Oregon Measure 105, Repeal Sanctuary State Law Initiative (2018)
From Ballotpedia - Reading time: 28 min
- General election: Nov. 6
- Voter registration deadline: Oct. 16
- Early voting: N/A
- Absentee voting deadline: Nov. 6
- Online registration: Yes
- Same-day registration: N/A (all-mail elections)
- Voter ID: N/A
- Poll times: N/A
| Oregon Measure 105 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 6, 2018 | |
| Topic Immigration | |
Status Defeated | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
Oregon Measure 105, the Repeal Sanctuary State Law Initiative, was on the ballot in Oregon as an initiated state statute on November 6, 2018. It was defeated.
| A yes vote supported this ballot initiative to repeal Oregon's sanctuary state law which limits the cooperation of local law enforcement with federal immigration enforcement. |
| A no vote opposed this ballot initiative, thereby keeping the state’s sanctuary law which limits the cooperation of local law enforcement with federal immigration enforcement. |
Contents
Election results[edit]
|
Oregon Measure 105 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 675,389 | 36.54% | ||
|
|
1,172,774 | 63.46% | ||
Overview[edit]
Measure design[edit]
Measure 105 would have repealed the state law, Oregon Revised Statute 181A.820, which forbids state agencies, including law enforcement, from using state resources or personnel to detect or apprehend persons whose only violation of the law is that of federal immigration law.
Measure 105 would have allowed any law enforcement agency to use agency funds, equipment, and personnel to detect and apprehend people whose only violation of the law is a violation of federal immigration law.[1]
When did Oregon become a sanctuary state?[edit]
Oregon's sanctuary law was passed in 1987. According to Rewire News, the law was passed in response to racial profiling of immigrants by local, state, and federal law enforcement working together.[2] The sanctuary law started out as House Bill 2314, which passed in the House on February 20, 1987, with 54 yes votes to three no votes. The three no votes came from Republican representatives— Verner Anderson (R-45), George L. Gilman (R-50), and George Trahern (R-49). The bill passed the Senate with amendments by a vote of 29-1. The single no vote came from Sen. Lenn Hannon (R). The House concurred with the Senate’s amendments and repassed the measure with 58 yes votes and one no vote, from Rep. Trahern (R-26).[3][4]
Immigration as a national issue[edit]
The Federation for American Immigration Reform said, "Thirty years after becoming the first sanctuary state in the nation, Oregon voters will have a chance to make it the first ex-sanctuary state... [leaving] its dangerous sanctuary policies behind."[5]
Andrea Williams of Causa, which describes itself as an immigrant rights organization, said, "This ballot measure has national implications. The Federation for American Immigration Reform has created a national strategy group, and their ambitions are much larger than Oregon. Success here will open the door for other jurisdictions and states to question their laws as well."[6]
President Donald Trump has stated his opposition to sanctuary jurisdictions—cities, counties, or states that have enacted policies that limit the involvement of local officials in the enforcement of federal immigration law—and said that he would cancel all federal funding to them. On January 25, 2017, Trump took his first action against sanctuary jurisdictions by signing an executive order designed to make them ineligible for federal grants and prioritize the deportation of individuals who pose a threat to public safety. The order was challenged by multiple cities and the state of California.[7][8]
When asked if she would give up such federal funding, Brown said Oregon's funding was not at risk and that she was "willing to do what's right to make sure we protect Oregonians, we protect our culture and we protect our economy." Pacific University politics professor Jim Moore said, "This fits into the West Coast ethos. It's not like Oregon is the 'weird state out' in any of this."[9]
How did this measure get on the ballot?[edit]
Three Republican members of the Oregon House of Representatives— Sal Esquivel (R-6), Mike Nearman (R-23), and Greg Barreto (R-58)— filed the proposal with the secretary of state's office on April 25, 2017. Esquivel said, "It's time that Oregon complies with federal law like it should have in the first place. If you want to become an American become an American. If you want to come here for economic advantages and do it illegally then I don't think you should belong here."[10]
Who was behind the campaigns surrounding the measure?[edit]
The following two committees were registered to support Measure 105:[11]
- The Repeal Oregon Sanctuary Law Committee (ROSLC)
- Parent's Education Association PAC
Together, they had raised $477,388.06 and had spent $482,733.40
The following five measure committees were registered to oppose Measure 105:[11]
- Oregonians United Against Profiling
- Defend Oregon
- Oregon Right to Health
- Team Oregon
- Oregonians for Sanctuary
Together, they had raised $12.05 million and had spent $11.15 million.
