This yearâs general election is centered on fear. Fear of losing affordable access to health care. Fear of unregulated crime. Fear of not having a safe place to call home. Fear of losing hard-earned savings. Fear of money determining elections. Fear of being unprotected against an erratic federal government. Fear of the unknown.
For the first time since 2006, Oregon voters are making a decision on limiting a womanâs right to an abortion. Theyâll be considering whether to overturn the stateâs 30-year-old law limiting what local law enforcement agencies have to tell federal immigration officials. Theyâll choose between keeping a fierce Democrat in the governorâs office or replacing her with a conservative whoâs masterfully rebranded himself as a moderate. More locally, voters will decide if theyâll help fund the first tri-county housing bond to create stable housing for the regionâs poorestâor hope that the private market solves our crippling deficit of affordable housing.
This local (and national) election cycle is meant to be divisive. If youâve forgotten: Itâs the midterms! The general election that splits a presidential term traditionally features the best table-flipping chaos and petty partisanship that our delightful democracy has to offer.
But despite what the door-knockers and campaign flyers and dramatic Hulu ads and fear-mongering Facebook groups are telling you: Have no fear! Weâre here to help you cut through the polarizing bullshit and understand whatâs at the root of each measure and candidate on the ballot. Weâll also give you our best advice on who or what we believe you should vote for.
There are a few ballot items weâre intentionally skipping over in our endorsement guideâlike unchallenged US Representative seats and nearby races that fall outside the Portland city limits. (But vote yes on the North Clackamas School District levy!)
Whether or not you agree with our recommendations, weâre only asking one thing of you, Portland:
Vote.
Election Cheat Sheet!
Portland City Commissioner, Position 3: Jo Ann Hardesty
Measure 26-199: Metro Housing BondâYes
Measure 26-201: Portland Clean Energy InitiativeâYes
Measure 26-200: Portland Campaign Finance ReformâYes
Multnomah County Auditor: Jennifer McGuirk
Oregon Governor: Kate Brown
US Representative, District 1: Suzanne Bonamici
US Representative, District 3: Earl Blumenauer
Measure 102: Using Housing Bonds For Public/Private ProjectsâYes
Measure 103: Grocery Tax BanâNo
Measure 104: Restrict Raising RevenueâNo
Measure 105: Repeal Sanctuary State LawâNo
Measure 106: Bans Public Funds for AbortionâNo
Portland City Commissioner,
Position 3âJo Ann Hardesty
This November, voters will make Portland history. Twice. Not only will Portlanders elect the cityâs first Black woman to city council, but in doing so, theyâll create Portlandâs first majority-female council. The outcome of the race to replace outgoing Commissioner Dan Saltzman is a monumental step forward in a city long ruled by white dudes. But donât let this seemingly âwin-winâ election allow you to gloss over this vote. Candidates Jo Ann Hardesty and Loretta Smith couldnât be less alike in their politics.
Hardestyâa one-time state legislator, a former president of the NAACPâs Portland branch, and a leader in Portlandâs activist communityâis an outspoken advocate for police accountability, affordable housing, and environmental justice. Smith, a two-term Multnomah County Commissioner and former aide to Senator Ron Wyden, advocates for a larger police force and job creation, and believes Portlandâs wealthiest developers will solve the cityâs homelessness crisis.
Hardestyâs shown interest in expanding tenantsâ rights, helping create a stronger network of homeless villages like Right 2 Dream Too, and is one of the architects of Portland Clean Energy Fund, a measure on the ballot that would tax major corporations to fund renewable energy projects and jobs. Smith has championed a successful program connecting minority youth to summer jobs, but also wants to turn a former county jail into a mass homeless shelter, despite concerns from longtime experts in housing and homelessness.
Both women have fought criticism in their policy decisions and political beliefs. Smith has taken many of these rebukes as personal attacks, and has responded by gaslighting her opponents rather than pausing to consider differing opinions and seeking compromise. Hardesty, meanwhile, has a record of listening to critics and exploring the nuance of an argument. And in every fight, sheâs put the community she represents before her self image.
This is a critical difference.
