Rural counties ask for a voice on statewide initiatives

Presenter: How can rural voters have a voice on statewide initiatives? They say although Oregon has changed since 1968, the initiative process has not. With the House Rules Committee March 10, Amy Patrick:

Amy Patrick (Oregon Hunters Association, policy director): My name is Amy Patrick. I’m the policy director for the Oregon Hunters Association. Oregon’s initiative petition process began in 1902—that became known nationally as the Oregon System, so obviously we have a very strong history with this type of governance.

Between 1902 and 1968, there were several changes that were made to the process. However, since 1968, in that 57 years, there have been no adjustments made in that process.

[00:00:37] In that time, Oregon’s population has more than doubled and our voter registration numbers and active voters in each election, the percentages have changed drastically as well. So we feel it’s time to update the system to reflect the state demographics and the voter participation.

[00:00:52] Without these threshold updates, Oregon is at risk of a weakened initiative system with troubling consequences. As we’ve seen in recent years, there have been several ballot measures that have caused detrimental impacts to the state, not the least of which being Measure 110, which the legislature had to overturn after three years.

[00:01:08] And most recently in 2024, Measure 118 gained the ballot after being primarily financed by out-of-state investors interested in making Oregon a sort of petri dish for the basic universal income concept. That measure would have had major effects on Oregon’s economy, the legislative budgeting process, and businesses throughout the state.

[00:01:27] That is just an example of what we see as a need to be able to strengthen our system. Oregon’s low signature requirement and the lack of a geographic distribution requirement have been noted by certain measure proponents as a very low bar for placing an initiative on our ballot. In fact, only three states have a lower threshold of percentage that also do not have a geographic distribution requirement.

[00:01:49] Presenter: Sen. Todd Nash:

[00:01:50] Todd Nash (Oregon state senator): Amy Patrick did an excellent job of framing this up and the history.

[00:01:54] Oregon has become low-hanging fruit for predatory targeting of some of these measures, and we saw it recently here with Measure 110. Things that keep my constituents up representing the livestock industry have become IP-13, IP-3, and IP-28 that is yet to come that would ostensibly do away with animal agriculture in Oregon. They live in fear that should this get on the ballot and be worded in such a manner that it looked like a good animal husbandry practice, that it could actually pass.

[00:02:31] And even if it doesn’t get that far, ramping up, spending money year after year, the threat of that continually comes. Those are monies that are coming from outside of the state and influences are coming outside of the state. And we’ve become low-hanging fruit here in Oregon and a testing ground for other places to run initiative petitions and eventually measures to see if it passes and what the effect and impact is.

[00:02:58] If it’s good for all of Oregon, the petitions should be gathered in all of Oregon.

[00:03:05] Presenter: Chief of staff for Rep. Bobby Levy, Isaac Insko:

[00:03:09] Isaac Insko (Rep. Bobby Levy, chief of staff): My name is Isaac Insko, and I am the chief of staff for state Rep. Bobby Levy. Today, I am here on her behalf to express strong support toward ensuring that all voices of Oregonians, rural and urban alike, are fairly represented in our state’s initiative process.

[00:03:25] Oregon has a long tradition of direct democracy, allowing the people to propose laws and amendments to our Constitution through the initiative process. However, over time the process has disproportionately reflected the will of urban areas while sidelining the perspectives of rural communities.

[00:03:40] Well-funded special interests, often concentrated in the Willamette Valley, can gather the required number of signatures without meaningful engagement with voters and rural communities. This undermines the spirit of our initiative system, which was intended to be a tool for all Oregonians, not just those in the state’s population centers.

[00:03:59] Currently, Oregon’s initiative process allows petitions to qualify for the ballot by gathering signatures without guaranteeing that rural communities have an equal voice.

[00:04:08] Presenter: Rep. Mark Owens:

[00:04:10] Mark Owens (Oregon House): Mark Owens, House District 60.

[00:04:12] First of all, let’s talk about one of the things that’s been already gutted from the initiative process since 1902: the ability for the average citizen to collect signatures to repeal what they think are some of the bad bills that come through this building.

[00:04:25] Why is that? Well, somebody before my time in this building decided we should use the e-clause. So now we use the emergency clause probably on 80% to 90% of the bills that go through here. And we typically probably put that on some of the most controversial.

[00:04:40] So those bills are actually typically put into effect before the next election, before people have the opportunity to gather signatures. So there’s those in my community that feel, why would we do this? One of the most important aspects of this petition process is no longer available to me.

[00:04:58] And that goes into the urban-rural divide. I typically don’t talk about them in the building because I do believe that the majority of us here are already trying to make the best policy for the state of Oregon.

[00:05:08] But if you talk to my communities, you come out to my town halls, it’s still a very prevalent question that comes up. In fact, look at the ‘Move to Idaho’ conversation.

