Measure would help fund affordable housing by eliminating restrictions on combining government loans or credits with private funding.
Currently, the Oregon Constitution bars local government from loaning credit or raising money for private businesses. Measure 102 would add an exception to the rule for housing developers, allowing private entities a tool to help pay for affordable housing projects.
Affordable housing has been described as a “crisis” statewide. According to data released by Oregon Housing and Community Services, the state as a deficit of almost 90,000 housing units for residents who earn less than 50 percent of the state’s median income currently estimated at just over $60,000 a year.
In Cottage Grove, local officials have addressed the lack of housing citing its effect on the community. City Councilor Mike Fleck and Planning and Development Director Faye Stewart met with realtors and developers to assess the greatest hurdles in providing more housing and while System Development Charges (charges levied to a project to offset the impact to the community in regards to water, sewer, traffic and roads) were on the list, the number one issue was being able to make it through a lagging permit process with the city.
Under Stewart, that system has since changed, making it easier for developers to make their way from point A to point B.
A recent housing analysis conducted by a third party estimated that Cottage Grove’s population would increase by just over 3,000 residents in the next 20 years, creating the need for at least 1,379 new housing units. Rental rates in the city have followed regional and national trends, increasing each year as inventory becomes scarce, currently landing anywhere between $600 to $1,200 a month depending on the number of bedrooms.
Measure 102 does not define “affordable housing,” instead it allows each municipality to choose its own definition. It also allows the bonds to be paired with incentives like waived permit fees — a benefit the city of Cottage Grove already offers based on the project.
Municipalities can already issue bonds to help fund housing. In 2016, Portland approved a bond measure mounting $250 million and residents will vote again this year on a $653 million measure. However, the current rules set out in the constitution that bar local governments from loaning credit or raising money for
private businesses means those bonds can’t be utilized by private housing developers, eliminating the chance at a public/private partnership between the city of Portland and a private housing development company. Measure 102 would change that, allowing the partnership.
The case for each project would still have to be made to voters in order to issue the bonds and should the bonds be approved, the measure requires a yearly audit of the funds and a report on how they’re being spent.
The measure has received support from both sides of the aisle with both gubernatorial candidates saying they supported the measure. Oregon AFL-CIO and IBEW Local 48, both union groups, voiced their support of the measure in this year’s voter pamphlet along with AARP Oregon and the League of Women Voters. The sole argument against the measure included in the voter pamphlet was state senator Alan Olsen arguing that “affordable housing” wasn’t defined in the measure and said he believed the measure could cause property taxes to increase.
Measure 102 would not increase property taxes on its own. If approved, voters would decide if bond measures could be implemented and those funds — once green-lighted by voters — could be utilized by private housing developers. In Cottage Grove, the South Lane School District asked voters to pass a $35 million bond in 2016 to construct a new elementary school, remodel the community pool and improve technology and security around the district. In 2015, South Lane County Fire and Rescue asked voters to fund the purchase of new equipment including a water tender and fire engine.
Those bonds, in turn, increased property taxes but only after voters approved the measure.
Measure 103 seeks to prohibit sales tax on groceries
Oregon sits uniquely in the Pacific Northwest as a state without a sales tax. When struggling Oregon families plot out their food expenditures, they can rely on their supermarkets’ price tags without any surprises at the cash register.
Still, in September this year, more than 620,000 Oregonians received help from the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), according to the Department of Human Services. With hundreds of thousands of households living on thin margins, many can ill afford price hikes in basic necessities.
A measure on the Oregon ballot this year will challenge a perceived threat to these necessities.
Measure 103 would amend the Oregon Constitution by adding a 16th section to Article IX. It proposes to prohibit taxes and fees based on the transactions of groceries, which would extend to sellers and distributors such as supermarkets, restaurants, farmers markets and food banks.
The bill defines groceries as “any raw or processed food or beverage intended for human consumption,” but does not include alcohol, marijuana or tobacco products.
The proposed amendment has drawn strong support from food and beverage distributors, but finds dissent among a wide range of critics concerned about the bill’s sprawling definitions and lack of necessity.
Oregon does not currently have a statewide sales tax on any items — including groceries — although two Oregon cities, Ashland and Yachats, do have a five percent tax on prepared food and nonalcoholic drinks, which essentially apply to restaurants.
Both were voter-approved.
Ashland first approved its local tax in 1990 to help fund costs associated with the construction of a wastewater treatment plant and to purchase land for parks. In 2009, voters chose to renew it.
