Measures 111, 112, 113 and 114 propose changes to the Oregon Constitution, a permit-to-purchase system for purchasing firearms and more
Oregon Measure 111: Amendment to add health care as a right for all in state constitution
Ballot Measure 111 would add health care as a right to the Oregon Constitution, specifying the state is required to "ensure that every resident of Oregon has access to cost-effective, clinically appropriate and affordable health care as a fundamental right."
The language in the proposed constitutional amendment would theoretically mean the state is required to include health care coverage among other public services such as school and transportation.
The amendment is a change to constitutional language, and is not a policy proposal identifying specific funding or mechanisms for implementation. The amendment also states legal remedies for lawsuits brought against the proposed section may not interfere with the balance between a right to health care and funding other essential public services.
Measure 111 would make Oregon the first state to list health care for all residents as a constitutional right. The measure also requires the state to balance state spending on health care and all other essential services, a modification designed to prevent any new efforts to provide health care from "stripping funding" from other pieces of the state budget.
If the measure passes, it would require the Oregon Legislature to determine if current programs and services fulfill the obligation of providing access to affordable and necessary health care. If the Legislature finds the right to health care is not met, the constitution would require it to begin the process of meeting that requirement. The measure is not prescriptive, so analysis, funding and implementation would depend on the Legislature.
The Oregon Secretary of State's office found the financial impact of Measure 111 to be indeterminate because the fiscal impact will be determined by future legislative action.
According to Oregon Health Authority, 95% of Oregonians — 4 million people — have health care coverage of some kind. However, having coverage does not indicate comprehensive or affordable coverage. In 2019, personal spending on health care in Oregon averaged $7,615, higher than the national average of $7,487, according to OHA data.
Data also showed “health insurance premiums and deductibles represent a substantial share of income for families in Oregon,” according to OHA, which found for family health insurance plans, the cost of employee insurance premiums alone consumed 8.1% of median family income. When accounting for the average deductible, insurance costs rose to 13.5% of income. For single-person coverage, the cost of premiums and deductibles averaged 4.6% of income.
According to OHA, the average cost of family health insurance premiums in Oregon are “approaching the cost of a new compact car.” In 2019, family health insurance premiums averaged $19,405 annually, OHA found, and the average price of a compact car was $20,972.
Broadly, marginalized and low-income communities in Oregon are more likely to struggle to access the health care they need. Low-income residents report worse health and more cost barriers to health care than their wealthier counterparts. Measure 111 could benefit these communities.
Democratic supporters include Oregon Senate Majority Leader Rob Wagner, State Rep. Rob Nosse and State Sen. Elizabeth Steiner Hayward. The Oregon Nurses Association and League of Women Voters of Oregon also endorse the bill.
Supporters of the measure argue it will establish health care as a priority for lawmakers, placing Oregon on a path to ensure all Oregonians get the health care they need at an affordable price.
At the same time, the amendment will not immediately mandate changes to existing programs or incur any financial or policy impact.
Proponents emphasize Oregon residents struggle to afford health care.
“(Measure 111) is a critical first step towards creating an Oregon where everyone can afford to be healthy, and it spurs the leaders in our state to work towards making this a reality,” Emerson Hamlin, Measure 111 campaign manager, said.
Nosse, a champion of the measure, said the bill is a vital step toward addressing health care inequities by making them the responsibility of the state.
“It benefits every Oregonian who, at the moment, doesn't have access to good health insurance,” Nosse said. “And by good, I mean affordable. Insurance that affords them the ability to get medications they need, the kind of provider they need. This puts the pressure on the legislature to do a little bit better, or maybe a lot better.”
Opponents criticize the bill for failing to provide specifics about the cost and method for ensuring health care access, though constitutional amendment typically don't include budgets or implementation. They also say mandating access to health care could take funds away from other programs, despite language in the bill intended to prevent this outcome.
Republican Oregon Senate Minority Leader Fred Girod, who voted against the bill, was one such critic.
"The bill doesn’t fund any system to deliver on that promise,” Girod said. “If Democrats are serious about giving Oregonians free health care, they should come up with an actual plan. This kind of lazy policymaking lacks important details Oregon voters need to make an informed decision at the ballot box."
