Measure 115

Allows for impeachment of statewide officials

Yes

This measure would amend the Oregon Constitution to allow the Legislature to impeach statewide elected officials with a two-thirds majority vote of both chambers.

Currently, Oregon is the only state with no mechanism for impeachment. It is not, however, exempt from official corruption. WW’s reporting on former Gov. John Kitzhaber, who resigned in 2015 amid an influence-peddling scandal, and Secretary of State Shemia Fagan, who resigned in 2023 after WW reported on her moonlighting for the troubled cannabis company La Mota, shows that Oregon is plenty crooked.

Right now, there are two formal mechanisms to get rid of compromised elected officials: elections, which can be too slow, and recalls, which rarely work. (There’s also shame, which did the trick with Kitzhaber and Fagan, but a look at the national political landscape shows that’s unreliable.) This measure, which the Legislature referred to voters with bipartisan support, would add a layer of accountability for the state’s five statewide elected officials: the governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, attorney general and labor commissioner.

As in Congress, the House would hear a case for impeachment, the grounds for which the measure defines as “malfeasance or corrupt conduct in office, willful neglect of constitutional duty or other felony or high crime.” If two-thirds of House members vote that an elected official’s conduct rises—or sinks—to that standard, the Senate would then conduct a trial overseen by the chief justice of the Oregon Supreme Court.

There is no organized opposition to this measure. That’s because it’s a good idea, long overdue. Vote yes.

Measure 116

Establishes a salary commission for statewide elected officials, judges, lawmakers and district attorneys

No

There’s a high bar for amending the Oregon Constitution. If citizens want to do it, they have to gather 156,231 valid signatures—39,058 more signatures than the requirement for a statutory change.

That’s why, for example, it’s so difficult to eliminate the only-in-Oregon “kicker,” the populist tax refund that makes little sense but is firmly enshrined in the constitution.

If lawmakers want to change the state constitution, however, they must refer legislation to voters and get them to vote yes. Here, lawmakers took on a legitimate issue—whether elected officials get paid fairly—and arrived at a bad solution. They are, in effect, asking voters to rubber-stamp a raise for them.

We will stipulate that Oregon’s statewide elected officials—the governor, secretary of state, attorney general, state treasurer and labor commissioner—are among the lowest paid in the nation. That’s less true for our lawmakers, whose compensation—about $35,000 a year in salary and $157 for each day in session—sounds low but is in fact in the middle of the pack nationally. As for judges and district attorneys, those specialized legal positions are hotly sought after by lawyers with other options.

Currently, as is the case in 30 other states, legislators have the authority to set their own salaries. Although they have long grumbled about low pay and their workload has increased, lawmakers have lacked the political courage to tackle the issue for themselves.

In a hurried process in 2023, lawmakers proposed enshrining in the constitution a salary commission, which would set salaries for statewide elected officials, judges, district attorneys—and lawmakers.

There is no requirement, however, that the commission be bipartisan or nonpartisan, and there are few limits on whom the Legislature can appoint to that commission: state employees, lobbyists and officials’ family members are barred, but everybody else, including donors and political consultants, is eligible.

But the biggest red flag: Unlike virtually any other action a government body might take, no review or appeal of the salary commission’s decisions is allowed, according to the measure’s official explanatory statement: “Determinations of the commission would not be subject to review or modification by the Legislative Assembly, the governor or any other official.”

That’s bad governance. Vote no.

Measure 117

Implements ranked-choice voting in statewide elections

No

This measure, referred by the Legislature in a mostly party-line vote (Democrats supported it), would implement ranked-choice voting for statewide elections beginning in 2028. It would apply to federal offices and the five statewide offices, but not legislative contests.

In a ranked-choice system, voters list all candidates in order of preference. If, when ballots are counted, no candidate receives a majority, the least popular candidate is eliminated and the votes the eliminated candidate received are assigned to whoever the voters listed second on their ballots. The ballots are then counted again and the least popular candidate is eliminated and their votes reassigned until a candidate receives a majority.

Currently, 50 jurisdictions—including the states of Alaska and Maine; cities such as New York, Minneapolis and San Francisco; and Benton County, Ore.—use ranked-choice voting. The city of Portland will use a similar method for the first time in November, and Multnomah County will adopt it in 2026.

Proponents of the measure, which include labor unions and a slew of left-leaning groups, say it would increase voter participation, encourage a broader spectrum of candidates to run, and ensure that winning candidates do so by a majority.

They are studiously avoiding a more straightforward fix: ending Oregon’s closed primaries, which exclude the 31% of the state’s registered voters who are neither Democrats nor Republicans. Because of the state’s motor voter law, registration has soared, dominated by people who are not affiliated with any party but, under current law, cannot vote in primaries. (Non-affiliated voters are the largest single group, outnumbering Democrats by more than 100,000.) But Oregon, unlike states such as California, Colorado and Washington, has aggressively fought opening its primaries.