[00:05:17] There is some distrust in our rural communities about the process that happened here, and also about the process that happened through the initiative petition process to bring forward measures that we can’t understand, that we don’t agree with, and we never saw somebody gathering a signature in our communities. Why is that? Is that centering the power once again in the urban environment? I’d say yes, it is.

[00:05:44] That’s why my communities have asked me to support this and work for this to bring it to you.

[00:05:49] Let’s briefly talk about cost. We’ll hear, and you probably have heard, that the cost for those last couple percent of signatures is significant, that the cost of going out into the four corners of the state is significant. You know what I say to that? I don’t really care. And why?

[00:06:08] What are the costs that some of these measures do to our community? What are the costs that some of these measures do to our state? What are the costs that some of these measures that we’ve seen go through in the last several years do to the moral fiber of our communities?

[00:06:25] So it’s okay that the bar is a little higher. It’s okay that it might cost a little bit to put it on the ballot because we all know in this room that putting on the ballot is probably the cheapest part of the whole process. Once you get there, we’ve seen hundreds of millions spent to get it passed. So increasing the bar to make sure all of our communities feel they have a voice, increasing the bar to where signature gathers hopefully go to every congressional district is a small thing, but an important thing to all communities.

[00:06:57] Presenter: Lauren Kuenzi:

[00:06:59] Lauren Kuenzi (Oregon Farm Bureau): Lauren Kuenzi here on behalf of Oregon Farm Bureau. We are the state’s most inclusive ag organization, proudly representing more than 6,500 family farms and ranches producing more than 220 ag commodities. We want to underscore the importance of diverse statewide perspectives and the need to modernize our system.

Again, we see this as a good governance bill and see this adjustment as a meaningful step forward toward ensuring a more deliberate and representative initiative process that maintains accessibility and reinforces the integrity of the process. We appreciate your consideration.

[00:07:30] Presenter: For the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Mike Eliason:

[00:07:34] Mike Eliason (RMEF): I’m Mike Eliason, and while I’m here representing the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation in support of HJR 11, I also want to put on the record that the Oregon Forest industries Council also supports HJR 11…HJR 11, which would modernize Oregon’s initiative system in two ways. First by modestly increasing the number of signatures that must be collected to qualify an initiative. Secondly, adding a requirement for a minimum number of signatures from each congressional district increases fairness in the process by ensuring more geographical distribution.

[00:08:04] Presenter: Preston Mann.

[00:08:06] Preston Mann (OBI): I am Preston Mann, political director for Oregon Business and Industry. The OBI believes support for direct democracy is embedded in our state’s DNA. Oregon voters have considered 379 citizen initiatives among the most of any state in the nation and adopted 133 of them, or just over 35%.

[00:08:25] Among those adopted are a 1998 measure establishing the state’s vote-by-mail system, 1990s measures establishing property tax limits, and perhaps most famously, a 1912 initiative led by Abigail Scott Duniway granting women the right to vote, eight years ahead of federal suffrage.

[00:08:42] I mentioned this history because I think it’s important context for lawmakers to be mindful of as you consider potential changes to the initiative system. Oregon is widely recognized as having one of the most accessible initiative processes in the country, and that’s something that I think should continue to be celebrated.

[00:08:58] It’s also fair, though, to criticize Oregon’s system as antiquated. As I mentioned, the system was first established in 1902, and the last significant change in the number of valid signatures required to qualify initiatives was adopted in 1968. A lot has changed since then.

[00:09:12] The pioneers of our initiative system simply would not have foreseen the modern era of automatic voter registration and how these higher registration rates would have impacted the initiative system. To that end, we consider an increase in the number of signatures required to qualify an initiative petition, such as the modest increase proposed by HJR 11 to be a reasonable update.

[00:09:32] Presenter: Testifying in opposition to HJR 3 and 11, Dan Meek:

[00:09:36] Dan Meek (Opposing): Dan Meek, I’m an attorney.

[00:09:37] I’m here in opposition to HJR11 on behalf of the Independent Party of Oregon, the Oregon Progressive Party, and the Consolidated Oregon Indivisible Network, or COIN. (I have a formal role with the Progressive Party and the Consolidated Oregon Indivisible Network assigns individuals to testify on a bill-by-bill basis.)

[00:09:58] HJR 3 would dramatically increase the cost of qualifying any statewide measure.  

[00:10:03] Oregon’s lesser populated counties don’t have mass gatherings where volunteers can gather signatures. It would basically require petitioners to go door-to-door in those counties where they would encounter mean dogs and other obstacles.

[00:10:16] I recall back in the 1980s it was possible to qualify a measure at a cost of only about $20,000, mostly for volunteer coordinators and printing. But the typical cost now is at least $500,000 and it’s often much more.

[00:10:30] The League of Women Voters estimates that HJR 3 will increase that cost by a factor of five. So initiatives will become a vehicle exclusively for large corporations and maybe wealthy people.

