Oregon Measure 107, Campaign Finance Limits Amendment (2020)

Oregon Measure 107
Election date November 3, 2020
Topic Campaign finance
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature
List of Oregon measuresOregon Measure 107Oregon Measure 108Oregon Measure 109Oregon Measure 110Submit

Oregon Measure 107, the Campaign Finance Amendment, was on the ballot in Oregon as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 3, 2020. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported authorizing the state legislature and local governments to (1) enact laws or ordinances limiting campaign contributions and expenditures; (2) require disclosure of contributions and expenditures; and (3) require that political advertisements identify the people or entities that paid for them.

A "no" vote opposed authorizing the state legislature and local governments to (1) enact laws or ordinances limiting campaign contributions and expenditures; (2) require disclosure of contributions and expenditures; and (3) require that political advertisements identify the people or entities that paid for them.

Election results

Oregon Measure 107
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,763,276	78.31%
No		488,413	21.69%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

How would Measure 107 change campaign finance in Oregon?

See also: Constitutional changes

Measure 107 authorized the Oregon State Legislature and local governments to limit political contributions and expenditures. This amendment was designed to authorize the state legislature and local governments to enact laws and ordinances to do the following:

• limit political campaign contributions or other contributions that could influence the outcome of an election without impeding candidates or political committees from obtaining resources necessary for to run a campaign or advocate for an issue;
• limit political campaign expenditures or expenditures that influence the outcome of any election to the extent permitted under the Constitution of the United States;
• require disclosure of contributions and expenditures; and
• require that political advertisements identify the people or entities that paid for them.

At the time of the election, Oregon was one of five states that allowed unlimited contributions to candidates and ballot measures. Committees were not required by Oregon law to include disclaimers stating who paid for a communication or advertisement, but they could do so by choice.

How did this affect previously unenforceable campaign finance laws?

See also: Portland Measure 26-200 Campaign Finance Limits Charter Amendment (2018)

Measure 107 applied to laws and ordinances adopted through the initiative process or enacted by the state legislature or a local government on or after January 1, 2016. One local measures—Measure 26-200 (2018)—became enforceable when the amendment was approved. The measure was shortly struck down after the 2018 election by the court for unconstitutional campaign finance limits.

In 2006, two statewide measures—Measure 46 and Measure 47 were on the Oregon ballot and were designed to limit campaign contributions and expenditures. Measure 47 was approved, Measure 46 was rejected. Measure 47 depended on the approval of Measure 46 to be constitutional. Measure 47 was struck down by the state supreme court in October of 2012. Measure 47 contained a clause providing that the measure would still be codified in state law to become enforceable when the constitution is found to allow or amended to allow limits on campaign contributions and expenditures. However, the proposed 2020 constitutional amendment only applied to laws and ordinances adopted through the initiative process or enacted by the state legislature or a local government on or after January 1, 2016, meaning Measure 47 did not become effective.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

Amends Constitution: Allows laws limiting political campaign contributions and expenditures, requiring disclosure of political campaign contributions and expenditures, and requiring political campaign advertisements to identify who paid for them Result of 'Yes' Vote: 'Yes' vote allows laws, created by the Legislative Assembly, local governments or voters that limit contributions and expenditures made to influence an election. Allows laws that require disclosure of contributions and expenditures made to influence an election. Allows laws that require campaign or election advertisements to identify who paid for them. Campaign contribution limits cannot prevent effective advocacy. Applies to laws enacted or approved on or after January 1, 2016. Result of 'No' Vote: 'No' vote retains current law. Courts currently find the Oregon Constitution does not allow laws limiting campaign expenditures. Laws limiting contributions are allowed if the text of the law does not target expression.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“

The Oregon Supreme Court has interpreted the Oregon Constitution to prohibit limits on expenditures made in connection with a political campaign or to influence the outcome of an election. Limits on contributions are allowed if the text of the law does not target expression. The proposed measure amends the Oregon Constitution to allow the Oregon Legislative Assembly, local governments, and the voters by initiative to pass laws that limit contributions and expenditures made in connection with a political campaign and contributions and expenditures made to influence an election. The measure would allow laws that require disclosure of political campaign and election contributions and expenditures. The measure would allow laws that require political campaign and election advertisements to identify who paid for them. Laws limiting campaign contributions cannot prevent effective advocacy. Measure applies to all laws enacted or approved on or after January 1, 2016.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article II, Oregon Constitution

