In August 2014, there was an OCIR on Measure 90, the Oregon Open Primary Initiative, which would have created a top-two system of voting for most elections in the state.
Problems and Purpose
Oregon has a closed-primary election system: each major party has its own primary election in which only registered voters of that party are allowed to participate. Voters not registered with the major parties can only choose nonpartisan candidates in the primaries. This system means that a significant portion of the Oregonian electorate cannot participate meaningfully in the primaries: as of 2014, over 650,000 voters – almost a quarter of the 2.2 million voters in Oregon – were not affiliated with a political party.[1] That year, 70% of newly registered voters decided not to affiliate with either major party when registering.[2] Additionally, primary electorates, especially in closed primaries, tend to be more ideological than general election electorates, which compels candidates to adopt extreme more positions to win primaries. This process has been linked to increased partisan polarization.
Measure 90, the Oregon Open Primary Initiative, aimed to address these problems by creating a top-two system of election voting in most elections in the state.[3] In the primaries, all voters would get a ballot listing all primary candidates. Voters would be able to cast their ballot for any candidate regardless of party affiliation. Ballots would be required to include each candidate’s party registration and endorsements. [4] The top two candidates in the primary would advance to the general election. [5] Supporters argued that M90 would challenge the dominance of the two major parties by empowering political participation from minority parties and increasing competition in primary elections. [6]
The Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review (OCIR) was a way to “vet” Measure 90, something that was seen as particularly necessary because its passage would lead to long-term, significant changes to the Oregon voting system. Designed to address the problem of citizens lacking quality information on ballot initiatives, citizens’ initiative reviews provide each voter with information about an initiative’s key points, pros, and cons. “Voters deserve information, honesty, and respect” and any changes to election law “need factual and thorough consideration” wrote former Oregonian governor and Secretary of State Barbara Roberts while arguing in favor of the debate and deliberation encompassed in the M90 OCIR.[7]
Background History and Context
M90 was not the first attempt to introduce two-two primaries in Oregon. In 2006, supporters of top-two attempted to put a measure about it on the ballot but failed. [8] In 2008, Measure 65, which would have established a top-two primary election in which the two candidates with the most votes advance to the general election regardless of party affiliation, lost 66% to 34%.[9] This was despite the fact that supporters of the measure outspent the opposition by over $100,000 – supporters of M65 raised about $400,000 to the opposition’s $265,000.[10] M65 was proposed by former Oregon Secretaries of State Phil Keisling and Norma Paulus and supporters included former Governor John Kitzhaber, Associated Oregon Industries, the Oregon Business Association, and the Oregon Business Council.[11] Opponents included the Democratic Party, Libertarian Party, Republican Party, and Pacific Green Party, as well as the four largest unions in Oregon: the AFL-CIO, SEIU, AFSCME, and the Oregon Education Association.[12] The loss was partially attributed to how the ballot title was worded (“Changes General Election Nomination Processes for Major / Minor Party, Independent Candidates for Most Partisan Offices”); after the election, Keisling analyzed public opinion and argued that if the initiative had been described with more detail and clarity, 50% of those polled would have supported it.[13]
M90 was filed as a proposed initiative on January 28, 2014 and was approved for petition circulation on May 15.[14] Signatures were collected by the Every Oregon Voter Counts Petition Committee in a little over five weeks, the fastest effort to collect initiative signatures in Oregon history.[15] On July 14, Measure 90 was certified for the November ballot with 91,716 valid signatures.[16] The chief sponsor of Measure 90 was Oregon resident James Kelly, who argued that the current closed primary system unfairly excluded the over 650,000 Oregon voters who were not registered with one of the two major political parties. [17]
Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities
There were two main groups of organizers and funders of this process: first, those organizing and funding the OCIR, and second, those organizing and funding Measure 90 itself. Like all Citizens’ Initiative Reviews in Oregon, this OCIR was run by Healthy Democracy, a nonpartisan nonprofit that aims to increase democratic participation in public decision making. [18] It was financed by private donations and cost about $50,000.[19]
James Kelly was the chief petitioner for Measure 90 and Every Oregon Voter Counts was the petition committee. [20] Supporters of the initiative included Governor John Kitzhaber (D), Rep. Dennis Richardson (R), Michael Bloomberg, and Steve Hughes, state director of the Working Families Party (WFP). [21] The WFP argued that M90 would increase their ability to participate “meaningfully” in Oregonian elections by allowing WFP members to vote more effectively in primary races and by allowing endorsements from the WFP to appear on the ballot. [22]
