Oregon Measure 106, Ban Public Funds for Abortions Initiative (2018)

Elections in Oregon, 2018

• General election: Nov. 6
• Voter registration deadline: Oct. 16
• Early voting: N/A
• Absentee voting deadline: Nov. 6

• Online registration: Yes
• Same-day registration: N/A (all-mail elections)
• Voter ID: N/A
• Poll times: N/A

---

On the ballot: U.S. House • Governor • State executive offices • State Senate • State House • Supreme court • Appellate courts • Local judges • State ballot measures • Local ballot measures • Municipal • Recalls • Democratic primaries • Republican primaries

Oregon Measure 106
Election date November 6, 2018
Topic Abortion
Status d Defeated
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens
List of Oregon measuresOregon Measure 102Oregon Measure 103Oregon Measure 104Oregon Measure 105Oregon Measure 106Oregon Measure 101 (January)Submit

The Oregon Ban Public Funds for Abortions Initiative was on the ballot in Oregon as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018. It was defeated.

A yes vote supported the ballot initiative to prohibit public funds from being spent on abortions in Oregon, except when determined to be medically necessary or required by federal law.

A no vote opposed the ballot initiative to prohibit public funds from being spent on abortions in Oregon, except when determined to be medically necessary or required by federal law.

Election results

Oregon Measure 106
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		658,793	35.52%
No		1,195,718	64.48%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

Measure design

The measure would have prohibited public funds from being spent on abortions, except when medically necessary or required by federal law. Under the measure, an abortion would have qualified as medically necessary if a licensed physician determines that a woman would suffer an injury or death unless an abortion is performed. Under the measure, public funds may have been spent on abortions in circumstances of rape or incest or diagnosed ectopic pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancies, also called extrauterine pregnancies, are pregnancies where a fertilized egg becomes implanted outside of the uterus and has no chance of proceeding normally to birth and which could cause fatal bleeding to the mother.

2018 ballot measures surrounding abortion

In 2018, two other measures regarding state funding of abortion were certified to appear on state ballots: West Virginia Amendment 1, the No Right to Abortion in Constitution Measure and the Alabama State Abortion Policy Amendment. Both were referred to the ballot by the state legislatures.

Campaign finance

Two committees were registered to support this initiative: Stop the Funding and Oregon Life United PAC. Together the committees had raised $439,098.79 and had spent $493,304.41.

The following five committees registered to oppose Measure 106:

• Defend Oregon
• Oregon Right to Health
• No Cuts to Care PAC
• Planned Parenthood PAC of Oregon
• Team Oregon

Together, the five opposition committees had raised $13.85 million and had spent $13.46 million.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

Amends Constitution: Prohibits spending "public funds" (defined) directly/indirectly for "abortion" (defined); exceptions; reduces abortion access. Result of “Yes” Vote: “Yes” vote amends constitution, prohibits spending “public funds” (defined) directly/indirectly for any “abortion” (defined), health plans/insurance covering “abortion”; limited exceptions; reduces abortion access. Result of “No” Vote: “No” vote retains current law that places no restrictions on spending public funds for abortion or health plans covering abortion when approved by medical professional.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“

Amends constitution. Under current law, abortions may be obtained, when approved by medical professional, under state-funded health plans or under health insurance procured by or through a public employer or other public service. Measure amends constitution to prohibit spending “public funds” (defined) for “abortion” (defined) or health benefit plans that cover “abortion.” Measure defines “abortion,” in part, as “purposeful termination of a clinically diagnosed pregnancy.” Exception for ectopic pregnancy and for pregnant woman in danger of death due to her physical condition. Exception for spending required by federal law, if requirement is “found to be constitutional.” No exception for pregnancy resulting from rape/incest unless federal law requires. Effect on spending by public entities other than the state is unclear. Measure reduces access to abortion. Other provisions.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Oregon Constitution

The proposed amendment would have added the following to the Oregon Constitution: Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the text below to see the full text.