Measure 107 amended Section 8 of Article II of the Oregon Constitution. The following underlined text added:

Regulation of Elections Sec. 8. (1) The Legislative Assembly shall enact laws to support the privilege of free suffrage, prescribing the manner of regulating, and conducting elections, and prohibiting under adequate penalties, all undue influence therein, from power, bribery, tumult, and other improper conduct. (2) The Legislative Assembly, the governing body of a city, county, municipality or district empowered by law or by this Constitution to enact legislation, or the people through the initiative process, may enact laws or ordinances within its jurisdiction that: (a) Limit contributions made in connection with political campaigns or to influence the outcome of any election in a manner that does not prevent candidates and political committees from gathering the resources necessary for effective advocacy; (b) Require the disclosure of contributions or expenditures made in connection with political campaigns or to influence the outcome of any election; (c) Require that an advertisement made in connection with a political campaign or to influence the outcome of any election identify the persons or entities that paid for the advertisement; and (d) Limit expenditures made in connection with political campaigns or to influence the outcome of any election to the extent permitted under the Constitution of the United States. (3) Subsection (2) of this section applies to laws and ordinances enacted by the Legislative Assembly or the governing body of a city, county, municipality or district, or enacted or approved by the people through the initiative process, on or after January 1, 2016.

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

This measure will have no financial effect on the expenditures or revenues of the state, counties, cities, or special districts in Oregon.

”

Explanatory statement

The explanatory statement was as follows:

Measure 107 Explanatory Statement Ballot Measure 107 amends the Oregon Constitution to allow laws to place limitations on political contributions and expenditures, to require disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures and to require political advertisements to identify who paid for them. Courts currently find that the Oregon Constitution prohibits limits on expenditures made in connection with a political campaign or to influence the outcome of an election. Limits on campaign contributions are allowed if the text of the law does not target expression. Ballot Measure 107 amends the Oregon Constitution to allow the Legislative Assembly, local governments and the people through the initiative process to pass laws or ordinances that limit contributions and expenditures made in connection with a political campaign or to influence the outcome of an election. The measure also allows laws that require disclosure of contributions and expenditures made in connection with a political campaign or to influence the outcome of an election and laws that require an advertisement made in connection with a political campaign or to influence the outcome of an election to identify who paid for the advertisement. Laws limiting campaign contributions cannot prevent effective advocacy. The proposed amendment applies to laws and ordinances enacted or approved on or after January 1, 2016.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020

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 11, and the FRE is 30. The word count for the ballot title is 138, and the estimated reading time is 36 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 16, and the FRE is 19. The word count for the ballot summary is 142, and the estimated reading time is 37 seconds.

Support

Fair and Honest Elections led the Yes on 107 campaign in support of Measure 107.

Supporters

Officials

• Vermont U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Independent)
• Oregon Governor Kate Brown (D)
• Oregon State Senator Shemia Fagan (D)
• Oregon State Senator Jeff Golden (D)
• Oregon State Senator Mark Hass (D)
• Oregon State Senator Tim Knopp (R)
• Oregon State Senator Kim Thatcher (R)
• Oregon State Senator Rob Wagner (D)
• Oregon State Representative Dan Rayfield (D)

Political Parties

• Democratic Party of Oregon
• Multnomah Democrats

Organizations

• Common Cause Oregon
• Democracy for America
• Honest Elections Oregon
• Oregon League of Conservation Voters
• Unite Oregon

Arguments

• Daniel Meek (testifying on behalf of Honest Elections Oregon, the Oregon Progressive Party, and the Independent Party of Oregon): "The SJR 18 referral to voters is necessary only to guarantee that campaign finance regulations in Oregon can be adopted and enforced and not be hindered by lawsuits claiming preclusion by the Oregon Constitution. In fact, Oregon's free speech clause is the same as that of 36 other states, all of which limit campaign contributions and all of which require that political ads identify at least their primary sponsor. No court has held that those state free speech clauses preclude the adoption and enforcement of limits on campaign contributions or mandatory taglines on political advertisements."
• Oregon Governor Kate Brown (D): "A constitutional amendment must make it clear to voters and the courts that campaign contributions may be regulated and that the greatest transparency in campaigns is permissible. My goal is to see lasting constitutional authority to regulate campaign finance in Oregon and to see reasonable limits put in place."
• Kate Titus of Common Cause Oregon: "Voters have always supported setting limits on campaign contributions. That’s true across political party affiliation. However, in recent years, we are seeing that support spike up over 80% and even 90%, and with increased intensity. Oregon is one of only five states that sets no limits at all on campaign contributions, has among the most expensive campaigns per capita, and ranks worst in the country for corporate cash to lawmakers."

