Oregon Ballot Measure Results: Find Out What Issues Won, Lost

PORTLAND, OR – As always, Oregonians getting ready fill out their ballots are being confronted with a handful of rather densely-worded, seemingly almost-incomprehensible ballot measures. What do they mean? What happens if you vote no? Vote yes?

There's a measure that says it would ban grocery taxes but opponents say it would have far more extensive ramifications. There's one that would ban state funds for being used for abortions and one that would allow for local governments to sell bonds to fund affordable housing.

While one measure has been placed on the ballot by the state legislature, the rest stand in testament to Oregon's law allowing people who can gather enough signatures to place pretty much anything on the ballot.

Check back here for results and get all the latest information on what's happening in your community by signing up for Patch's newsletters and breaking news alerts

The Secretary of State's office has placed their voter pamphlet online for all to read.
For those who want a slightly shorter version, here's Patch's guide to the bigger measures on the ballot:

MEASURE 102

This is the one measure on the ballot that was placed by the state legislature – unanimously in the state house and with 24 of 30 votes in the state senate. It would amend the state constitution to allow local governments – whether they are towns or counties – to use bond money to work with private developers to build affordable housing.

It passed easily and will streamline the process and – legislators hope - result in more housing being built, something that is greatly needed.

It had widespread bipartisan support.

The one cautionary note that has been raised is that the amendment is written broadly enough that it would allow governments to use money for non-housing projects such as road improvements.

MEASURE 103

The people behind this measure want you to think this is all about keeping Oregon's status as anti-tax state pretty much intact.

At its face, the measure would put in the constitution that there can never be a tax on "groceries."

And, along with all of the other measures put on the ballot this year by citizens – it was soundly defeated.

The measure made a point of saying that "food is a basic need of every Oregonian... keeping the price of groceries as low as possible improves the access to food for all... and.. taxing the sale of groceries hurts low and fixed income Oregonians."

Opponents pointed to a couple of problems with the measure (if you get them going, it's a lot more than couple).

First is the very broad definition of groceries in the measure. "Any raw or processed food or beverage intended for human consumption" except for alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco, is how the measure defines groceries.

Opponents pointed out that the proponents of the measure have received millions from Kroger (which owns Fred Meyer), from Safeway-Albertsons, and from lobbyists from the beverage industry.

What this means, they said, is that this less about protecting Oregonians from paying tax and more about protecting industries. Also, they add, that this aimed at preventing the state from ever-enacting a "soda tax" – a measure that is becoming more popular around the country as municipalities aim to combat diseases like diabetes.

Additionally, they pointed out, that while proponents are holding up making sure there is no tax on groceries - no one is actually proposing to tax groceries.

Opponents said that this is also an attempt to make sure that Oregon never enacts a sales tax.

MEASURE 104

Like Measure 103, it pays to look who's actually behind the measure to get a sense of what it's all about.

The measure would change the constitution to say that three-fifths each of the state senate and state house would be needed to approve changes not only in tax law (the current system) but also any changes to things that bring revenue into state coffers.

The measure made it to the ballot on the backs of a drive by the Oregon Association of Realtors.

After an attempt last year by state Democrats to try to change or get rid of the deduction for interest on home mortgages, the association wants to make sure that if it ever does come up again, it will be even harder to pass.

Opponents say that the bill is just too broad.

Not only will it make it harder for the Democrats to do that, it will make it nearly impossible for the legislature to create tax breaks, get rid of tax breaks, raise he gas tax and income tax, and raise or lower any number of fees such as that for a hunting license.

MEASURE 105

This measure, which would repeal the state's sanctuary law, had created a lot of uproar. When Oregon passed its sanctuary law - prohibiting state and local law enforcement from enforcing federal immigration policy – in 1987, it was the first state to do.

At the time, it was passed nearly unanimously – with 87 of 89 legislators in the two houses voting in favor of it.

While it has been a magnet for conservative criticism – especially since the 2016 election – it has been a source of pride for a good part of the state. And a source of embarrassment for others.

Voting yes repeals the law and voting no keeps it in place.

People overwhelmingly voted to keep things the way they are.

While a large number of county sheriff's support repeal, they are mostly rural sheriff's who represent a minority of the population.

Those who want to keep things the way they are also state that that local law enforcement has larger priorities, especially since – they say – statistics show that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than people who were born here.

They say that those who want to repealing the law will result in a sharp increase in racial profiling.

MEASURE 106

Oregon is one of the few states in the country that has steadfastly defended a woman's right to choose since Roe v. Wade.

Measure 106 would have changed that. Voters, however, decided against that and voted it down.

It would have meant that state money could not be used for an elective abortion by a woman who falls below a certain income level and stop the state from providing insurance covering abortion to its employees.

Photo via Shutterstock.