Text of measure[edit]
Ballot title[edit]
The ballot title for the initiative was as follows:[12]
| “ |
Repeals law limiting use of state/local law enforcement resources to enforce federal immigration laws Result of' “Yes” Vote: “Yes” vote repeals law limiting (with exceptions) use of state/local law enforcement resources for detecting/apprehending persons suspected only of violating federal immigration laws. Result of “No” vote: “No” vote retains law limiting (with exceptions) use of state /local law enforcement resources for detecting/apprehending persons suspected only of violating federal immigration laws. [13] |
” |
Ballot summary[edit]
The ballot summary for the initiative was as follows:[12]
| “ | Measure repeals ORS 181A.820, which limits (with
exceptions) the use of state and local law enforcement money, equipment and personnel for “detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law” pertains to their immigration status. Current exceptions allow using law enforcement resources to:
immigration laws who are also accused of other violations of law;
violation of federal immigration laws” who are “subject to arrest for the crime pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by a federal magistrate”;
immigration status of arrested persons or “request criminal investigation information with reference to persons named in records of” federal immigration officials.[13] |
” |
Full text[edit]
Measure 105 would have repealed Oregon Revised Statute 181A.820. The following law would have been repealed:[1]
(1) No law enforcement agency of the State of Oregon or of any political subdivision of the state shall use agency moneys, equipment or personnel for the purpose of detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is that they are persons of foreign citizenship present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, a law enforcement agency may exchange information with the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the United States Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services and the United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection in order to:
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, a law enforcement agency may arrest any person who:
(4) For purposes of subsection (1) of this section, the Bureau of Labor and Industries is not a law enforcement agency. (5) As used in this section, “warrant of arrest” has the meaning given that term in ORS 131.005. [Formerly 181.850] |
Readability score[edit]
- See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018
| Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure.
In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here. |
Support[edit]
- Supporters of Measure 105 wanted to remove the state's sanctuary law.
Oregon Representatives Sal Esquivel (R-6), Mike Nearman (R-23), and Greg Barreto (R-58) were the chief sponsors of Measure 105. The Repeal Oregon Sanctuary Law Committee, also known as Stop Oregon Sanctuaries led the campaign in support of the measure.[14]
Supporters[edit]
- Oregonians for Immigration Reform[15]
- Oregon state representative and gubernatorial candidate Knute Buehler (R)[16]
- Oregon County Sheriffs in 18 counties[17]
- Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)
- The Oregon Republican Party[18]
Arguments[edit]
- Rep. Sal Esquivel (R-6) said, "It's time that Oregon complies with federal law like it should have in the first place. If you want to become an American become an American. If you want to come here for economic advantages and do it illegally then I don't think you should belong here."[19]
- Oregonians for Immigration Reform argued that "Since 1987, Oregon Revised Statute 181A.820 has kept Oregon's state and local law enforcement agencies from offering their fullest cooperation to the U.S. authorities charged with identifying and detaining illegal aliens. In doing so, the law has effectively rendered Oregon a "sanctuary" state for foreigners here illegally. Activists affiliated with Oregonians for Immigration Reform have filed Initiative Petition 22 with the Oregon Secretary of State's Elections Division. IP 22's goal: to place a measure onto the November 2018 statewide ballot that will give Oregonians the chance to repeal ORS 181A.820.[14]
- Stop Oregon Sanctuaries argued that "Illegal aliens can and do harm the American citizens to whom Oregon owes its foremost responsibility. For this reason, enforcement of U.S. immigration law is central to the duties of Oregon's police departments and sheriff's offices. Sign Initiative Petition 22 to help give Oregonians the chance to repeal ORS 181A.820 -- and to free Oregon law enforcement to better protect Oregonians from criminal aliens."[20]
- Jim Ludwick, communications director for Oregonians for Immigration Reform, said, "We're seeing right now this big hub bub about the issue of children being separated from their parents when they cross the border illegally, well, any time somebody breaks the law and they're incarcerated, they're always separated from their children."[21] After signatures were submitted on July 5, 2018, Ludwick said, "This November, Oregonians who support the rule of law will demonstrate ... with their votes. We're confident they'll choose to repeal the state's dangerous sanctuary law."[22]
- Cynthia Kendoll, president of Oregonians for Immigration Reform, said after submitting signatures, "This afternoon, our committee took a huge step toward repealing Oregon's sanctuary statute and thereby freeing our police and sheriffs to cooperate more easily with federal immigration authorities enforcing U.S. immigration law." Kendoll also said, "It seems really unwise and foolish to have this protected class of people, where cooperation between agencies is prohibited."[22][23]
- Oregon state representative and gubernatorial candidate Knute Buehler (R) said, "I see it as way to remove barriers between local and state law enforcement communicating and cooperating with federal officials to keep Oregonians safe. It’s regrettable that this measure is even needed.”[24]
Opposition[edit]
- Opponents of Measure 105 opposed repealing Oregon's sanctuary state law. Therefore, opponents of the initiative wanted to keep the state's sanctuary law.