Yachats first started collecting its food and beverage tax in 2007, also to pay for a new wastewater treatment facility, and modeled their tax policy on Ashland’s, letting businesses keep five percent of any sales tax they collect to offset accounting costs.
“It has, by and large, been a positive effect on the community,” said Yachats Mayor Gerald Stanley.
Outside of Yachats and Ashland, Oregon does not tax food and beverages, although such a tax was proposed in Grants Pass in 2006 and residents turned it down. This year in Jacksonville, an effort was made to bring a similar tax to ballot, but failed to garner the required signatures.
As these local negotiations have taken place, however, bigger stakes are on the table in the state legislature.
In support of Measure 103, campaign contributions are currently around $4.2 million, compared to the opposition’s roughly $2.8 million.
The American Beverage Association has poured more than $1 million into the support campaign and other major donors include Albertsons, Safeway, Kroger, Costco and the Northwest Grocery Association.
When the initiative received enough signatures this spring to be placed on the Nov. 6 General Election ballot, Joe Gilliam, president of the Northwest Grocery Association, hailed the moment as a “major milestone.”
A leading proponent of the bill, he said, “Since statehood, Oregon has never taxed groceries, yet politicians in Oregon continue to push for a tax on grocery sales. This initiative will end these efforts and other future efforts by proactively prohibiting the taxing of groceries from farm-to-fork.”
The Grocery Tax ‘Push’
Gilliam’s claim that Oregon politicians have continuously sought to impose grocery taxes echoes similar claims made by the Yes on 103 campaign and its supporters — that Oregon politicians have tried several times over the years to institute a grocery tax.
Evidence for this, however, is sparse.
On the Yes on 103 campaign’s website, an advertisement cites specific political moves as proof of such attempts.
First among them is House Bill 2830 from 2017. This bill proposed to increase the state’s corporate income tax; however, there is no mention specifically of food or beverage.
The advertisement also refers to Oregon’s Measure 97, which failed to receive a majority vote in the General Election in 2016. The measure would have removed the cap on the corporate gross sales tax — again, however, with no specific language targeting food or groceries.
Also listed as an attempt at a grocery tax is Senate Joint Resolution 18 in 2015, but government records show that this resolution proposed to amend the Oregon Constitution in relation to an education support fund, wholly unrelated to food or beverage.
House Bill 2330 from 2017 is also found among proponents’ examples of grocery tax proposals, but this bill was “relating to charges for electricity delivered to the public for electrically powered motor vehicles,” according to state documents.
Other cited attempts at the local level are Ontario’s failed Measure 23-58, a broad sales tax, and St. Helen City Council’s unanimous rejection of a proposed sweetened-beverage tax earlier this year.
The lack of proposals to specifically target groceries and the thematic thread of general sales taxes cited among objectionable proposals leave the impression that the bill’s backers are concerned mainly with an overall sales tax — not grocery tax.
Still, in a KTVZ television interview, Yes on 103 campaign spokesman Dan Floyd said that the measure would prevent lawmakers from imposing a burden on the people most affected by grocery costs.
“I think that (the opposition is) in full support of taxing your food and beverage,” he said. “They believe state and local government need the money. And we understand that revenue is important, but we don’t think it should be a regressive tax on the people who can afford to pay it the least, and it shouldn’t be on your food and beverages.”
Regressive as it might be, little evidence suggests that any state politicians are in favor of a grocery tax or that the needy live under its perpetual threat.
Others believe the real threat lies in a subsection of the bill referring to the “corporate minimum tax.”
Corporations vs. Local Control
When Oregon businesses pay taxes, they must pay the greater between two options: (1) roughly 0.1 percent of sales, known as the corporate minimum tax; or (2) 6.6 percent on taxable income up to $1 million or 7.6 percent over $1 million. The minimum tax on sales is capped at $100,000.
A subsection of Measure 103 addresses the corporate minimum tax specifically, stating that the prohibition against imposing taxes applies to this tax as well, effectively protecting the corporate minimum tax from future increases.
The Yes on 103 campaign flatly rejects that the bill is a corporate tax break on its website’s FAQ.
However, in a December 2017 petition to place this initiative on the ballot, the Oregon Attorney General’s office considered an objection raised by the chief petitioners of the bill.
In drafting the “yes” and “no” vote result summaries for the
measure, proponents of the bill petitioned unsuccessfully to remove the “corporate minimum tax” reference from the “no” vote summary, positing that it was beyond the scope of the measure. The attorney general’s office disagreed and retained the reference in the summary.
