Citizen Portal

Get email alerts on the Ballot Measure 31 101 topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Union County staff outlines Ballot Measure 31-101 requirements and history

Union County Board of Commissioners · February 11, 2026

Summary

Staff summarized Ballot Measure 31-101 (Nov. 3, 2020): vote totals (7,435–6,753), the requirement that commissioners meet triannually to "promote the interest of Union County" regarding any Idaho border negotiations, prior meeting dates, and earlier county correspondence to state lawmakers.

Union County Administrative Officer Shelley Burgess read a staff report at the Feb. 11 special meeting summarizing Ballot Measure 31-101, which was approved by county voters on Nov. 3, 2020. Burgess said the measure passed with 7,435 yes votes and 6,753 no votes — a margin of 682 — and requires the board to meet on the second Wednesday of February, June and October to "discuss how to promote the interest of Union County in any negotiations regarding relocating the state border of Idaho to include Union County."

The staff report recounted prior meetings held under the measure (dates covering 2021–2025), noted civil penalties for anyone who willfully hinders the prescribed meetings (class D violation with a maximum fine of $125 enforceable by a peace officer), and summarized past board action. Burgess said the board passed a motion on Feb. 8, 2023 to send a letter memorializing the 2020 ballot results to state representatives; a letter was sent Feb. 9, 2023 to Representative Bobby Levy and Senator Bill Hansell "officially informing them of the November 3, 2020 Ballot Measure results."

Burgess also told the board that bills introduced in the 2023 and 2025 Oregon legislative sessions that would have created a state-level task force to explore border change did not receive hearings and therefore did not move forward. The report included a note that another bill introduced in 2023, which would have required counties to sign affidavits stating they would remain part of Oregon if they received state funding, also did not progress. The board made no motion or vote at the Feb. 11 meeting related to adopting new policy; the meeting served to receive the staff report and public comment.

AI generated

The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.

AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.

Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.

Source