Oregonians United Against Profiling led the campaign in opposition to Measure 105.[25]
Opponents[edit]
Following is a list of business, law enforcement, officials, and other organizations that have endorsed the Oregonians United Against Profiling campaign or otherwise indicated their opposition to Measure 105:[26]
Businesses[edit]
Officials[edit]
Law Enforcement[edit]
Organizations[edit]
|
Arguments[edit]
- Oregonians United Against Profiling argued, "Today’s immigrants join the long American tradition of coming here in search of a better life and the freedom and opportunity Oregon and our nation offers. No Oregonian, including immigrant Oregonians, should live in fear that doing everyday things like going to work, going to school or reporting crimes to the police could result in harassment or families being torn apart."[26] The group also featured the following arguments on its website:[33]
| “ |
A No vote on Measure 105 will keep the law in place, ensuring that:
|
” |
- Nike CEO Mark Parker wrote, "Nike employs people from all over the world; we can attest to the unique value, contributions, and innovations that people from diverse backgrounds add to Nike and to Oregon's culture and economy. Ending Oregon's sanctuary law will damage Oregon's long-standing track record as a place that attracts diverse talent from across the globe."[34]
- Columbia Sportswear CEO Tim Boyle wrote, "Oregon is enriched by our diversity, and immigrants living in Oregon are part of our families, communities, workplaces, and places of worship. Measure 105 does not align with Oregon values."[34]
- Washington County District Attorney Kevin Barton and Washington County Sheriff Pat Garrett wrote in the Portland Tribune, "As district attorney and sheriff, we are the elected law enforcement leaders in Washington County. One of our primary obligations is to ensure public safety. We believe every member of our community has the right to live, work and raise a family in safety and that an essential aspect of being safe is feeling safe and having access to justice. This measure seeks to repeal ORS 181A.820, a 31-year-old Oregon law that controls when local law enforcement agencies may use local resources to enforce federal immigration laws. We are compelled to speak because we believe this ballot measure may negatively impact public safety. Our community is safer when citizens and non-citizens alike report crimes and testify in court so we can arrest and prosecute criminals. We believe that ORS 181A.820 strikes the right balance to keep our community safe and we oppose the effort to repeal it.[29]
- Oregon League of Conservation Voters Executive Director Doug Moore and Oregon Sierra Club Director Erica Stock wrote, "If passed by Oregon voters, it would abolish a law dating back 30 years, which has been called a model for protecting local resources from being used to supplant federal immigration enforcement. For 30 years, this law has ensured our local police are able to focus on public safety, instead of being held hostage to the whims of federal immigration policy."[35]
- Defend Oregon stated, "The administration in Washington, DC has set a radical new path on immigration: deporting thousands of law-abiding immigrants from their communities, separating children from their parents, and introducing racial and religious profiling to immigration law. Measure 105 would bring those same policies to Oregon. By voting no, we can show that Oregon wants no part of Donald Trump’s immigration policies."[36]
- Joel Iboa of Causa, a local immigrant rights’ group, said, “Getting rid of this law opens the door to serious harassment and civil rights violations of our friends, families, and co-workers, simply because they are perceived to be undocumented." Iboa also said that local law enforcement could, in effect, be "another arm of Trump’s deportation force," and that "Immigrants, including those who may be undocumented, shouldn’t have to live in fear that doing basic things like going to work or school could result ... in their families being torn apart.”[23]
- Andrea Gonzalez, of the Lower Columbia Hispanic Council, said, "I think safety is a concern for people. I think it’s just another, kind of, scare tactic toward the immigrant community. As someone who is brown, I will be profiled by my race where other people wouldn’t. I think that’s true for a lot of rural communities. They don’t know what it’s like to be racially profiled, so they won’t notice, but people of color will obviously.”[37]
Oregon County Sheriff's stances on Measure 105[edit]
Sheriffs in 18 Oregon counties (shaded orange) had signed a letter in support of Measure 105. Two county sheriffs (shaded blue) have come out in opposition to the measure. Ballotpedia did not identify sheriff's stances in counties shaded in gray.
