Oregon Measure 115—Impeachment of Elected State Executives Amendment

No Recommendation

Requires a two-thirds vote in the House to impeach an elected state executive, and a two-thirds vote in the Senate to convict and remove the official from office.

• Con: This power could be weaponized against an elected official of an opposing minority party. Currently Oregon voters can recall elected officials without leaving that power in the hands of other elected officials who may have a politicized motive for removing an opponent. 
• Pro: We have recently had two statewide executives resign over serious ethics concerns. Under current law, legislators could not have removed them if they had not voluntarily stepped down. Without a voluntary resignation, removal of an executive over ethics violations would have required the recall process, which can be very difficult to achieve. 

Oregon Measure 116—Independent Public Service Compensation Commission Amendment

Vote NO

Amends the Oregon Constitution to establish a task force to set salaries for state officials (Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Attorney General, Bureau of Labor and Industry Commissioner, Supreme Court Justices, legislators, and district attorneys.)

• It is the responsibility of elected members of the Oregon legislature to set salaries in light of current budgets and priorities. They should not be able to escape public scrutiny when making those decisions.
• An appointed commission would add a layer of unelected bureaucrats between Oregon voters and the legislators whom they elect to responsibly manage expenditures of taxpayers’ money. 
• Establishing a commission will cost Oregon taxpayers more money.
• Oregon previously did this, but it was allowed to become inactive and was no longer funded after 2007.

Oregon Measure 117—Ranked-Choice Voting for Federal and State Elections
Vote NO 

Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) would require voters to list their first choice candidate for an elected position on a ballot, followed by other candidates ranked in order of preference. A candidate would win if they received more than half of the first-choice votes. If no candidate achieves more than half the first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and the ballots cast for that candidate go to voters’ second choice. The process would continue until a candidate earned more than 50% of the votes that have not been discarded in the final round. 

• RCV requires extremely complex methods of tabulating the results—in the county first, and then at the state level. The method of tabulation makes recounts or audits very difficult.
• Sixteen of Oregon’s 36 County Clerks who are charged with overseeing elections in the counties have formed a coalition against this ballot measure, saying their offices are not equipped to implement the system. 
• The candidate who receives the majority of the votes may not win the seat unless they receive more than 50% of the vote in the first round.
• Ballots are eliminated if not completed correctly. RCV results in confusion, errors in filling out ballots, and sometimes failure to vote at all when voters give up trying to figure it out.
• Not all races are conducted in the same way on the ballot. For example, the Oregon State Senate and House excluded their own races from this measure. Local races also may not be included, so different methods of voting would be required for different races on the same ballot. This would create more confusion that could lead to lower voter turnout and eliminated ballots.
• RCV disenfranchises voters whose ballots are eliminated. A ballot is eliminated if the number of candidates the voter ranks is fewer than the number of rounds of counting required before a candidate receives a majority of the vote from the ballots that were not eliminated before the final round. Some races have had up to 15% of all votes eliminated. The 50%+1 rule would only apply to the ballots that remain in the final count. The winning candidate might not receive a majority of all the votes cast in that election.
• RCV would further delay final election results by days or even weeks.
• Many ballots now contain undervotes: It is difficult to get voters to make even one selection for each position. With multiple candidates for each position that must be evaluated and ranked, undervotes and discarded ballots would increase. Voter turnout is often as low as 19% in some counties in non-presidential election cycles. Use of this complex system could lead to even more undervotes and to even lower voter turnout.
• RCV has been around for more than 100 years and has frequently been repealed after it has been tried.

Oregon Measure 118—Corporate Tax Revenue Rebate for Residents

Vote NO

This measure would increase the corporate minimum tax on sales exceeding $25 million by 3% and pay Oregon residents $1600 annually. This $6.8 billion tax targets sales, not profits, meaning businesses would face higher costs, whether they profit or not. This tax would apply to all industries, including non-profit organizations, hospitals, pharmacies, grocery stores, power companies, and all other Oregon businesses.

This tax will apply multiple times across the supply chain, raising prices for essential goods and services like food, medicine, and electricity at every step along the chain, and the cumulative tax will end up being paid by every Oregonian who purchases goods in the state. It would be the largest tax increase in Oregon’s history, and it would come at a time when Oregonians are struggling under punishingly high grocery bills, electricity bills, medication and health care bills, and other basic costs of living in the state. It would further strain Oregon small businesses, which already are struggling to survive increasing costs of materials and transportation of goods. Measure 118 would drive larger businesses out of Oregon to lower tax states, reducing Oregon tax revenue and burdening Oregonians far beyond the annual “rebate” it promises.

Oregon Measure 119—Unionization of Cannabis Workers Initiative

Vote NO

• Requires cannabis businesses to submit to the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission a signed labor peace agreement requiring the business to remain neutral when labor organizations communicate with employees about collective bargaining rights with its licensure or renewal application.
• Legal experts warn this will lead to legal challenges costing the state millions of dollars.
• Infringes upon First Amendment rights.
• Benefits the United Food and Commercial Workers who have the agreement with the OLCC.