Opposition

Opponents

Political Parties

• Washington County Republican Party

Individuals

• Kyle Markley (Libertarian Party) - Party chairman

Arguments

• Kyle Markley, chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon: "I strongly oppose any constitutional amendment that would weaken Oregon’s freedom of speech guarantees... Campaign contribution and expenditure limits do not create a level playing field. In fact, they tilt it against the voices representing concentrated interests, voices that deserve to be heard... We must never suppress speech that is critical of government or government officials. Even if that speech occurs near an election. Perhaps especially if that speech occurs near an election."

Campaign finance

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through December 30, 2020.

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Oregon ballot measures

Two committees are registered in support of Measure 107: Yes for Fair and Honest Elections and Honest Elections Oregon. Combined the campaigns reported receiving over $174,249 in cash and in-kind contributions.

Ballotpedia had not identified any committees registered in opposition to the measure.

   .sbtotaltable {
   width: 50%;
   }
   .sbtotaltable th {
    font-size:1.2em;
   }
   .sbtotaltable td {
       text-align:center;
      }
   .sbtotalheader {
       background-color: black !important;
       color:white !important;
       font-size:1.0em;
       font-weight:bold;
   }
   .sbtotaltotal {
       font-weight:bold;
   }
   

    

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$125,699.20	$53,549.89	$179,249.09	$121,434.23	$174,984.12
Oppose	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of Measure 107.

   .sbtotaltable {
   width: 50%;
   }
   .sbtotaltable th {
    font-size:1.2em;
   }
   .sbtotaltable td {
       text-align:center;
      }
   .sbtotalheader {
       background-color: black !important;
       color:white !important;
       font-size:1.0em;
       font-weight:bold;
   }
   .sbtotaltotal {
       font-weight:bold;
   }
   

    

Committees in support of Measure 107
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Yes for Fair and Honest Elections	$120,489.20	$51,149.89	$171,639.09	$116,029.50	$167,179.39
Honest Elections Oregon	$5,210.00	$2,400.00	$7,610.00	$5,404.73	$7,804.73
Total	$125,699.20	$53,549.89	$179,249.09	$121,434.23	$174,984.12

Top donors

The following were the top donors that contributed in support of Measure 107.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Kate Brown Committee	$0.00	$27,833.00	$27,833.00
End Citizen's United	$25,200.00	$0.00	$25,200.00
AFSCME Council 75	$25,000.00	$0.00	$25,000.00
Voters' Right to Know	$14,000.00	$1,200.00	$15,200.00
Team Oregon Victory Fund	$10,000.00	$4,875.00	$14,875.00

Opposition

Ballotpedia did not identify any committees registered in opposition to Measure 107.

Methodology

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

Media editorials

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the ballot measure. If you are aware of a media editorial board position that is not listed below, please email the editorial link to [email protected].