The office explained that, “inclusion of a reference to the corporate minimum tax advances voters (sic) knowledge about the measure,” and that “we believe that a significant effect of the measure is that the corporate minimum tax could not be amended as it applies to sellers and distributors of groceries.”
The attempt to extract a reference to the corporate minimum tax points to an issue seldom brought to attention by the bill’s proponents — namely, that corporations which sell or distribute groceries would benefit from having a certain portion of their revenue immune to changes in state tax policy.
This effective freeze on corporate minimum taxes has drawn attention from opponents of the bill, who argue that it would place grocery sellers, such as supermarkets, in a protected category apart from other businesses.
In an op-ed for the Statesman Journal, Salem Mayor Chuck Bennett wrote, “This dangerous constitutional amendment would take away local control from communities, all so special interests can claim a huge tax carveout.
“What is right for one community can be dead wrong for another, and it should be up to those communities — not special interests — to make those decisions.”
Decisions by the citizens of Ashland and Yachats stand as examples of how local control can extinguish specific challenges to communities.
In Yachats, construction of an updated sewage system was mandated by the state at the time of the local measure and the $8 million project left the small town with few options in terms of revenue. The five-percent tax was met with mild resistance, Stanley said, but has become an accepted feature of the town.
“It’s helped us meet a tremendous challenge,” he said.
In all, arguments for the measure are largely based on its proactive effects — protecting struggling families, small businesses and farmers from a grocery tax which would put such communities and sectors in financial peril. These concerns, however, are mainly referenced by attempts to impose general sales taxes which, local and state, have found contention only within the broader public negotiation of where and when taxes should apply.
Statewide, no taxes specific to groceries have been brought to the Oregon Legislature. Locally, taxes on prepared food and beverage have been limited in scale and respectively approved or voted against in cities such as Ashland, Yachats, Grants Pass and Jacksonville.
The threat of a statewide grocery tax looms somewhat as an apparition in light of this, leaving voters to consider whether their local governments should retain control of such decisions or change the constitution to enact a tax prohibition across the state.
Amends Constitution: Expands (beyond taxes) application of requirement that three-fifths legislative majority approve bills raising revenue.
Oregon voters will decide this November if the state’s supermajority rule for raising revenue needs to be more broadly defined.
If passed, Measure 104 will amend Section 25 of Article IV of the Oregon Constitution to expand the definition of “bills for raising revenue” to include tax or fee increases and any changes to tax exemptions, credits or deductions which result in increased revenue.
As it stands, this provision in the state’s constitution already requires a three-fifths vote from both legislative chambers to raise revenue, but it has been interpreted by Oregon courts to be restricted to new levies and tax increases that bring money into the state treasury. Proponents of the measure believe this interpretation has opened the door to a range of so-called “loopholes” which allow legislators to skirt the Constitution with a simple majority vote.
Oregon has required a three-fifths supermajority to raise revenue since 1996 when Measure 25 passed with 54.69 percent approval.
In 2015, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled in the case of City of Seattle v. Department of Revenue that reforming or repealing tax expenditures — deductions, credits, subtractions and exemptions — requires only a simple majority vote, changing the playing field for where sources of revenue come from.
One of those sources has been cutting tax breaks. Oregon has around 350 state tax breaks for items like business expenses and interest on mortgages. Eliminating these brings in more money for the government without technically raising taxes. Because Democrats are currently one seat shy of a supermajority in each house, these revenue sources have been an appealing target.
mong legislation was Senate Bill 1528, which passed earlier this year. The bill disconnected Oregon from the federal tax code, disallowing federal tax breaks to a subset of businesses, and thus ensured a steady revenue source of an estimated $244 million over the next two years and a total of $1.05 billion through 2023.
Immediately following her signing of the bill, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown returned roughly $15 million to a segment of very small businesses known as sole proprietorships in the form of lower tax rates — but critics argued it was too little, too late.
“Bottom line, government through tricks and schemes has $230 million in revenue from small businesses,” said Paul Rainey, manager of the Yes on 104 campaign. “That’s not fair.”
Rainey believes Measure 104 is needed to keep such legislation from becoming the norm.
“It stops one party from pushing through controversial tax increases on party line votes,” he said.
Proponents also feel the supermajority rule would encourage bipartisanship from a legislature that has already evinced a degree of cooperation.
“Look at the transportation package. You had Republicans and Democrats come together and find a solution,” said Rainey.
