History
Background
In 1948, voters passed a ballot measure amending the Oregon Constitution to require that in order to vote in school elections citizens must meet certain qualifications. [2] Those qualifications were set forth in section 6, Article VIII of the Oregon Constitution, and included requirements that a citizen be at least 21 years old, have resided in the school district for at least six months before the election and have registered for the election. A citizen meeting these qualifications would also only be allowed to vote in the school election if they could also read and write English. [3]
Later developments in voting rights laws and in court decisions have made each of those requirements unconstitutional or a violation of federal law. The 26th Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents denial or abridgment of the voting rights of a citizen 18 years of age or older. Federal court decisions have held that residency requirements of the type which were set forth in section 6, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. In addition, the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 generally prohibits literacy tests as a condition for eligibility to vote. Because of this, Oregon’s Attorney General in 1972, Lee Johnson, held that the requirements under section 6 were unenforceable. [2]
Path to the ballot
The move to put this measure before the voters began when in the spring of 2006 when the Grant High School Constitution Team in Portland were meeting to continue its preparations for the Center for Civic Education's annual We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution competition, in which knowledge of the U.S. Constitution is tested in a simulated congressional hearing. [3]
While attending the Grant Constitutional Team meeting Roy Pulvers, a Portland attorney and the father of one of the students, brought up the provisions of Article VIII, Section 6 in the Oregon Constitution to the team and its coaches. He had been preparing for an election-law conference in Washington, D.C. he was going to be attending, and was reading through relevant Oregon statutes and constitutional provisions. He stated his belief that the requirements of Section 6 were unconstitutional. [3] The team agreed and prompted the students to take action.
At first the students considered filing a lawsuit, but dropped the idea since it was no longer being enforced. [3] Over the course of several months the students broke into small groups and researched the issue, gathering evidence to help overturn what they believed were outdated, unfair voting restrictions still codified in Oregon's Constitution. [4]
Once they felt they had evidence, they drafted a letter outlining their case and sent it to Bill Bradbury who was then the Oregon Secretary of State. His office sent a letter to Hardy Myers, who was at that time the Oregon attorney general, to take a look at the section and give a legal opinion on the matter. The attorney general's office wrote back saying that while the section is still on the books it was inoperative. This prompted the secretary of state's office to sponsor legislation during the 2007 session of the legislature to amend the state's constitution, which became House Joint Resolution 4 (HJR 4).
On January 24, 2007, lawmakers held public hearings [5] and invited three of the students, Hannah Fisher, Ethan Gross and Pulvers' daughter Evan, to testify in front of the House Elections Committee. [3] The bill passed the House and Senate with Rep. Jerry Krummel (R-26) of Wilsonville being the only opposing vote. This placed HJR 4 on the 2008 general election ballot as legislatively referred constitutional amendment, becoming Measure 54. [5]
In California, a ballot proposition is a referendum or an initiative measure that is submitted to the electorate for a direct decision or direct vote. If passed, it can alter one or more of the articles of the Constitution of California, one or more of the 29 California Codes, or another law in the California Statutes by clarifying current or adding statute(s) or removing current statute(s).
In the politics of the United States, the process of initiatives and referendums allow citizens of many U.S. states to place legislation on the ballot for a referendum or popular vote, either enacting new legislation, or voting down existing legislation. Citizens, or an organization, might start an initiative to gather a predetermined number of signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot. The measure is placed on the ballot for the referendum, or actual vote.
Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions of several different types passed, banning legal recognition of same-sex unions in U.S. state constitutions, referred to by proponents as "defense of marriage amendments" or "marriage protection amendments." These state amendments are different from the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban same-sex marriage in every U.S. state, and Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act, more commonly known as DOMA, which allowed the states not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. The amendments define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and prevent civil unions or same-sex marriages from being legalized, though some of the amendments bar only the latter. The Obergefell decision in June 2015 invalidated these state constitutional amendments insofar as they prevented same-sex couples from marrying, even though the actual text of these amendments remain written into the state constitutions.
The Constitution of the State of Texas is the document that establishes the structure and function of the government of the U.S. state of Texas, and enumerates the basic rights of the citizens of Texas.
The Constitution of Arkansas is the primary organizing law for the U.S. state of Arkansas delineating the duties, powers, structures, and functions of the state government. Arkansas' original constitution was adopted at a constitutional convention held at Little Rock in advance of the territory's admission to the Union in 1836. In 1861 a constitution was adopted with succession. After the American Civil War its 1864 constitution was drafted.An 1868 constitution was passed to comply with the Reconstruction acts. The current constitution was ratified in 1874 following the Brooks–Baxter War.