Oregon Measure 112: Amendment to remove slavery as punishment for crime from state constitution
Ballot Measure 112 would remove language in the Oregon Constitution permitting slavery and involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime. The measure also includes the addition of language authorizing courts, probation and parole agencies to order alternatives to incarceration for a convicted individual as part of their sentencing.
Championed by Oregonians Against Slavery and Involuntary Servitude (OASIS), the measure received broad bi-partisan support — 85% of legislators from the Oregon House and Senate voted to bring the measure to voters. Measure 112 proposes a change of constitutional language only — it would not interfere with current incarcerated adult work programs, sentencing or probation. The measure’s stated purpose is to demonstrate equality as a state value by stripping language permitting slavery from foundational state documents, bringing them into alignment with the current moment and state and national ethics.
The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which abolished most slavery, contains a clause allowing slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime.
The majority of states in the nation — 31 — don’t have slavery loopholes in their constitutions. As of 2022, 10 states have exceptions to abolishment that allow enslavement and involuntary servitude as punishment for crime. Another nine states have constitutions that allow involuntary servitude, but not slavery, as a criminal punishment.
In part influenced by national pushes for equity, several states stripped similar language from their constitutions in recent years. Nebraska and Utah approved similar constitutional amendments in 2020. Colorado enacted a similar amendment in 2018. In each of these cases, the amendments received bipartisan support and passed with more than 60% of the vote.
This year, Tennessee will also vote on a constitutional amendment stripping language allowing for slavery and involuntary servitude as punishments for crime.
Supporters hope Oregon will become the next state to alter language regarding slavery loopholes in its state constitution.
Championed by Democrats, including State Reps. Michael Dembrow, Lew Frederick and Sara Gelser Blouin, the bill is endorsed by the ACLU of Oregon, Oregon Justice Research Center, Urban League of Portland and numerous other civil rights and advocacy groups.
Proponents argue its importance as a demonstration of ethics, noting the change in constitutional language won’t interfere with current criminal justice practices. Proponents also say the majority of states lacking this language face no repercussions to their criminal justice systems, and states that recently removed slavery loopholes from their constitutions experienced no related challenges to established criminal justice operations as a result.
Oregon Corrections Enterprises also supports the measure.
"Oregon Corrections Enterprises (OCE) believes in second chance opportunities for adults in custody and providing meaningful work and training opportunities and avenues for personal and professional development for those participating in our voluntary programs," Ken Jeske, OCE administrator, said in a press release.
Angela Martin, a spokesperson for OASIS, said the effort is part of the racial reckoning spurred by the Black Lives Matter movement.
“It’s really part of an ongoing evolution Americans across the United States are going through,” Martin said. “Where is it that we need to come to terms with racist language and actions that are enshrined in our institutions, in our documents, in our laws?”
Despite broad bipartisan support in the Oregon Legislature, 15% of the legislature voted against referring the measure to the ballot. Opponents note slavery is already prohibited and express concern the bill would present a future risk to the state’s ability to enforce probation and involuntary prison labor. Opponents also claim the measure is redundant because slavery is already prohibited.
Republican state Sen. Brian Boquist opposed SJR 10, the senate joint resolution that would bring the amendment to voters.
“SJR 10 is a referral to the voters eliminating involuntary servitude as a result of a crime adjudicated by the courts and/or jury,” Boquist said in a statement to the Legislature on April 15, 2021. “Proponents claim it bans slavery, but that is already banned in the Oregon and U.S. Constitutions. The staff measure summary purports the referral removes ‘language allowing slavery and involuntary servitude’ but the actual text of the language being removed from the Oregon Constitution is ‘the State, otherwise than as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.’”
Boquist’s statement is inaccurate: the measure removes what is commonly known as a “slavery loophole”— language permitting slavery as a punishment for a crime. The existence of this loophole also means that slavery is not, in fact, banned.
House Republicans Daniel Bonham, Jami Cate, Bobby Levy, Mark Owens, E. Werner Reschke and Greg Smith also voted against the bill to bring the measure to voters. Senate Republicans Brian Boquist and Dallas Heard voted against the bill, as well.
