Archive for the 'Ballot Initiatives' Category

Initiative Petition 70 Qualifies

Published on July 28, 2010 in Ballot Initiatives and Elections. 0 Comments

Over at our Election Division’s twitter feed, it has been confirmed that Initiative Petition 70 relating to lottery funding for water, parks, and wildlife has qualified for the November 2, 2010 ballot.

The petition required 110,358 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. Of the 167,258 signatures accepted for verification, the Elections Division determined that 67.69 percent, or 113,218, were valid.

With today’s news, all six proposed Initiative Petitions submitted for the November election have completed the signature verification process. Joining IP 70 on the ballot will be IP 13, IP 28 and IP 77. Each of these will receive a measure number sometime next month.

For the most up to date elections news, please follow Oregon’s Elections Division on twitter @oregonelections and be sure to visit http://www.oregonvotes.org.

Initiative Petitions 13 and 28 Qualify for Nov. 2 Ballot

Published on July 16, 2010 in Ballot Initiatives and Elections. 0 Comments

Today, our elections division announced over their new twitter feed (@oregonelections) that Initiative Petitions 13 and 28 have qualified for the November, 2010 ballot.

Initiative Petition 13, which imposes mandatory minimum sentences for certain major felony sex crimes and driving under the influence convictions, received 93,223 valid signatures.

The other ballot, Initiative Petition 28, which establishes a medical marijuana supply system in addition to assistance and research programs and the limited selling of marijuana, qualified with 85,848 valid signatures.

Our Elections Division has until Aug. 1 to determine which initiative petitions qualify for the ballot. Once that process is complete, each qualified petition will be assigned a measure number in the order in which the completed petitions were submitted for signature verification. Numbering will start with Measure 70, which will be assigned to one of the three referrals sent to the Nov. 2 ballot by the Oregon Legislature. The initiated measure numbers will begin this year with 73.

The results of all initiative petition signature verifications for the 2010 election will become final on Aug. 1, the constitutional deadline to complete signature verification. Until then, any legal challenges or amended verification reports could alter the final numbers.

For all your up-to-date elections information, please check out our elections division’s Twitter feed at http://www.twitter.com/oregonelections

You’ll get insider looks into the initiative petition signature verification process, hear about upcoming events and deadlines and be able to ask elections staff your questions.

An Initiative Signature Round-Up

Published on July 2, 2010 in Ballot Initiatives and Elections. 0 Comments Tags: .

The final signatures were submitted around 4:30pm today.

The deadline for submitting ballot initiative signatures has come and gone and we have a short round-up of some of the numbers. Today, six citizen initiatives attempting to get on the Nov. 2, 2010 general election ballot submitted final signatures for verification to our Elections Division.

The Elections Division now has until Aug. 1 to determine whether the initiatives qualify for the ballot. Each submission will undergo a statistical sample to establish the number of valid signatures contained within each petition.

Once an initiative petition qualifies for the ballot, the Elections Division assigns a measure number in the order in which the completed petitions were submitted. The numbering will start this year with Measure 70, which will be assigned to one of the three referrals sent to the Nov. 2 ballot by the Oregon Legislature. The initiated measure numbers will begin with 73. Ballot measure numbers are no longer repeated.

The six proposed initiatives are:

Initiative Petition 13

Ballot Title Caption: Imposes mandatory minimum sentences for certain major felony sex crimes and driving under the influence convictions.

Needs: A statutory change requires 82,769 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.

Status: Of the 94,870 signatures accepted for early verification in May, 70.32 percent, or 66,716, were valid. By Friday, chief petitioners had submitted sheets purported to have 46,471 additional raw signatures.

Initiative Petition 28

Ballot Title Caption: Establishes medical marijuana supply system and assistance and research programs; allows limited selling of marijuana.

Needs: A statutory change requires 82,769 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.

Status: Of 109,843 signatures accepted for early verification in May, 67.86 percent, or 74,537, were valid. By Friday, chief petitioners had submitted sheets purported to have 22,390 additional raw signatures.

