Landing a measure on the Oregon ballot could be more time consuming and expensive, under a pair of provisions lawmakers are considering putting before voters next year.
In a hearing Monday morning, a committee took up House Joint Resolution 3 and House Joint Resolution 11. Both would place measures on the 2026 ballot seeking to grapple with what their backers say is a growing problem: the concentration of the state’s population in the Portland metro area that ensures measures can qualify for the statewide ballot without say from the rest of Oregon.
Under current law, a measure to change state statute requires signatures from the equivalent of 6% of voters who participated in the last election for governor to qualify the ballot. A proposal to amend the state’s Constitution has a higher threshold of 8%. Those requirements are lower than thresholds in at least 16 other states, according to an analysis by the Oregon Hunters Association.
Right now, there is no requirement that signatures come from any specific part of the state. Backers of the two resolutions said Monday the current initiative process makes it too easy to qualify proposals like Measure 110, the 2020 ballot measure that decriminalized drug possession. The measure, backed by a wealthy national group, quickly became unpopular with voters and prompted legislative changes.
“This should be more representative from all of Oregon to gather those signatures,” said state Sen. Todd Nash, R-Enterprise. “Right now, we’re not seeing that shape up that way. It’s coming from one concentrated area.”
The proposals considered Monday would each create new hurdles to landing a measure on the ballot.
Under House Joint Resolution 3, which is solely sponsored by Republicans, petitions would need to overcome the 6% or 8% signature thresholds in each of Oregon’s 36 counties to qualify for the ballot. This would help ensure that only broadly palatable proposals are considered, Nash said.
HJR 3 also would seek to bar anyone except Oregon voters from spending to support or oppose a ballot measure — a provision designed to prevent an avalanche of outside money that often makes its way to ballot fights in the state.
Dan Meek, a campaign attorney who has repeatedly initiated ballot measures to impose campaign contribution limits in Oregon, argued Monday that this “eye candy” infringes on free speech protections and would be tossed by a judge.
“That would make the measure very popular,” Meek said. “But the measure would certainly not accomplish that because the prohibition would get struck down immediately by the courts.”
Opponents said the proposal would effectively give “veto power” to Oregon counties and make it egregiously expensive and difficult to get a measure on the ballot. Oregon’s expansive eastern counties are far too sparsely populated to gather signatures efficiently, they said.
According to Meek, the proposal also would run afoul of the concept that each person has an equal vote. It could ensure that one signature in sparse Wheeler County has the same heft as more than 500 signatures in Multnomah County.
Proponents like state Rep. Bobby Levy, R-Echo, said the proposal offers a necessary correction.
“Currently, well-funded special interests, often concentrated in the Willamette Valley, can gather the required number of signatures without meaningful engagement with voters in rural communities,” Levy said in written testimony. “This undermines the spirit of our initiative system, which was intended to be a tool for all Oregonians — not just those in the state’s population centers.”
House Joint Resolution 11 offers a less restrictive approach. It would require that petition signatures be “divided equally” among the state’s congressional districts, rather than creating a county-based requirement.
That change is likely to ensure a majority of signature gathering is still done in the Portland metro area, which touches four of the state’s six congressional districts. But it would also spur more activity in Eugene and the coastal cities that make up the 4th Congressional District, and in Medford, the largest city in the sprawling 2nd Congressional District.
HJR 11 also would increase the signature threshold to qualify measures: 8% for proposals to amend state statute and 10% for proposals to amend the Oregon Constitution.
The proposal has sponsors in both parties, and saw support Monday from groups that lobby for farmers, businesses and hunters. Preston Mann, a lobbyist for Oregon Business and Industries, called the state’s initiative petition laws, passed by voters in 1902, “antiquated.” The current signature thresholds for ballot proposals are too low in an era where Oregon is registering far more people to vote, he said.
“The pioneers of our initiative system simply would not have foreseen the modern era of automatic voter registration and how these higher registration rates would have impacted the initiative system,” Mann said.
Others who work on initiative petitions panned the proposal as anti-democratic, and argued only rich interests would succeed in qualifying measures if it passed. They pointed out that Oregon has seen comparatively few citizen-initiated measures qualify for the ballot in recent years — just two each in 2024 and 2022, compared to 18 in 2000.
“Signature-gathering for initiative petitions is already an extremely difficult and expensive task, as evidenced by how few of those filed actually qualify for the ballot,” Meek wrote in submitted testimony. “HJR11 would make the citizens’ initiative process nearly impossible, both from a practical and a financial standpoint.”
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 555, a union that represents Oregon grocery store employees, has spent big in recent years to circulate signatures for both ballot measures and one particularly contentious recall.
The group’s lobbyist, Michael Selvaggio, told lawmakers Monday both measures would “dramatically multiply” those costs.
“We need to make sure the process remains accessible,” Selvaggio said.
HJR 3 and HJR 11 currently sit in the House Rule Committee, with no further hearings scheduled.