Support

• The Observer Editorial Board: "Campaign finance reform seems like a no-brainer. Everyone says they are for it — even the politicians and candidates who benefit from unlimited campaign donations. Oregon voters have approved limits by three statewide initiatives since 1994. And yet, the money pours into campaign coffers. ... Measure 107 would amend the state constitution to allow laws limiting political campaign contributions and expenditures. We recommend a 'yes' vote."
• Mail Tribune Editorial Board: "Measure 107 allows laws that require interest groups to disclose their contributions and political advertisements to identify who paid for them. Even if the Legislature winds up enacting generous contribution limits, it is imperative that voters know who is spending money to influence their choices. We recommend a yes vote on Measure 107."
• EO Media Group Editorial Board (East Oregonian and The Bulletin): "Oregonians should vote 'yes.' This measure has been a long time coming. Voters have repeatedly supported measures to cap campaign contributions, but a 1997 state Supreme Court ruling that such contributions are a form of constitutionally protected expression barred their implementation. As a result, Oregon is one of only five states in the nation without any such caps, giving deep-pocketed donors outsized influence in shaping elections and the policies their chosen candidates pursue."
• Willamette Week Editorial Board: "Indeed, the effort to limit the influence of monied interests is broadly popular—heck, it's downright democratic. We expect this measure to pass handily. The hard work is the next step: figuring out the specific caps will apply, shutting off loopholes, and figuring out the balancing act between campaign finance limits and the fact there is no constitutional way to limit independent expenditures without federal legislation or a reversal of the Citizens United ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. Left to politicians, nothing has happened on campaign finance reform. All the change has come at the ballot. Hopefully, they'll hear from voters that deciding on statewide limits in the next legislative session is the right way to go. In the meantime, vote yes."
• Portland Mercury Editorial Board: "The premise behind Measure 107 is simple, and hard to argue with: Politics shouldn’t be controlled by those with the deepest pockets, and the government should be able to set rules that limit the influence wealthy individuals and powerful corporations have over elections. ... This is the rare ballot measure that Oregonians of all nearly political stripes ought to agree upon—we deserve transparency from our leaders, and the wealthiest among us shouldn’t have undue influence over our elections. Vote 'Yes' on Measure 107."

Opposition

Ballotpedia had not identified media editorial boards in opposition to the ballot measure.

Background

Oregon campaign finance requirements

See also: Campaign finance requirements in Oregon

At the time of the election, Oregon allowed unlimited contributions to candidates and ballot measures. Committees must file all transactions electronically using the state's campaign finance reporting system, ORESTAR, if a committee receives or spends $3,500 or more. Committees must report the name, address, and occupation of the donor for contributions and expenditures exceeding $100.

Oregon Supreme Court rulings on campaign finance limits

Vannatta v. Kiesling (1997)

Section 8 of Article I of the Oregon Constitution states, "No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right." Campaign contributions and expenditures were found by the state Supreme Court in Vannatta v. Kiesling (1997) to be protected forms of free expression under the Oregon Constitution.

In Vannatta v. Kiesling, the court wrote, "In our view, a contribution is protected as an expression by the contributor, not because the contribution eventually may be used by a candidate to express a particular message. The money may never be used to promote a form of expression by the candidate; instead, it may (for example) be used to pay campaign staff or to meet other needs not tied to a particular message... the contribution, in and of itself, is the contributor's expression of support for the candidate or an act of expression that is completed by the act of giving and that depends in no way on the ultimate use to which the contribution is put." The court also wrote, "Expenditures by a candidate, an organization, a committee, or an individual, when designed to communicate to others the spender's preferred political choice, is expression in essentially the same way that a candidate's personal appeal for votes is expression."

Multnomah County v. Mehrwein (2020)

In March 2018, Multnomah County Measure 26-184 (2106), which limited campaign contributions and independent expenditures and required campaign finance disclosures on campaign communications, was ruled unconstitutional using the precedent established in Vannatta. In April 2020, the Oregon Supreme Court overturned Vannatta and ruled that the campaign finance limits on their face were not unconstitutional while the limits on independent expenditures were unconstitutional. The court sent the case back to a lower court to determine if the $500 campaign finance contribution limit established by Measure 26-184 was too low.

U.S. Supreme Court rulings on campaign finance regulations

Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

In 1976, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that contribution limits are constitutional but that expenditure limits are not.

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

In the 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that corporate/PAC funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited because doing so would violate the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment right to free speech applies to corporations (and PACs), and thus the government cannot limit their political spending.

Measures 46 and 47 of 2006

Measure 46 and Measure 47 were on the Oregon ballot in 2006. Measure 46 was designed to amend the Oregon Constitution to allow laws limiting or prohibiting election contributions and expenditures. Measure 47 would have implemented the contribution limits. However, while Measure 47 was approved, Measure 46 was rejected. Measure 47 depended on the approval of Measure 46 to be constitutional. In other words, since Measure 46 was rejected, the constitutionality of Measure 47 was in question. The constitutionality of Measure 47 was challenged in court (Hazell v. Brown) and ultimately struck down by the state supreme court in October of 2012.