Hardesty is running for Portland City Council to give a platform to the cityâs most underrepresented communitiesâfamilies teetering on the edge of homelessness, parents whoâve lost children to police violence, small businesses struggling to stay open in gentrifying neighborhoods, young adults spit out by the criminal justice system, and people of color disproportionately impacted by climate change. Sheâs not running to propel her career forward, but to move Portland toward a more equitable, united future. We believe Portland needs a leader committed to shrinking the disparities among the cityâs growing population and willing to make political sacrifices to hold Portlandâs power brokers accountable. Thatâs why weâre endorsing Jo Ann Hardesty for Portland City Commissioner, Position 3.
Hardesty is the voice of criminal justice and police reform currently missing on city council. She has the experience: Hardesty was part of the group that called on the US Department of Justice to investigate if officers in the Portland Police Bureau (PPB) are more likely to use violence against people of color and those with mental illnesses. Recently, Hardesty raised concerns about a city audit that found PPBâs gang enforcement unit had been disproportionately pulling over African American drivers. Sheâs particularly opposed to police officers acting as responders to mental health crises, and has proposed plans to hand that responsibility over to the Portland Fire Bureau, âwhere their job is to save lives, not endanger them.â If elected, thatâs one of the bureaus sheâll oversee.
Hardestyâs not without flaws. An investigation by OPB found that while she was NAACP president, Hardesty sidestepped procedure to pen a $10,000 check to her own consulting firm without board membersâ approval or bids from other consultants. She also did not report that income to the federal government or pay taxes on it. She blames this on not knowing it needed to be reported, but itâs not a good look for someone whoâll be responsible for tens of thousands of city dollars.
In the Mercury endorsement interview, Hardesty was quick to take responsibility and promised to surround herself with smart bureau directors and budget experts to ensure she doesnât make the same mistake. âI will always admit to what Iâve done wrong,â Hardesty told us.
Shortly after OPBâs story broke in September, Smith issued a press release announcing that Hardesty had embezzled money from the NAACP. Neither her office nor any legal officials have offered proof to substantiate that serious allegation. Itâs only one example of Smithâs affinity for old-school smear campaigns. In the Mercuryâs interview, Smith hinted that Hardesty may have been dishonorably discharged during her stint in the US Navy. (Military records shared with the Mercury by Hardestyâs campaign show Hardesty had been honorably discharged from active duty in 1979 before continuing in the Navy Reserve until 1984.)
Sure, negative attacks are somewhat expected from a candidate who lost to Hardesty by 25 percentage points in Mayâs primary election. But this behavior isnât just reserved for a cutthroat campaign: As county commissioner, Smith was accused of making racially charged remarks about Latinos and Muslims, criticizing a female employee for her weight, and ordering staff to use personal time to attend her campaign events. A 2017 investigation into these allegations found them all to be true, and unearthed new issues with how Smith had mismanaged her officeâs finances by spending up to $2,300 on personal expenses. Smith falsely told the public that the report found all of these accusations to be unsubstantiated.
An elected official whoâs quick to drop baseless accusations about opponents to improve her standingâwhile blindly ignoring substantiated and substantial concerns about her own conductâhas no place in our council chambers. We canât have someone prioritizing her own reputation over whatâs best for a community.
Hardestyâs expertise, resilience, and community-focused policymaking belongs in city hall. Weâre excited to see what new ideas, conversations, and policies sheâll bring to Portlandâs stagnant city council.
Measure 26-199: Metro Housing BondâYes
Itâs no secret that Portlandâs in the midst of an affordable housing crisis. Since former Mayor Charlie Hales declared a âhousing state of emergencyâ in 2015, Portland and Multnomah County have thrown their weight behind a number of major shelter programs, low-income housing developments, and new protections for tenants who may be one late rent check away from eviction. But weâre nowhere near closing the housing gap for the regionâs poorest, a population that has watched rents rise by more than 40 percent since 2011. Itâs also clear that this housing deficit spreads beyond city and county boundaries and has rapidly become a problem for neighboring cities like Gresham and Beaverton.
Thatâs why weâre entrusting Metro, the regional government that oversees Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington counties, to roll out a $652.8 million affordable housing bond across the region. The price? An annual fee of around $60 for all homeowners. While the Metro bond certainly wonât solve the housing crisis, it will jump-start a coordinated, regional effort to keep the areaâs most vulnerable from slipping into homelessness.