There were two PACs registered to support M90: Vote Yes on 90 and Open Primaries. As of December 1, 2014, Vote Yes on 90 had raised $5,770,716.96 and spent $5,769,556.47 and Open Primaries had raised $2,750,000 and spent $2,662,247.94. [23] The petition committee, Every Oregon Voter Counts, raised $623,800 and spent $623,830. [24] Additionally, former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg donated $2,130,000 and Texas hedge fund manager and philanthropist John Arnold gave $1.8 million in support.[25]
Participant Recruitment and Selection
A CIR usually includes 18-24 registered voters who are demographically representative of the population. For this iteration of the OCIR, organizers of the process sent 5000 voters a letter inviting them to participate.[26] The pool of those interested was stratified to be representative of state demographics for ethnicity, sex, income, residence, and age.[27] Originally, 20 panelists were selected, but one had to drop out for health reasons, so ultimately 19 individuals participated in the CIR for M90.[28]
Methods and Tools Used
A CIR is a randomly-selected citizens’ jury consisting of participants who deliberate about a ballot initiative and then release a recommendation. For the CIR on Measure 90, panelists convened for 3.5 days – from August 17 to 20th, 2014 – in the Salem Convention Center. [29]
First, panelists were trained in how to deliberate with each other and how to evaluate the reliability of information. [30] Next, they heard arguments and explanations from advocates, opposition, and expert witnesses. [31] Then, they deliberated in both small and larger groups to a) identify key facts about the initiative, b) decide whether to support or oppose the initiative, and c) provide reasons for voting for and against the initiative. [32] These deliberations were structured, led, and monitored by a third-party neutral moderator who aimed to ensure that each panelist is heard and included in the deliberations. [33] At the end of day on August 20th, panelists created a Citizens’ Statement that listed key facts about M90, the number of panelists supporting and opposing the initiative, and a list of reasons one might support or oppose the initiative. In Oregon, the Statement is included in the official voters’ guide. [34]
The OCIR, like other Citizens’ Juries, includes a range of tools and techniques to guide the participatory process, including small-group deliberation, a question-and-answer period, debate, and plenary discussion.
What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation
Healthy Democracy and the Oregon CIR Commission led the Citizens Initiative Review for Measure 90 in Salem, Oregon from August 17 to August 20th, 2014.[35] After 3.5 days of deliberation, the OCIR for M90 voted 14-5 in opposition to the measure. [36] Major opposition arguments included the fact that “a broad coalition oppose[d] M90” and the concern that M90 would limit the voices of minority voters. “A diverse electorate needs choice & diversity in the General Election,” the fourteen panelists opposing the measure wrote.[37] The Citizens’ Statement listing these arguments and key findings was included in the official 2014 Oregon voters’ guide. The panelists listed the following reasons to support the measure: [38]
- Measure 90 would give all voters the same abilities regarding elections regardless of their party registration.
- Measure 90 would allow voters who are not registered with the Democrat or Republican parties to have a greater say in primary elections. The panelists noted that all Oregon taxpayers fund the primary election in May but individuals not registered with one of the two major parties cannot participate in the primaries of those parties.
- Measure 90 would allow anyone, regardless of party affiliation, to vote for any primary candidate.
- Measure 90 would increase competition in the primary.
- Measure 90 would still provide information about party endorsements because it would allow voters to see candidates’ personal party registration and party endorsements that the candidate had accepted.
The panelists listed the following reasons to oppose the measure: [39]
- A broad coalition opposed Measure 90.
- Measure 90 would hurt minority voters and parties by providing less choice in the general election.
- Measure 90 had several drafting errors that could potentially prevent minority parties from nominating candidates.
- Measure 90 could lead to contradictory election rules in different places because some counties in Oregon have their own election systems independent of the statewide system.
- Measure 90 would decrease choice in the general election, which has a much higher turnout than the primary.
Influence, Outcome, and Effects
CIRs aim have a communicative influence on members of the public who are convinced by the reasoning detailed in the Citizens’ Statement. In the case of M90, the electorate voted in the same direction as the panelists: M90 failed 68.23% (987,050 votes) to 31.77% (459,629 votes) on November 4, 2014. [40] Much of the public was undecided on the measure in the months before the CIR: a mid-August poll financed by opponents found that 34% of voters supported M90, 43% opposed it, and 23% were undecided.[41] This, however, did not change after the CIR had concluded: a state-wide telephone survey by DHM Research in mid-October, after most households should have received the Voters’ Pamphlet with the Citizens Statement, found that 25% of voters were still undecided on M90.[42] This raises questions about whether the OCIR’s involvement in M90 was responsible for the electorate’s eventual “no” vote.
