Oregon Measure 89, Equal Rights for Women Amendment (2014)

Oregon Measure 89
Election date November 4, 2014
Topic Constitutional rights and Sex and gender issues
Status Approved
Type Initiated constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

Oregon Measure 89 was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in Oregon on November 4, 2014. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported adding language to the state constitution that prohibits the denial or abridgment of rights on account of a person's sex.

A "no" vote opposed adding language to the state constitution that prohibits the denial or abridgment of rights on account of a person's sex.

Election results

Oregon Measure 89
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		925,892	64.26%
No		514,907	35.74%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Measure 89 was as follows:

“

Amends Constitution: State/political subdivision shall not deny or abridge equality of rights on account of sex Result of "Yes" Vote: "Yes" vote amends state constitution, prohibits state and any political subdivision from denying or abridging equality of rights under the law on account of sex. Result of "No" Vote: "No" vote retains current prohibition on laws granting/denying privileges or immunities on account of sex, unless justified by specific biological differences between men/women. Summary: Under Article I, section 20, of the Oregon Constitution, laws granting privileges or immunities must apply equally to all persons. The Oregon Supreme Court has held that that provision prohibits laws treating people differently based on sex unless justified by specific biological differences. No current provision in the constitution expressly states that prohibition. Measure amends Article I by creating new section 46, which provides that equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the state or any political subdivision on account of sex. Measure authorizes legislature to enforce that provision by appropriate legislation. Measure provides that nothing in section 46 "shall diminish a right otherwise available to persons under section 20 of this Article or any other provision of this Constitution."

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Constitutional changes

The initiative amended Article I of the Oregon Constitution by adding a new section to it. The section read as follows:

SECTION 46. (1) Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the State of Oregon or by any political subdivision in this state on account of sex.

(2) The Legislative Assembly shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this section.

(3) Nothing in this section shall diminish a right otherwise available to persons under section 20 of this Article or any other provision of this Constitution.

Support

Supporters

The measure was primarily sponsored by Vote ERA.

Officials

• Gov. John Kitzhaber (D)
• U.S. Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-1)
• U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-4)
• U.S. Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-5)
• President of the Senate Peter Courtney (D-11)
• Sen. Laurie Monnes Anderson (D-25)
• Sen. Alan Bates (D-3)
• Sen. Lee Beyer (D-6)
• Sen. Ginny Burdick (D-18)
• Sen. Richard Devlin (D-19)
• Sen. Betsy Johnson (D-16)
• Sen. Arnie Roblan (D-5)
• House Majority Leader Val Hoyle (D-14)
• Rep. Jeff Barker (D-28)
• Rep. Deborah Boone (D-32)
• Rep. Brent Barton (D-40)
• Rep. Joe Gallegos (D-30)
• Rep. David Gomberg (D-10)
• Rep. Tobias Read (D-27)

Former officials

• Former Gov. Vic Atiyeh (R)
• Former U.S. Rep. Darlene Hooley (D)
• Former Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury (D)
• Nancy Campbell, former Washington County circuit court judge
• Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Organizations

• Vote ERA

Individuals

• Leanne DiLorenzo
• John DiLorenzo
• Oregon First Lady Cylvia Hayes
• John Nichols, journalist at The Nation

Arguments

Vote ERA provided the following arguments on their campaign website:

“	Our Oregon Constitution was written in 1857 and ratified in 1859. Article I, Section 20 (Equality of privileges and immunities of citizens. No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.) —has not changed. Under Oregon's original constitution women could not vote, own property, work the same number of hours as men or more under this same part of our constitution. This is why case law is not enough to protect women from sex discrimination. Why would women want to be vulnerable to interpretations by different judges over time for their foundational equality in our Oregon Constitution? Study the past-protect the future. While laws have passed to better protect girls and women we must still address sex discrimination. Having the ERA in the Oregon Constitution means girls and women will finally have express equality in our constitution. In our statewide polling 82% of Oregonians across age, sex, race, and political party said they want the ERA in our Oregon Constitution. Equality for all in our Oregon Constitution is a principle Oregonians believe in. Girls and women will not have to be reliant upon laws that can be repealed and future judges interpretations for their protection against sex discrimination. With your help girls and women will be protected in the Oregon Constitution.	”
—Vote ERA

