There are five 2024 Oregon ballot measures, 115 through 119, voted on in November — and a few of the final vote counts were quite close. These measures were voted on alongside the national elections and other local and statewide races by registered Oregon voters in a form of direct democracy, essentially giving legislative powers to the people. There’s a lot of focus on national politics at the moment, but local politics and legislation are as important as ever. As such, it’s always a good idea to stay updated on what’s going on with our direct democracy in the form of ballot measures. All vote counts are at 97% of the vote counted, and all quotes are taken directly from the text of the ballot measures. 

Measure 115 – 64.2% FOR

This measure, an amendment to the Oregon constitution, creates a process by which statewide elected officials can be impeached and removed from office by the state legislature. These offices include the Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, Attorney General, and Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries. Previous to this measure, Oregon’s only option to remove one of these officials was a recall vote, an expensive and difficult process. Now, to remove one of these officials, there must be two thirds approval in both bodies of state legislature, starting in the House, with the Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court supervising. Reasons for impeachment include “malfeasance, corrupt conduct in office, willful neglect of constitutional duty or other felony or high crime.”

Measure 116 – 52.5% AGAINST

Another amendment to the Oregon Constitution, this measure would have created a committee called the “Independent Public Service Compensation Commission” that would have decided the salaries of state officials, including all the offices mentioned in Measure 115, but also “judges of the Supreme Court, judges of other courts under the administration of the judicial branch of state government, state Senators, state Representatives and district attorneys.” Currently, the salaries of these offices are decided by legislation. Had this measure passed, the committee would have excluded “officers and employees of the state, lobbyists, and immediate family members of such officers, employees and lobbyists.”

Measure 117 – 57.7% AGAINST

Measure 117 would have authorized ranked choice voting, giving Oregon voters the option to rank candidates in order of preference when voting. This would have affected the following elections: “President, United States Senator, Representative in Congress, Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer and Attorney General, and election of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries.” The measure would also have allowed local governments to use ranked choice voting in their own elections, and required the Secretary of State to establish a program to educate voters on how ranked choice voting works. The measure outlines the process of ranked choice voting like this: “voters may choose to rank only one candidate or multiple candidates for each office, as well as write in candidate(s). Votes are counted toward each voter’s highest-ranked candidate. If no candidate receives a majority of votes, votes are tallied automatically in rounds. The candidate receiving the fewest votes in each round is defeated. A defeated candidate’s votes go to the voter’s next highest-ranked candidate. The process continues until one candidate has a majority of votes.” Those against this measure cite issues such as extra work for election officials and, potentially, more confusion around voting.

Measure 118 – 77.5% AGAINST 

This measure is fairly simple—it would have raised taxes on corporations and split the money between “eligible individuals.” These individuals would include all of Oregon’s residents, regardless of age. The state would have replaced any reduced federal benefits that may have come from higher taxes on corporations. In effect, this measure was proposing a form of universal basic income.

Measure 119 – 56.7% FOR

This measure will require cannabis retailers and processors to “remain neutral regarding communications to their employees from labor organizations.” These communications are specifically about “collective bargaining,” a strategy that worker unions use to get better contracts or conditions for their workers. The labor organization must meet certain requirements to be considered under this measure. Essentially, this measure is going to make it much easier for cannabis workers to unionize.

Article by William Reynolds