Media editorials[edit]
- See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements
Support[edit]
- The Baker City Herald said: "We think Oregon voters should repeal the state’s 31-year-old 'sanctuary' statute by approving Ballot Measure 105 on the Nov. 6 ballot. We agree with Knute Buehler, the Republican candidate for governor, who said he will vote for Measure 105 because he believes repealing the sanctuary law will eliminate confusion and potential discrepancies in how individual counties deal with illegal immigration issues. Opponents of the measure contend its passage would encourage police to engage in the noxious tactic of racial profiling. But the 1987 “sanctuary” law is not the only bulwark against profiling. In 2015 Gov. Kate Brown signed a law — one we support — that creates a database of profiling complaints against police, and an independent task force to review those complaints."[38]
Opposition[edit]
- The Portland Tribune said: "Federal agents for Immigration and Customs Enforcement are supposed to handle immigration concerns, while police officers and sheriff's deputies focus on criminal matters. As far as crime rates go, statistics show immigrants in general are less likely than native-born Americans to commit criminal offenses. We agree with local law enforcement officials that they should concentrate on preventing and solving criminal violations and communicate with ICE when it is appropriate on immigration cases. Voters should reject Measure 105."[39]
- The Oregonian said: "Voters should reject Measure 105, too, knowing that a no vote will help to guarantee our ever-dwindling public safety dollars will be spent on policing local laws - not those that federal agents are paid to enforce. Measure 105 supporters have relied on fear tactics, telling voters that illegal entry is a "precursor" to other crimes. In fact, simply being in the country without authorization -- for instance if someone overstays a visa - isn't a crime but a civil offense. Also, numerous studies have shown that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than American citizens. As lawmakers did in 1987, Oregonians should stand together against racial profiling and reject changes to a law that keeps us all safe."[40]
- The Bend Bulletin said: "Measure 105 isn’t about public safety. Rather, it’s an unfortunate product of our political moment, and it encourages people to vote mad according to their views of Donald Trump, Kate Brown, the wall, the “resistance,” the nation’s incoherent immigration policy, the proliferation of sanctuary cities, you name it. While voting mad can feel pretty good, it often doesn’t produce thoughtful policy, which is what Oregonians ought to want. For that reason, voters should defeat Measure 105."[41]
- The Register-Guard said: "Oregon has been a sanctuary state for three decades. We don’t spend state or local law enforcement resources assisting federal immigration enforcement when the only violation is immigration status. If an undocumented immigrant commits another crime, that’s another matter. Measure 105 asks voters to repeal the sanctuary law. They should not."[42]
- The Salem Weekly said: "Repealing the Sanctuary Law is not a constructive way to deal with complex problems. Please vote no on Measure 105."[43]
- Willamette Week said: "Yes, people living in Oregon without legal authorization have broken a law. But it is a federal law, and there is an entire federal agency dedicated to enforcing it: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Oregon police shouldn't be enlisted to do ICE agents' jobs. Proponents' fear-mongering claims about criminal immigrants are so overblown they're essentially fiction. Data shows immigrants are far less likely to commit crimes than U.S. citizens. Reject this bad idea."[44]
- The Herald and News wrote, "We still think it’s a good idea, though the board was split on it. On one hand, people who are in the country illegally are subject to our laws and when they break them, should be punished just like a regular citizen. But there should be a strict dividing line between state and federal authority. Many county sheriff’s want to see this law repealed. Yet, this is a “feel good” law, politically motivated, and the change is cosmetic. Keep the separation of law enforcement powers, Vote 'No.'"[45]
Additional editorials opposing Measure 105[edit]
In addition to the above media endorsements, the following editorial boards have endorsed a no vote on the measure:
- The Corvallis Gazette-Times[46]
Campaign finance[edit]
| Total campaign contributions: | |
| Support: | $477,388.06 |
| Opposition: | $12,048,521.34 |
The following two committees were registered to support Measure 105:[11]
- The Repeal Oregon Sanctuary Law Committee (ROSLC)
- Parent's Education Association PAC
Together, they had raised $477,388.06 and had spent $482,733.40
The following five measure committees were registered to oppose Measure 105:[11]
- Oregonians United Against Profiling
- Defend Oregon
- Oregon Right to Health
- Team Oregon
- Oregonians for Sanctuary
Together, they had raised $12.05 million and had spent $11.15 million.