The 2017 package was the largest transportation funding bill in Oregon history and was heralded as a watershed moment for the Oregon Legislature, not just for its comprehensiveness, but its bipartisan teamwork.
“The Legislature showed that they’re willing to work together,” Rainey said.
Measure 104 has found significant backing from the real estate industry, which is eager to protect tax deductions on mortgage interest rates, and other sectors such as agriculture and small business communities which have watched with suspicion as legislators have attempted to impose fees and eliminate personal property tax exemptions.
Critics of these attempts worry a volatile tax landscape could be disruptive and even destructive for businesses already struggling with thin margins.
“If they can change the rules and raise taxes on a simple majority vote, it’s a risk I don’t think we can afford,” said Rainey. “There should be accountability. And a 60 percent vote is a higher level of accountability.”
Although supporters of the bill claim legislators have found loopholes to circumvent the system, opponents argue that loopholes, such as special interest tax breaks, already exist and that a simple majority vote is an effective way to close them. Tax breaks for golf course owners, heated pools and politicians’ meals and gas are commonly pointed to as being protected by supermajority rules.
“It just makes their job easier,” said State Sen. Mark Hass of District 14. “Now they only have to find 12 votes to kill a bill that would remove or modify tax breaks.”
Additionally, Oregon is on a two-year course to collect around $1.5 billion from its thousands of fees on items such as wastewater permits and overnight camping in state parks. Routine updates to these fees are a feature of collecting that revenue, a process which critics of the bill say could be stultified by a minority should Measure 104 pass.
“These are the kind of day-to-day, practical decisions the Legislature does all the time,” Hass said. “And I don’t think you can govern on a day-to-day basis by language in the constitution. That’s not what the constitution should be used for.”
The ability to react to these issues is a feature of flexible government and many worry that expanding the role of the supermajority vote would risk politicizing basic government maintenance such as fee updates and targeting waste.
“We’ve seen in the Legislature in the last 10 years legislators come in and they don’t vote for a fee increase at any point, no matter what,” said Hass. “So that’s a problem.”
The degree of a state’s flexibility is also a measure of its reliability for investors. Supermajority states can be unattractive to capital investors and be seen as less trustworthy by bond rating agencies because of the state’s lack of flexibility to raise revenue. Lower bond ratings means higher interest payments to investors and thus higher costs for new schools, roads, hospitals and other bond-related projects. For a state experiencing a housing crisis, more expensive bonds that impose heavier property taxes would be another log on the fire.
With Democrats needing to gain just one seat in each house to achieve a three-fifths majority, the measure may in any case be unable to achieve its goals after Election Day even if it passes.
Promises it will encourage bipartisanship may also be fundamentally inconsequential. Although gridlock is written
into the DNA of the U.S. political system, the Oregon Legislature enjoys a degree more cooperation than its counterparts.
“We’re a little bit like a Sunday school compared to a lot of state congresses,” said Hass.
Despite the lawmaking body’s spirit of cooperation, Hass said the risk of gridlock would be increased with the passing of Measure 104.
“It’s not that we don’t argue and have healthy debate,” he said, “but there are some lobbyists who would like to get a head start and make an easier go of it by locking this measure up in the constitution.”
Allows use of state/local law enforcement resources to enforce federal immigration laws.
One of the most discussed measures on the Nov. 6 ballot is Measure 105, which would repeal Oregon Revised Statute 181a.820, known as the “Sanctuary State” law, which was passed in 1987. The intent of the original legislation was to address racial profiling of people of color by local, state and federal authorities. The law significantly constrained the methods and resources that law enforcement could use to determine an immigrant’s residency status.
Measure 105 would allow authorities to use all methods at their disposal to detect, pursue and prosecute all illegal immigrants in the state.
Measure 105 was placed on the ballot after three Republican members of the Oregon House of Representatives, Sal Esquivel, Mike Nearman and Greg Barretto, filed the proposal with the Secretary of State’s office in April 2017.
“It’s time that Oregon complies with federal law, like it should have in the first place,” Esquivel said when introducing the measure. “If you want to become an American, become an American. If you want to come here for economic advantages and do it illegally, then I don’t think you should belong here.”
Measure 105 would allow any law enforcement agency to use agency funds, personnel and equipment to detect and apprehend people whose only violation of the law is a violation of federal immigration law.
Jim Ludwick, communications director for Oregonians for Immigration Reform, one of the main financial supporters of 105 said, “We’re seeing right now this big hubbub about the ed from their parents when they cross the border illegally. Well, any time somebody breaks the law and they’re incarcerated, they’re always separated from their children.”