The proposed affordable housing bond promises to fund 2,400 permanently affordable homes for more than 7,500 people in the region. That number will be doubled if Oregon voters pass Measure 102âa statewide constitutional amendment that will make it easier for government bodies to partner with nonprofits to create housing. To make the biggest impact, Metroâs focusing on the most vulnerable renters first. While the metro region currently offers a decent number of rental options for people who are âmoderatelyâ low-income, and make 60 to 80 percent of the regionâs median annual income (between $49,000 and $65,000 for a family of four or between $34,000 and $45,000 for an individual), itâs facing a severe shortfall of around 48,000 rental units for those making less.
Up to 50 percent of the bondâs funds will go toward housing for people making no more than 30 percent of the regionâs median annual income (around $25,000 for a family of four or $17,000 for a single individual), a population that is disproportionately represented by communities of color. No more than 10 percent of homes would be offered to people making 60 to 80 percent of the median family income. Half of the new homes will have at least two bedrooms to accommodate families.
The few opponents to this bondâincluding Republican gubernatorial candidate Knute Buehlerâbelieve Oregonâs affordable housing shortfall is best addressed by giving tax breaks and subsidies to private developers who offer low-income housing. But in Portland, weâve seen similar programs disincentivize new residential development, and instead encourage developers to move major projects to other cities and states. By now, itâs painfully obvious the private market wonât cure our housing woeÂsâand weâre long past the point of waiting to see if itâll change course.
While Metro, known for managing regional parks, the Oregon Zoo, and waste facilities, doesnât normally take a role in housing issues, this kind of widespread crisis calls for widespread coordination. And Metro is the only local government agency that has proven success at managing massive, unwieldy tri-county programs. In the words of incoming Metro President Lynn Peterson: âWe need to move forward because doing nothing is not an option.â
Measure 26-201: Portland Clean Energy InitiativeâYes
Earlier this month, the United Nationsâ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sounded a red alert for our overpopulated planet. Without massive, worldwide changes, the IPCC warned, the already lethal effects of climate changeâhotter temperatures, bigger wildfires, and intensifying hurricanesâwill include longer droughts, rising sea levels, and climate refugees fleeing widespread starvation. None of those predictions are new, but the timeline for them is shorter than anyone expected: two decades.
If history is any indication, the IPCCâs report will be, for all intents and purposes, ignored. Climate change is so horrificâand fighting it on any meaningful scale is so mind-bogglingly difficultâthat itâs easy to pretend it will only affect others, that thereâs no way our children will die of thirst or be burned alive. But some of them will, and the very entities that could do something to stop itâour national leaders and the corporations that, in many ways, hold just as much powerâchoose to do nothing.
No oneâs pretending that Measure 26-201, which would establish a Portland Clean Energy Initiative will single-handedly avert our Mad Max future. But it is doing something.
If approved by voters, the initiative will collect a meager feeâa 1 percent âbusiness license surchargeââto Portland retailers that have annual total revenues of at least $1 billion. That fund would help weatherize Portlandersâ homes, train Portlanders for green jobs, and increase the cityâs use of clean energy and our production of locally grown food. Notably, the surcharge wonât apply to the basic goods everyone needsâlike groceries and health careâand just as notably, the fund will prioritize helping Portlandâs low-income residents and people of color, the very populations most susceptible to climate change.
This is a tiny expense for a larger good, and for anyone paying attention, itâs a no-brainer: Measure 26-201 is championed by a wide swath of environmental and social organizations from the Sierra Club to the Oregon Food Bank, and a slew of forward-thinking politicians and experts, from Naomi Klein, author of This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, to Senator Jeff Merkley.
Meanwhile, the measureâs opponents include a cartoonish lineup of the big businesses that can, and should, do more: Amazon, Comcast, Walmart, Standard Insurance, US Bank, PapĂŠ, the Greenbrier Companies, Bank of America, and Kroger, the retail giant that owns Fred Meyer.
In the Mercuryâs endorsement interviews, the only wobbly opposition to Measure 26-201 came from the Portland Business Alliance (PBA), a lobbying group with a history of fighting common-sense efforts to make Portland more environmentally friendly and healthy, from Better Naito to earned sick leave. PBAâs new president and CEO, Andrew Hoan, vowed that a 1 percent tax on some of the worldâs biggest corporations would be directly passed on to Portlandersâbut thatâs an unproven argument that, in a time of need, encourages people to do nothing.