Oregon Measure 113: After repeated Republican walkouts, an amendment to the state constitution makes lawmakers with 10 or more unexcused absences ineligible for future terms
A measure on the ballot in Oregon could oust no-show lawmakers from reelection once their term expires.
Oregon Measure 113, which "excludes state legislators from reelection for unexcused legislative absenteeism," will be on this November's ballot for voters. Some of Oregon's most prominent unions spearheaded the measure, which proposes alterations to the Oregon Constitution to make lawmakers ineligible for future terms if they have 10 or more unexcused absences.
According to those behind the ballot measure, it is a direct response to walkouts from political parties hoping to dodge voting sessions.
Since 2019, Oregon Senate Republicans orchestrated six walkouts to block Democratic-led issues. Due to the Oregon Legislature’s strict quorum rules, two-thirds of lawmakers must be present during a vote in order for it to count. Lawmakers in the state — usually the minority party — have been known to flee the Capitol in order to prevent votes from going forward and buying the party a bit more time.
In the past couple of years, the Republican-led walkouts prevented action or, at the least, stalled efforts on issues like affordable housing, climate change, K-12 education, gun safety and COVID relief. Republicans also fled the Capitol during a legislative session in 2001.
On the flip side, Democratic leaders initiated walkouts in 1971, 1995 and 2001, blocking votes on lowering the voting age and preventing the redesign of legislative districts without the governor's signature.
An absence must be excused by the heads of each legislative chamber, Speaker of the House or Senate President. These entities work with nonpartisan staff to approve excuses submitted by legislators.
With the proposed alteration, if the Legislature determines a politician's absence is unexcused more than 10 times, their truancy will not only be deemed disorderly behavior, but they will have forfeited their right to reelection. The amendment to the constitution would also require state legislators to attend regular and special sessions.
Currently, absent legislators are compelled to attend floor sessions, but consequences for unexcused no-shows are essentially nonexistent.
Various unions, politicians and state-wide entities support the measure, including Gov. Kate Brown, Democratic State Senate Majority Leader Rob Wagner, Oregon's Everytown for Gun Safety chapter and the Oregon Education Association.
The “Hold Politicians Accountable” coalition, which includes groups like the Native American Youth and Family Center, ACLU Oregon and the Democratic Party of Oregon, is leading the campaign to support Measure 113.
The initiative’s message is simple: politicians should be set to the same standard as other workers — 10 strikes, and you’re out, according to the initiative's website.
Reed Scott-Schwalbach, an educator and president of the Oregon Education Association, is one of the chief petitioners for the measure. She said the measure boils down to the importance of attendance and the oath politicians make to serve their state.
"Oregonians were not well served when people weren't even willing to show up to talk about the concepts and the laws that other legislators are trying to get passed," she said. "This legislation is aimed at really making sure that when we have issues that we know are important to the state — important enough that we pass laws on them — that there is a quorum."
The measure was first proposed as Initiative Petition 14 and informally tagged “Legislative Accountability 1” by those involved in the ballot efforts.
In January, advocates for the measure began collecting signatures to support the "Hold Politicians Measure.” Four months later, over 155,000 signatures were confirmed valid by the Oregon Secretary of State's office, qualifying the measure for the ballot.
Measure 113 also aims to strengthen the public process for Oregonians to hold lawmakers accountable for showing up to work, according to supporters.
"This measure … it's going to help strengthen the public process for Oregonians and make sure that the folks who we elect do their job and have the conversations with other legislators in order to solve issues that we know we're facing as a state," Scott-Schwalbach said.
As of September, no party or entity has formally opposed the measure. Street Roots reached out to the Oregon Republican Party but did not receive comment before publishing.
Oregon Measure 114: Establishing a permit-to-purchase system for guns, restrictions on magazines
Ballot Measure 114 would enact a permit-to-purchase system for purchasing firearms in Oregon, as well as prohibit ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, making it a misdemeanor.
Currently, Oregon law permits the sale of firearms to anyone age 18 or older, except for some firearms, which are restricted by federal law to people age 21 and up.