The Tennessee Marriage Protection Amendment, also known as Tennessee Amendment 1 of 2006, is a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions. The referendum was approved by 81% of voters. It specified that only a marriage between a man and a woman could be legally recognized in the state of Tennessee. This prohibited same-sex marriages within the state, reinforcing previously existing statutes to the same effect until it was overturned by the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling in June 2015.
Term limits legislation – term limits for state and federal office-holders – has been a recurring political issue in the U.S. state of Oregon since 1992. In that year's general election, Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 3, an initiative that enacted term limits for representatives in both houses of the United States Congress and the Oregon Legislative Assembly, and statewide officeholders. It has been described as the strictest term limits law in the country.
Oregon ballot measure 48 was one of two unsuccessful ballot measures sponsored by the Taxpayers Association of Oregon (TAO) on the November 7, 2006 general election ballot. Measure 48 was an initiated constitutional amendment ballot measure. Oregon statute currently limits state appropriations to 8% of projected personal income in Oregon. If Governor declares emergency, legislature may exceed current statutory appropriations limit by 60% vote of each house. This measure would have added a constitutional provision limiting any increase in state spending from one biennium to next biennium to the percentage increase in state population, plus inflation, over previous two years. Certain exceptions to limit, including spending of: federal, donated funds; proceeds from selling certain bonds, real property; money to fund emergency funds; money to fund tax, "kicker," other refunds were included in the provisions of the measure. It also would have provided that spending limit may be exceeded by amount approved by two-thirds of each house of legislature and approved by majority of voters voting in general election.
Ballot Measure 40 was an Oregon ballot measure in 1996. The measure brought sweeping reforms to Oregon's justice system, generally in an effort to promote victims' rights.
The 2007 Texas constitutional amendment election took place 6 November 2007.
Elections in Oregon are all held using a Vote by Mail (VBM) system. This means that all registered voters receive their ballots via postal delivery and can vote from their homes. A state Voters’ Pamphlet is mailed to every household in Oregon about three weeks before each statewide election. It includes information about each measure and candidate in the upcoming election.
On November 4, 2008, the U.S. state of Oregon held statewide general elections for three statewide offices, both houses of the Oregon Legislative Assembly, and twelve state ballot measures. The primary elections were held on May 20, 2008. Both elections also included national races for President of the US, US Senator, and US House Representatives. Numerous local jurisdictions — cities, counties, and regional government entities — held elections for various local offices and ballot measures on these days as well.
Proposition 39 was an initiative state constitutional amendment and statute which appeared on the November 7, 2000, California general election ballot. Proposition 39 passed with 5,431,152 Yes votes, representing 53.4 percent of the total votes cast. Proposition 39 was essentially a milder version of Proposition 26, which would have ended the Proposition 13 supermajority vote requirement altogether, but was defeated with 3,521,327 "Yes" votes, representing 48.7 percent of the total votes cast, in the March 7, 2000, California primary election. The measure was funded by Ann and John Doerr, John T. Walton and Reed Hastings; it was opposed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
Oregon Ballot Measure 56 or House Joint Resolution 15 is a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that enacted law which provides that property tax elections decided at May and November elections will be decided by a majority of voters who are voting in the relevant election. It repealed the double majority requirement passed by the voters in the 1990s via Measures 47 and 50, which requires that, for non-general elections, all bond measures can pass only when a majority of registered voters turn out.
Oregon ballot measures 46 and 47 were two ballot measures presented as a single package to voters; 46 would have amended the Constitution to allow limitations on campaign financing ; and 47 detailed specific limitations. While Measure 47 passed, 46 did not, and the Secretary of State and Attorney General now refuse to enforce Measure 47 despite not having made constitutional challenges in court during cases filed against them to compel enforcement.
Proposition 1F of 2009 was a measure approved by California voters relating to the salaries of state officers. It was an amendment of the Constitution of California prohibiting pay raises for members of the State Legislature, the Governor, and other state officials during deficit years. It was proposed by the legislature and approved in a referendum held as part of the May 19, 2009 special election ballot, in which the California electorate also voted on five other propositions.
In California state elections, 2014 was the first year in which the top statewide offices were elected under the nonpartisan blanket primary, pursuant to Proposition 14, which passed with 53% voter approval in June 2010. Under this system, which first went into effect during the 2012 election year, all candidates appear on the same ballot, regardless of party. In the primary, voters may vote for any candidate, regardless of their party affiliation. The top two finishers, regardless of party, then advance to face each other in the general election in November.
The California state elections in 2020 were held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020. Unlike previous election cycles, the primary elections were held on Super Tuesday, March 3, 2020.