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON PUBLIC FUNDING FOR ABORTIONS. The state shall not spend public funds for any abortion, except when medically necessary or as may be required by federal law. SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS. As used in this Article: (1) “Public funds” means funds and moneys under the control or in the custody of the State of Oregon or any of its political subdivisions or public officials. (2) “Abortion” means the purposeful termination of a clinically diagnosed pregnancy of a woman resulting in the death of the human embryo or fetus. (3) “Medically necessary” means a condition in which a licensed physician determines that the pregnant woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would place her in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. SECTION 3. EXCEPTIONS. (1) Public funds may be spent to pay for an abortion when federal law requires states to provide funding for abortions, such as in circumstances including rape or incest, in which case this Article shall be applied consistent with federal law to the extent the federal requirement is found to be constitutional. (2) Public funds may be spent to pay for the termination of a clinically diagnosed ectopic pregnancy. SECTION 4. OTHER PROVISIONS. Nothing in this Article shall be construed as prohibiting the expenditure of public funds to pay for health insurance as long as such funds are not spent to pay or reimburse for the costs of performing abortions.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 20, and the FRE is 4. The word count for the ballot title is 74, and the estimated reading time is 19 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 12, and the FRE is 37. The word count for the ballot summary is 128, and the estimated reading time is 34 seconds. In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here.

Support

The Yes on Measure 106 campaign, coordinated by Oregon Life United, led the campaign in support of the measure.

Supporters

• The Oregon Catholic Conference
• Oregon Right to Life PAC
• Pregnancy Resource Centers of Central Oregon
• Jackson County Right to Life
• Lincoln County Right to Life
• Precious Children of Portland
• Former Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee

Arguments

• Yes on Measure 106 wrote on their Facebook page, "The measure doesn’t stop anyone from choosing an abortion, but it will give Oregon taxpayers freedom from having to pay for it.”

• The Oregon Catholic Conference wrote in the state Voters’ Pamphlet, "Should elective abortions be paid for with taxpayer money? Should late-term abortions, when the baby is fully formed, be funded with public money? Should sex-selective abortions – abortions chosen because the baby is an undesired girl and not a boy – be paid for by Oregon taxpayers? We don’t think so.”

• Oregon Right to Life PAC wrote in the state Voters’ Pamphlet, "Oregon is the only state with absolutely no restrictions on abortion. Abortion is legal until birth in Oregon. This means taxpayers are funding horrifically painful late-term abortions. Late-term abortions have been medically proven to cause the unborn child pain as he or she is slowly removed from the mother limb by limb. This terrible practice is legal and the abortionists are well paid by the taxpayers."

Opposition

No Cuts to Care led the campaign in opposition to the measure. The No Cuts to Care coalition includes the ACLU of Oregon, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon, and NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon.

Opponents

• Oregon Governor Kate Brown
• Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon
• ACLU of Oregon
• NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon
• Oregon AFL-CIO
• All Above All
• American Federation of Teachers (AFT) of Oregon
• Catholics for Choice
• Fair Shot for All
• Family Forward Oregon
• Forward Together
• Northwest Abortion Access Fund
• Oregon Health Equity Alliance
• Oregon Nurses Assocation
• Oregon Women's Equity Coalition
• Our Revolution
• Unite Oregon
• Western States Center
• Democratic Party of Oregon

Arguments

• No Cuts to Care argued, "Oregonians overwhelmingly believe that abortion should be legal and available for everyone – not just those who can afford it."

• Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon spokesman Jimmy Rodasta said, "Extremists are collecting signatures for a dangerous ballot measure that would amend the Oregon Constitution to restrict abortion for women who receive their health care through the state."

• Defend Oregon stated, "Constitutional Amendment 106 takes away access to safe, legal abortion. By targeting public employees and Medicaid recipients, this measure would hurt the women and families that need access to reproductive healthcare the most."

Media editorials

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in support of Measure 106. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to [email protected].

Opposition

• Oregon Live said: "It's understandable that some Oregonians do not want their tax dollars used to pay for a medical procedure they find abhorrent. Yet decisions about medical care are complicated and deeply personal. They should not be determined at the ballot box. It's also possible the measure would affect whether abortions would be covered on medical plans provided to public employees, whose salary and benefits are paid through tax dollars. This would mean that the suite of health plans available to public employees could not mirror those available to employees in the private sector. Measure 106 supporters' logic also falls short with their argument that when abortions are free, more women will seek them out. In fact, abortion rates in Oregon and nationwide have been on a downward trend for years, across all age and income groups. Voters here have swatted down six past attempts to alter abortion access, making it clear they believe this a personal medical decision that Oregonians can be trusted to make. This initiative, too, should be rejected."