Donât fall for it. Do something. Vote yes on Measure 26-201.
Measure 26-200: Portland Campaign Finance ReformâYes
Given the chance, the smart, likeable nerds campaigning for Measure 26-200 will happily bury you in spreadsheets, lists, graphs, and statistics. (Thatâs what they spent most of the Mercuryâs endorsement interview doing, anyway. These guys really like their numbers.) As with just about everything regarding campaign finance reform, Measure 26-200 can seem complicated.
Yet not only is campaign finance reform incredibly important (as Ann Ravel, the former chair of the Federal Election Commission, puts it, âWhether it be education or tax reform or foreign policy, campaign finance is at the heart of all the policy decisions that are being madeâ), but once you get past all those spreadsheets? Measure 26-200 actually isnât that complicated.
The boiled-down version: This measure would limit the amount that individuals and political action committees (PACs) can donate to those running for office in Portland. The cap would be $500âa far cry from Oregonâs current system, which puts no limit on how much individuals or PACs can donate. That drastically favors well-connected candidates favored by well-moneyed individuals. (Look no further than Nike co-founder Phil Knight, who, directly and indirectly has given roughly $3.5 million to Republican gubernatorial candidate Knute Buehler.) Measure 26-200 would also require that committees running political ads on behalf of candidates prominently and clearly identify their top donors. Currently, those donorsâbe they individuals, businesses, or special-interest groupsâcan hide behind the names of PACs, which are often misleadingly or euphemistically named in order to confuse voters.
Measure 26-200 is similar to a measure Seattle voters passed in 2015, and itâs identical to a county charter amendment that Multnomah County voters approved in 2016, only to see a county judge declare it unconstitutional. While that amendment is stuck in legal limbo, itâs just part of a greater push to bring campaign finance reform to Oregonâa push that now involves Measure 26-200.
And by all indications, campaign finance reform is something Portlanders want: Not only did the 2016 measure pass with a whopping 89 percent of the vote, but the vast majority of Americans favor transparency in campaign financing.
The US Supreme Courtâs disastrous 2010 ruling on Citizens United v. FEC all but guaranteed that dark money will continue to be used to manipulate elections across the country. We canât fix everywhere elseâbut we can make sure that in Portland, campaign donations are limited, disclosed, and regulated in a way that lets everyone know who stands to benefit in each election. Thatâs information every voter needs. Vote yes on 26-200.
RELATED: America's in Trouble. Here's How to Get Involved in National Politics!
Multnomah County Auditorâ
Jennifer McGuirk
Auditors are arguably the most important elected officials in local politics. These are the incredibly busy, incredibly shrewd officials who sift through budgets and databases to decide which areas of the government needs serious investigating. Auditors are the first to point out when government promises arenât being delivered and the first to call public attention to issues lawmakers may be avoiding.
We made the decision to endorse Jennifer McGuirk during the May primary electionâand weâre sticking to it. McGuirk already works within the county auditorâs office, but finds the current, outgoing leadership lacking. Sheâd like to reinvigorate the auditorâs office with long-overdue investigations into massive county departments like the Multnomah County jail system, mental health programs, and the countyâs housing and homeless services. She believes the best audits are conducted âfrom the perspective of those trying to access the services,â rather than those already inside the system.
To confront equity issues within the county, McGuirk wants to bring back an anonymous hotline meant to help county employees report mismanagement, abuse, or discrimination in their own departments. Sheâs ready to hold the countyâs feet to the flame during a period of massive growth and discontent with systemic issues, and weâre here for it.
GovernorâKate Brown
The United States is currently going through a phase not unlike pubertyâfull of poorly-planned risks and terribly embarrassing decisions weâll regret for years to come. In the midst of this instability, itâs important that Oregon has a leader who can safeguard our constitutional rights while keeping state-level programs afloatâand not lose their mind in the process. Weâre certainly not in the position to take a gamble on a sophomore politician just to spice up our stateâs politics.
Thatâs why we believe Governor Kate Brown should continue to helm Oregonâs government.