Measure 47 contained a clause providing that the measure would still be codified in state law to become enforceable when the constitution is found to allow or amended to allow limits on campaign contributions and expenditures. However, the proposed 2020 constitutional amendment only applied to laws and ordinances adopted through the initiative process or enacted by the state legislature or a local government on or after January 1, 2016, meaning Measure 47 did not become effective.

Local Oregon campaign finance measures

See also: Portland Measure 26-200 Campaign Finance Limits Charter Amendment (2018)

The 2020 constitutional amendment would apply to laws and ordinances adopted through the initiative process or enacted by the state legislature or a local government on or after January 1, 2016. Two local measures—Measure 26-200 (2018) and Multnomah County Measure 26-184 (2016)—would become enforceable if the constitutional amendment is approved.

Portland Measure 26-200 (2018) was approved by Portland voters in a vote of 87% to 13%, but the measure's provisions surrounding campaign finance limits were struck down as unconstitutional on June 10, 2019.

Multnomah County Measure 26-184 (2016) was approved by Portland voters in a vote of 88.57% to 11.43%, but the measure's provisions surrounding campaign finance limits were struck down as unconstitutional on March 6, 2018. On April 23, 2020, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the campaign contributions limits were not facially invalid under Article I, Section 8, and sent the case back to the lower court to decide whether the limits proposed in Measure 26-184 violated the First Amendment. On August 23, 2021, Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Eric Bloch ruled that the limits did not violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

2019 bills: HB 2714 and 2716

House Bills 2714 and 2716, sponsored by Rep. Dan Rayfield (D-Corvallis), were designed to implement some aspects of the proposed 2020 constitutional amendment.

HB 2714: campaign contribution limits (not passed)

HB 2714 was designed to enact limits on campaign contributions. The bill passed in the House on June 6, 2019, in a vote of 35-23 with two representatives excused. It was referred to the Senate on June 10, 2019, but it failed to pass in the Senate before the legislature adjourned its 2019 session on June 30, 2019. Rep. Rayfield's chief of staff said, "We will continue working on this bill in the interim and introduce a limits bill again in the 2020 session."

HB 2716: identifying entities that pay for election communications (passed)

House Bill 2716 was designed to require that a communication (advertisement) in support of or in opposition to a clearly identified candidate must state the name of the persons that paid for the communication.

Certain election-related communications involving candidates for federal office (such as President of the United States) are required by federal law to include a disclaimer that identifies who paid for or authorized the communication.

The full text of HB 2716 may be found here. The bill was passed by the legislature on June 29, 2019, and was signed by the governor on August 2, 2019.

Campaign finance requirements by state

See also: State-by-state comparison of campaign finance requirements

Campaign finance laws regulate the use of money in elections. Generally speaking, campaign finance laws regulate the sources and amounts of contributions to political candidates and campaigns, as well as the disclosure of information about campaign funds. While federal laws regulate the use of money in federal elections (i.e., presidential and congressional elections), the states themselves implement and enforce campaign finance laws for state ballot measures and state-level candidates (such as governors and state legislators). Consequently, there is variation in campaign finance laws from state to state.

Quick facts: how does Oregon compare to other states?

See also: State-by-state comparison of campaign finance requirements

• Other states with no limits on political campaign contributions include Alabama, Nebraska, Utah, and Virginia.

• Along with Oregon, 10 other states allow unlimited contributions from individuals: Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. In the rest of the states, limits an individual may give to a candidate differ depending on the type of candidate. In New York, an individual may give $50,000 to a candidate for governor, while in Alaska the limit is $500. For state House and Senate, the highest individual contribution limit is $12,532 (Ohio) and the lowest is $170 (Montana).

• Along with Oregon, 17 other states have no limit on contributions from state parties.

• Along with Oregon, five other states (Alabama, Missouri, Nebraska, Utah, and Virginia) have no limits on corporate contributions. Twenty-two states prohibit corporate contributions entirely. The rest of the states have limits on corporate contributions.

• In addition to Oregon, 12 other states have no limits on PAC contributions. The remaining states either impose limitations on PAC contributions in the same amount as the individual limit or provide for separate limits.

A complete chart showing state limits on contributions to candidates compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures may be found here.