Support[edit]
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Top donors[edit]
Following are the top two donors to the support campaign. Together, they contributed 71.38 percent of the total contributions.
| Donor | Cash | In-kind | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) | $0.00 | $177,797.61 | $177,797.61 |
| Oregonians for Immigration Reform | $67,500.00 | $95,470.62 | $162,970.62 |
Opposition[edit]
The top five donors to Oregonians United Against Profiling opposition to Measure 105 provided 66 percent of the total contributions to the committee.[11]
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Top donors[edit]
Top donors listed here are the top donors for the committee that was exclusively opposing Measure 105: Oregonians United Against Profiling. Top donors to the other committees are not included in the chart below because they were registered with a position on multiple measures on the ballot, making it impossible to determine on which measure the committee's funds were used. Shown below are donors who had given more than $100,000.[11]
| Donor | Cash | In-kind | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Northwest Health Foundation | $620,000.00 | $0.00 | $620,000.00 |
| ACLU | $489,000.00 | $166,126.27 | $655,126.27 |
| ACLU of Oregon | $150,000.00 | $327,682.19 | $477,682.19 |
| Oregon State Council of Service Emoloyees | $105,000.00 | $0.00 | $105,000.00 |
Methodology[edit]
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
Polls[edit]
- See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls and 2018 ballot measure polls
- A no vote is a vote to retain the state's sanctuary law while a yes vote is a vote to repeal it.
Below are results of polls that asked respondents how they would vote on Measure 105. Also displayed are the dates the poll was conducted, the number of respondents, and the poll's margin of error.
| Oregon Measure 105 | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Yes- support | No- oppose | Undecided | Margin of error | Sample size | ||||||||||||||
| DHM Research Poll 10/4/18 - 10/11/18 | 32.0% | 45.0% | 23.0% | +/-4.4 | 500 | ||||||||||||||
| Riley Research Associates Poll 9/24/18 - 10/7/18 | 40.0% | 51.0% | 9.0% | +/-5.2 | 356 | ||||||||||||||
| Hoffman Research Group Poll 9/12/18 - 9/13/18 | 31.0% | 50.0% | 19.0% | +/-3.80 | 680 | ||||||||||||||
| AVERAGES | 34.33% | 48.67% | 17% | +/-4.47 | 512 | ||||||||||||||
| Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org. | |||||||||||||||||||
}}
Background[edit]
Oregon's sanctuary law[edit]
Oregon's sanctuary law was signed by the Governor on July 7, 1987. The sanctuary law started out as House Bill 2314 of 1987. The bill passed in the House on February 20, 1987, in a vote of 54-3, with three members excused. The three representatives that voted no were Reps. Verner Anderson (R-45), George L. Gilman (R-50), and George Trahern (R-49). On June 9, 1987, the bill passed the Senate with amendments by a vote of 29-1. The single no vote came from Sen. Lenn Hannon (R). On June 11, the House concurred with the Senate’s amendments and repassed the measure with 58 yes votes and one no vote, from Rep. Trahern (R-26). One representative was excused from voting. Though the law is cited as ORS 181A.820 now, it was referred to then as ORS 181.850.[47][48]
Sanctuary jurisdictions[edit]
- See also: Sanctuary jurisdictions
In general, the term sanctuary jurisdiction refers to a city, county, or state that has enacted policies that limit local officials' involvement in the enforcement of federal immigration law. While a jurisdiction may self-identify or be described by others as a sanctuary jurisdiction, the specific policies that prompt the designation are disputed and there is no official definition of the term in federal law. Examples of sanctuary policies include policies that bar local law enforcement officers from asking about immigration status or arresting individuals who violate federal immigration law.
The Center for Immigration Studies identified seven states as sanctuary states: California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont.
A June 2017 study by Ballotpedia found that 32 of the largest 100 cities by population in the United States fit Ballotpedia's definition of a sanctuary jurisdiction.