Since Brown entered the governorâs office in 2015âswooping in after a power-wielding scandal ended in then-Governor John Kitzhaberâs resignationâsheâs begun weaving a sturdy safety net for Oregonâs future. In 2015, Brown signed into law the countryâs most progressive reproductive health care bill, the Reproductive Health Equity Act (RHEA), which prohibits insurance companies from charging Oregon womenâincluding undocumented immigrant womenâa copay for an abortion procedure. In an endorsement interview with the Mercury, Brown said she created this act to protect Oregonians from any federal-level changes to a womanâs right to chose. (Looking at you, Kavanaugh.)
In 2017, Brown championed a massive transportation bill that would increase public transportation investments, make seismic upgrades to Oregonâs highways, unclog the traffic nightmare around Portlandâs Rose Quarter, and introduce sidewalks and crosswalks to the notoriously dangerous (and weirdly state-owned) Powell Boulevard. The bill, which prioritized transportation projects for underserved minority communities, required a heavy lift to get bipartisan supportâwhich Brown did without breaking a sweat.
Brownâs safety net isnât without gaps. Under her watch, Oregonâs public schools have maintained the lowest graduation rates in the country, and the stateâs cash-strapped classrooms continue to shed resources and gain students. In August, Brown announced a new plan to repair the floundering education systemâwhich included longer school years and expanded career technical programsâbut didnât flag any specific funding sources. In her endorsement interview with the Mercury, Brown said it would likely involve some tax hikes. Brownâs opponent, orthopedic surgeon and Representative Knute Buehler, hates tax hikes.
Buehler, who refused an interview with the Mercury without giving any explanation, has used Oregonâs faltering education system to criticize Brown and collect bipartisan support along the campaign trail, and heâs brought up genuine concerns about the future of Oregonâs pension system.
Whatâs most impressive about Buehlerâs campaign, however, is his ability to rebrand himself. Since Buehler began his campaign for governor, heâs aggressively marketed himself as a moderate conservative who will happily empathize with liberals who are critical of Brownâs tenure. Heâs called himself pro-choice, talked about tightening state gun control laws, and promised to protect Medicaid from federal cuts.
Thatâs candidate Buehler. But as a member of the Oregon State Legislature, a job heâs held for only four years, Buehler voted against a bill to expand Medicaid and against a number of bills meant to improve womenâs access to reproductive health care and abortion. Most notably, Buehler voted against Brownâs RHEA billâthen boasted about his anti-abortion vote on a conservative talk show.
Heâs also held onto some of his socially conservative stances on the campaign trail. Buehler supports Measure 105, an anti-immigrant measure disguised as a public safety issue, and has pitched a âtough loveâ plan to âsolveâ homelessness that includes new legislation to give local governments more power to arrest people for sitting or lying down in public spaces.
Buehlerâs also against the Metro Housing Bond that has promised to create thousands of new affordable units. He believes giving rental assistance to low-income Oregonians living in privately owned rentals is a better call, and sees the private housing market solving the housing deficit.
Brown, who supports the Metro bond, has doubled the number of affordable homes in Oregon since taking office. She sees value in partnering with nonprofits who can help homeless Oregonians transition into longterm housingârather than handing them a rental subsidy and hoping for the best.
Despite labeling himself pro-choice, Buehlerâs told conservative voters heâs opposed to using state funds to cover abortion costs, except in cases where it is âmedically necessary.â That blurry, non-medical terminology only applies to cases where a woman will die if she doesnât get an abortion.
While Buehlerâs done a spectacular job at charming liberal Oregonians with promises that contradict his voting record, weâre not that easily fooled. Weâre also not ready to sacrifice womenâs health care, immigrant rights, and housing stability by handing the reins over to Buehler. We prefer a lawmaker who is consistent with her politics and has found her place at the top through thoughtful leadership and hard-earned trust. Vote Brown.
Measure 102: Using Housing Bonds For Public/Private ProjectsâYes
Oregonâs affordable housing crisis demands as much help from as many entities as possible. In the past, affordable housing projects have seen the most success when both private and public sectors join forcesâusing their unique understanding of the housing market and tenantsâ needs to strike an equitable balance. However, an outdated rule in the Oregon Constitution has kept a lot of these projects from reaching their potential. The constitution currently prohibits local governments from spending affordable housing bond dollars on housing that is not government-owned. Measure 102 would amend that rule to allow housing bond funds to support affordable housing that is owned or managed by a private entity.