Initiative Petition 50

Ballot Title Caption: Amends Constitution: Transfers legislative redistricting responsibility following census from legislature to new appointed commission of retired judges.

Needs: A constitutional amendment needs 110,358 valid signatures to reach the ballot.

Status: Chief petitioners submitted sheets purported to have 125,948 raw signatures.

Initiative Petition 70

Ballot Title Caption: Amends Constitution: Modifies, indefinitely renews dedication of 15 percent of lottery proceeds to parks and natural resources.

Needs: A constitutional amendment needs 110,358 valid signatures to reach the ballot.

Status: Chief petitioners submitted sheets purported to have 192,678 raw signatures.

Initiative Petition 76

Ballot Title Caption: Amends Constitution: Creates exception to casino ban; legislature must allow one private casino if authorized by initiative.

Needs: A constitutional amendment needs 110,358 valid signatures to reach the ballot.

Status: Chief petitioners submitted sheets purported to have 176,566 raw signatures.

Initiative Petition 77

Ballot Title Caption: Authorizes Multnomah County casino; casino to contribute monthly revenue percentage to state for specified purposes.

Needs: A statutory change requires 82,769 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.

Status: Chief petitioners submitted sheets purported to have 136,938 raw signatures.

In addition to the ballot measures, there are the three measures, which were referred to the statewide ballot by the Oregon Legislature. Their numbers will be assigned once after completion of the signature verification process for the citizen initiatives.

Referral of  HJR 7

Ballot Title Caption: Constitution: Expands availability of home ownership loans for Oregon veterans through Oregon War Veterans’ Fund.

Referral of  SJR 41

Ballot Title Caption: Amends Constitution: Requires legislature to meet annually; limits length of legislative sessions; provides exceptions.

Referral of  SJR 48

Ballot Title Caption: Amends Constitution: Authorizes lowest-cost borrowing for state’s real and personal property projects.

HB 2082 Stands.

Published on March 24, 2010 in Ballot Initiatives, Elections and Secretary Brown. 0 Comments Tags: .

A Federal Court Judge ruled today in favor of Oregon’s efforts to crack down on fraud and abuse in the ballot initiative system, dismissing all claims filed in a challenge to HB2082 from the 2007 legislative session.

The bill established new requirements for petitioners and signature gatherers, banning anyone convicted of fraud, forgery or identity theft from being a paid signature gatherer. Furthermore, it required paid signature gatherers to register with the State of Oregon and complete a short course of instruction on compliance with elections law. Finally, HB2082 also required chief petitioners to produce payroll records to establish that signature gatherers are not being paid per signature, a practice Oregon voters banned by approving a 2002 Constitutional amendment.

U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan found that the new rules did not restrict the constitutional rights of the sponsors of citizen initiatives:

“Those lesser burdens are justified by Oregon’s interests in administrative efficiency and ensuring compliance with the Oregon Constitution’s prohibition against payment of petition circulators on a per signature basis,” Hogan said in his decision. He added that, “State interest in maintaining the integrity of the petition process are significant and outweigh the burden these statutory requirements to keep and submit detailed accounts place on chief petitioners.”

Secretary of State Brown, then the Senate Majority Leader, played a part in drafting the bill with Senator Diane Rosenbaum. She applauded the court’s decision, calling it “A win for all Oregonians.”

Questions Arise About Voter’s Pamphlet Arguments

Published on January 5, 2010 in Ballot Initiatives and Elections. 0 Comments Tags: , , .

Our Elections Division has received a number of complaints about some of the arguments that made their way into the Voter’s Pamphlet for the upcoming Special Election.

The Albany Democrat Herald explains the stir-up:

The state last week mailed Voters’ Pamphlets to 1.7 million addresses. Backers and opponents paid $500 per statement to the state to have their arguments for and against the measures included.

Kevin Looper of “Our Oregon,” a Portland-based nonprofit, managed to get his arguments supporting the measures — labeled as opposition — placed last in the lineup of arguments against them. He also managed to be first in the opposition column.

