Oregon Measure 104, Definition of Raising Revenue for Three-Fifths Vote Requirement Initiative (2018)

Elections in Oregon, 2018

• General election: Nov. 6
• Voter registration deadline: Oct. 16
• Early voting: N/A
• Absentee voting deadline: Nov. 6

• Online registration: Yes
• Same-day registration: N/A (all-mail elections)
• Voter ID: N/A
• Poll times: N/A

---

On the ballot: U.S. House • Governor • State executive offices • State Senate • State House • Supreme court • Appellate courts • Local judges • State ballot measures • Local ballot measures • Municipal • Recalls • Democratic primaries • Republican primaries

Oregon Measure 104
Election date November 6, 2018
Topic State and local government budgets, spending and finance
Status d Defeated
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens
List of Oregon measuresOregon Measure 102Oregon Measure 103Oregon Measure 104Oregon Measure 105Oregon Measure 106Oregon Measure 101 (January)Submit

Oregon Measure 104, the Definition of Raising Revenue for Three-Fifths Vote Requirement Initiative, was on the ballot in Oregon as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018. It was defeated.

A yes vote supported this constitutional amendment to apply a three-fifths supermajority vote requirement to any legislation that increases revenue through changes in tax exemptions, credits, and deductions.

A no vote opposed this amendment to apply the three-fifths supermajority vote requirement to changes to tax exemptions, credits, and deductions, thereby leaving the requirement to not apply bills reducing tax breaks according to a 2015 supreme court ruling.

Election results

Oregon Measure 104
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		631,211	34.81%
No		1,182,023	65.19%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

Measure design

Measure 104 would have defined raising revenue in Section 25 of Article IV of the Oregon Constitution to include changes to tax exemptions, credits, and deductions that result in increased revenue, as well as the creation or increase of taxes and fees.

As of 2017, Section 25(2) required a three-fifths vote of each state legislative chamber to pass bills raising revenue. Oregon's constitution states, "Three-fifths of all members elected to each House shall be necessary to pass bills for raising revenue." Voters passed this requirement as Measure 25 in 1996. In 2015, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a ruling that the Legislative Counsel said excluded bills to reduce tax breaks, such as exemptions and credits, from the three-fifths vote requirement.

Campaign finance

The following two committees were registered to support Measure 104:

• A Tax is a Tax Committee
• Parent's Education Association PAC

Together, they had raised $3.45 million and had spent $3.94 million.

The following four committees were registered to oppose Measure 104:

• Defend Oregon
• Vote No on 104
• Oregon Right to Health
• Team Oregon

Together, they had raised $10.22 million and had spent $9.80 million.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for this measure was as follows:

“

Amends Constitution: Expands (beyond taxes) application of requirement that three-fifths legislative majority approve bills raising revenue Result of “Yes” Vote: “Yes” vote expands “bills for raising revenue,” which require three-fifths legislative majority, to include (beyond taxes) fees and changes to tax exemptions, deductions, credits. Result of “No” Vote: “No” vote retains current law that bills for raising revenue, which require three-fifths legislative majority, are limited to bills that levy/increase taxes.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was as follows:

“

The Oregon Constitution provides that “bills for raising revenue” require the approval of three-fifths of each house of the legislature. The constitution does not currently define “raising revenue.” Oregon courts have interpreted that term to include bills that bring money into the state treasury by levying or increasing a tax. Under that interpretation, a bill imposing a fee for a specific purpose or in exchange for some benefit or service is not included. Nor is a bill that reduces or eliminates tax exemptions. Proposed measure amends constitution and defines “raising revenue” to include any tax or fee increase, including changes to tax exemptions, deductions, or credits. Measure expands three-fifths legislative majority requirement to also apply to such bills.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article IV, Oregon Constitution

The measure would have amended Section 25 of Article IV of the Oregon Constitution. The following underlined text would have been added:

Section 25. (1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, a majority of all the members elected to each House shall be necessary to pass every bill or Joint resolution.

(2) Three-fifths of all members elected to each House shall be necessary to pass bills for raising revenue.

