Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Direct Democracy Initiatives topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated testimony on SJR 30 over raising initiative signature thresholds and adding district distribution
Summary
A proposed constitutional referral, SJR 30, would raise signature percentages for statutory and constitutional initiatives and require equal signature distribution across congressional districts; supporters said it would broaden geographic participation, opponents said it would raise cost barriers and limit grassroots access.
The Senate Rules Committee held a lengthy public hearing on Senate Joint Resolution 30, a proposed constitutional referral that would raise signature thresholds for initiatives and require signatures be gathered equally across Oregon’s congressional districts.
Under the proposal, the percentage of votes required for statutory initiative petitions would increase from 6% to not less than 8% of the total votes cast for governor when that governor was elected; constitutional amendments would move from 8% to not less than 10%. Both provisions would require that signatures be divided equally among Oregon’s congressional districts. If referred by the legislature, the resolution would go to voters at the next regular statewide general election.
Supporters from rural counties and several interest groups said the change would broaden geographic input on ballot measures. Senator Todd Nash, who represents large rural portions of eastern Oregon, said the proposal would force petitioners to gather signatures outside metro areas that he said currently dominate initiative qualification. "If it's a measure that's good for Oregon, the petition signatures should be gathered from all of Oregon," Nash said.
Amy Patrick, policy director for the Oregon Hunters Association, urged updates given changes in population and participation since the thresholds were last set in 1968. "We think we've struck a balance by using congressional districts," she said, adding that the amendment would preserve access while boosting statewide deliberation.
Opponents — including the Taxpayer Association of Oregon, Oregon Small Business Association, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 555, Oregon AFSCME and a coalition of grassroots groups — warned the changes would sharply increase the cost and difficulty of qualifying initiatives. Matt Evans, representing the Taxpayer Association of Oregon, said the measure would “lock the average Oregonian out of the system” and leave only well-funded interests able to place measures on the ballot.
Dan Meek, an attorney representing the Consolidated Oregon Indivisibles Network, said similar referrals had failed previously when the legislature sent them to voters. He warned combining two contested concepts — raising thresholds and adding geographic distribution — could consolidate opposition.
Testimony raised practical concerns: several witnesses and petitioners described the difficulty of gathering signatures in lightly populated districts, the reliance of modern petitions on paid signature-gatherers and the potential for higher costs to favor deep-pocketed interests. Supporters countered that many congressional districts include urban hubs that make reaching nonmetro voters feasible.
Committee members explored the trade-offs. Vice Chair Buono (speaking as a sponsor) said she supported the concept because the initiative process has increasingly been dominated by well-funded campaigns and out-of-state money. Others, including Senator Golden, said a percentage threshold already adjusts for population growth and warned the change could make ballot access harder.
The committee heard several hours of testimony and closed the public hearing; no vote was recorded. Proponents and opponents said they would continue work outside committee on adjustments and messaging ahead of a potential referral to voters.