Election policy on the ballot in 2020

In 2020, voters in 14 states voted on 18 ballot measures addressing election-related policies. One of the measures addressed campaign finance, one were related to election dates, five addressed election systems, three addressed redistricting, five addressed suffrage, and three addressed term limits.

Click Show to read details about the election-related measures on statewide ballots in 2020.

Election-related policy ballot measures in 2020

Campaign finance See also: Campaign finance on the ballot a Oregon Measure 107: Measure 107 authorizes the state legislature and local governments to (1) enact laws or ordinances limiting campaign contributions and expenditures; (2) require disclosure of contributions and expenditures; and (3) require that political advertisements identify the people or entities that paid for them. Going into the election, Oregon was one of five states with no limits on campaign contributions. Election dates a New Mexico Constitutional Amendment 2: The amendment allowed the state legislature to pass laws adjusting the election dates of state or county officeholders and adjusting office terms according to those date changes. Under the measure, laws proposing adjustments to election dates of non-statewide officeholders must be supported by a legislative finding that such a change would promote consistency or that it would evenly distribute the number of offices appearing on the ballot. Election systems a Alaska Ballot Measure 2: Ballot Measure 2 replaced the state's partisan primaries with open top-four primaries for state executive, state legislative, and congressional offices and established ranked-choice voting for general elections, including the presidential election, in which voters would rank the candidates. Ballot Measure 2 also required persons and entities that contribute more than $2,000 that were themselves derived from donations, contributions, dues, or gifts to disclose the true sources, as defined in the law, of the political contributions. a Colorado Proposition 113: In 2019, the Colorado State Legislature passed a bill to add Colorado to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). NPVIC member states have agreed to give the state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote, provided the NPVIC goes into effect. The NPVIC was designed to go into effect if states representing at least 270 electoral votes join the NPVIC. The campaign Protect Colorado's Vote filed a veto referendum to overturn the law, which resulted in Proposition 113. On November 3, voters upheld the law and voted in favor of adding Colorado to the NPVIC. d Florida Amendment 3: Amendment 3 would have replaced Florida's closed primaries with top-two open primaries for elected state offices. Under Amendment 3, all candidates would have run in the same primary election. The top-two candidates, regardless of their partisan affiliation, would have moved on to the general election under Amendment 3. d Massachusetts Question 2: Question 2 would have enacted ranked-choice voting (RCV) for primary and general elections for state executive officials, state legislators, federal congressional representatives, and certain county offices. As of 2020, statewide elections in Massachusetts used a plurality voting system. a Mississippi Ballot Measure 2: As of 2020, Mississippi required that a candidate for governor or elected state office receive the most votes in a majority of the state's 122 state House of Representatives districts (known as the electoral vote requirement). Ballot Measure 2 repealed this requirement. Instead, Ballot Measure 2 provided that a candidate for governor or state office must receive a majority vote to win and that a runoff election would be held between the two highest vote-getters in the event that no candidate receives a majority vote. Redistricting See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot a Missouri Amendment 3: In 2018, Missouri voters approved Amendment 1, the Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative, which created the nonpartisan state demographer responsible for state legislative redistricting. Amendment 3 repealed the nonpartisan state demographer and returned the state to the use of bipartisan redistricting commissions, with changes to the number and selection of commissioners. The 2020 amendment also maintained the criteria of competitiveness and partisan fairness that was enacted in 2018, but it loosened the partisan fairness requirement and required that population, voter rights abridgment, contiguous districts, simple shapes, and the rules for counties be considered with a higher priority. a New Jersey Public Question 3: As of 2020, the New Jersey Constitution required the state legislative redistricting commission to pass a redistricting plan within a month of receiving the official census data. Question 3 postponed state legislative redistricting until after the election on November 2, 2021, should the state receive federal census data after February 15, 2021. The U.S. Census Bureau asked Congress to extend the deadline to deliver census data from April 1, 2021, to July 31, 2021, due to delays related to the coronavirus pandemic. a Virginia Question 1: Question 1 transferred the power to draw the state's congressional and legislative districts from the state legislature to a redistricting commission composed of state legislators and citizens. Going into 2020, the Virginia General Assembly was responsible for drawing the state's congressional and state legislative district boundaries. The redistricting plans were passed as legislation and subject to the governor's veto power. Suffrage See also: Suffrage on the ballot a Alabama Amendment 1: Amendment 1 amended the Alabama Constitution to state that "only a citizen of the United States," rather than "every citizen of the United States," who is 18 years old or older has the right to vote in Alabama. a California Proposition 17: Proposition 17 amended the state constitution to allow people with felonies who are on parole to vote; therefore, the ballot measure kept imprisonment as a disqualification for voting but removed parole status. Going into 2020, the California Constitution disqualified people with felonies from voting until the completion of their imprisonment and parole. d California Proposition 18: Proposition 18 would have allowed 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in primary elections and special elections. a Colorado Amendment 76: Amendment 76 amended the Colorado Constitution to state that “only a citizen”, instead of "every citizen", of the U.S. who is 18 years of age or older can vote in Colorado. Under the Colorado Votes Act, which went into effect in August 2019, individuals who are 17 years of age at the time of a primary election but who will be 18 years of age at the time of a general election were allowed to register to vote and vote in the primary election. According to the Colorado Blue Book, prevents 17-year-olds from voting. a Florida Amendment 1: Amendment 1 amended the Florida Constitution to state that “only a citizen” of the U.S. who is 18 years old or older can vote in Florida instead of saying that "every citizen" of the U.S. who is 18 years old or older can vote in Florida. Term limits and term lengths See also: Term limits on the ballot a Arkansas Issue 2: Issue 2 changed term limits of state legislators to twelve consecutive years with the opportunity to return after a four-year break. The 12-year limit applied to anyone elected in 2021 or after. Going into 2020, Arkansas legislators could serve up to 16 years throughout their lifetimes in the House or Senate. d Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 2: The amendment would have increased the office terms of commonwealth's attorneys from six years to eight years starting in 2030; increased the office terms of district judges from four years to eight years starting in 2022; and changed attorney licensing requirements for district judges from two years to eight years beginning in 2022. d Missouri Amendment 1: Amendment 1 would have limited the lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state auditor, and attorney general to two terms of office in a lifetime. Going into 2020, the state constitution limited the governor and state treasurer to two terms of office in a lifetime but not the other executive offices.