Proponents largely did not mention the results of the OCIR between the end of the process and the November vote. They did, however, appear to hope to counteract the effect of the negative recommendation in the Oregon Voters Pamphlet by including pages in the Pamphlet with arguments against M90 that they then refuted. [43] Barbara Roberts, an opponent of M90, criticized these arguments as a “misleading” attempt to pin disingenuous arguments on the opposition campaign, and proponents of M90 eventually claimed the pages were “satire.” [44]
Analysis and Lessons Learned
The case of M90 is one of only a few examples of the OCIR failing to endorse a proposal and its recommendation being followed by the electorate. In 2014, John Gastil and Katherine R. Knobloch asked Oregon citizens how much information they received from Oregon CIR Citizens’ Statements. For Measure 90, 33% of survey respondents said the Statement provided them with no new information, 55% said the Statement was somewhat informative, and 12% said the Statement was very informative.[45] These results, along with the fact that public opinion polls both before and after the results of the OCIR were released found little change in the number of undecided voters, indicate that the OCIR for M90 was not a decisive factor in the defeat of M90. Experts on ballot initiatives argued that M90 was likely doomed from the start because it never polled at over 50%; generally, initiatives need to start out with majority support and hope they don’t lose it – an initiative facing an uphill battle is unlikely to pass.[46] The OCIR was also not the only institution arguing against the proposal; the opposition coalition contained a wide range of organizations that likely appealed to large and diverse portions of the electorate. For example, opponents of M90 included both the Democratic and Republican parties, the Progressive Party, and numerous labor unions.[47] In this case, the OCIR functioned as an ally of institutions aiming to prevent large scale institutional reforms from being forced on the electorate without adequate understanding or deliberation.
There were no formal attempts to introduce top-two primaries in Oregon between 2014 and 2021. In early 2022, petitioners began gathering signatures to get a proposed amendment on the ballot. This amendment would not necessarily impose top-two primaries; as of April 2022, the proposed initiative would require that all voters be able to vote in a state-funded primary for any candidate for Congress, the Oregon Legislature, or other statewide office regardless of political party, but it does not specify how those primaries should be run.[48] The effort is being led by Ed Doyle, president of Oregon Open Primaries. [49] This most recent push to open Oregon’s primaries has been driven by the increasing numbers of nonaffiliated voters, especially since the number of nonaffiliated voters surpassed the number of registered Democrats in 2022. [50] Though in 2014 both major parties opposed the effort to open primaries, they have not done so yet this time, possibly in part because the rise in nonaffiliated voters means both parties need to connect with voters in the general election who are not registered with either party. [51]
See Also
Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review
References
Gastil, John, and Michael Broghammer. “Do Hostile Media Perceptions Constrain Minipublics? A Study of How Oregon Voters Perceive Citizens' Statements.” Volume 17, vol. 17, no. 2, 2021, https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.982.
Gastil, John. “Evidence from Oregon Shows That Citizens' Initiative Reviews Can Improve Voters' Decision-Making about Ballot Measures.” LSE Phelan US Centre, 17 Dec. 2017, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2017/12/13/evidence-from-oregon-shows-that-citizens-initiative-reviews-can-improve-voters-decision-making-about-ballot-measures/.
Gauthier, Alex. “Measure 90 Fails to Appeal to Midterm Voters in Oregon.” Independent Voter Network, 5 Nov. 2014.
Juillerat, Lee. “Measure 90: Top-two system.” Herald and News, 19 Oct. 2014.
Mapes, Jeff. “Backers of 'Top Two' Primary Initiative Submit 140,000 Signatures to Oregon Secretary of State.” The Oregonian, Advance Local Media LLC, 24 June 2014, https://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/2014/06/backers_of_top_two_primary_ini.html.
Mapes, Jeff. “BLOG: Mapes on Politics: Polls show Oregon ‘top two’ primary starts out without a majority.” Mapes on Politics, 4 Sep. 2014.
Mapes, Jeff. “BLOG: Mapes on Politics: Oregon ‘top two’ primary proposal gets thumbs down from citizens review panel.” Mapes on Politics, 21 Aug. 2014.
Mapes, Jeff. “Oregon Top Two Primary Ballot Measure May Get Big Donation from Billionaire Michael Bloomberg.” The Oregonian, Advance Local Media LLC, 4 Aug. 2014.