[00:10:42] Oregon already has higher signature requirements as a percentage of population than 12 other states. The number of statewide measures has greatly declined in Oregon from 18 in the year 2000 to only two in each of the last three election cycles.

[00:10:56] HJR 11 will dramatically increase the cost of qualifying any statewide measure. The League of Women Voters says that it will greatly increase the cost by necessitating paid door-to-door signature gathering in many rural areas.

[00:11:09] The Oregon Legislature has a distinct conflict of interest in further restricting the use of the initiative and referendum power because it is attempting to curtail the co-equal legislative power of the people that’s been recognized by the Oregon courts repeatedly.

[00:11:25] Presenter: Also opposed, Michael Selvaggio:

[00:11:27] Michael Selvaggio (UFCW Local 555): Michael Selvaggio, I’m here in my capacity as political director for UFCW Local 555, with a long history of signature gathering and signature gathering policy. 

[00:11:40] And I want to dispel a few myths. The cost of gathering signatures is not primarily related to how popular a measure is in a specific area. The fact is that in a particular district or jurisdiction with a given number of voters, the cost of gathering signatures per signature will correlate with the geographic size of the district, meaning that the smaller that district is, the more concentrated the population is, the cheaper those signatures are going to be. The larger that district is, the more expensive they’re going to be. It doesn’t matter what the measure is, voter to voter.

[00:12:19] And the reason that’s important, as I know another one of my colleagues mentioned something around women’s suffrage being passed in 1912. I want this body to hopefully remember that that was on the ballot in 1906. It was on the ballot in 1908. It was on the ballot in 1910 and failed each of those times and only because it accessible and able to continue being brought, because of the ability of local interested voices to finance and get that on the ballot, was able to be put on the ballot a fourth time and passed. And so that’s just a great reason that we feel that we need to make sure that the process remains accessible.

[00:13:03] We’re very, very happy to continue those discussions but we are urging opposition at this point to HJR 11.

[00:13:11] Presenter: Kathy Ging testified against both House Joint Resolutions 3 and 11:

[00:13:15] Kathy Ging: Reading the proposed changes, I was startled and incredulous. It is vital to preserve our already fair and balanced existing initiative process.

[00:13:25] Leave the ballot qualifying process the way it exists, serving Oregon voters successfully for decades. Do not limit voter ability to place issues on the ballot. These modifications are anomalous, unacceptable, and erroneous changes to our legacy law.

[00:13:43] Having done a lot of petition gathering only for public interest, not business causes, I can say how difficult it is to handle more than two or three signature pages. I concur with the comment that going door to door, which would be possibly necessary in less-populated counties, can be dangerous, and especially with not only dogs, but so many people shooting people these days.

[00:14:12] It would dramatically increase the signatures required, and it would raise the requirement for the statutory measures by 33% and for constitutional measures by 25%. That is not necessary. With the increased population of Oregon since I started doing signature gathering 45 years ago, it would be an inexorable criterion to me.

[00:14:36] And it would require that these new requirements be met separately in every congressional district. It is already so difficult to gather enough signatures that only two statewide initiatives qualified for the ballot in 2024 and one of them had union money behind it. So I encourage you again to vote ‘No.’

[00:14:56] Presenter: Rep. Christine Drazan:

[00:14:59] Christine Drazan (Oregon House): The core issue here is that our lives are different. And that when we bring these initiatives forward, sometimes people that don’t have any experience in these parts of our state are the ones that decide what is going to impact the whole state.

[00:15:12] So this allows this idea that if there’s a measure that impacts Eastern Oregon, you’re going to have the opportunity to have a very real impact on whether or not that comes forward. And other than that, often you don’t. Like, they just go to the I-5 corridor. They don’t raise livestock like you do; it’s a very different lived experience.

And I welcome the opportunity to have this conversation about how to unify Oregon and have one Oregon again. We talk all the time about rural-urban divide, and a lot of it is economic, and it comes from some of these political decisions that adversely impact the economies of the rural parts of our state…

[00:15:47] I think it’s really interesting that people are standing up and protecting access to the initiative process and ‘This is shocking,’ and, you know, like, ‘This is going to lower citizen voice,’ when (to Rep. Owens’s point) this body routinely adds emergency clauses to bills which do not require them by law and that does have the effect of limiting access to the referendum process, which was the other part of that 1902 measure that was passed so overwhelmingly by Oregonians.

[00:16:15] And so this body is very, very guilty of routinely limiting access to the process for citizens in a way that was intended to be a check on this body for when we overreach. And so I would just like for all of us, in particular, to look in the mirror and say, ‘How are we engaging in ensuring that there is citizen voice in the ways that we can impact it?’

[00:16:37] Presenter: Discussions continue on how rural counties can have a voice when Oregon qualifies initiatives for the ballot.