SB 965 would change Oregon election law to prohibit one person from collecting and returning another person’s ballot, with limited exceptions. Under the bill, an individual could still handle another voter’s ballot if the voter is a relative, if the person has power of attorney for the voter, or if the person is a paid caregiver providing ongoing care. In those permitted cases, the ballot would have to be deposited within two days of collection. The bill also defines “relative” broadly to include a spouse, parent, certain people with legal support obligations, and certain people who exchange benefits through employment relationships.
The measure also amends Oregon’s ballot-return and election-enforcement statutes to add specific civil penalties for unlawful ballot collection and return. A person other than an individual who violates the new rule would face a $2,500 fine per ballot, while an individual who violates it would face a $500 fine per ballot. The bill makes conforming changes to ORS 254.470 and ORS 260.995 so that the new ballot-handling restriction is incorporated into the state’s mail-ballot procedures and civil penalty framework. It also preserves existing rules on ballot mailing, drop sites, signature verification, replacement ballots, and ballot counting.
The bill’s practical impact would be to narrow who may physically return a voter’s ballot and to create a clearer enforcement mechanism against ballot harvesting or third-party ballot collection outside the listed exceptions. It would affect voters who rely on family members, caregivers, or agents to return ballots, as well as organizations or individuals that currently assist with ballot collection. County clerks and the Secretary of State would retain their existing election administration duties, but would also have a new statutory basis for penalties tied specifically to unlawful ballot return activity.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text is one of tightening election security and limiting third-party involvement in ballot return. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented public debate in the supplied materials. The bill’s structure suggests support for stricter ballot-handling rules, while still preserving exceptions for close family, legal agents, and paid caregivers to reduce hardship for voters who need assistance.
The main point of contention likely concerns access versus security: supporters would view the bill as preventing improper ballot collection and potential coercion, while critics may argue it could make voting less convenient for seniors, disabled voters, rural voters, or others who depend on trusted helpers. The broad definition of “relative” and the caregiver exception appear designed to address some of those concerns, but the bill still imposes a significant restriction on community-based ballot collection efforts and voter outreach programs.
SB 965 would add a new section to ORS chapter 254 restricting third-party collection and return of ballots and would amend ORS 254.470 to incorporate that rule into Oregon’s mail-ballot procedures. It would also amend ORS 260.995 to create specific civil penalties for unlawful ballot return: $2,500 per ballot for non-individuals and $500 per ballot for individuals. These changes would give election officials a direct enforcement tool against unauthorized ballot collection while leaving the broader vote-by-mail system intact.
Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears aimed at strengthening election integrity by limiting who may handle and return ballots. No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate or vote history to gauge support or opposition. The inclusion of exceptions for relatives, attorneys-in-fact, and paid caregivers suggests an attempt to balance enforcement with voter access.
The likely contention is whether the bill prevents ballot harvesting and undue influence or instead creates barriers for voters who need help returning ballots. Supporters would likely favor the restrictions and fines as anti-fraud and anti-coercion measures. Opponents would likely argue that the bill could burden voters who rely on neighbors, volunteers, or civic groups, especially elderly, disabled, homebound, or rural voters. The exceptions for relatives and caregivers appear intended to soften those concerns, but they do not eliminate the broader restriction on third-party ballot collection.