Instead, Democrats in the Legislature have given Oregonians this measure, which notably excludes their own races from being decided by ranked-choice voting. Critics have pounced on that hypocrisy, along with the cost and complexity of instituting the new system. It’s worth noting that 16 county elections clerks, including those from Deschutes and Jackson counties, took the unusual step of filing a Voters’ Pamphlet statement opposing the measure, citing a lack of uniformity in ballots, loss of local control, and likely delays in results.

At a time when confidence in our elections system is under threat—made worse by recent screw-ups with automatic registration—enacting a major change in the way Oregonians vote feels like a solution in search of a problem. Portland is about to give ranked-choice voting a whirl. Why not let that experiment play out before making the whole state a petri dish? And if politicians and the Democratic groups that run this state really want to beef up participation, they can do it without changing the law—by opening their primaries. Vote no.

Measure 118

Imposes new gross receipts tax; sends every Oregonian a $1,600 check

No

This measure, also called the Oregon Rebate, is equal parts cynical and sloppy. It is also entirely unrealistic in ways that would be damaging to Oregon while doing relatively little to aid the people its architects want to help.

As automation and foreign competition wipe out working-class jobs, some economists have promoted the concept of universal basic income, in which the government gives people cash in lieu of lost jobs.

To achieve that end, Measure 118 would impose a 3% tax on gross receipts (sales rather than profits) on corporations with more than $25 million in annual sales in Oregon. The revenue from the tax would then be divided per capita and sent to every Oregon resident regardless of age or need. That means babies would get a $1,600 check and so would the state’s richest residents.

Per state estimates, the tax would raise about $7 billion a year and cut significantly into the existing general fund budget, forcing a reduction in basic services, such as education, health care and public safety.

Proponents began working on the measure six years ago. They say they wanted to provide a form of universal basic income to help Oregonians living in poverty. And they wanted to target the biggest corporations, such as Amazon, Comcast and Walmart, which they note, correctly, are skilled at avoiding taxes.

Tweaking the tax code to redistribute wealth can be a worthwhile endeavor, but it’s best done by the Legislature, with expert analysis, public testimony and a rigorous debate. This measure, proponents acknowledge, was written by advocates, some of them homeless, in Eugene coffee shops. Records show it is almost entirely funded by a handful of Californians who’d like to try an experiment in Oregon.

The result, if Measure 118 passes, would be further distortions of Oregon’s already onerous tax code. Oregon is one of just two states that charges corporations an income tax and a gross receipts tax. And no state has a gross receipts tax anywhere near 3%. (States more typically tax corporations on income. Critics have noted that grocery stores, in particular, have large sales in dollar volumes but very thin profit margins, typically less than 3%.) Many economists say Measure 118 would raise prices, reduce employment, and lead corporations to decrease the size of their footprints in Oregon. None of those is a good outcome.

Neither is it especially useful for Phil Knight to get a $1,600 annual rebate check. But he probably would cash it. So would you—and that’s the cynical part of this measure. It bets on most Oregonians being too craven to turn down free money, even if the larger effects are unproven and likely harmful.

Measure 118 would be by far the world’s largest experiment in universal basic income. By now, most Oregonians have developed a healthy skepticism for being treated as a social laboratory by out-of-state dreamers who would like to see if their ideas can scale without having to live through the consequences.

Indeed, perhaps Oregon is getting wise, as opposition to this measure has come from all quarters: Republicans, Democrats, and even advocates of UBI, including the left-leaning Oregon Center for Public Policy, which says Measure 118 gives far too much money to people who don’t need it. Vote no.

Measure 119

Allows cannabis workers to unionize

Yes

United Food & Commercial Workers Local 555 put this measure on the ballot after legislation that the union backed in 2023 stalled in Salem. UFCW, the state’s largest private-sector union, believes the tangled legal and regulatory framework related to cannabis—it is legal in Oregon and many other states, but illegal federally—leaves workers unprotected by the National Labor Relations Act, a bedrock of workers’ rights. As WW’s reporting on the rogue cannabis chain La Mota has shown, workers are completely at the mercy of an industry in which missed paychecks, wage theft, and dangerous working conditions are all too common.

The union’s solution: require that cannabis processors, retailers and labs certify that they have a labor peace agreement in place and will remain neutral on any organizing drive. In other words, employees could choose to organize and join UFCW or any other union, but they’d still have to go through the normal process. Under the measure, employers would have to make such concessions in order to obtain or renew licensure by the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission.

In Oregon, voters legalized cannabis at the ballot. Other states that have legalized cannabis through legislative deliberations, such as California and New York, included labor peace agreements in their laws. We don’t love the narrow focus of this measure. It applies to only one industry and will protect fewer than 7,000 workers. But public records and media reports have shown the financially struggling cannabis industry is replete with worker abuses and there’s no guarantee of federal legalization any time soon. Vote yes.