Mapes, Jeff. “Working Families Party Endorses Top-Two Primary Initiative on Oregon Ballot.” The Oregonian, Advance Local Media LLC, 25 July 2014, https://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/2014/07/working_families_party_endorse_1.html.
Nesbitt, Tim. “‘Silver linings playbooks’ for defeated measures 90 and 92.” The Oregonian, Advance Local Media LLC, 7 Nov. 2014.
“Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review.” Participedia, https://participedia.net/method/592.
“Oregon Open Primary Initiative, Measure 90 (2014).” Ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Open_Primary_Initiative,_Measure_90_(2014).
“Oregon Top Two Elections, Measure 65 (2008).” Ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Top_Two_Elections,_Measure_65_(2008).
“Our Story.” Healthy Democracy, https://healthydemocracy.org/who-we-are/our-story/.
Roberts, Barbara. “Measure 90 not the Oregon way.” East Oregonian, 16 Oct. 2014.
Shumway, Julia. “Rise in Nonaffiliated Voters Spurs Push to Open Oregon Primaries.” Oregon Capital Chronicle, 5 Apr. 2022, https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2022/04/05/rise-in-nonaffiliated-voters-spurs-push-to-open-oregon-primaries/.
Targeted News Service. “Oregon Dems: Democratic Party of Oregon Opposes Measure 90.” Targeted News Service, 19 Aug. 2014.
Winger, Richard. “Oregon Citizens Initiative Review Commission, Randomly Selected Panel of Voters, Opposes Oregon Top-Two Initiative by Vote of 14-5.” Ballot Access News, 21 Aug. 2014.
Woolington, Josephine. “‘Top-two’ primary, college bonds defeated.” The Register Guard. 5 Nov. 2014.
Wubbold, Ari. “Evaluating the Impact of Oregon's Citizen Initiative Review (CIR) on Voter Decisions.” 16 Mar. 2018, https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.6242.
External Links
Ballotpedia entry - Oregon Open Primary Initiative, Measure 90 (2014)
Notes
[1] Gauthier, Alex. “Measure 90 Fails to Appeal to Midterm Voters in Oregon.” Independent Voter Network, 5 Nov. 2014.
[2] Nesbitt, Tim. “‘Silver linings playbooks’ for defeated measures 90 and 92.” The Oregonian, Advance Local Media LLC, 7 Nov. 2014.
[3] “Oregon Open Primary Initiative, Measure 90 (2014).” Ballotpedia
[4] “Oregon Open Primary Initiative, Measure 90 (2014).” Ballotpedia
[5] “Oregon Open Primary Initiative, Measure 90 (2014).” Ballotpedia
[6] “Oregon Open Primary Initiative, Measure 90 (2014).” Ballotpedia
[7] Roberts, Barbara. “Measure 90 not the Oregon way.” East Oregonian, 16 Oct. 2014.
[8] “Oregon Open Primary Initiative, Measure 90 (2014).” Ballotpedia
[9] “Oregon Open Primary Initiative, Measure 90 (2014).” Ballotpedia
[10] “Oregon Top Two Elections, Measure 65 (2008).” Ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Top_Two_Elections,_Measure_65_(2008).
[11] “Oregon Top Two Elections, Measure 65 (2008).” Ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Top_Two_Elections,_Measure_65_(2008).
[12] “Oregon Top Two Elections, Measure 65 (2008).” Ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Top_Two_Elections,_Measure_65_(2008).
[13] “Oregon Top Two Elections, Measure 65 (2008).” Ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Top_Two_Elections,_Measure_65_(2008).
[14] “Oregon Open Primary Initiative, Measure 90 (2014).” Ballotpedia
[15] Maples, Jeff. “Backers of 'Top Two' Primary Initiative Submit 140,000 Signatures to Oregon Secretary of State.” The Oregonian, Advance Local Media LLC, 24 June 2014
[16] “Oregon Open Primary Initiative, Measure 90 (2014).” Ballotpedia
[17] “Oregon Open Primary Initiative, Measure 90 (2014).” Ballotpedia
[18] “Our Story.” Healthy Democracy
[19] Mapes, Jeff. “BLOG: Mapes on Politics: Oregon ‘top two’ primary proposal gets thumbs down from citizens review panel.” Mapes on Politics, 21 Aug. 2014.