• The Gazette Times said: "This measure isn't really about saving taxpayers' dollars. Assume for a moment that Measure 106 passes, and most of those low-income women, with no other options, decide to carry their pregnancies to term. The costs of adding those those additional children on the Oregon Health Plan soon would dwarf the amount of taxpayer money paying for abortions. Oregon voters should, once again, make it clear that the state has no business interfering with these personal medical decisions. We recommend a "No" vote on Measure 106."

• The Register-Guard said: "An analysis by the secretary of state’s fiscal office found that the state will spend $19.3 million more on health care and other support programs if Measure 106 passes because of the increased births, pregnancy and child health care, nutrition assistance and more. Health decisions should be made by women in consultation with their doctor and, usually, their family. For some women an abortion is the right response to an unplanned pregnancy given their current financial status and life situation. It’s their choice. Oregonians have repeatedly stood up for women’s reproductive health at the ballot. They must do so again. Vote no on Measure 106."

• Willamette Week said: "Abortion is already safe, legal and rare in Oregon. It's also accessible to women of all income levels and circumstances. We should keep it that way."

Other

• The Herald and News wrote, "We leave that up to your voting conscience, but don’t believe government should be making decisions on women’s health issues."

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Oregon ballot measures

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$439,098.79
Opposition:	$13,854,495.45

Two committees were registered to support this initiative: Stop the Funding and Oregon Life United PAC. Together the committees had raised $439,098.79 and had spent $493,304.41.

The following five committees registered to oppose Measure 106:

• Defend Oregon
• Oregon Right to Health
• No Cuts to Care PAC
• Planned Parenthood PAC of Oregon
• Team Oregon

Together, the five opposition committees had raised $13.85 million and had spent $13.46 million.

As of November 2018, fifteen (15) committees were registered to support and/or oppose the five (5) statewide measures on Oregon's November 2018 ballot. Many committees were simultaneously registered to support and oppose multiple measures, therefore it is impossible to distinguish between funds spent on a particular measure. Further, many committees gave contributions to other committees. A full list of the committees and their positions can be found here.

Support

Committees in support of Measure 106, Ban Public Funds for Abortions Initiative Supporting committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Stop the Funding $1,400.00 $175,025.95 $500.00 Oregon Life United PAC $262,397.84 $275.00 $317,503.46 Total $263,797.84 $175,300.95 $318,003.46

Totals in support Total raised: $439,098.79 Total spent: $493,304.41

Top donors

The top donors who had provided more than $10,000 in support of Measure 106 are below:

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
Marta von Borstel	$125,000.00	$0.00	$125,000.00
Manuela DeClercq	$40,000.00	$0.00	$40,000.00
Paul True	$20,000.00	$0.00	$20,000.00

Opposition

Committees in opposition to Measure 106, Ban Public Funds for Abortions Initiative Opposing committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures No Cuts to Care PAC $3,255,387.58 $519,907.34 $3,254,424.23 Defend Oregon $7,229,181.64 $645,035.78 $7,288,542.40 Oregon Right to Health $3,620.00 $1.96 $2,780.89 Team Oregon $1,190,835.16 $859,803.46 $716,356.19 Planned Parenthood PAC of Oregon $140,480.53 $10,242.00 $168,789.97 Total $11,819,504.91 $2,034,990.54 $11,430,893.68

Totals in opposition Total raised: $13,854,495.45 Total spent: $13,465,884.22

Top donors

The top donors in opposition to Measure 106 who provided $100,000 or more to the No Cuts to Care PAC and Planned Parenthood of Oregon PAC are listed below. Top donors to other committees are not included in the chart because they were registered with a position on all five measures on the ballot, making it impossible to determine on which measure the committee's funds were used.

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
Planned Parenthood organizations	$1,530,294.00	$75,559.94	$1,605,853.94
Sixteen Thirty Fund	$685,000.00	$0.00	$685,000.00
Forward Together	$150,000.00	$172,871.50	$322,871.50
ACLU of Oregon	$175,000.00	$26,009.63	$201,009.63
Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00
Virginia League for Planned Parenthood	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls and 2018 ballot measure polls

Below are results of polls that asked respondents how they would vote on Measure 102. Also displayed are the dates the poll was conducted, the number of respondents, and the poll's margin of error.

Oregon Measure 106
Poll	Yes- support	No- oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
DHM Research Poll 10/4/18 - 10/11/18	31.0%	50.0%	19.0%	+/-4.4	500
Riley Research Associates Poll 9/24/18 - 10/7/18	34.0%	56.0%	10.0%	+/-5.2	356
AVERAGES	32.5%	53%	14.5%	+/-4.8	428
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to [email protected].