This has raised the eyebrows and the ire of a number of Oregon voters, so we wanted to clear any confusion surrounding the process for filing an argument to be placed in the Voter’s Pamphlet and the role of the Secretary of State’s office in that process.

Any individual who files an argument to be printed in the voters’ pamphlet indicates on the filing form whether the argument submitted is in support or opposition to the measure. All arguments are printed in the voters’ pamphlet in the order they are received by our office. Our office then reviews each argument and if it appears that the information regarding a measure number or the designation of whether the argument supports or opposes the measure is incorrect, we contact the author to inquire if they made an error. If the author advises us that it is not an error, we are required to place the argument in the voters’ pamphlet as they have indicated, and in the order received in our office. This process is outlined and dictated by state law in ORS 251.260.

The Secretary of State’s Office does not have the legal authority to verify a given statement’s accuracy nor to edit it for content.

A recent article from the Oregonian provides a little historical background on the topic:

Here’s something to keep in mind: The secretary of state has compiled Voters’ Pamphlets since 1903. It’s a long tradition meant to help the public make important decisions. But, by law, the secretary of state cannot verify the truth and accuracy of statements in the pamphlet.

“We have a pretty strong constitutional protection of free speech in this state,” Secretary of State Kate Brown said Saturday.

Instead of state-issued statements, Brown said the Voters’ Pamphlet provides Oregonians “with a full range of arguments.”

Don’t be surprised if you detect some sarcasm and satire among those statements. The lead-off “argument” in opposition to Measure 66 was submitted by Kevin Looper, who is helping to coordinate the “pro” campaign.

In one of the most outrageous examples, in 2004, the phony “Defense of Heterosexual Breeding Coalition” put a statement in the pamphlet in support of Measure 36, a constitutional amendment recognizing that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

We hope that this clears up any misconceptions that may be out there about this process. If you have any further questions, go ahead and leave us a comment below.

Oregon Secretary of State Brown – 20 Push-ups

Published on November 4, 2009 in Audits, Ballot Initiatives, HAVA and Secretary Brown. 0 Comments Tags: , , .

Source: a href=A few years back, when I was still a State Senator, I attended a workshop, which was put on by the Council of State Governments regional arm, CSG-West, an organization I also chaired for a year.

This particular workshop was focused on how legislators can build  credibility –through improved accountability– with their constituents. At the outset of the workshop, the keynote speaker asked who in this room of legislators could do 20 push-ups. Thinking nothing of it and being the eager beaver that I am, I quickly raised my hand as did a few others.

The speaker then spent the next 15 minutes talking about some key functions of building and maintaining accountability with constituents,  delivering on campaign promises and engaging groups back inside the district.

With that lesson delivered, the speaker conducted a little real-world experiment, recalling the claim I and a few others had made regarding these 20 push-ups. She invited me and one other legislator, a gentleman from New Mexico, up to do the 20 push-ups we had promised her we could do. This was a moment of truth.

The good news for Oregon; I did them pretty easily. The bad news for New Mexico; their legislator couldn’t do his.

This drove the message home for me: If you’re going to commit to something during the campaign, you need to make absolutely sure that you can deliver on them once you’ve been elected.

When I was running for this office, I made three major promises to the voters of this state:

  1. That I was going to restore integrity to the initiative process
  2. That I was going to undertake a comprehensive civic engagement program
  3. That I was going to focus our work in the Audits division on performance auditing

When I took office, I remembered that day when I was called up to do 20 push-ups. Taking a high profile position in State government, I knew that I was going to be held to my word on the campaign trail, so I started right in, working on fulfilling those promises.

Continue reading ‘Oregon Secretary of State Brown – 20 Push-ups’

Referenda, qualified

Published on October 8, 2009 in Ballot Initiatives and Elections. 0 Comments Tags: , , .

In an earlier blog, we mentioned two referenda that were circulating in hopes of getting on the 2010 special election ballot. Today the Elections Division has announced that both the petitions referring both HB 2649 and HB 3405 to voters have indeed received the  required amount of signatures to qualify for the ballot.