If approved, Measure 114 would require anyone who seeks to purchase a firearm in Oregon to pay an application fee, produce a photo ID and fingerprints, and pass safety training, as well as a criminal background check. The combined cost of completing each step, excluding the cost of a firearms training course, would be capped at $65.
Oregon State Police would be responsible for the review and approval of permits.
OSP would be required to review permits within 30 days of receiving the petition. The permits would be valid for five years before requiring renewal. OSP would be permitted to deny permit applications where the applicant is “believed to be a danger to oneself or others, or if the applicant is prohibited from possessing a firearm.” If OSP rejects an application, the applicant can then appeal the rejection within 30 days of receipt of their permit denial in the circuit court in their county of residence to review the denial, nonrenewal or revocation.
OSP would issue reports on the permit to state, local and federal law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction over the location where the applicant submitted their firearms permit application. The permit would be retained by law enforcement for as long as it is valid.
The law also seeks to impose criminal penalties on gun sellers who do not follow the rules. Selling a firearm to a person without a permit would classify as a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to 364 days in jail, a fine of up to $6,250 or both.
Measure 114 would also ban the purchase, possession, sale, transfer, import, use or manufacturing of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, making the offense a Class A misdemeanor.
A "yes" vote on Measure 114 would enact these measures, whereas a “no” vote would maintain the current system under Oregon law, making no changes.
The primary supporters and financial backers in favor of the measure include Lift Every Voice Oregon, the lead campaigner in support of Measure 114. Other supporters include the Oregon Nurses Association, League of Women Voters of Oregon and Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety.
Lift Every Voice Oregon, a faith-based organization formed in 2018 in the aftermath of the deadly school shooting in Parkland, Florida that pursues gun control measures, claims on its website Measure 114 “addresses the public safety issue raised by the sale of assault weapons in Oregon, works for increased regulation of assault weapons by supporting legislation and efforts to uphold our beliefs for safer communities.”
Those in support of the measure argue it would reduce gun violence by keeping firearms away from people who pose a threat to their communities and that banning larger-capacity magazines will save lives and reduce mass shootings.
Rebecca Gladstone is the president of the League of Women Voters of Oregon, a group which emphatically supports the measure.
“We have seen what happens when shooters have easy access to weapons equipped with large-capacity magazines,” Gladstone wrote in an endorsement for the Measure. “Research shows that limits on large-capacity magazines save lives and requiring a permit-to-purchase effectively reduces firearm homicide and suicide rates."
The lead campaigners against Measure 114 are the National Rifle Association and the Oregon Firearms Federation, both organizations that work against gun control measures.
Those against Measure 114 argue it violates the Second Amendment by imposing restrictions on magazine capacity and by imposing a permitting process. Further, those against Measure 114 say it gives broad powers to police to investigate permit applicants and too much control to police over who owns a firearm. Anti-114 petitioners are concerned the measure creates a database of all firearms permit applicants.
The NRA Institute For Legislative Action said in a statement the measure is “yet another anti-gun ballot initiative that seeks to further erode Second Amendment rights in Oregon.”
Kevin Starrett is the president of the Oregon Firearms Federation, and said the measure shouldn’t appeal to anyone who supports, or opposes, police.
“If you love the police, you probably don’t want to saddle them with another resource-sucking unfunded mandate,” Starrett said. “If you mistrust the police, you probably don’t want to give them unlimited time and discretion to allow or disallow you the ability to protect your family.”
Currently, nine states, including California and Washington D.C., have laws governing magazine capacity limits. Washington as well as Washington D.C. and California are among 14 states with permit-to-purchase laws.
Street Roots is an award-winning weekly investigative publication covering economic, environmental and social inequity. The newspaper is sold in Portland, Oregon, by people experiencing homelessness and/or extreme poverty as means of earning an income with dignity. Street Roots newspaper operates independently of Street Roots advocacy and is a part of the Street Roots organization. Learn more about Street Roots. Support your community newspaper by making a one-time or recurring gift today.
© 2022 Street Roots. All rights reserved. | To request permission to reuse content, email editor@streetroots.org or call 503-228-5657, ext. 404