The map below from the Center of Immigration Studies pinpoints cities (red), counties (yellow), and states (green) that have sanctuary laws, ordinances, or policies. An interactive version of the map is available here.[49]
Level of cooperation with ICE by county[edit]
The map below was created by Victoria Beckley for the Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC). The ILRC describes its mission as "to work with and educate immigrants, community organizations, and the legal sector to continue to build a democratic society that values diversity and the rights of all people."[50] The map shows county policies on assisting immigration enforcement. An interactive version of this map can be found here.[51]
- Methodology from the Immigrant Legal Resource Center: "This map shows the degree to which local law enforcement offer assistance to federal immigration authorities, as well as the degree to which localities have enacted laws or policies limiting their involvement in federal immigration enforcement. The map is based on a 7-point rubric of the types of policy choices that most affect local engagement in immigration enforcement. Because the 7 factors are cumulative, counties of the same color do not necessarily have the same policies, but rather offer the same number of types of assistance to ICE. In addition, the map reflects existing policy statements or laws, but not the actual level of compliance with those laws."[52]
January 25, 2017: Trump executive order on sanctuary jurisdictions[edit]
- See also: Federal policy on immigration, 2017-2020
On January 25, 2017, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that introduced penalties against sanctuary cities. The order made them ineligible for federal grants and prioritized the deportation of individuals who “pose a risk to public safety or national security.” This directive applied to non-citizens found guilty of a criminal offense and those charged with but not convicted of a crime. Secure Communities, a deportation program discontinued under the Obama administration which used local law enforcement arrest data to identify individuals residing in the U.S. without legal permission, was also reinstituted as a result of this executive order.[8]
The executive order established the following three practices:[8]
- Made sanctuary cities ineligible for federal funding at the discretion of the attorney general and secretary of homeland security;
- Instructed the secretary of homeland security to use the "Declined Detainer Outcome Report" or a similar report to publish weekly "a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens"; and
- Directed the Office of Management and Budget to collect information on federal grant money received by sanctuary jurisdictions.
Immigration on the ballot in Oregon[edit]
- See also: Immigration on the ballot and List of Oregon ballot measures
Ballotpedia has tracked the following ballot measure(s) relating to immigration in Oregon.
- Oregon Alternative Driver Licenses Referendum, Measure 88 (2014)
- Oregon Public School English Immersion, Measure 58 (2008)
The Oregon Alternative Driver Licenses Referendum, Measure 88, was on the November 4, 2014 ballot in Oregon as a veto referendum, where it was defeated.[53] The measure subjected Senate Bill 833 to a popular vote. If it had been upheld, SB 833 would have made four-year driver licenses available to those who could not prove legal presence in the United States.[54] Oregonians for Immigration Reform led the campaign in opposition to Measure 88, advocating for a no vote in order to bar those who could not prove legal presence in the United States from being able to obtain drivers licenses.
Path to the ballot[edit]
The state process[edit]
In Oregon, the number of signatures required to qualify an initiated state statute for the ballot is equal to 6 percent of the votes cast for governor in the most recent gubernatorial election. Signatures for Oregon initiatives must be submitted four months prior to the next regular general election. State law also requires paid signature gatherers to submit any signatures they gather every month.
Moreover, Oregon is one of several states that require a certain number of signatures to accompany an initiative petition application. The signatures of at least 1,000 electors are required to trigger a review by state officials, a period of public commentary, and the drafting of a ballot title. Prior to gathering these initial 1,000 signatures, petitioners must submit the text of the measure, a form disclosing their planned use of paid circulators, and a form designating up to three chief petitioners. The 1,000 preliminary signatures count toward the final total required.
The requirements to get an initiated state statute certified for the 2018 ballot:
- Signatures: 88,184 valid signatures were required.
- Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures was July 6, 2018.
In Oregon, signatures are verified using a random sample method. If a first round of signatures is submitted at least 165 days before an election and contains raw, unverified signatures at least equal to the minimum requirement, but verification shows that not enough of the submitted signatures are valid, additional signatures can be submitted prior to the final deadline.
Petitioners were required to collect 88,184 valid signatures to get their initiated state statute on the ballot. Signatures for initiatives needed to be submitted four months prior to the election on November 6, 2018, which was July 6, 2018.
Cost of signature collection:
Ballotpedia found no petition companies that received payment from the sponsors of this measure, which means signatures were likely gathered largely by volunteers. A total of $65,000.00 was spent to collect the 88,184 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $0.74.[11]
Details about this initiative[edit]
- Representatives Sal Esquivel (R-6), Mike Nearman (R-23), and Greg Barreto (R-58) filed the proposal with the secretary of state's office on April 25, 2017.[12] Oregon requires that 1,000 signatures be submitted before a ballot title is drafted. These signatures were submitted for version #22, and the initiative was cleared for circulation on October 11, 2017. Version #6 was withdrawn as of April 16, 2018.
