Please see Governance Overview here.

Jump to a topic:

• Initiatives

• Broadband, Vote-by-mail, Privacy

• Elections

• Revenue

Initiatives

SJR 30, sponsored by Senators Nash and Broadman, will be heard in the Senate Rules Committee 4/2. It would increase the requirements to qualify an initiative for the general election ballot. If SJR 30 is adopted, then the number of valid signatures that is required would be increased 33% for statutory measures and would be increased 25% for constitutional measures! Furthermore, the required signatures would have to be equally distributed among congressional districts. The League submitted testimony opposing  SJR 30 since it would nearly destroy the ability for citizens to qualify an initiative for the ballot, except by wealthy special interest groups and corporations.

Broadband, Vote-by-mail, Privacy

By Becky Gladstone

• SB 224: Senate Rules work session on April 2, League testimony in support of privacy for campaign committee staff home addresses.

• SB 470 A: passed a House floor vote, 29, 1 excused. League testimony supported the original bill to protect lodgers’ privacy from illicitly taken videos.

• HB 3766: allows civil action against an adult who, unbidden, digitally sends intimate images (cyber-flashing) with the intent to harass, degrade or humiliate. League testimony in support; work session April 1.

Upcoming & Watching

• SB 1014 requires the SoS to allow inclusion of political party statements in translated online versions of state or county voters’ pamphlets. League testimony in support is being prepared for a March 3 public hearing in Senate Rules.

• SB 952 will close a replacement timing lapse for US Senators, if need be, between when a vacancy occurs and replacement at special election. League will testify in support, public hearing in Senate Rules, April 2.

• SB 1121 creates a new crime of unlawful private data disclosure, punishable by a maximum of six months' imprisonment, $2,500 fine, or both. A public hearing and possible work session are slated for April 8 in, Senate Judiciary, at the request of the Oregon Judiciary.

  
  

Elections

By Barbara Klein

Related to party membership and registration requirements, HB 3908 was filed by the Rules Committee at the request of the Independent Party of Oregon, and is scheduled for a public hearing on 3/31. The Act increases the percentage of voters in the state required for a party to be a major political party from five percent to 10 percent. This would make the development of a new major party more difficult. The LWVOR has not yet  addressed this bill. 

Senator David Brock Smith is the sole sponsor of SB 210 to be heard by the Senate Rules Committee on 3/31. The bill replaces the Oregon vote-by-mail system and makes in-person voting on election day the standard method for conducting elections. It requires more features that the LWV opposes, some which are laid out in the federal SAVE act (which we also oppose). The bill requires voters to show valid government-issued picture ID when voting or requesting a ballot. It allows a by-mail ballot only if the elector is unable to vote in person on the date of the election. The bill removes a current requirement that the state pays postage for ballots returned by mail. It does allow vote-by-mail as the primary method for conducting elections for military and overseas electors and for electors who have a mailing address outside of Oregon. SB 210 refers the Act to the next general election ballot. It is unclear if this is only a courtesy hearing. 

Revenue  

By Natalie Briggs

Public Hearing - HB 2515

Authorizes public bodies to enter into an intergovernmental agreement to pool bond proceeds or other funds into commonly managed investments without the oversight of the State Treasurer and the Oregon Investment Council.

Summary:

The proposed bill would enable public bodies in Oregon such as local schools to enter

intergovernmental agreements for pooling bond proceeds or other funds into jointly managed investment pools, without requiring oversight from the State Treasurer or the Oregon Investment Council. Public bodies would also have the option to create investment pools for funds that aren’t specifically related to bond proceeds, allowing greater flexibility in managing different types of funds. Written agreements under ORS Chapter 190 would be required before each investment pool is established and used, to ensure accountability, and transparency among participating entities. When managing these pools, public bodies would be permitted to use the same powers and authority as the State Treasurer and Oregon Investment Council under existing laws.

Proponents of the bill feel that it would enable autonomy, quicker decision-making, and tailored investment strategies that meet the varying and specific needs of the participating bodies.

Committee Questions and Comments:

Committee would like to understand the feedback from the Oregon state treasurer

regarding this bill. Information from the state treasurer has been provided to the

committee for review.

Can school districts simply contract or engage a 3rd party for business office help, and

could this be a suitable alternative establishing separate investment pools?

This bill would result in the investment of public money in a private sector service rather

than with the state treasury. Who will provide oversight to ensure that these investments

are being managed appropriately?

Proponents of the bill responded that schools have existing investment policies at

the district level, and school boards are responsible for managing investments in

accordance with these policies

How would school board account for the possibility of a higher cost of management of

the funds compared to the existing system?

Proponents of the bill responded that school officials would be responsible for

investing responsibly.

Interested in reading additional reports?  Please see our Climate Emergency, Natural Resources, and Social Policy report sections.