Unusual special election seeing modest voter turnout so far
Connor Radnovich
Oregon's rare January special election on a measure targeting new health care taxes has received middling voter turnout so far, with elections officials saying to expect good but not great representation.
As of Wednesday, 21.2 percent of registered voters statewide had submitted their ballots, putting the state on track for a voter turnout less than a typical general election, but on par with May primary elections.
Marion County Clerk Bill Burgess said 19.5 percent of registered voters have returned ballots for the Jan. 23 election, which means the county's turnout could come in at around 40 to 45 percent.
Measure 101 puts to voters a series of health care taxes on insurance companies and some hospitals passed by the 2017 Legislature to pay for health care coverage for low-income Oregonians.
The issue is complicated and controversial, but so is why voters are tackling it in January, with some critics saying this month’s special election was timed specifically to limit the vote.
General election turnout in Marion County normally comes in between 60 and 70 percent, primaries in the high 30's or low 40's and local elections around 25 percent, Burgess said.
"We expect a pretty good turnout, but it's hard to say," he said.
Polk County Clerk Val Unger said they're at 21.3 percent and began receiving ballots in high numbers quickly after they were sent out.
"It definitely isn't a low-turnout election at this point," Unger said. She defines "low-turnout" as under 30 percent, a ceiling many local elections fail to break.
Related:Why Oregonians are voting in January on a health tax, and other answers
In recent years, Marion and Polk counties' turnout percentage ran, on average, a few points below the statewide numbers.
Anyone who has yet to vote should only file using ballot drop boxes from now on, officials said. After Thursday, it's increasingly unlikely that a mailed ballot will arrive in time to be counted.
The state estimates that if Measure 101 were to fail, between $210 million and $320 million in state revenue would be lost, resulting in a loss of federal matching funds of between $630 million to $960 million.
The gap exists because the Affordable Care Act reduced amount of coverage of individuals eligible for Medicaid under the act from 100 percent to 95 percent this year. Without additional funds or cuts elsewhere, about 350,000 low-income people could lose health care coverage.
As state officials have repeated in the last few weeks, January elections are unusual and, as such, difficult to predict.
The last statewide January special election was in 2010, when voters approved tax measures 66 and 67 by 100,000 votes a piece. About 62 percent of registered voters took part in that election, 21 percentage points more than voted in the primary election in May of that year.
State Elections Director Steve Trout said the election will cost the state about $3.3 million, most of that reimbursement to the counties for printing and mailing ballots.
There were also technical adjustments that needed to be made for this election.
Trout said that the computer system the Secretary of State's offices uses to input the ballot title had to be lengthened to accommodate the abnormally long title. The system only had room for 20 words; the ballot title for Measure 101 is 54 words.
By Oregon statute, statewide ballot titles have to be 15 words or fewer. This ballot title was exempted from that rule.
More:High stakes vote on Oregon tax on insurance companies looming
That's just one aspect of this measure that has ruffled the feathers of opponents since even before the underlying petition, Referendum 301, was circulated.
One of the leaders of the "no" campaign, Rep. Julie Parrish, R-West Linn, said the January special election "rigged" the vote. She said the date was picked intentionally so as to limit voter turnout and make it more difficult for voters to go against Measure 101.
The measure only qualified for the ballot in mid-October, and the January vote gives Parrish and her compatriots much less time to convince potential voters statewide. They also have raised far less money than the "yes" campaign, which she says compounds the issue.
Lawmakers who supported the January election date said it was necessary.
If voters strike down the Measure, lawmakers would at least have the 35-day short Legislative session, that begins Feb. 5, to plug the resulting budget gap. Another reason they gave is that the act of referring a law puts the law's funding mechanisms on hold until the vote, which creates a budget hole in and of itself.
They set the special election date via an amendment to a Senate bill in July.
In June, Secretary of State Dennis Richardson echoed Parrish's concerns. Before the bill passed, he produced a video deriding the special election proposal, imploring voters to complain to House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, and Gov. Kate Brown.
"Let's stop this proposal for a needless and expensive special election in January," he said in the video.
At the time, he said politicians were attempting to manipulate the outcome of the election by moving the vote to January and keep voters in the dark. He called the election a waste of time and money, "political shenanigans" and a "scheme."
On Wednesday, Richardson said he had an opportunity to voice his opinion before the law passed and his job now is to follow the law and administer the election. He declined to say whether or not he still believes politicians created the January election to intentionally influence the outcome.
"My job is to make sure everything gets handled the way it's supposed to be," Richardson said. "However it turns out is fine with me."
While parties agree that voter turnout will be lower in January than had the election taken place in November, and that lower turnout could impact the vote, that might not be all bad for the "no" campaign.
Bill Lunch, a political science professor emeritus at Oregon State University, said that, generally, special elections shrink the electorate so that more traditionally conservative voters — white, older, wealthier — make up a larger percentage. This might help the "no" side.
The special election could also reduce the number of voters who might more directly feel the adverse affects if Measure 101 fails, Lunch said. Voters who are a part of the Oregon Health Plan fall into the category of those who are often lost during unusually scheduled elections.
On the other hand, Lunch said the specificity of the measure could buoy votes, since medical professionals would also be directly impacted and have a wide influence in the state.
"Most voters don't pay attention to politics unless it's highlighted for them," Lunch said.
Contact the reporter at cradnovich@statesmanjournal.com or