Background

U.S. Supreme Court rulings on abortion

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)

See also: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

On June 24, 2022, in a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court of the United States found there is no constitutional right to abortion and overruled Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). In a 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Mississippi's abortion law at issue in the case. Roe v. Wade found that state laws criminalizing abortion prior to fetal viability violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the essential holding of Roe v. Wade but rejected the trimester framework established in the case. The high court affirmed that states could not ban abortions before fetal viability.

In 2018, Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a clinic and abortion facility in Mississippi, challenged the constitutionality of the "Gestational Age Act" in federal court. The newly-enacted law prohibited abortions after the fifteenth week of pregnancy except in cases of medical emergencies or fetal abnormalities. The U.S. district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the law was unconstitutional, and put a permanent stop to the law's enforcement. On appeal, the 5th Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. Click here to learn more about the case's background.

State abortion policy without Roe

Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationwide, though it allowed states to regulate and/or prohibit abortions (except those to preserve the life or health of the mother) once a fetus reaches the point of viability. If Roe were to be overturned, it would be up to the states to decide their policy on the matter entirely, regardless of fetal viability.

As of July 2018, ten states had laws allowing access to abortion. Four states had laws that would automatically ban most abortions if Roe were overturned: Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Seven states had laws expressing intent to restrict abortion access to the fullest extent possible in the absence of Roe. Nine states have laws restricting abortion that have been in place before Roe: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

2018 Supreme Court vacancy and the issue of abortion

Shortly before the November election, on July 9, 2018, President Donald Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to succeed Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court. The Senate voted 50-48-1 to confirm Brett Kavanaugh on October 6, 2018. According to the Segal-Cover score, which grades Supreme Court justices on a liberal-conservative scale, Kennedy was the middle with four justices as more conservative and four as more liberal.

The topic of abortion access and the future of Roe v. Wade was a widely discussed issue surrounding Kavanaugh's nomination and confirmation.

Planned Parenthood's executive vice president wrote, "There’s no way to sugarcoat it: with this nomination, the constitutional right to access safe, legal abortion in this country is on the line. We already know how Brett Kavanaugh would rule on Roe v. Wade, because the president told us so."

Kavanaugh said that Roe v. Wade “is an important precedent to the Supreme Court. It’s been reaffirmed many times. It was reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 when the court specifically considered whether to reaffirm it or whether to overturn it. ...That makes Casey precedent on precedent.”

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said, "I do not believe he’s going to repeal Roe v. Wade."

During the third presidential debate of 2016, Chris Wallace of Fox News asked Donald Trump if he wanted to see the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, to which Trump responded, "Well, if we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that's really what’s going to be — that will happen and that will happen automatically in my opinion because I am putting pro-life justices on the court."

Abortion ballot measures, 2018

See also: Abortion on the ballot

2018 ballot measures related to abortion

In 2018, three measures related to abortion were certified to appear on state ballots: West Virginia Amendment 1, Alabama Amendment 2, and Oregon Measure 106. The Alabama and West Virginia measures were legislatively referred constitutional amendments while the Oregon measure was a citizen-initiated measure. The Alabama and West Virginia measures were approved and the Oregon measure was defeated.

Alabama

a Alabama Amendment 2 amended the state constitution in order to (a) declare that the state's policy is to recognize and support "the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life," (b) "ensure the protection of the rights of the unborn child in all manners and measures lawful and appropriate," and (c) state that "nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion." Rep. Matt Fridy (R-72), who sponsored this amendment in the Alabama legislature, said that its purpose was to ensure that nothing in the state constitution could be used to argue for a right to abortion in the event that Roe v. Wade was overturned.

Oregon

d Oregon Measure 106 would have prohibited public funds from being spent on abortions in Oregon, except when deemed medically necessary by a medical professional or required by federal law. The measure did not provide any exceptions for cases of rape or incest unless federal law requires.

West Virginia

a West Virginia Amendment 1 added Section 57 to Article VI of the West Virginia Constitution to say "Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of abortion." If Roe v. Wade were overturned, this amendment was designed to ensure that the state's constitution could not be used to allow abortions.

