Proposing an amendment to the Oregon Constitution expanding the scope of the term "bills for raising revenue."
Summary
Senate Joint Resolution 23 proposes a constitutional amendment to broaden the meaning of “bills for raising revenue” under Article IV, section 25 of the Oregon Constitution. Under current law, bills for raising revenue require approval by three-fifths of all elected members in each legislative chamber. This resolution would expressly include not only traditional tax-raising measures, but also any bill with a net positive revenue impact after disregarding any offsetting tax expenditures, as well as bills that impose new taxes, increase tax rates, or reduce or eliminate tax expenditures.
The resolution does not itself change tax law or enact a tax increase. Instead, it refers the proposed constitutional amendment to Oregon voters at the next regular general election for approval or rejection. If adopted by the voters, it would make it harder for certain revenue-related legislation to pass by requiring a supermajority vote in both chambers.
Impact
SJR 23 would amend the Oregon Constitution’s legislative voting rules for revenue measures by expanding the category of bills subject to the three-fifths supermajority requirement. The practical effect would be to capture a wider range of tax and budget-related legislation, including measures that alter tax expenditures such as credits, deductions, or exemptions, and measures that have a net positive revenue effect. Because it is a referral to the ballot, the resolution itself has no immediate statutory effect unless approved by voters.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of floor debate or formal legislative sentiment in the materials supplied. Based on the text alone, the measure appears to reflect a policy preference for tighter legislative control over revenue changes and a more expansive interpretation of supermajority requirements. The sponsor’s framing suggests support for limiting tax increases and related revenue measures, but the available record does not show broader bipartisan or partisan reaction.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be whether the constitution should treat a broader set of fiscal measures as “bills for raising revenue,” thereby subjecting them to a three-fifths vote. Supporters would likely argue that tax increases, rate hikes, and reductions in tax expenditures should all face the same heightened threshold because they affect state revenue. Opponents may argue that the amendment would make it more difficult to enact budget policy, could sweep in measures not traditionally viewed as tax increases, and would constrain the legislature’s ability to adjust tax expenditures or respond to fiscal needs.