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Oregon Constitution

The legislative procedures for placing a constitutional amendment on the ballot are outlined in Section 1 of Article XVIII of the Oregon Constitution. In order to get an amendment placed on the ballot, a simple majority vote in each chamber of the legislature is required.

Measure 107 was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Tim Knopp (R-27). On June 29, 2019, the Senate passed the measure in a vote of 22-5 with three Republican senators absent or excused. All 18 Senate Democrats voted in favor of the amendment. Aside from the measure's Republican sponsor, three Republican Senators crossed party lines in voting for the amendment: Dallas Heard (R-1), Denyc Boles (R-10), and Kim Thatcher (R-13). Five Republicans voted against the amendment.

The House passed the measure on June 30, 2019, in a vote of 43-11 with five representatives excused. Among Republicans, seven were in favor, 10 were opposed, and four were excused. Among Democrats, 36 were in favor, one was opposed (Jeff Barker), and one (Brian Clem) was excused.

Vote in the Oregon State Senate June 29, 2019
Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 16  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	22	5	3
Total percent	73.33%	16.66%	10.00%
Democrat	18	0	0
Republican	4	5	3

Vote in the Oregon House of Representatives June 30, 2019
Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 31  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	43	11	5
Total percent	72.88%	18.64%	8.47%
Democrat	36	1	1
Republican	7	10	4

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Oregon

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in Oregon.

How to cast a vote in Oregon

The information below covers regular voting policies in the state. Information may have not applied to the election on November 3, 2020, because of temporary changes in response to coronavirus. Click here to read about changes made for the 2020 elections. 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.

See also

2020 measures

• 2020 ballot measures
• Campaign finance on the ballot
• Elections and campaigns on the ballot
• 2020 legislative sessions

Oregon

• Oregon ballot measures
• Oregon ballot measure laws

News and analysis

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

External links

• Oregon Measure 109 full text
• Voter Guide

Support

• Yes on 107 campaign website
• Yes on 107 Facebook page
• Yes on 107 Twitter page

Opposition

Submit links to [email protected].