Oregon House Bill HJR3

Oregon 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/13/25
• Refer: 1/17/25

Caption

Proposing an amendment to the Oregon Constitution relating to initiatives.

Summary

House Joint Resolution 3 proposes a constitutional amendment to change Oregon’s initiative process. It would require initiative petitions to meet county-by-county signature thresholds, rather than relying only on a statewide total. For initiative laws, each county would need signatures equal to 6% of the votes cast for governor in that county at the previous gubernatorial election; for initiative constitutional amendments, the county-by-county threshold would be 8%. The resolution also adds a restriction on initiative-related funding by prohibiting persons who are not qualified voters in Oregon from making contributions connected with initiative measures or elections on initiative measures, to the extent allowed under the U.S. Constitution. The measure would be referred to voters for approval or rejection at the next regular general election if adopted by the Legislature.

Impact

If approved, HJR3 would amend Article IV of the Oregon Constitution and materially alter the legal requirements for qualifying statewide initiatives for the ballot. It would impose a geographic distribution requirement across all counties, increasing the difficulty of qualifying measures and potentially reducing the ability of campaigns to rely on support concentrated in a few populous counties. It would also create a new constitutional basis for limiting initiative-related contributions from non-voters, affecting campaign finance rules for initiative campaigns and related ballot measure advocacy.

Sentiment

The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge directly. Based on the measure’s text, the resolution appears designed to strengthen geographic representation in the initiative process and to limit outside influence in ballot measure campaigns. Those goals suggest support from lawmakers concerned about broad statewide participation and opposition from those who view the proposal as making direct democracy harder to use.

Contention

The main points of contention are likely to be the county-based signature requirement and the contribution restriction. Supporters would likely argue that initiative petitions should demonstrate broader statewide support and that nonresident or nonvoter money should not dominate ballot measure campaigns. Opponents would likely contend that the county-by-county thresholds create a higher and more burdensome barrier to citizen initiatives, especially for campaigns with support concentrated in urban areas, and that the contribution limits could raise free-speech and constitutional concerns.