Past measures: 1982-1988

Ballotpedia has tracked the following measures relating to state funding of abortion that have appeared on statewide ballots in past years. A total of seven measures relating to abortion funding were on the ballot in five states. All seven measures appeared on statewide ballots between 1982 and 1988 through citizen initiative petitions. Of the seven measures, two were approved and five were defeated. One measure that was defeated was Initiative 7 of 1988 in Colorado that would have repealed one of the two approved measures, Colorado Initiative 3, an amendment from 1984 that prohibited the use of state funds for abortions unless necessary to preserve the life of the mother.

Year	Measure	State	Primary purpose	Outcome
1982	Measure 6	Alaska	Prohibit unless to preserve the mother's life	d
1984	Initiative 3	Colorado	Prohibit public funding unless to preserve the mother's life	a
1986	Amendment 65	Arkansas	Prohibit public funding unless to preserve the mother's life	d
1988	Amendment 3	Arkansas	Prohibit public funding unless to preserve the mother's life	a
1988	Initiative 7	Colorado	Repeal Initiative 3 (from 1984)	d
1986	Measure 6	Oregon	Prohibit public funding unless to preserve the mother's life	d
1984	Initiative 471	Washington	Prohibit public funding unless to preserve the mother's life	d

Details about the abortion-related measures can be expanded below

Alaska Alaska Limiting State Funding of Abortions Initiative, Measure 6 (1982): The Alaska Limiting State Funding of Abortions Initiative, also known as Measure 6, was on the November 2, 1982, ballot in Alaska as an indirect initiated state statute, where it was defeated. The measure would have prohibited state funding of abortions, "except upon written certification of a physician that the procedure was necessary to preserve the life of a patient and that all reasonable efforts were made to preserve the life of the unborn." Arkansas Arkansas Amendment 65, Prohibit Public Funds for Abortions and State Policy Initiative (1986): The Arkansas Limitation on Public Funding for Abortion Proposed Amendment, also known as Proposed Amendment 65, was on the ballot in Arkansas on November 4, 1986, as an initiated constitutional amendment. It was defeated. The measure would have prohibited any public funds from being used directly or indirectly to pay for abortions, except when needed to save the mother's life. Arkansas Amendment 3, Prohibit Public Funds for Abortions and State Policy Initiative (1988): The Arkansas Abortion Restriction and Public Funding Ban Proposed Amendment, also known as Proposed Amendment 3, was on the ballot in Arkansas on November 8, 1988, as an initiated constitutional amendment. It was approved. The measure prohibited public funds to be used for any abortion, except to save the mother's life. Colorado Colorado Initiative 3, Prohibit Public Funds for Abortions Initiative (1984): The Colorado Abortion Funding Prohibition Amendment, also known as Initiative 3, was on the November 6, 1984, ballot in Colorado as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was approved. The measure prohibited the use of public funds, directly or indirectly, for abortion. It included an exception for medical services necessary to prevent the death of a pregnant person or an unborn child. It was the first such measure to appear on a state ballot. Colorado Abortion Funding, Initiative 7 (1988): The Colorado Abortion Funding Initiative, also known as Initiative 7, was on the November 8, 1988, ballot in Colorado as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was defeated. The measure would have repealed Initiative 3, an amendment from 1984 prohibiting the use of state funds, directly or indirectly, for abortions. Oregon Oregon Limited State Funding of Abortions, Measure 6 (1986): The Oregon Limited State Funding of Abortions Amendment, also known as Measure 6, was on the November 4, 1986, ballot in Oregon as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was defeated. The measure would have prohibited the use of state funds for abortions, except to prevent the death of the mother. Washington Washington No Public Funding of Abortions, Initiative 471 (1984): The Washington No Public Funding of Abortions Initiative, also known as Initiative 471, was on the November 6, 1985, ballot in Washington as an Initiative to the People, where it was defeated. The measure would have prohibited the public funding of abortion, except to prevent death of the mother.

Abortion on the ballot in Oregon

See also: Abortion on the ballot and List of Oregon ballot measures

Ballotpedia has tracked the following ballot measure(s) relating to abortion in Oregon.

1. Oregon Measure 8, Abortion Ban Initiative (1990)
2. Oregon Measure 43, Parental Notification of Abortion Initiative (2006)
3. Oregon Measure 10, Parental Notification of Abortion Initiative (1990)
4. Oregon Measure 7, Prohibit Public Funds for Abortions Initiative (1978)
5. Oregon Measure 6, Prohibit Public Funds for Abortions Initiative (1986)
6. Oregon Prohibit Laws Discriminating Based on Account of Sex Initiative (2026)

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Oregon

The state process

In Oregon, the number of signatures required to qualify an initiated constitutional amendment for the ballot is equal to 8 percent of the votes cast for governor in the most recent gubernatorial election. Signatures for Oregon initiatives must be submitted four months prior to the next regular general election. State law also requires paid signature gatherers to submit any signatures they gather every month.