We know what youâre thinking: âWhy would I want my tax dollars going into the pockets of private property owners? Thatâs shady as hell, Mercury goons!â
Okay. Take this example: At the moment, all residential buildings funded by Portlandâs 2016 Housing Bond must be owned and operated by the city. The city, however, is not the local expert in affordable housing programs and would rather allow nonprofits with decades of expertise in this area, like Transition Projects and Central City Concern, manage these massive public investments. Partnering with these programs would open up new funding sources and guarantee the publicâs investment in affordable housing is being used in the most effective and efficient way.
If passed, Measure 102 will allow the Portland Housing Bond to build nearly 4,000 additional affordable units than are currently projected. And if both Measure 102 and the Metro Housing Bond (Measure 26-199) are approved this November, the Metro bond could place a further 4,500 people in affordable housing. Measure 102 is easily the least controversial measure on your ballot. Vote yes.
Measure 103: Grocery Tax BanâNo
Measure 103 aims to protect corporations from regulations that donât exist. The measure, bankrolled by Oregonâs top grocery and beverage companies, introduces a constitutional amendment that would ban any new taxes on groceries. At the moment, there are no current or pending taxes proposed on the grocery industry in Oregon. This is more of a defensive move by industry leaders who are hoping to preempt any legislative attempts to tax certain types of foodâlike soda or candyâin the future. Itâs no coincidence this measure comes just two years after voters defeated Measure 97, a proposed 2.5 percent tax on the revenue of Oregonâs largest corporationsâincluding those in the grocery biz. Oregon grocers doled out more than $7 million in 2016 to successfully defeat Measure 97.
Measure 103 gives major grocery stores an unnecessary buffer from necessary taxes that may pop up down the road. But weâre even more irked by how sloppily thrown together this particular ballot measure is. The measure defines âgroceriesâ as âraw or processed food or beverages intended for human consumption,â meaning it could effectively ban any new taxes on food sold at convenience stores, farmersâ markets, catering companies, movie theaters, sports arenas, hospitals, hotels, or any kind of restaurant. (This has delighted the restaurant industry, which has put little time or money into lobbying for this measure.) Meanwhile, it will still allow for taxes on non-food items at grocery stores, alcohol, and tobacco products (though some argue its phrasing leaves a loophole for nicotine-only products, like e-cigarettes).
Itâs unknown how Measure 103âs vague phrasing and hurried promises will unintentionally impact Oregon industries and consumers. Weâre not interested in finding out. Vote no on Measure 103.
Measure 104: Restrict Raising RevenueâNo
Measure 104 shares many similarities with Measure 103. Like the grocery tax ban, Measure 104 is a preemptive move by conservative groups defending their business earnings in Oregon. Measure 104âs text is intentionally confusing to anyone who doesnât closely follow the Oregon Legislature, but itâs not that complicated.
In short, Measure 104 expands what kind of changes to the constitution require a three-fifthsâor supermajorityâvote to pass in both legislative chambers. In doing so, the measure would make it much harder for lawmakers to pass bills that decrease current tax breaks or increase taxes, which are both important tools to raise state revenue. The measure will add unnecessary gridlock to our already-glacial legislative processes, allowing special-interest groups more time to lobby against tax cuts and fees. By doing so, Measure 104 could waste thousands of taxpayer dollars by drawing out the legislative session to favor the minority party. Unsurprisingly, this measure is backed by conservative-leaning special-interest groups like the Oregon Home Builders Association and Oregon Business and Industry.
Weâre not interested in corporate lobbyists or bitter minority legislators holding our tax dollars hostage for their own gains. Vote no on Measure 104.
Measure 105: Repeal Sanctuary State LawâNo
If you consider yourself a relatively decent person with a moral compass, voting no on Measure 105âwhich would invalidate Oregonâs sanctuary lawâis a very easy choice. In a nutshell, the sanctuary law, which passed almost unanimously 30 years ago, stops law enforcement from using public resources to track down and arrest anyone whose only offense is being in the country illegally.