[20] “Oregon Open Primary Initiative, Measure 90 (2014).” Ballotpedia
[21] “Oregon Open Primary Initiative, Measure 90 (2014).” Ballotpedia
[22] “Oregon Open Primary Initiative, Measure 90 (2014).” Ballotpedia
[23] “Oregon Open Primary Initiative, Measure 90 (2014).” Ballotpedia
[24] “Oregon Open Primary Initiative, Measure 90 (2014).” Ballotpedia
[25] Woolington, Josephine. “‘Top-two’ primary, college bonds defeated.” The Register Guard. 5 Nov. 2014.
[26] Winger, Richard. “Oregon Citizens Initiative Review Commission, Randomly Selected Panel of Voters, Opposes Oregon Top-Two Initiative by Vote of 14-5.” Ballot Access News, 21 Aug. 2014
[27] Winger, Richard. “Oregon Citizens Initiative Review Commission, Randomly Selected Panel of Voters, Opposes Oregon Top-Two Initiative by Vote of 14-5.” Ballot Access News, 21 Aug. 2014
[28] Winger, Richard. “Oregon Citizens Initiative Review Commission, Randomly Selected Panel of Voters, Opposes Oregon Top-Two Initiative by Vote of 14-5.” Ballot Access News, 21 Aug. 2014
[29] Winger, Richard. “Oregon Citizens Initiative Review Commission, Randomly Selected Panel of Voters, Opposes Oregon Top-Two Initiative by Vote of 14-5.” Ballot Access News, 21 Aug. 2014
[30] “Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review.” Participedia
[31] “Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review.” Participedia
[32] “Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review.” Participedia
[33] “Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review.” Participedia
[34] “Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review.” Participedia
[35] Gastil, John, and Michael Broghammer. “Do Hostile Media Perceptions Constrain Minipublics? A Study of How Oregon Voters Perceive Citizens' Statements.” Volume 17, vol. 17, no. 2, 2021
[36] “Oregon Open Primary Initiative, Measure 90 (2014).” Ballotpedia
[37] “Oregon Open Primary Initiative, Measure 90 (2014).” Ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Open_Primary_Initiative,_Measure_90_(2014).
[38] “Oregon Open Primary Initiative, Measure 90 (2014).” Ballotpedia
[39] “Oregon Open Primary Initiative, Measure 90 (2014).” Ballotpedia
[40] “Oregon Open Primary Initiative, Measure 90 (2014).” Ballotpedia
[41] Mapes, Jeff. “BLOG: Mapes on Politics: Polls show Oregon ‘top two’ primary starts out without a majority.” Mapes on Politics, 4 Sep. 2014.
[42] Juillerat, Lee. “Measure 90: Top-two system.” Herald and News, 19 Oct. 2014.
[43] Roberts, Barbara. “Measure 90 not the Oregon way.” East Oregonian, 16 Oct. 2014.
[44] Roberts, Barbara. “Measure 90 not the Oregon way.” East Oregonian, 16 Oct. 2014.
[45] Wubbold, Ari. “Evaluating the Impact of Oregon's Citizen Initiative Review (CIR) on Voter Decisions.” 16 Mar. 2018
[46] Nesbitt, Tim. “‘Silver linings playbooks’ for defeated measures 90 and 92.” The Oregonian, Advance Local Media LLC, 7 Nov. 2014.
[47] Targeted News Service. “Oregon Dems: Democratic Party of Oregon Opposes Measure 90.” Targeted News Service, 19 Aug. 2014.
[48] Shumway, Julia. “Rise in Nonaffiliated Voters Spurs Push to Open Oregon Primaries.” Oregon Capital Chronicle, 5 Apr. 2022, https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2022/04/05/rise-in-nonaffiliated-voters-spurs-push-to-open-oregon-primaries/.
[49] Shumway, Julia. “Rise in Nonaffiliated Voters Spurs Push to Open Oregon Primaries.” Oregon Capital Chronicle, 5 Apr. 2022, https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2022/04/05/rise-in-nonaffiliated-voters-spurs-push-to-open-oregon-primaries/.
[50] Shumway, Julia. “Rise in Nonaffiliated Voters Spurs Push to Open Oregon Primaries.” Oregon Capital Chronicle, 5 Apr. 2022, https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2022/04/05/rise-in-nonaffiliated-voters-spurs-push-to-open-oregon-primaries/.
[51] Shumway, Julia. “Rise in Nonaffiliated Voters Spurs Push to Open Oregon Primaries.” Oregon Capital Chronicle, 5 Apr. 2022, https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2022/04/05/rise-in-nonaffiliated-voters-spurs-push-to-open-oregon-primaries/.