Republican Sen. David Brock Smith is behind a proposal that would not not allow people over 72 to run for state office in Oregon. (Photo by Jordan Gale/Oregon Capital Chronicle)
Two years ago, Oregon lawmakers faced several dozen proposed constitutional amendments that reflected a range of frustrations with the state’s governing document.
Even more of that is back in this year’s session.
Lawmakers and committees have introduced 50 proposed constitutional amendments, with about twice as many in the Senate than the House. Any that pass — and the odds are few will — would be referred to the ballot November ballot in 2026 for a final decision.
Some of these proposals are new this session, but others have been tried and failed before. Many would involve a reduction or expansion of one side’s governing leverage.
Some of the proposals are from Democrats, who hold a supermajority in both chambers, giving them the authority to raise taxes without Republican support. But most are from Republicans The new Senate Republican leader, Daniel Bonham of The Dalles, is one of the most prolific amendment sponsors, fielding a dozen.
As in past sessions, one of the most overtly political of topics — redistricting — is proposed for constitutional amendment. Two Senate Joint Resolutions, 8 and 21, address legislative reapportionment by proposing a redistricting commission, an idea that has failed in the Legislature before. SJR 14 has another twist: It would increase Senate membership from 30 to 36, with each county electing a senator.
You might expect that Republicans, long in the minority, would look for ways to impede the majority’s ability to act, and you would be right. At least a half-dozen constitutional proposals seek to do just that by changing the rules for passing a measure.
Under current rules, bills pass with a simple majority except revenue raising bills, which require a three-fifths supermajority in favor.
Senate Joint Resolution 7, sponsored by Republican Sens. Bonham and Kim Thatcher of Keizer and Rep. E. Werner Reschke of Malin, would require a two-thirds majority in favor in each chamber to pass bills with an emergency clause to enact them sooner than normal. Now, such bills pass with a simple majority.
SJR 12 would mandate a two-thirds majority to pass bills in even-numbered sessions. SJR 26 would end even-year regular sessions completely.
Another amendment that could have unpredictable effects if passed, SJR 9 by Republican Sen. Fred Girod of Stayton, would “prohibit members of the legislative assembly from voting on legislative measures when faced with a conflict of interest. Permits a vote to occur if the legislative entity is otherwise unable to muster sufficient votes to pass or defeat the measure.”
Three more Republican-backed proposed amendments (SJRs 10, 11 and 23) would constrain legislative budget-writing.
Others with Republican backing would limit the Democratic-controlled executive branch. SJR 18 would limit the time spans of emergency declarations by the governor, and SJR 31 would block a governor or agency from mandating use of a vaccine. Under other SJRs, legislative approval would be needed for some pardons and other actions (19 and 20), or for new or increased fees assessed by agencies (HJR 1).
Approaching the question of control differently, a group of four Democrats — Sens. Khanh Pham of Portland and Jeff Golden of Ashland and Reps. David Gomberg of Otis and Nathan Sosa of Hillsboro — propose reducing the quorum needed to conduct business from two-thirds to one-half plus one. Republicans in recent years occasionally have used the high quorum requirement to block legislation.
Still others would affect voters, or ballot status for ballot issues, directly. Three — SJR 30 and HJRs 3 and 11 — would change the rules for petitions for initiatives, raising the bar for petitioners. Another, HJR 5 by Sen. David Brock Smith, would add a new qualification for running for state office: a maximum age of 72 as of election day. (That would mean that current Republican President Donald Trump would be disqualified from running for Oregon office.)
Apart from the relatively partisan amendments, a number of substantive topics — generally with clear partisan appeal on their own — also have been proposed. Many were framed as “constitutional rights,” including:
- A right to fish and hunt (SJR 13)
- An end to the death penalty in Oregon (SJR 16)
- A parental right to choose a school for their children (SJR 24)
- A right to carry a concealed firearm (SJR 27)
- A right to a “clean, safe and healthy environment’ (SJR 28)
Few of all these measures are likely to pass the Legislature and reach the ballot.
Voters, of course, can choose to gather enough signature to get them on the ballot themselves by petition. That could transform some of these ideas into political battles ranging far outside the statehouse.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.