Opponents of the law want to repeal it, and itâs no surprise why theyâve chosen this particular moment in time. Inspired and emboldened by Donald Trumpâs racist âzero toleranceâ anti-immigration stance, Oregonâs far-right conservatives want local law enforcement to assist federal agencies like ICE in arresting and deporting undocumented immigrantsâregardless of the horrors they may face in their home countries.
But the passage of Measure 105 also causes further harmâsuch as increased racial profiling, which the sanctuary law was originally designed to curtail. Documented immigrants, as well as people of color who were born in this country, are already harassed by ICE agents who incorrectly assume citizenship status based on skin color. Wiping out Oregonâs sanctuary law would almost certainly entice bad-apple cops into committing further acts of prejudice.
Communities of color are already distrustful of police, and their suspicions would only intensify if the police were working hand-in-hand with ICE. Law enforcement depends on cooperation from these communities in order to prevent and solve crimesâbut there isnât much of an upside to coming forward with information when the cops may very well turn you over to the feds. Those experiencing domestic violence would be even more wary of contacting police, putting them in further danger.
Measure 105 is steeped in fear and racism: Proponents incorrectly assert (employing Trumpâs coded language) that undocumented immigrants bring more crime to their communities, which could not be further from the truth. A number of studies reveal the exact oppositeâin fact, undocumented immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born citizens, and by a large margin. And while 18 rural Oregon sheriffs, Republican gubernatorial candidate Knute Buehler, and groups such as Oregonians for Immigration Reform (which is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center) have come out in favor of the measure, their suspect concerns have been met and opposed by an overwhelming number of Oregonâs law enforcement officials, district attorneys, mayors, businesses, and faith organizations.
This is a very easy choice. Vote a resounding no on the racially fueled Measure 105.
Measure 106: Bans Public Funds For AbortionâNo
The anti-abortion folks backing Measure 106 want voters to believe this is a measure that will simply let Oregonians decide where their tax dollars are headed. Itâs not. Measure 106 is a thinly-veiled ban on abortion for state employees and low-income Oregonians.
Letâs break it down: Measure 106 would prohibit public funding from covering the cost of an abortion. That means women enrolled in Oregonâs Medicaid program, the Oregon Health Plan (OHP), and public employees signed up for health insurance would immediately lose abortion coverage. All told, the measure would impact more than 300,000 women.
Proponents argue that pulling public funding isnât the same as a formal ban on abortion. But forcing low-income Oregon women to pay out of pocket for an abortionâranging anywhere from $300 to $3,000âis simply a sneakier, crueler way to keep the legal option out of reach. During the Mercuryâs endorsement interview, Yes on 106 campaign spokesperson Nichole Bentz told us the campaign âhadnât consideredâ the impact it would have on low-income women.
Unfortunately, dozens of other states have given us a preview of how Measure 106 could impact Oregon women. In the 33 states that have adopted the federal model of banning public dollars from covering abortion costs, women are going into debt to pay for the procedure, delaying important healthcare, missing work to drive to out-of-state clinics, undergoing dangerous illegal abortions, or going through with a pregnancy they know theyâre not ready for.
To be clear: Getting an abortion is never, never an easy decision. It isnât a fun decision. It isnât a decision that comes without consequences and long-term trauma. But it is a decision. And since 1973, women in the US have been granted the freedom to make this extremely personal decision about their bodies, lives, and futures without explanation or apology. Measure 106 will take that freedom away from Oregon women.
Oregon is the only state in the nation without laws restricting a womanâs access to safe and legal abortion. Meanwhile, Oregon has continued to push for policies that expand reproductive health coverage, like the 2017 Reproductive Health Equity Act (RHEA), laying the groundwork for other state-level legislation across the country. States look to Oregon to lead the way to a future where womenâs health care is as unregulated as menâs. With a conservative-learning US Supreme Court presenting a new threat to federal abortion policies, we need to hold tight to the few protections our state can offer women of all income levels. Vote no on Measure 106.
The Mercury Election Strike Force is News Editor Alex Zielinski, Executive Editor Erik Henriksen, Editor-in-Chief Wm. Steven Humphrey, Senior Editor Ciara Dolan, Arts Editor Suzette Smith, and Copy Chief Jenni Moore.
