The Oregon Supreme Court has instructed Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum to rewrite the official wording that explains how a potential November 2020 ballot initiative would change the legislative redistricting process.
In a move one observer described as unusual, the Oregon justices suggested specific new language.
Portland attorney Dan Meek, who has worked on ballot initiatives including one to limit campaign contributions, said the state Supreme Court used to rewrite ballot titles until a 2001 law allowed the attorney general to share that job with the court. The court typically sends initiative summaries it deems in need of work back to the attorney general, although the court retained the authority to rewrite ballot language.
“Now they’re getting to the point where really do want to revise them themselves, so they’re suggesting language to the attorney general,” Meek said of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Thursday. “I’ve never seen this before.”
The proposed measure, currently known as Initiative Petition 5, is sponsored by conservative activist Kevin Mannix and two other individuals from the Salem area. It would amend the Oregon Constitution to transfer the work of updating legislative districts from the Legislature to a new 11-member commission.
The initiative would also change some of the criteria for drawing legislative districts. For example, it would eliminate “communities of common interest” that might connect populations across geographic boundaries and it would emphasize that districts should be as geographically compact as possible. And as opponents have pointed out, it would make it more difficult to appeal redistricting plans, for example by requiring at least 15 people to sign onto an appeal that can currently be initiated by an individual. The next redrawing of districts for members of Oregon’s state House and Senate is set to take place in 2021, after the U.S. Census.
Supporters of the initiative cannot begin gathering the 149,360 signatures required to qualify for the November 2020 ballot until they have a final ballot title. A growing number of states are using independent or bipartisan commissions to update legislative districts, the Associated Press has reported. This is the only such proposal that backers have filed to possibly get on Oregon’s November 2020 ballots.
As the attorney general’s staff has pointed out, the ballot initiative would give rural Oregon a powerful role disproportionate to its share of the population by appointing a greater share of commissioners from rural counties than the share of people who live in such counties.
For example, 19.4 percent of Oregonians lived in Multnomah County in 2018, according to a Portland State University population estimate, while 3.3 percent of Oregonians lived in the rural counties of Baker, Grant, Umatilla, Union and Wallowa. However, those five counties together would receive the same representation — one member — on the redistricting commission as Multnomah.
The counties of Gilliam, Jefferson, Morrow, Sherman, Wasco and Wheeler with a combined population of 67,865, or 1.6 percent of Oregonians, would also get one representative on the redistricting commission.
After supporters and opponents of the proposed measure both raised concerns, the attorney general took a second run at the ballot title. That version read:
“Amends Constitution: Creates new commission to replace redistricting by legislature; shifts influence to rural over urban areas.
“Result of ‘Yes’ Vote: ‘Yes’ vote creates new redistricting commission to replace redistricting process by legislature; rural, less-populous areas allocated proportionately more representation on commission; changes redistricting requirements.
“Result of ‘No’ Vote: ‘No’ vote retains redistricting by legislature, a body whose members are strictly apportioned in accordance with population; retains current constitutional and statutory redistricting requirements.”
Becca Uherbelau, executive director of the public employee union-backed group Our Oregon, raised concerns about the attorney general’s latest version in June. She argued the attorney general did not make it clear enough that the proposal would “repeal” the Oregon Constitution’s mandate for the Legislature to handle redistricting.
Oregon’s Supreme Court agreed, and suggested a ballot caption that specifically includes the work “repeal”:
“Amends Constitution: Repeals redistricting process performed by legislature; creates new redistricting commission; membership weighted toward rural areas.”
The justices also recommended specific language to explain the effect of a “yes” vote to voters, including the addition of “repeal”:
“‘Yes’ vote repeals constitutional provision requiring redistricting by legislature; creates new commission to perform redistricting, with membership weighted toward rural areas; changes redistricting requirements.”
The attorney general must now decide whether to adopt the Supreme Court’s suggestions or write yet another version of the ballot description. A spokeswoman for Rosenblum could not be reached for comment Monday afternoon.
This story has been updated to reflect the following correction: an earlier version of this story incorrectly quoted attorney Dan Meek as saying a 2001 law shifted the job of rewriting ballot initiative summaries from the Oregon Supreme Court to the attorney general. Meek stated the law allowed the court to refer ballot summaries back to the attorney general to make changes, although the court also retained its authority to rewrite the language.
— Hillary Borrud | hborrud@oregonian.com | 503-294-4034 | @hborrud
Visit subscription.oregonlive.com/newsletters to get Oregonian/OregonLive journalism delivered to your email inbox.