Measure 66, which will refer HB 2649 to voters gathered 98,842 valid signatures, plenty to satisfy the constitutional requirement of 55,179 needed. HB 2649, which passed in the 2009 Legislative session, concerns the State’s personal income tax.

The other referendum, now titled Measure 67 received 99,471 valid signatures, a full 80.7% of the 123,324 signatures accepted for verification. The measure will refer HB 3405, a bill which pertains to corporate income taxes, to Oregon’s voters.

This is hardly the first time that the ‘Oregon System‘ has been used to give Oregon’s voters the opportunity to repeal enrolled legislation, but it will be the first time since 2004 that Oregon has voted on  statewide referenda.

To be eligible to vote on these referenda Oregonians will need to be
registered to vote no later than January 5, 2010. Please contact our  Elections division with questions about getting registered.

Referenda Roundup

Published on September 24, 2009 in Ballot Initiatives and Elections. 0 Comments Tags: , , .

http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/atlas/Images/Glossary/Referendum.jpgIn most years, the humble referendum pales in popularity to its gregarious cousin the citizen initiative.

Since 1902, the citizen initiative has given birth to all kinds of changes to our social and political structure, including the vote for women, mandated seat belt use and reworking of our tax structure. There have been 348 initiatives on Oregon ballots and we’ve passed 118 of them.

The referendum doesn’t always have the same dramatic flare or occasional high profile.  But it allows citizens to repeal an action by the Legislature, a vital check on our State government. In the last century, we have voted on 62 referenda, the most recent referendum in 2004 when voters rejected a temporary tax increase.

This year, however, petitioners are circulating petitions that could place four different referenda before voters next year. Referenda being circulated would refer HB 2649 (personal income tax) and HB 3405 (corporate income tax) to a special election held on January 26, 2010.  Two other referenda would refer to voters HB 2001 (transportation funding and gas tax) and HB 2010 (health care provider tax) to the May 2010 primary ballot.

To qualify for the ballot, a referendum needs the signatures of 4 percent of the number of voters who cast ballots in the most recent gubernatorial election. That translates to signatures from 55,179 registered Oregon voters.

The deadline for all four of the petition drives is 5 p.m. on Sept. 26.

Unveiling Our Signature Verification Room

Published on September 21, 2009 in Ballot Initiatives and Elections. 0 Comments Tags: , , .

These are pictures of Oregon’s Signature Verification Room. It is empty now with the exception of a few computers, some desks, and the flickering lights coming from a couple of Ethernet routers, but that doesn’t figure to be the case for much longer. With signature sheets for ballot initiatives due on September 25th and a constitutionally mandated 30 days1 for our elections staff to verify those signatures, the serene scene you see above will be a rare occurrence.

During this month, 5-6 elections officers at a time will work in shifts to get through more than 200,000 signatures expected to be submitted later this week, which have been gathered to refer to voters up to four bills passed by the legislature. Each staff person receives training from a forensic document examination consultant.

This will be the first time that the Secretary of State’s office will be conducting the full signature verification operations for initiatives and referenda; previously, each county was responsible for the operation. That changed in response to an issue raised by US District Court Judge Michael Mosman in his opinion on a 2008 challenge to the signature verification process.  Judge Mosman upheld the underlying process as valid, but raised concerns that verification standards could change from one county to another.

In order to insure a uniform standard, the Secretary of State has brought the entire verification process under the auspice of the Elections Division, relieving our county partners of a large amount of work and guaranteeing the signatures be evaluated uniformly.

As you can see from the first picture above, we’re taking security on this operation very seriously. Only Secretary of State staff will be able to access an outer door, which then leads to the locked cage you see above. Observers from proponents and opponents of the referenda will be allowed in the room under supervision.  As this process gets under way, we will be providing you with a behind the scenes look at the verification process as it is taking place.

[1] Oregon Constitution Article IV, Section 1, Subsection 4a