Measure 26-249

Yes

This housekeeping measure would make updates to the Portland city charter regarding how utility companies like Verizon go through approval processes with the city. We have no objections.

Measure 26-250

Establishes Portland Independent Elections Commission

No

We can’t go along with this measure, which would enshrine an nine-member Independent Elections Commission in Portland’s city charter.

Proponents—which include the Charter Commission that created the measure in 2022 and good government watchdogs Dan Meek and Jason Kafoury—say it will protect the city’s existing Elections Commission, which is currently established in city code but not enshrined in the city charter, from being subject to change by the City Council. (The council can change code with a majority vote; only voters can alter the charter.) Proponents say enshrining the commission from the whims of the mayor and City Council will give it true independence.

Our objections center on what’s not in the ballot measure. In recent years, we’ve seen no shortage of state and city ballot measures that resulted in unintended consequences because they were poorly planned and poorly implemented. We have the same reservations now. There’s no assurance in the ballot measure that the nine-member commission would include any elections or campaign finance experts. The commission isn’t even guaranteed the authority to enforce the city’s elections and public financing rules. (For that to happen, the city auditor would need to hand over that authority willingly. When has any elected city official willingly ceded power?)

And, the biggest problem this ballot measure seeks to fix—ensuring that the city’s Small Donor Elections program is fully funded, which it wasn’t this election cycle—wouldn’t be solved at all. The City Council, whether this measure passes or not, will still determine the city’s public financing program budget. The commission would have to do just as much finger-crossing as it currently does.

There are very few parameters around how the commission would operate and what authority it would actually have. This is an imperfect measure with too many uncertainties. If the result is a disaster, it will be up to voters to reverse it through yet another ballot measure. This is getting old. Vote no.

Measure 26-251

Yes

This is another housekeeping measure that makes some clarifications to the city’s definitions of parks and natural areas. It also clarifies the city’s ability to maintain those areas where there was previously a gray area in the city charter. Vote yes.

Measure 26-252

Yes

A tidying measure that updates incongruent and outdated language in specific sections of the city charter. Vote yes.

Measure 26-253

Allows weatherization mandates

No

This ballot measure would allow any future City Council to mandate—by a simple majority vote—that every residential, commercial and office building built before 1979 must be weatherized. Weatherization of buildings can look like a number of things, but at its core it means improvements made to the building that make it more energy efficient, like tighter sealing and installing stronger insulation.

The ballot measure was created by the Charter Commission, the 20-member volunteer body that sent a suite of changes to the city charter, including the ballot measure that overhauled our form of government. It was pitched to the commission by the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability while it was under the leadership of former director Andrea Durbin, who also advocated for a carbon tax in 2020. (That notion was snuffed out by the City Council.)

We think this measure is a slapdash, sweeping idea that would make it far too easy for a City Council to require costly weatherization of the city’s existing building stock when what we desperately need right now is to do everything we can to keep building costs low. Our state’s top priority is to create more affordable housing, and this ballot measure has the potential to hike the costs of existing affordable housing if building owners are required to make costly improvements to existing buildings.

At a time when the city needs to attract and retain investment so the city doesn’t sink into an even deeper affordability crisis, the last thing we need is to slap a hefty bill on every old building in the city. Vote no.

Measure 26-254

Parkrose Teachers Levy

Yes

Oregon students have one of the nation’s shortest school years. Parkrose School District has one of the shortest in the state: Students attend classes for a mere 167 days.

It’s a reflection of how thin the Northeast Portland district has been stretched. With federal COVID money running out, the district faces the prospect of cutting teachers and eliminating its sports programs. Oregon allocates state funding for schools based on enrollment, and the number of students attending Parkrose High, Parkrose Middle and the district’s four elementary schools continues to crater.

So for the second time in two years, the district is presenting voters with a five-year property tax levy, which would add $1.25 per $1,000 of assessed property value. That’s about half of what homeowners living in Portland Public Schools’ territory are paying on a similar levy. For the average home in the area, it’s about $26 a month.

Let’s make this clear: We’re concerned about many of the statistics that have come out of the Parkrose School District. Its latest Oregon Statewide Assessment results indicate a vast majority of the district’s students aren’t proficient in reading, math or science. Its chronic absenteeism rate, though slightly down from the 2021-22 academic year, is still at 45.6%. Those are alarming numbers, ones that have sent some families in the district searching for private education alternatives.

But for many Parkrose students, a public education is the only option. The district is one of the most diverse in the state. It has a high percentage of students of color, students in poverty, English language learners, and students enrolled in special education. Many of their families can’t afford to take them out of the public system, and these kids don’t deserve to be left behind.

There’s no point in trying to hold a district accountable by severing more resources for its already underserved students. All the money from this levy is going toward classrooms. Academic support, teaching positions, and extracurriculars must stay—and grow—at Parkrose. Vote yes.