Oregon Ballot Measures, Nov. 2024
Democracy, fuck yeah
Editor’s Note: I was going to drop my Mayoral endorsement last Friday but the Willamette Week beat me to the punch. So instead I decided this week to focus on the state of Oregon ballot measures. I’ll go deeper on the city and county races soon enough. Expect a few shorter newsletters over the next two weeks rather than one long one.
What’s better than representative democracy? Direct democracy!1
So let’s talk ballot measures. In the end I’ll tell you how I’m leaning but to be honest I’m not passionately endorsing on any of these. Which is to say: read on; but also, follow your heart.
Measure 115
What is it?
Amends the State Constitution, allowing the Legislature to impeach elected state executives (Governor, Treasurer, etc.) with a two-thirds majority.
Why is it on the ballot?
This has been a thing in the ether for awhile but Secretary of State Shemia Fagan’s extracurricular activities in the cannabis industry are what’s brought it back to the fore. (Governor Kitzhaber also had to resign a few years back under scrutiny for shady dealings.)
Analysis
Today the only recourse to boot a statewide politician is through the recall process, which is costly and time-consuming. Every other state has something like this, as does the federal government. The legislature thinks we should have a more efficient recourse to remove corrupt or compromised politicians.
One guy in the voter guide doesn’t think it’s necessary or that the process might get politicized. Honestly? He’s probably right, at least on the politicization front. But, ultimately if you can get a supermajority of electeds to impeach someone then you can probably also get the votes to recall them.
This strikes me as a straightforward choice, streamlining the ability to remove corrupt or compromised politicians. If that also means that once in a generation a non-compromised politician gets impeached because they’re wildly out of step with the electorate? So be it.
How am I voting?
Yes on 115. I don’t see meaningful opposition here and expect this will pass handily.
Measure 116
What is it?
Amends the State Constitution, establishing the Independent Public Service Compensation Commission to determine certain public officials' salaries.
Why is it on the ballot?
Unclear why it’s happening now. If I was to hazard a guess, it’s a combo of inflation and a realization that voters may not take kindly legislators giving themselves raises these days. This is a way to get that pay raise while avoiding the political backlash.
Analysis
Reasonable people may disagree here, but I think we dramatically underpay our public servants. Being an elected official (or a judge) can be a real shit job and we want the best and brightest. Our statewide officials are underpaid and legislators only make 35k.
However, the legislature can vote at any time for a pay raise. And if voters don’t like that, they can vote them out. That’s always been the deal. That’s how the Feds and most states do it. I don’t see any reason to change just because legislators don’t want to take a tough vote. An independent commission seems like a good idea—in the short term, it probably would be a good idea—but I very much worry about corruption over the long term.
How am I voting?
No on 116.
Measure 117
What is it?
Establishes ranked choice voting for state and federal elections (but not for state legislative races).
Why is it on the ballot?
Ranked choice voting is having a moment. Ever since the 2000 election (and especially since 2016) folks have been looking to RCV as a way to better reflect the will of the people and to turn down the temperature on elections. It’s now live in dozens of municipalities (including Portland and MultCo) as well as a couple of states.
Analysis
If you want my general opinion on RCV, you can see what I wrote two years ago, here. In short, I’m an unabashed fan:
I don’t have much patience for the “it’s confusing” critique. It’s more complicated than FPTP, sure but voters in Maine and Alaska have done just fine with RCV. Academics claim (and real life evidence from Maine, Alaska, and elsewhere backs this up) that RCV results in more broadly accepted, less extreme candidates winning.
…
RCV is pretty darn good, and way better than today’s approach.
Both the Oregonian and the Willamette Week came out opposed, which surprised me. I originally thought it was just because RCV wasn’t going to apply to legislators. I agree that’s cowardly from our legislators but I wasn’t going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Then I read their reasoning and they’re 100% right: nothing is going to change with our closed primary system. RCV is awesome but it only makes sense with open primaries, jungle primaries or no primaries at all. Without that, it’s the same two party system, with independents locked out for the most important part of the process.
How am I voting?