• Former Washington County circuit court judge Nancy Campbell wrote an opinion piece encouraging support for the amendment in which she said,

“	Nobody can predict who our Supreme Court justices will be in the future. Without equality for women expressly written into the Oregon Constitution, Oregon women and girls will always be at risk of losing the gains they have made. The Hewitt opinion provides excellent precedent, but it does not provide for full equality based on sex in the Oregon Constitution; only a constitutional amendment can do that. Even The Register-Guard editorial admits that the ACLU of Oregon noted that an ERA “could insure against Oregon Supreme Court decisions narrowing the scope of protections under Section 20.”	”
—Nancy Campbell

Campaign contributions

The Vote Equal Rights Amendment for Women Committee was the main committee registered in support of this initiative. The following totals were accurate as of December 1, 2014. A political action committee (PAC) to support the amendment was formed on July 3, 2014, which was called Women's Constitutional Equality PAC.

Total campaign cash
Support:	$658,101.10
Opposition:	$0

PAC info:

PAC	Amount raised	Amount spent
Vote Equal Rights Amendment for Women Committee	$527,067.59	$528,147.83
Women's Constitutional Equality PAC	$131,033.51	$132,022.57
Total	$658,101.10	$660,170.40

Top 5 contributors:

Donor	Amount
John DiLorenzo	$290,300.00
Leanne Littrell DiLorenzo	$136,727.08
The Feminist Majority Foundation	$28,961.00
Rick Miller	$25,000.00
Women's Constitutional Equality PAC	$23,299.45

Opposition

The American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon supported a federal equal rights amendment but not one at the state level. They, and other critics of the measure, argued that an Oregon Supreme Court ruling already provided strong protection against gender-based discrimination beyond current federal laws. Some expressed concern that such an amendment would lead judges to conclude that voters value protections against gender discrimination more than other discrimination factors like race, religion or sexual orientation.

Opponents

• Sen. Doug Whitsett (R-28)

Arguments

The Oregon League of Women Voter's listed the following as arguments in opposition to Measure 89:

“

This amendment is not necessary. The rights of all women and men are already protected by Article I, Section 20, of the Oregon Constitution, along with the Oregon Supreme Court's application of the highest standard of strict scrutiny to cases involving unequal treatment on account of sex. Amendments to the Oregon Bill of Rights should only be made if they would add protections that are not already guaranteed. Constitutional changes should either advance rights that are not already protected or end an injustice permitted under current law. This state ERA does neither. Protecting rights in a piecemeal fashion, especially for purely symbolic effect, may mean that groups with less money and political clout will be left out. The fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Oregon Bill of Rights will be most secure if they rights of all individuals and classes of persons receive the same strong protections. Passage of the Equal Rights Amendment may not automatically guarantee equal rights for men and women anymore than the Constitution does now. The Oregon Supreme Court would ultimately have to determine the ERA's meaning.

”

Media editorial positions

See also: Endorsements of Oregon ballot measures, 2014

Support

• The World said,

“	Nevertheless, it’s not merely a symbolic measure. Adding an equal rights amendment to Oregon’s constitution will ensure the courts, state laws and policies that discriminate on the basis of sex are subjected to the same “strict scrutiny” as those that discriminate on the basis of race and national origin, instead of the “intermediate scrutiny” that is currently applied. As has happened to some extent with civil rights protections for race, it’s hoped that constitutional equal-rights language will cause justice to roll down into all areas of life.	”
—The World

• The Skanner said,

“	Some people say Oregon doesn’t need an Equal Rights Amendment for women; at the same time, women are at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder, with lower pay, less political representation and few corner offices in the corporate sector. Four retired state Supreme Court justices have made an open appeal for passage of this measure. We vote YES.	”
—Skanner

• The Statesman Journal said,

“	At first, the idea of an Equal Rights Amendment for Oregon seems quaint. Doesn't the Oregon Constitution, which is among the nation's most progressive as far as individual rights and liberties, already ban discrimination against women? No. And that is the most basic of reasons why Oregon voters have a responsibility to approve Measure 89 in Tuesday's election.	”
—Statesman Journal

Opposition

• The Mail Tribune said,

“	Discrimination on the basis of gender is deplorable and never justified, and preventing it is an important goal. If we thought Ballot Measure 89 was needed to do that we would support it. But the Oregon Constitution already prohibits all kinds of discrimination.	”
—Mail Tribune