(3) All bills, and Joint resolutions passed, shall be signed by the presiding officers of the respective houses.

(4) As used in subsection (2) of this section, “raising revenue” means any tax or fee increase, whether accomplished by the creation, imposition or increase of any tax or fee, or by the modification, elimination or change in eligibility for any exemption, credit, deduction or lower rate of taxation.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 16, and the FRE is 25. The word count for the ballot title is 74, and the estimated reading time is 19 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 12, and the FRE is 37. The word count for the ballot summary is 120, and the estimated reading time is 32 seconds. In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here.

Support

A Tax is a Tax Committee, also known as Yes on 104 and End Easy Tax Hikes, was leading the campaign in support of Measure 104.

Supporters

• Oregon state representative and gubernatorial candidate Knute Buehler (R)
• Former Oregon representative John Davis (R-26)

A list of organizations that have endorsed the Yes On 104 campaign include:

Associated Oregon Loggers Automobile Dealers Association of Portland National Federation of Independent Business Oregon Association of REALTORS® Oregon Bankers Association/Independent Community Banks of Oregon Oregon Beer & Wine Distributors Association Oregon Business and Industry Oregon Cattlemen’s Association Oregon Concrete and Aggregate Producers Association Oregon Farm Bureau Oregon Forest Industries Council Oregon Fuels Association Oregon Home Builders Association Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Association Oregon Small Business Association Oregon State Chamber of Commerce Oregon Trucking Association Oregonians for Food and Shelter Priority Oregon Taxpayer Association of Oregon Tualatin Chamber of Commerce

Arguments

Yes On 104 featured the following arguments on its website:

“

Politicians have created loopholes to get around the state’s constitutional requirement for a three-fifths supermajority to raise taxes on Oregon families and small businesses. Measure 104 will close the loopholes and make sure politicians follow the state Constitution. Over 20 years ago Oregon voters passed a constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority vote on all revenue raising legislation. In recent years, legislators and their lawyers have found creative loopholes and made several attempts at raising taxes and eliminating exemptions, deductions and credits without a supermajority vote. Dozens of bills were introduced in the past two legislative sessions that circumvented the three-fifths requirement. Many of these proposals would have impacted middle-class families and small businesses. Ballot Measure 104 ensures that any legislation that raises revenue requires a three-fifths majority vote. This includes fees or the elimination of tax exemptions, deductions or credits – making it clear that Oregonians are fed up with politicians working behind closed doors to increase taxes.

”

Eva Sanders, a licensed principal broker in Oregon wrote the following in an Oregon Live column:

“

Today's real estate market is making it more challenging to buy a home. And the Oregon Legislature's proposal to reduce or eliminate the home mortgage interest deduction would only compound this challenge. That's why I'm working to pass Measure 104, which will be on the ballot this November. Measure 104 would clarify - once again - that politicians can't raise revenue without a supermajority vote. So, in addition to raising tax rates, they also can't eliminate tax deductions or create and increase fees and assessments without demonstrating broad support. This will ensure that balanced, bipartisan agreements are struck before struggling Oregonians are asked to pay more, particularly at a time when our state is becoming less affordable.

”

Opposition

Vote No on 104 is leading the campaign in opposition to the measure.

Opponents

Following is a list of organizations, indviduals, and businesses listed as members of the No on 104 coalition:

Organizations 350PDX AARP Oregon AFL-CIO AFSCME State Council 75 American Association of University Professors American Association of University Women of Oregon American Federation of Teachers – Oregon American Heart Association Asian Pacific American Network of Oregon (APANO) Association of Oregon Faculties Basic Rights Oregon Beyond Toxics Bus Project Campaign for Oregon’s Seniors & People with Disabilities Cascade AIDS Cascadia Wildlands Causa Children First for Oregon Climate Solutions Coalition of Communities of Color Commission of Children, Families and Community Common Cause Community Alliance of Tenants Democratic Party of Oregon Defend Oregon Elders in Action Fair Shot Family Forward Forward Together Friends of the Columbia Gorge Hacienda CDC Health Care Coalition of Southern Oregon Health Care for All Oregon Housing Alliance Housing Oregon Human Services Coalition of Oregon Jewish Federation of Greater Portland Jewish Community Relations Council Jewish Federation of Lane County League of Women Voters – Oregon Main Street Alliance NAACP Portland NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon National Association of Social Workers Oregon National Organization for Women – Oregon NW Abortion Access Fund Northwest Health Foundation OPAL Environmental Justice Oregon Oregon Center for Public Policy Oregon Coalition of Christian Voices Oregon Coast Alliance Oregon Education Association Oregon Environmental Council Oregon Fair Trade Campaign Oregon League of Conservation Voters Oregon LGBT Foster Support Oregon Nurses Association Oregon Pediatric Society Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility Oregon PTA Oregon Public Health Association Oregon Public Health Institute Oregon School Employees Association Oregon State Firefighters Council Oregon Wild Our Oregon Partners for a Hunger Free Oregon Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon Portland Jobs with Justice Portland Tenants United Right 2 Survive Rural Organizing Project SEIU Local 49 SEIU Local 503 Sierra Club, Oregon Chapter Tax Fairness Oregon Unite Oregon United Christian Women Lane County Upstream Public Health Urban League of Portland Verde The Vocal Seniority WaterWatch of Oregon Welcome Home Coalition Working Families Party Oregon businesses Adhesive Evaluation Systems, Inc., Corvallis Alberta Street Market, Portland Antonio’s Farm, Rogue Valley Banter Partners, Portland Bowery Bagels, Portland Cambium Strategy, Portland Cascade Record Pressing, Milwaukie Cloudability Inc., Portland Colors NW, Inc., Salem Columbia River Coffee Roasters, Astoria Drums and Dance by Alfredo, Eugene Dudley’s Bookshop Cafe, Bend Everett Street Guesthouse, Portland Fields Farm, Bend Flowers in Flight, Portland Gaudino Consulting, LLC, Portland Gloria’s Secret Cafe, Beaverton Hawthorne Auto Clinic, Portland Luz Social & Enviornmental Associates, Inc., Ashland Madrone Modern, Portland Mahonia Farms, Sisters Microcosm Publishing, Portland Nike Inc., Beaverton Ohana Salso Company, Bend Orange Splot LLC, Portland Por Que No?, Portland Prospect Bottle Shop, Portland Ross Island Grocery Cafe, Portland Russel Development Company, Portland Sacred Sea Tuna, Coquille Siskiyou Alpaca, Cave Junction Springtail Farm, Damascus Starr Farms, Hillsboro Sublimity Snow and Skateboards, Beaverton Surround Inc., Portland Tamale Boy, Portland The Immortal Piano Company, Portland The Rogue Growlers, Ashland What Evil Is This? Media, Salem Willamette Valley Enterprises, Inc., Salem Windy Acres Dairy, Prineville Elected officials and community leaders Oregon Governor Kate Brown (D) Bill Riggs, Retired Supreme Court Justice Vernon Groves, Retired Pastor Lisa Jean Hoefner, Retired clergy member, United Methodist Church Deb Kolodney, Rabbi Karen Nettler, Board chair, Oregon Coalition of Christian Voices Barbara Campbell, Pastor, St. Mark Presbyterian Church Forster Freeman, Retired clergyman, Presbyterian and United Church of Christ Clergy Duane Fickeisen, Minister Emeritus, Unitarian Universalist Martin Hart-Landsberg, Professor of Economics Emeritus, Lewis and Clark College Mary King, Professor of Economics Emerita, Portland State University Matt Keating, Board Member, Lane Community College Phil Barnhart, State Representative Deborah Kafoury, Multnomah County Chair Greg Malinowski, Washington County Commissioner Sharon Meieran, Multnomah County Commissioner Dick Schouten, Washington County Commissioner Pete Sorenson, Lane County Commissioner Jessica Vega Pederson, Multnomah County Commissioner Joe Buck, Lake Oswego City Councilor Barbara Campbell, Bend City Councilor Mark Gamba, Mayor of Milwaukie Sean Garland, Sherwood City Councilor Stephen Jensen, Ashland City Councilor Tim Knapp, Mayor of Wilsonville Theresa Kohlhoff, Lake Oswego City Councilor David McCall, Bay City City Councilor Ron Preisler, Florence City Councilor Rich Rosenthal, Ashland City Councilor Marc San Soucie, Beaverton City Councilor Brett Sherman, Happy Valley City Councilor Kevin Stine, Medford City Councilor Lucy Vinis, Mayor of Eugene

Arguments

• Our Oregon stated, "[The measure attempts] to permanently etch into the state constitution that large and out-of-state corporations will never pay their fair share and instead, as usual, big business will use public servants as their scapegoat. This is bad policy, and it’s insulting to the students, seniors, and Oregon families who have been waiting decades for real investment."

• Defend Oregon stated, "Constitutional Amendment 104 is unnecessary and dangerous. It greatly increases partisan gridlock by expanding “super majority” requirements to pass Oregon legislation. It jeopardizes funding for schools, Medicaid, affordable housing and other essential services, while also making it nearly impossible to eliminate special interest perks and loopholes."

• The Oregon League of Conservation Voters said, "Currently, only bills that propose a raise in taxes must be approved by a three-fifths legislative majority (aka a supermajority). If Measure 104 passes, a supermajority vote would be required for a wider range of bills, including environmental bills that make polluters pay -- such as the Clean Energy Jobs bill -- making them harder to pass."

• Oregon Center for Public Policy Communications Director Juan Carlos Ordóñez said, "Measure 104 should be called the Protection Act for Corporate Tax Subsidies and Loopholes, because that’s what it really is. It allows special interests to protect the tax subsidies they’ve been getting, such as the mortgage interest deduction. It’s a completely undemocratic policy. It allows a minority of lawmakers to block reforms that are needed. It’s a situation where you have the tyranny of the minority. And the Realtors and those funding Measure 104 want to keep it that way."

Media editorials

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

• The Herald and News wrote, "Again, changing the Constitution makes us a bit flinchy. But government gets away with raising its fees all the time, while taxes may be kept in check. This raises the bar to take more money out of taxpayers’ pockets. We’re in agreement."
• The Bulletin wrote, "Needless to say, lawmakers don’t like Measure 104. Had they not played fast and loose with the original supermajority requirement, it never would have gotten off the ground. Now that it has, Oregonians should vote yes."

Opposition

• The Pamplin Media Group said: "We agree with proponents that legislators are starting to abuse their definition of "revenue," but Measure 104, which would become part of the state constitution, has too much risk of creating its own unintended consequences. If Measure 104 were simply a technical fix to the problems created by the 1996 law, we would be inclined to support it. However, Measure 104 vastly expands the requirement for a 60 percent majority to every fee that needs legislative approval. In our view, a more precisely worded measure could close the loophole from 1996, but until then, voters should say no to further constitutional changes."

• The Oregonian said: "Measure 104, which seeks to make it harder for lawmakers to raise revenue, is yet another effort to write state tax policy via constitutional amendment. And like Measure 103, Oregonians should reject the measure and the flawed logic behind it. he measure, heavily backed by the Oregon Association of Realtors, seeks to enshrine the requirement that three-fifths of the legislators in each chamber approve not only tax bills, as they do now, but any proposals that result in increased revenue to the state. That includes mundane bills that increase license fees and legislation seeking to repeal tax credits or deductions. But approval of the measure would give a small minority of legislators outsized power to thwart the will of the majority of lawmakers and, by extension, of Oregonians."

Additional editorial endorsements

In addition to the above editorial endorsements, the following news editorial boards oppose Measure 104:

• Willamette Week
• Mail Tribune
• The Register-Guard
• East Oregonian
• Ashland Daily Tidings
• Corvallis Gazette-Times
• Albany Democrat-Herald

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Oregon ballot measures

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$3,449,301.30
Opposition:	$10,222,329.62

The following two committees were registered to support Measure 104:

• A Tax is a Tax Committee
• Parent's Education Association PAC

Together, they had raised $3.45 million and had spent $3.94 million.

The following four committees were registered to oppose Measure 104:

• Defend Oregon
• Vote No on 104
• Oregon Right to Health
• Team Oregon

Together, they had raised $10.22 million and had spent $9.80 million.

As of November 2018, fifteen (15) committees were registered to support and/or oppose the five (5) statewide measures on Oregon's November 2018 ballot. Many committees were simultaneously registered to support and oppose multiple measures, therefore it is impossible to distinguish between funds spent on a particular measure. Further, many committees gave contributions to other committees. A full list of the committees and their positions can be found here.

Support

Committees in support of Oregon Measure 104 Supporting committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures A Tax is a Tax Committee $3,063,057.57 $365,756.03 $3,548,638.83 Parent's Education Association PAC $20,487.70 $0.00 $28,495.69 Total $3,083,545.27 $365,756.03 $3,577,134.52

Totals in support Total raised: $3,449,301.30 Total spent: $3,942,890.55

Top donors

The top five donors to the opposition campaign are listed below:

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
Oregon Association of Realtors	$1,393,000.00	$174,966.64	$1,567,966.64
Building a Better Oregon	$380,000.00	$0.00	$380,000.00
ORLA PAC	$91,000.00	$33,983.17	$124,983.17
Automobile Dealers Association of Portland	$95,000.00	$0.00	$95,000.00
Oregon Business and Industry Issues PAC	$55,000.00	$0.00	$55,000.00

Opposition

Committees in opposition to Oregon Measure 104 Opposing committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Vote No on 104 $70,670.00 $223,181.62 $66,340.00 Defend Oregon $7,229,181.64 $645,035.78 $7,288,542.40 Oregon Right to Health $3,620.00 $1.96 $2,780.89 Team Oregon $1,190,835.16 $859,803.46 $716,356.19 Total $8,494,306.80 $1,728,022.82 $8,074,019.48

Totals in opposition Total raised: $10,222,329.62 Total spent: $9,802,042.30

Top donors

Top donors listed here are the top donors for the committee that was exclusively opposing Measure 104: Vote No on 104. Top donors to the other committees are not included in the chart below because they were registered with a position on multiple measures on the ballot, making it impossible to determine on which measure the committee's funds were used. The top donors here are those who gave more than $1,500 to the Vote No on 104 committee.

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
Oregon Education Association	$650,000.00	$0.00	$650,000.00
Common Good Fund	$0.00	$0.00	$43,300.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls and 2018 ballot measure polls

Below are results of polls that asked respondents how they would vote on Measure 104. Also displayed are the dates the poll was conducted, the number of respondents, and the poll's margin of error.

Oregon Measure 104
Poll	Yes- support	No- oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
DHM Research Poll 10/4/18 - 10/11/18	28.0%	37.0%	35.0%	+/-4.4	500
Riley Research Associates Poll 9/24/18 - 10/7/18	36.0%	37.0%	28.0%	+/-5.2	356
AVERAGES	32%	37%	31.5%	+/-4.8	428
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

Supporters of Measure 104 also worked on the Government Spending Limit and Excess Revenue for Unfunded Pension Liability Initiative.

Supermajority requirements for taxes

As of 2018, fifteen (15) states required a supermajority vote for at least some statewide tax increases, and one state (Colorado) requires voter approval for tax increases. This section is referring to tax increases at the state level and does not include requirements for local tax increases. The following map illustrates the vote requirement to increase taxes in the states:

Seven of the states requires a two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote to enact or increase taxes. Five states require a lower threshold of three-fifths (60.00 percent). Three states require a higher threshold of three-fourths (75.00 percent) to enact or increase taxes. In Colorado, state taxes cannot be increased without voter approval except in cases of emergency, when the legislature can increases taxes by a two-thirds vote. The following table illustrates these requirements:

State	Year	Vote	Application
Arizona	1992	2/3	All taxes
Arkansas	1934	3/4	All taxes except sales and alcohol
California	1979	2/3	All taxes
Colorado	1992	Voter approval	All taxes
Delaware	1980	3/5	All taxes
Florida	1971	3/5	Corporate income tax
Kentucky	2000	3/5	All taxes in odd-numbered years
Louisiana	1966	2/3	All taxes
Michigan	1994	3/4	State property tax
Mississippi	1970	3/5	All taxes
Missouri	1996	2/3	All taxes
Nevada	1996	2/3	All taxes
Oklahoma	1992	3/4	All taxes
Oregon	1996	3/5	All taxes
South Dakota	1996	2/3	All taxes
Wisconsin	2011	2/3	Sales, income, and franchise taxes

Ballot measures on supermajority requirements for taxes

See also: Taxes on the ballot and Supermajority requirements on the ballot

Ballotpedia has identified 15 ballot measures related to legislative supermajority requirements to enact or increase taxes. Of the 15 ballot measures, 13 were approved—although courts in Washington overturned three approved initiatives—and two were defeated at the ballot box.

State	Year	Measure	Vote	Application	Status
Florida	1971	Amendment 1	3/5	Corporate income tax	Approved a
California	1978	Proposition 13	2/3	All taxes	Approved a
Ohio	1983	Amendment 2	3/5	All taxes	Defeated d
Arizona	1992	Proposition 108	2/3	All taxes	Approved a
Oklahoma	1992	Question 640	3/4	All taxes	Approved a
Michigan	1994	Proposal A	3/4	State property tax	Approved a
Nevada	1994	Question 11	2/3	All taxes	Approved a
Oregon	1996	Measure 25	3/5	All taxes	Approved a
Nevada	1996	Question 11	2/3	All taxes	Approved a
South Dakota	1996	Amendment B	2/3	All taxes	Approved a
Iowa	1999	Amendment 2	3/5	Sales and income taxes	Defeated d
Washington	2007	Initiative 960	2/3	All taxes	Overturned ot
California	2010	Proposition 26	2/3	All taxes	Approved a
Washington	2010	Initiative 1053	2/3	All taxes	Overturned ot
Washington	2012	Initiative 1185	2/3	All taxes	Overturned ot

Ballot measures to cap, limit, or restrict taxes in 2018

See also: Taxes on the ballot

In 2018, voters in six states considered ballot measures to cap, limit, or restrict types of taxes. In Oregon and Washington, voters decided ballot initiatives to prohibit governments from enacting taxes on groceries. Oregan voters rejected the grocery tax ban. In Washington, the measure was ahead by 5 percentage points with 64 percent of precincts reporting.

In Arizona, an initiative to prohibit new taxes or increased tax rates on services was approved. Voters in California defeated an initiated measure to require voter approval for the state legislature to impose, increase, or extend fuel taxes or vehicle fees in the future. It would have also repealed a gas tax increase passed in 2017.

Legislatures in Florida and North Carolina referred constitutional amendments capping taxes to the ballot and both were approved. Voters in Florida and Oregon also considered ballot measures to require supermajorities of the state legislature to increase taxes. In Florida, the measure was approved, and, in Oregon, it was defeated.

An additional initiative qualified for the ballot in California but was withdrawn after proponents agreed to a compromise bill with legislators to keep the initiative off the ballot. The initiative would have required a two-thirds vote of the electorate on all local taxes, including soda taxes. The compromise legislation prohibited local soda taxes until 2031.

Measure	Origin	Description	Status
Arizona Proposition 126	Initiative	Prohibits the state and local governments from enacting new taxes or increasing tax rates on services	a
California Proposition 6	Initiative	Requires voter approval for the state legislature to impose, increase, or extend fuel taxes or vehicle fees in the future	d
Florida Amendment 2	Legislature	Makes permanent the cap of 10 percent on annual nonhomestead parcel assessment increases set to expire	a
Florida Amendment 5	Legislature	Requires a two-thirds vote of each chamber of the state legislature to enact new taxes or fees or increase existing ones	a
North Carolina Amendment	Legislature	Lowers the maximum allowable state income tax rate from 10 percent to 7 percent	a
Oregon Measure 103	Initiative	Prohibits state and local governments from enacting taxes on groceries	d
Oregon Measure 104	Initiative	Requires a three-fifths vote of each chamber of the state legislature to increase revenue, such as via increasing taxes and decreasing tax exemptions	d
Washington Initiative 1634	Initiative	Prohibits local governments from enacting taxes on groceries	a

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Oregon

The state process

In Oregon, the number of signatures required to qualify an initiated constitutional amendment for the ballot is equal to 8 percent of the votes cast for governor in the most recent gubernatorial election. Signatures for Oregon initiatives must be submitted four months prior to the next regular general election. State law also requires paid signature gatherers to submit any signatures they gather every month.

Moreover, Oregon is one of several states that require a certain number of signatures to accompany an initiative petition application. The signatures of at least 1,000 electors are required to trigger a review by state officials, a period of public commentary, and the drafting of a ballot title. Prior to gathering these initial 1,000 signatures, petitioners must submit the text of the measure, a form disclosing their planned use of paid circulators, and a form designating up to three chief petitioners.

The requirements to get an initiated constitutional amendment certified for the 2018 ballot:

• Signatures: 117,578 valid signatures were required.
• Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures was July 6, 2018.

In Oregon, signatures are verified using a random sample method. If a first round of signatures is submitted at least 165 days before an election and contains raw, unverified signatures at least equal to the minimum requirement, but verification shows that not enough of the submitted signatures are valid, additional signatures can be submitted prior to the final deadline.

Details about the initiative

On September 13, 2017, Alan Mehrwein and Art Kegler filed the ballot initiative. Oregon requires that 1,000 signatures be submitted before a ballot title is drafted. The initial 1,000 signatures were submitted, and the initiative was cleared for circulation on January 29, 2018.

Petitioners were required to collect 117,578 valid signatures to get their initiative on the ballot. Signatures for initiatives needed to be submitted four months prior to the election on November 6, 2018, which was July 6, 2018.

• On June 29, 2018, proponents of the initiative submitted 174,006 unverified signatures.
• On July 5, 2018, the Oregon Secretary of State reported proponents of the initiative submitted 124,428 valid signatures (71.86% of the submitted signatures), certifying it for the November 2018 ballot.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Ballot Access LLC to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $1,586,178.00 was spent to collect the 117,578 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $13.49.

Compromise deal

On July 5, 2018, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported that Oregon Governor Kate Brown reached a deal with the proponents of the Corporate Tax Disclosures Initiative, Initiative #25, which would have required publicly-traded corporations to file statements with the secretary of state on their state tax filings and other financial information. The measure was sponsored by top officials of two major public employee unions, the Oregon chapter of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and Local 503 of Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Under the deal, proponents agreed to not submit the signatures they had gathered for the initiative and would instead use their funds to defeat two other initiatives: (a) Measure 103, which would ban taxes on groceries, and (b) Measure 104, which would apply a three-fifths supermajority vote requirement to any legislation that increases revenue through changes in tax exemptions, credits, and deductions.

Oregon Public Broadcasting reported, "Nike, the state’s largest home-grown business, appeared to play a major role in the negotiations. According to sources, the company had told the governor that the corporate transparency measure would put them at a disadvantage with rivals from other states and would hurt efforts for moderate elements of the business community to work with labor... On July 3, 2018, Nike donated $100,000 to a new political action committee called the Common Good Fund, controlled by senior Nike employee Julia Brim-Edwards."

Later in July 2018, a complaint was filed with the Oregon Secretary of State's office alleging that "The unions agreed to withdraw an initiative … in exchange for Nike donating $100,000 to a PAC — the Common Good Fund — that will campaign against [Measures 103 and 104]".

The Oregon Department of Justice reviewed the complaint and determined that a criminal investigation was not warranted in the matter.

See also

2018 measures

• 2018 ballot measures
• Budgets on the ballot

Oregon

• Oregon ballot measures
• Oregon ballot measure laws

News and analysis

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

External links

• Initiative 31

Support

• Yes on 104 campaign website
• Yes on 104 Facebook page
• Yes on 104 Twitter page

Opposition

• Defend Oregon campaign website
• Defend Oregon Facebook
• Defend Oregon Twitter
• Vote No on 104 campaign website
• Vote No on 104 Facebook
• Vote No on 104 Twitter