Moreover, Oregon is one of several states that require a certain number of signatures to accompany an initiative petition application. The signatures of at least 1,000 electors are required to trigger a review by state officials, a period of public commentary, and the drafting of a ballot title. Prior to gathering these initial 1,000 signatures, petitioners must submit the text of the measure, a form disclosing their planned use of paid circulators, and a form designating up to three chief petitioners.

The requirements to get an initiated constitutional amendment certified for the 2018 ballot:

• Signatures: 117,578 valid signatures were required.
• Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures was July 6, 2018.

In Oregon, signatures are verified using a random sample method. If a first round of signatures is submitted at least 165 days before an election and contains raw, unverified signatures at least equal to the minimum requirement, but verification shows that not enough of the submitted signatures are valid, additional signatures can be submitted prior to the final deadline.

Details about this initiative

Jeff Jimerson, Marylin Shannon, and Suzanne Belatti filed the proposal with the Oregon secretary of state on June 27, 2016. Oregon requires that 1,000 signatures be provided with the filing. Petitioners submitted 1,768 valid signatures. The state attorney general issued a certified ballot title and summary on August 22, 2016.

Petitioners filed an objection to the attorney general's ballot title in the Oregon Supreme Court on December 22, 2016. The court decided that the attorney general's ballot title was certifiable. The initiative was approved for circulation on February 24, 2017.

Petitions were required to collect 117,578 valid signatures to get their initiative on the ballot. Signatures for initiatives needed to be submitted four months prior to the election on November 6, 2018, which was July 6, 2018.

On July 6, 2018, proponents reported submitting around 140,000 signatures to the secretary of state's office. A total of 117,578 were needed to qualify for the November ballot.

On July 27, 2018, the Oregon Secretary of State's office announced the measure had qualified for the ballot.

Cost of signature collection:
Ballotpedia found no petition companies that received payment from the sponsors of this measure, which means signatures were likely gathered largely by volunteers. A total of $179,124.05 was spent to collect the 117,578 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $1.52.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Oregon

Poll times

Oregon is an all-mail voting state. Each county provides privacy booths that voters can use to mark their ballot. County clerks' offices are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. local time on Election Day. Oregon is divided between the Mountain and Pacific time zones.

Registration requirements

Check your voter registration status here.

To register to vote in Oregon, one must be a resident of Oregon, a United States citizen, and at least 16 years old. Voters must be at least 18 years old by the day of the election in order to receive a ballot. Potential voters can register online or by mailing in a voter registration form to your county election office. The deadline to register is 21 days before the election.

Automatic registration

Oregon implemented automatic voter registration in 2016. For more information, click here.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

Oregon has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

Oregon does not allow same-day voter registration.

Residency requirements

To register to vote in Oregon, you must be a resident of the state.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Oregon does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. An individual must attest that they are a U.S. citizen when registering to vote. According to the state's voter registration application, a voter who knowingly falsely registers "can be fined up to $125,000 and/or imprisoned for up to 5 years."

All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. As of November 2024, five states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, and New Hampshire — had passed laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration. However, only two of those states' laws were in effect, in Arizona and New Hampshire. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allowed noncitizens to vote in some local elections as of November 2024. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.

Verifying your registration

The Oregon Secretary of State’s Office allows residents to check their voter registration status online by visiting this website.

Voter ID requirements

Oregon is an all-mail voting state. When registering to vote, voters must provide their driver's license number or state ID card number. If voters can not provide this information, they can print and sign a online voter registration form and mail it to their county election office to complete their registration.

Related measures

Abortion measures on the ballot in 2018
State	Measures
Alabama	Alabama Amendment 2: State Abortion Policy a

See also

2018 measures

• 2018 ballot measures
• Abortion on the ballot
• 2018 legislative sessions

Oregon

• Oregon ballot measures
• Oregon ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Initiative 1

Support

• Yes on Measure 106 campaign website
• Yes on Measure 106 Facebook page
• Oregon Life United Twitter page

Opposition

• No Cuts to Care campaign website
• No Cuts to Care Facebook page
• No Cuts to Care Twitter page