There’s a new set of measures on the ballot, and they’ve set the stage for some of the most curious debates Oregon has seen in a while. The issues? Income for all (or at least for those without qualms about Measure 118), ranked choice voting (117), and giving an “independent” body the final say on what elected officials take home (116). Each measure holds a unique promise for change, but are they solutions or just more layers of Oregon’s convoluted political landscape?
Measure 118: A Corporate Tax for a Cash Pay-Out
Let’s start with Measure 118, or, as some might call it, “the Oregon Rebate” bill. The premise is straightforward: tax the big corporations making over $25 million in Oregon and redistribute the proceeds directly to Oregonians in the form of a basic income. Supporters tout it as a chance to fight poverty with a direct cash boost to every Oregonian, sparking enthusiasm from basic income advocates nationwide.
But this isn’t just a “grab the cash from big corporations and make it rain” scenario. Detractors argue that the tax, which targets sales rather than profits, will likely pass on costs to consumers. For a state that already shoulders a hefty cost of living, it’s not hard to see why Measure 118 is giving many Oregonians pause. And it’s not just the corporate players like Nike and Bi-Mart that oppose the measure—unions, politicians from both parties, and budget hawks alike have lined up against it, citing concerns about its impact on local budgets and economic ripple effects.
Interestingly, the measure also has some logistical quirks that leave experts scratching their heads. Legislative analysts predict that the payouts from Measure 118 could exceed the tax collected, hinting at a potential billion-dollar shortfall for state funds. Those in favor argue that the state’s analysis is flawed and that adjustments could make the rebate sustainable, but for now, there’s no shortage of skeptics on both sides of the aisle.
Measure 117: The Bold Experiment of Ranked Choice Voting
If Measure 118 is a financial gamble, Measure 117 is a shot at remaking Oregon’s political system with a brand-new approach to voting. The measure proposes ranked choice voting (RCV) for all state and federal races by 2028, a change that would let voters rank candidates by preference, aiming to ensure that the most popular (or perhaps least hated) candidate wins.
For proponents, ranked choice voting is the modern, inclusive, and democratic way to choose leaders. They point to cities like New York and San Francisco, which have adopted RCV with positive reception, as evidence that Oregonians can handle a ballot where voters rank candidates in order of preference rather than a simple checkmark. Supporters argue that RCV will lead to less divisive campaigns, giving minority candidates a better shot at victory and reducing vote-splitting.
Yet, the very complexities that make RCV “fairer” in theory also make it a potential minefield in practice. Critics argue that ranked choice voting often leads to voter confusion, recount complications, and sometimes less transparency, especially since some jurisdictions have seen miscounts and delays in results. Opponents are quick to remind us that ten states have already banned RCV. With Oregon’s track record of conducting clean and trusted elections, some ask if the system is really so broken that it warrants such a drastic overhaul.
Measure 116: The Salary Setting “Independent” Commission
Last but not least, Measure 116 brings us to a peculiar issue—how much should Oregon’s elected officials be paid, and who should decide? Measure 116 proposes to remove this decision from the hands of politicians and place it with a new independent commission. After all, the logic goes, who better to decide salaries than a group unmotivated by self-interest?
In theory, this commission would finally address an enduring issue in Oregon. With low salaries and high demands, being a state legislator in Oregon can be a tough proposition for anyone not independently wealthy. Critics argue that without better compensation, we’re just making it harder for diverse voices to enter the political arena.
But critics of Measure 116 are wary, questioning the measure’s language that leaves who sits on this “independent” commission up to the legislature itself. Could this commission become a cushy nest for former lawmakers, lobbyists, or other politically connected individuals? “Crony commission” is how one government accountability attorney dubbed it, sparking concern that it might simply trade one conflict of interest for another.
Even with the good intentions of avoiding the awkwardness of lawmakers deciding their own paychecks, many are skeptical of whether this measure actually achieves an impartial and truly independent commission.
Looking at the Bigger Picture: Do These Measures Fix Our Problems or Just Create New Ones?
It’s clear that Measures 116, 117, and 118 have bold intentions. They each claim to fix specific flaws in the state’s structure: a lack of livable wages for elected officials, an election system some consider out-of-date, and economic inequality. But as these proposals aim to tackle Oregon’s biggest challenges, they also risk deepening existing divides and creating new, unintended issues.
It seems that Oregon voters are being asked to weigh not just the immediate promises of these measures, but the very nature of how the state governs itself. Should the state experiment with a quasi-basic income funded by sales tax? Is it worth upending a voting system that’s largely trusted for the sake of more choice? And can we really create a commission immune to the familiar political jockeying?
Perhaps these three measures are emblematic of a state looking to stay progressive and innovative even as it grapples with practical concerns. But as voters cast their ballots, there’s no escaping the fact that each of these changes will have profound impacts—potentially not all of them welcome.