- Complaints regarding misrepresentation of the measure by petition signature gatherers had been forwarded to the Oregon Justice Department for criminal investigation. Lee Vasche, owner of the signature gathering company said he was aware of misrepresentation by signature gatherers, but that those gatherers had been fired and around 400 signatures collected by them had been destroyed.[55]
- On July 5, 2018, proponents reported submitting 105,000 signatures to the Secretary of State's office.[56]
- On July 17, 2018, the Oregon Secretary of State Elections Division reported via Twitter that the measure qualified for the November ballot with a signature validity rate of 95.2 percent.[57]
How to cast a vote[edit]
- See also: Voting in Oregon
Poll times[edit]
Oregon is an elections-by-mail state. A voter can still vote on Election Day at his or her local municipal clerk's office, however, between 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Pacific Time.[58]
Registration requirements[edit]
To register to vote in Oregon, one must be a resident of Oregon, a United States citizen, and at least 16 years old. Voters must be at least 18 years old by the day of the election in order to receive a ballot.[59] Prospective voters can register online, in person at a county elections office, or by mailing in a voter registration form. The deadline to register is 21 days before an election.[59]
Automatic registration[edit]
Oregon implemented automatic voter registration in 2016. For more information, click here.
Online registration[edit]
- See also: Online voter registration
Oregon has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.
Same-day registration[edit]
Oregon does not allow same-day voter registration.
Residency requirements[edit]
To register to vote in Oregon, you must be a resident of the state.
Verification of citizenship[edit]
Oregon does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration.
Verifying your registration[edit]
The Oregon Secretary of State’s Office allows residents to check their voter registration status online by visiting this website.
Voter ID requirements[edit]
Oregon is a vote-by-mail state. When registering to vote, a voter must provide his or her driver's license or state ID card number.[60]
Background[edit]
As of April 2021, 35 states enforced (or were scheduled to begin enforcing) voter identification requirements. A total of 21 states required voters to present photo identification at the polls; the remainder accepted other forms of identification. Valid forms of identification differ by state. Commonly accepted forms of ID include driver's licenses, state-issued identification cards, and military identification cards.[61][62]
See also[edit]
External links[edit]
Support[edit] |
Opposition[edit] |
Footnotes[edit]
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Oregon Secretary of State, "Complete Text of Initiative," accessed October 23, 2016
- ↑ Rewire News, "Fight Over Sanctuary Law Puts Oregon At Center of National Immigration Battles," accessed September 20, 2018
- ↑ Oregonians for Immigration Reform, "Oregon's sanctuary law," accessed September 14, 2018
- ↑ Oregon Secretary of State, "Oregon 1987 legislators," accessed September 14, 2018
- ↑ FAIR, "Oregon Sanctuary Repeal Qualifies For November Ballot," accessed October 5, 2018
- ↑ Rewire News, "Fight Over Sanctuary Law Puts Oregon At Center of National Immigration Battles," accessed October 5, 2018
- ↑ Donald J. Trump for President, "Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter," accessed November 18, 2016
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 White House, "Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States," January 25, 2017
- ↑ Oregon Live, "Gov. Kate Brown strengthens sanctuary law, asks AG to fight Trump's travel ban," accessed September 20, 2018
- ↑ KVAL, "Oregon's sanctuary status could be in jeopardy," accessed July 10, 2018
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 Oregon Secretary of State, "Committee Search," accessed July 13, 2018
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 Oregon Secretary of State, "Initiative 22," accessed May 3, 2017
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 Oregonians for Immigration Reform, "Home," accessed May 3, 2018
- ↑ Oregonians for Immigration Reform, "Home," accessed September 6, 2018
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 The Bulletin, "Brown and Buehler agree on abortion, housing ballot measures," accessed August 15, 2018