• The Oregonian said,

“	We could not support with more enthusiasm the goal of Measure 89's sponsors, which is to prevent gender-based discrimination. Not everything done in pursuit of a worthy goal is a good idea, however, and that's the case here. Affixing an equal rights amendment to the state Constitution would be unnecessary, as the Constitution already provides such protections...To amend the Constitution purely for symbolic reasons is not only to amend it lightly, but also to invite action by those who would do likewise.	”
—Oregonian

• The Albany Democrat-Herald said,

“	We stand steadfast against gender-based discrimination. And we have no doubt that the backers of Measure 89 have nothing but the best intentions. But the Oregon constitution should be more than just a harbor for good intentions. And the fact of the matter is that the guarantees included in Measure 89 already are in place in the constitution, which includes a clause prohibiting gender-based discrimination...We don’t for a moment recommend a vote against Measure 89 because we don’t believe women should have equal rights. But we do recommend a vote against Measure 89 because we think the bar for amending the constitution should be set higher.	”
—Albany Democrat-Herald

Polls

See also: Polls, 2014 ballot measures

Legend      Position is ahead and at or over 50%     Position is ahead or tied, but under 50%

An automated telephone interview poll conducted from February 22 to 24, 2013, by Public Policy Polling found that 80 percent of respondents believed that equal rights for men and women should be included in the Oregon Constitution. Twelve percent of respondents did not and 8 percent were unsure. The same poll further found that 75 percent of respondents would support a 2014 ballot measure to amend the constitution, while 16 percent would oppose and 10 percent were unsure. The respondents were 45 percent Democrats, 35 percent Republican and 20 percent independent or other. Women were 54 percent of the respondents and men 46 percent.

All of the questions and results of the survey can be read here.

Oregon Equal Rights for Women Initiative (2014)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Public Policy Polling 2/22/2013-2/24/2013	75%	16%	10%	+/-3.8%	650
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

A federal equal rights amendment was first proposed by the National Women's Party in 1923. The strongest efforts to attempt to pass such an amendment were made in the 1960s and 1970s. The National Organization for Women (NOW) and other women's rights activist groups strongly supported an amendment ending legal discrimination based on sex. In 1970, the House approved the equal rights amendment, and the Senate followed in 1972. By 1973, 30 of the necessary 38 states had ratified the amendment. The amendment, however, did not pass. Opposition rose against the measure from many perspectives. Some argued against it in favor of traditional roles for women in society, while others claimed it would remove laws that protect women, like sexual assault laws and alimony. The number of states ratifying the amendment slowed drastically, and several states even repealed their own approval of the amendment. By 1982, the amendment remained three states short of approval.

While the federal effort did not succeed, equal rights amendments were added to 20 state constitutions between 1879 and 1998. These state measures guaranteed varying degrees of equality.

Path to the ballot

Oregon Constitution
Articles
Preamble • I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • X-A • XI • XI-A • XI-B • XI-C • XI-D • XI-E • XI-F(1) • XI-F(2) • XI-G • XI-H • XI-I(1) • XI-I(2) • XI-J • XI-K • XI-L • XI-M • XI-N • XI-O • XI-P • XI-Q • XII • XIII • XIV • XV • XVI • XVII • XVIII

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Oregon & Amending the Oregon Constitution

The Oregon Secretary of State approved the measure for circulation on December 20, 2013. Supporters were required to collect a minimum of 116,284 valid signatures by July 3, 2014. The petitioners submitted 143,463 unverified signatures on May 23, 2014. On June 13, 2014, the secretary of state's office had verified that 100,357 of the signatures were valid. The petitioners then had until the final July deadline to gather the remaining necessary signatures. They submitted a second batch of 28,707 signatures on June 17, 2014. The secretary of state finished verifying signatures to place this measure on the ballot on June 20, 2014, when 118,388 signatures were found to be valid. This meant 71.78 percent of the signatures submitted were valid.

See also

2014 Measures

• 2014 Measures
• Sex and gender issues on the ballot
• Constitutional rights on the ballot
• 2014 legislative sessions

Oregon

• Oregon ballot measures
• Oregon ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls