Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Initiative Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears HJR 11 proposing congressional‑district signature distribution and higher thresholds for initiatives
Summary
House Joint Resolution 11 would increase signature thresholds and require signatures be divided equally among Oregon’s congressional districts. Proponents presented the change as a compromise to improve geographic representation; opponents said it would raise costs and could suppress citizen access to the ballot.
The House Committee on Rules held a public hearing March 20 on House Joint Resolution 11, a proposed constitutional amendment that would raise the number of signatures required to qualify initiative petitions and require signatures be divided equally among Oregon’s congressional districts (the bill text described an 8% total threshold divided equally for statutory initiatives and 10% for constitutional amendments).
Supporters framed HJR 11 as a balanced, bipartisan update to an initiation system unchanged since 1968. Amy Patrick, policy director for the Oregon Hunters Association, testified that modestly higher thresholds and a congressional‑district distribution would “strike a balance” between preserving access to the ballot and increasing geographic participation. Representative Mark Owens (House District 60) described the change as a compromise and said it responds to rural concerns about being left out of initiative campaigns. Several conservation and agricultural groups filed support—Lauren Kinsey of Oregon Farm Bureau and Michael Elias of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation each testified in favor, saying the change protects rural and wildlife interests from being decided solely by population centers.
Opponents repeated concerns raised in the HJR 3 hearing about cost and access. Dan Meek, representing the Independent Party of Oregon and the Oregon Progressive Party, said HJR 11 would increase required signatures by roughly 25–33% and make qualification prohibitively expensive for grassroots groups, particularly in large, sparsely populated districts. Michael Salvaggio (UFCW Local 555) urged continued negotiation on geographic models but said HJR 11 in its posted form would substantially raise costs. Resident Kathy Gaine also testified in opposition, citing signature‑gathering difficulty in rural areas.
Committee members asked proponents to respond to cost and constitutional concerns. Senator Todd Nash described HJR 11 as a fallback from a county‑by‑county approach and said the congressional‑district model is legally sturdier and more practical. Witnesses from business and civic groups urged caution about further restrictions that could limit citizen access to direct democracy.
No committee vote was held. The public hearing on HJR 11 concluded without action.
