporting RCV for Oregon.

Proponents of Measure 117 point out RCV is pro democracy by increasing participation in elections as voters have more choices in candidates and their vote is more impactful. RCV means candidates will engage with voters across the spectrum to get first as well as second, third, or fourth choice votes. According to proponents, this has made for less contentious elections and better, more diverse representation. Proponents say RCV saves time and money by avoiding runoff elections which are costly and tend to have lower turnout which may result in a candidate voters overall don’t prefer. 

Proponents also say RCV means voters don’t need to worry about the spoiler effect, meaning they don’t need to vote for a candidate they don’t really like to avoid throwing away their vote or splitting the vote.

Opponents of RCV in Oregon, aside from the GOP, include the Equal Vote Coalition, which argues that with RCV a spoiler could cause the defeat of a candidate preferred by most voters. Opponents have made much of the 2022 Alaska Special Election where Sarah Palin,  another GOP, Nick Begich, and a Democrat, Mary Peltola, vied for a U.S. House seat. Under RCV Begich was eliminated first as having the least votes and his votes were distributed to Palin and Peltola, depending upon voters’ second choices; Peltola ultimately won, flipping the seat from red to blue. Voter data showed if Palin was eliminated first, Begich would have won, indicating to some he had broader voter support. 

Note: This argument all depends on Begich winning more votes than Palin which he didn’t. Palin and Petola received more votes than Begich though neither had a majority after the first tally. Because voters could list their preferences of candidates regardless of party, more Begich voters chose Petola, not Palin, as their second choice. Petola won, not because more voters preferred Begich, but because she received the most first and second choice votes. 

But under RCV because voters have more power, the two major parties could lose traditionally safe seats depending on voters’ 2nd, 3rd, , 4th or even 5th choices. 

The Oregon Association of County Clerks also opposes RCV, stating it will make for more complications in primaries in tallying ballots across county lines and will be costly to implement. 

Measure 118 Corporate Tax Revenue Rebate for Residents Initiative, would increase the minimum tax paid by corporations by 3% for those with sales above $25,000,000 annually; the funds from the increased tax minus administrative costs would be distributed as a rebate to every person who has resided more than 200 days each year in Oregon. There are no other eligibility requirements to receive the rebate. If approved by voters, the measure would go into effect January 1, 2025.

The Oregon Department of Revenue would collect the tax and administer the program to issue rebates to eligible persons. Proponents have said it would raise $3 billion in additional revenue and provide a rebate of about $750 per eligible person.

The state Department of Human Services would be responsible for seeking waivers or exemptions from federal programs that would deny or reduce benefits if they are also eligible for the state rebate. If the federal government denies a waiver or exemption, then the state must make up the difference to the individual so they could receive the full amount of their federal benefits as well as the rebate. 

Any funds left over each year - after administrative costs, the rebates, and making up federal benefits denied to Oregon residents because of the rebate - would be spent on “services for senior citizens, health care, public early childhood education and public kindergarten through grade 12 education”.

The rebate initiative is led by Oregon Rebate and supported by the Oregon Progressive Party, Oregon Working Families Party, Pacific Green Party, Progressive Democrats of America, and Teamsters Local 206. They believe this universal basic income measure will reduce child poverty by 26%.

Opponents include Gov. Kotek and most state Democratic leaders, Oregon’s largest corporations, several trade associations, industry PACs, Oregon Farm Bureau, Tax Foundation, and Tax Fairness Oregon. Gov. Kotek was direct: "I am opposed to this ballot measure. It may look good on paper, but its flawed approach would punch a huge hole in the state budget and put essential services for low-wage and working families at risk."  There is concern from opponents that given how it’s financed, the rebate program could increase the costs of goods and make Oregon less competitive for businesses. 

Alaska is the only other state to offer a rebate program like this. The rebate is funded by oil extraction taxes. The average payment is about $1200 per year for persons residing in Alaska for a full year. The rebate is also similar to the one time payments provided during COVID by the federal government to each person. There have been some pilot projects to test a universal basic income as a way for everyone to have a baseline with the freedom to make their own decisions in building their lives and without government control or interference. A rebate also recognizes contributions to society that have economic value but aren’t paid like care for children or for an elderly parent. Proponents say direct cash payments could be used in a more limited way to operate government safety net programs more effectively. Some proponents believe it may ultimately help shrink the size of government programs. 

Given the many unknowns of this tax and rebate proposal, it might make sense to start with a pilot project where the financing and goals could be tested and studied. We really have no way of knowing the impact of such an untested program on our economy, state budget, and programs that benefit folks and families at risk.  

Measure 119 Unionization of Cannabis Workers Initiative, was initiated by voters and would require Oregon cannabis businesses to remain neutral when labor organizations communicate with employees about collective bargaining rights. Cannabis businesses including retailers and processors, must allow their employees to organize and speak out without fear of retaliation. The businesses would be required to submit with their licensing or renewal applications to the Oregon State Liquor and Cannabis Commission a signed labor peace agreement committing at a minimum to remain neutral concerning communications from labor organizations to their employees about collective bargaining rights. The Commission can deny the license or renewal application or impose suspensions or fines if there is not a signed labor peace agreement in effect or the employer does not adhere to it. 

This  measure is supported by  United Food and Commercial Workers Local 555 which is concerned about being able to organize to protect worker safety in cannabis businesses. There is no organized opposition to this measure.