The Skanner Endorsements: Oregon State and Local Ballot Measures

OREGON STATE BALLOT MEASURES

Measure 115

Allow the legislature to impeach elected state executives.

✔ YES

Proponents point out that Oregon is the only state that lacks a formal impeachment process for top state officials. In the past decade, we’ve seen a governor (John Kitzhaber) and a secretary of state (Shemia Fagan) resign from office amid ethics complaints. This measure provides another avenue for top public servants who have lost their constituents’ trust, but who don’t intend to leave office easily.

Measure 115 would amend the state constitution to provide a framework for impeaching the governor, secretary of state, attorney general, state treasurer and commissioner of labor and industries, should the need arise. But the process is designed to prevent politically motivated recalls: Two-thirds of the Oregon state House of Representatives would need to vote to impeach an office holder in order to trigger an impeachment trial in the state Senate, where another two-thirds majority vote would be required to remove the state executive. That individual would then be disqualified from ever holding public office in Oregon again.

We appreciate the transparent nature of the process, and we have faith that a clear-cut path toward impeachment and disbarment from public office will further deter top state executives from making questionable judgment calls.

Measure 116

Establish the Independent Public Service Compensation Commission to determine certain public officials' salaries, including the salaries of statewide elected officials, judges and district attorneys.

✘ NO

Many of this year’s measures seek to address legitimate issues, but fail in execution or are designed with fatal flaws. Measure 116 is one such example.

We agree that part-time pay for state legislators doesn’t recognize the actual hours most put into the job. With a base pay of $35,000 plus a modest per diem, it’s clear nobody is running for office just for the paycheck. But taking a pay cut to represent Oregonians is a big ask, and the financial constraints mean losing out on a diverse, often younger, cohort of politicians who don’t have a pension or personal wealth to fall back on. It means fewer young parents, women and politicians of color can afford to serve.

We support pay increases for our state representatives and officials, but Measure 116 presents a convoluted approach by creating an independent commission to determine salaries. This practice isn’t unheard of among other U.S. state governments, but what gives us pause is language in the measure which, if passed, would be added to the state constitution: The commission’s decisions would not be subject to review or modification by anyone outside the commission, not even the governor or other elected officials.

We object to a measure that requests the blind faith of Oregonians with no room for redress. Opponents of the measure are asking why the legislators can’t take up the issue themselves and put it to a vote in Salem. We’re inclined to agree.

Measure 117

Establish ranked-choice voting for federal and state offices in Oregon.

✘ NO

Portland is about to elect its new city government using ranked-choice voting, a format that has been in use statewide in Alaska and Maine, and in dozens of cities and smaller jurisdictions across the country. It allows voters to select a certain number of candidates for one office by listing their choices in order of preference. Although the vote tabulation can seem tricky, proponents of ranked-choice voting point out that it prevents run-off elections. Voting for a third-party or longshot candidate is no longer akin to “throwing your vote away,” they argue: If your first choice performs poorly, your second choice candidate is the one that is considered from your ballot, and so on. Because of this, cities like Minneapolis have seen more newcomers and candidates from marginalized populations win office, and ranked-choice voting has won wide support from progressives.

But before we’ve even seen ranked-choice voting play out in the Portland election, Measure 117 asks voters to implement it statewide. But it would not be used in all statewide races: If the measure passes, ranked-choice voting would be used when Oregonians vote for U.S. president, Oregon’s two U.S. senators and its six U.S. Congressional representatives, and when Oregonians vote for state governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, attorney general and commissioner of labor and industry. Smaller governments -- city, county, Metro and school districts -- would also have the option to use ranked-choice voting in their elections. But ranked-choice voting would not be implemented for state House or Senate races.

If the measure passes, statewide ranked-choice voting would go into effect starting with the 2028 election.

Opponents express concerns that the new system will prove overly complicated to some voters, thereby alienating them from the democratic process. While we have faith Oregonians are quick learners, we do object to asking them to vote ranked-choice for some offices but not others on the same ballot. We have yet to hear a compelling explanation for why state-level legislative offices should be exempt from this new system, and we have seen how inconsistency in ballots can create chaotic elections. This is not the way to introduce ranked-choice to the state of Oregon.

For more information on ranked-choice voting: www.theskanner.com/news/northwest/36240-city-elections-officials-explain-ranked-choice-voting

Measure 118

Require Oregon to issue rebates to residents from surplus corporate tax revenue by imposing a new gross receipts tax (aka “Oregon Rebate”).

✘ NO

Universal basic income (UBI) is the concept of cities, states and even nations providing unrestricted cash payments to vulnerable citizens. Pilot programs around the world have shown that monthly payments of around $1,000 can reduce poverty by filling in gaps in social safety nets, supplementing recipients’ savings accounts and allowing them to spend more time with their families. Oregon has recently considered implementing such a program.

Measure 118 offers a bold but flawed version of UBI: By introducing a new 3% tax on businesses that have racked up more than $25 million in sales – not profit – a year in Oregon, the state would then redistribute the tax revenue into an estimated yearly payment of around $1,600 to every single Oregon resident, regardless of age and income.

It is frustrating to see Intel score hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks from the state, only to announce 1,300 layoffs locally, as it did this week. Corporate megaliths like Amazon, Apple and Meta have similarly avoided hundreds of millions on their tax bills, at a cost to surrounding communities that would have greatly benefited from the revenue. Measure 118 seeks not only a reconfiguring of this system, but a redistribution of wealth.

So it’s not surprising that large corporate interests have been vocal in their opposition to the measure. What is concerning is the number of more progressives and UBI advocates who object to Measure 118. The Coalition of Communities of Color warns that because the measure would take millions from the state’s general fund, it will reduce Oregon’s ability to fund critical programs and services – and could put low-income recipients at risk of losing federal benefits.

One of the strengths of the UBI programs we’ve seen enacted in places like Stockton, Calif., is that while the cash payments are unrestricted in terms of use, the recipients are uniformly low-income. These payments, then, make the greatest impact for those who need them the most. The architects behind Measure 118 argue that screening recipients for need would add to administrative costs and create barriers for the most marginalized. But the already ballooning administrative costs estimated by the state, coupled with unnecessary payments to the wealthy, create too great of a cost for Oregon.

Measure 119

Require cannabis businesses to submit to the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission a signed labor peace agreement between the business and a labor organization with its licensure or renewal application.

✔ YES

In other words, Measure 119 would assure cannabis workers’ ability to unionize.

While the recreational cannabis industry has gone legitimate in Oregon, the wild west nature of emerging cannabis companies and dispensaries has left many workers in the lurch with lax safety standards and, in some cases, wage theft.

Oregon’s largest private sector labor union, United Food and Commercial Workers, argues that because cannabis is legal in the state but not at the federal level, workers at every stage of the industry, from warehouse to transportation to retail spaces, do not enjoy National Labor Relations Act protections.

UFCW Local 555 put the measure on the ballot to bring Oregon in line with other states that have legalized recreational cannabis use while including labor peace agreements with cannabis businesses – agreements that confirm these employers will stay neutral if their staff push to unionize. Measure 119 would require that Oregon cannabis businesses would have to implement a labor peace agreement in order to comply with Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission licensing requirements. We support worker protections in what is becoming a very prominent Oregon industry.