No on 117. Let’s get this back on the ballot in 2026 but with jungle primaries and have it applied to all state and federal offices.
Measure 118
What is it?
Require Oregon issue rebates to residents from surplus corporate tax revenue.
Why is it on the ballot?
Universal basic income is also having a moment. And folks love to tax corporations. This an effort to get UBI for Oregonians to the tune of $1,000 - $1,600 a year by milking corporations.
Analysis
This would be a universal basic income of somewhere in the range of $1,000 - $1600 per year. Not completely life-changing for most but definitely not chump change either.
Giving money to poor people is awesome and 118 would absolutely do that. So that’s a positive.
Critics of Measure 118 like to note that Phil Knight will also get a $1,600 check just like you, me, and the dude sleeping on the street. To them, that’s a bug; to me, it’s a feature. I’m a big fan of universal benefits precisely because they are universal. Universal benefits are less stigmatizing, easier to implement, ease the burdens for low-income and low-information folks and, perhaps most importantly, are more politically durable than means-tested benefits.
So the “rich guys benefit too” argument doesn’t do much for me. Quite the contrary!
Still, I worry. $1,600 a head is a lot of money in a state with over 4 million heads. What’s the real cost?
Strictly speaking, the cost is a 3% tax on corporate gross receipts (sales). Oregon already taxes gross receipts so this isn’t new but it’s much more aggressive than what we have today.
Corporate taxes are nearly always passed through to to the consumer and there would be no difference here. I would expect grocery prices in particular to rise, since they are low margin businesses. There are likely impacts to employment too, as some employers would choose not to grow (or uproot for other pastures) rather than navigate the tax. And there may be some additional knock-on effects on some of our other tax revenue streams and to the way federal benefits will be funded.2
Those are real issues and will cause real impacts. Do they outweigh $1,600? It’s honestly completely unclear to me.
Personally, I’m disappointed that we’re not simplifying the tax code as part of this. I’d love to see something like this paired with, say, repeal of the kicker. But you have to vote on the text of the measure you have, not the one you want.
It’s a gamble. The benefits are big but the costs may be bigger.
Do we want Oregon to be a basic income guinea pig? The Oregonian, Willamette Week, and Mercury all say no.
How am I voting?
I expect this measure to fail but I want there to be real support for UBI-like schemes. So I’m taking a calculated risk and voting Yes on 118. However, I certainly understand why you might not.
Measure 119
What is it?
Require cannabis businesses to submit to the OLCC a signed labor peace agreement between the business and a labor organization with its licensure or renewal application.
Why is it on the ballot?
With weed legal in Oregon but illegal at the federal level, it’s in a murky grey area when it comes to all sorts of federal laws, including whether weed workers are covered by the NRLB and can unionize. A similar law to this measure died in the legislature last year.
Analysis
There has been plenty of documented abuse in the cannabis industry. After all, it’s an industry and this is America. So this is a narrow protection for those workers.
But I am struck by the fact that the legislature could implement this tomorrow if they wanted to3 and yet they didn’t due to concerns that it wouldn’t survive legal challenges. Which is to say, the real solve here is federal legislation legalizing marijuana while this is a bandaid for a niche industry with only 7,000 workers.
To me the best thing for worker power is the power to walk away and get a new, higher paying or less exploitative job. With unemployment low, workers (broadly speaking) have that power right now. That won’t sustain forever but it should for awhile. So I’m on the fence. Ultimately I’m optimistic federal law will change within the next few years and I’d rather see that than add red tape and more regulatory uncertainty during the inevitable judicial back and forth.
How am I voting?
I’m voting No on 119 but I expect this to pass.
Tune in later this week for the next round of analysis.
I’m not actually sure ballot measures are a great way to run a government. If anything, I’m kind of anti-ballot measure, since I think they distorts the system quite a bit and they often bind the government and appropriations in ways that doesn’t always make sense. Oh well. A subject for another day, I suppose.
Editor’s note, after publishing: On the off chance Measure 118 passes, I figure the legislature will fix some of the messy language that people are worried about.
Well. Not tomorrow since they aren’t in session. But you get the idea.