- ↑ Bend Source, "Sheriff Nelson Endorses Pro-Measure 105 Statement," accessed September 5, 2018
- ↑ Twitter, @Oregon_GOP on Twitter, Oct 30, 2018 Tweet
- ↑ KVAL, "Oregon's sanctuary status could be in jeopardy," accessed July 10, 2018
- ↑ Stop Oregon Santuaries, "About," accessed May 3, 2018
- ↑ KGW 8, "Oregon group says immigration laws must be enforced," accessed June 27, 2018
- ↑ 22.0 22.1 Statesman Journal, "Signatures submitted for petition to repeal Oregon's immigration sanctuary status," accessed July 6, 2018
- ↑ 23.0 23.1 Register Guard, "Support for ‘sanctuary’ laws could be put to test in Oregon," accessed July 10, 2018
- ↑ Bend Bulletin, "Buehler backs repeal of sanctuary state law," accessed August 24, 2018
- ↑ Oregonians United Against Profiling, "About," accessed July 6, 2018
- ↑ 26.0 26.1 Oregonians United Against Profiling, "Our Coalition," accessed July 6, 2018
- ↑ Oregon Public Broadcasting, "Where They Stand: Oregon's Gubernatorial Candidates On Immigration," accessed September 25, 2018
- ↑ Bend Source, "Sanctuary?," accessed July 12, 2018
- ↑ 29.0 29.1 29.2 Portland Tribune, "Law enforcement leaders back sanctuary law," accessed August 8, 2018
- ↑ Oregon AFT, "2018 Ballot Measure Briefing: What this Year’s Measures Could Mean for You and Your Family," accessed October 14, 2018
- ↑ Oregon Secretary of State, "Defend Oregon Statement of Organization," accessed August 15, 2018
- ↑ Oregon League of Conservation Voters, "Endorsements," accessed September 1, 2018
- ↑ Oregonians United Against Profiling, "Our Coalition," accessed August 24, 2018
- ↑ 34.0 34.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namednike - ↑ Oregon Live, "Anti-immigrant ballot measures have no place in Oregon (Guest opinion)," accessed September 4, 2018
- ↑ Defend Oregon, "Pledge to vote no," accessed September 1, 2018
- ↑ Daily Astorian, "Oregon sanctuary law repeal could shift relationships with local law enforcement," accessed August 1, 2018
- ↑ Baker City Herald, "Sanctuary law repeal is sensible," accessed September 5, 2018
- ↑ Portland Tribune, "Our Opinion: Don't repeal 'sanctuary' law that works," accessed September 26, 2018
- ↑ Oregon Live, "Editorial endorsement: Vote no on 105 repeal of Oregon's sanctuary law," accessed October 5, 2018
- ↑ Bend Buleltin, "Editorial: Vote ‘no’ on Measure 105," accessed October 19, 2018
- ↑ The Register-Guard, "Vote no on divisive immigration and abortion measures," accessed October 19, 2018
- ↑ Salem Weekly, "DEFEAT MEASURE 105," accessed October 19, 2018
- ↑ Willamette Week, "WW’s November 2018 Endorsements for Oregon Ballot Measures," accessed October 19, 2018
- ↑ H&N Editorial: Our view on several ballot issues," October 21, 2018
- ↑ Gazette Times, "Editorial: Voters should preserve state's sanctuary law," accessed November 1, 2018
- ↑ Oregonians for Immigration Reform, "Oregon's sanctuary law," accessed September 14, 2018
- ↑ Oregon Secretary of State, "Oregon 1987 legislators," accessed September 14, 2018
- ↑ Center for Immigration Studies, "Map 1: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States, updated May 30, 2018," accessed September 20, 2018
- ↑ Immigrant Legal Resource Center, "Mission," accessed October 5, 2018
- ↑ Immigration Legal Resource Center, "The Rise of Sanctuary," accessed September 20, 2018
- ↑ Immigrant Legal Resource Center, "Local enforcement map," accessed September 20, 2018
- ↑ The Oregonian, "Oregon driver card bill headed to the November 2014 ballot," October 18, 2013
- ↑ Oregon Secretary of State measure status, IRR 301
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedwapo - ↑ KGW8 News, "Signatures submitted for petition to repeal Oregon's immigration sanctuary status," accessed July 6, 2018
- ↑ Twitter, "@OregonElections July 17, 2018 2:30 PM Tweet," accessed July 18, 2018
- ↑ Oregon Secretary of State, “Voting in Oregon,” accessed October 17, 2019
- ↑ 59.0 59.1 Oregon Secretary of State, "Voting in Oregon," accessed October 4, 2019
- ↑ Oregon Secretary of State, "Voting in Oregon," accessed October 7, 2019
- ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, "Voter Identification Requirements|Voter ID Laws," June 5, 2017
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Do I need an ID to vote? A look at the laws in all 50 states," October 27, 2014
 |
State of Oregon Salem (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2021 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
EncycloReader
is supported by the 
KSF