Oregon State Rep. and gubernatorial candidate Knute Buehler supports Measure 105 and released a statement explaining that support.
“I see it as way to remove barriers between local and state law enforcement communicating and cooperating with federal officials to keep Oregonians safe. It’s regrettable that this measure is even needed,” Buehler said. “I’m voting for Measure 105. I’m not campaigning for it, it’s not something I pushed for to be on the ballot. But, you know, there needs to be clarity with regard to our immigration laws.”
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown is firmly opposed to Measure 105.
“I feel very strongly that Oregonians believe in fairness — in making sure that the statutes that we have in place that prohibit racial profiling for the last 30 years have been effective,” Brown said when asked about her stance in July. “I believe very strongly, and I know Oregonians agree, that folks want to make sure that their neighbors are safe and feel included in their communities. And certainly, should folks commit a crime, they should be held accountable.”
Patrick Starnes, Independent Party candidate for governor, is also opposed to Measure 105, but for different reasons than Brown.
“I used to be neutral,” Starnes said. “Then I found out a lot of the money was from out of state.”
Starnes went on to mention his opposition to outside interest groups like the Washington, D.C., based advocacy group Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which has sent $150,000 to affiliated groups in Oregon to promote passage of Measure 105.
Media outlets and the Southern Poverty Law Center have shown that FAIR has financial ties with white supremacist and other hate groups.
Social justice advocates are firmly opposed to the passage of 105, believing it will reintroduce the unjustified targeting of people of color by law enforcement authorities.
Ramon Ramirez, a leader for Oregon civil rights, is opposed to Measure 105, based on his experiences prior to the passage of Statute 181a.820, more than 30 years ago.
“Before Oregon had this law, I saw immigration agents, aided by local police, busting down doors and grabbing people off the street, with no way of knowing their immigration status,” Ramirez said. “My friends and neighbors, including U.S. citizens, were being harassed by local police demanding to see their papers. There was a lot of fear back then. But this sanctuary law made things a lot better.
“If Measure 105 passes, it would set Oregon back and I worry we could see an increase in profiling across the state.”
The State of Oregon Voters’ pamphlet for the Nov. 6 General Election allows supporters and those opposed to ballot measures to provide a statement detailing the reasons for their position. These position statements are presented under the heading of Arguments.
There are six statements presented that are in support of the passage of Measure 105. These statements of support are all from individuals, not organizations or affiliated groups, and three of them are from the representatives who introduced the bill.
The arguments provided for voters that are opposed to Measure 105 consists of 40 letters, most from groups or professional associations that are concerned with the negative impact passage would have on the state.
Groups that oppose Measure 105 include public health officials, district attorneys, international companies, construction and service industry leaders, religious communities and education entities, as well as the Service Employees International Union, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Democratic Party of Oregon, the Oregon Justice Center and current and former Oregon sheriffs and mayors.
The reasons for these groups’ opposition to 105 varies from social justice concerns to the need for agricultural and construction labor across the state to the belief that all people, regardless of their immigration status, deserve decent treatment and the opportunity to lead productive, safe and fulfilling lives. In all, there are statements from 170 high profile individuals or public organizations that have gone on the record, and taken a strong stand as being opposed to Measure 105.
However, just as with every measure on the ballot, the issue will be up to Oregon’s voters.
Amends Constitution: Prohibits spending “public funds” (defined) directly/indirectly for “abortion” (defined); exceptions, reduces abortion access.
Under current law, state-funded health plans, or health insurance procured by public employment, can help cover the cost of abortion services, when approved by medical professionals.
The law would prohibit this, except in cases where the mother's life is in danger, or in the case of ectopic pregnancy, where the fertilized egg attaches itself in a place other than inside the uterus, such as in the fallopian tube. The measure does not ban abortions in the state.
Oregon is one of 17 states that uses its own money to provide abortions to women eligible for Medicaid, according to a June 2018 story by Oregon Public Broadcasting. Federally, abortion funding is banned. In the 2016-2017 fiscal year, Oregon paid for 4,086 abortions.
Proponents of the measure state that the measure is about how the state spends taxpayer funding, and questioning if Oregon should be using money for the controversial procedure.
Opponents say that restricting funding will essentially be a ban on abortions for low-income wage earners.
Those in favor of the measure run the gamut of opinions, from anti-abortion sentiments couched in personal experience, to moderates who feel the state should not be getting involved in the debate.
“My life was shattered by shame,” wrote Linda Burwell of Women for Measure 106 for the Oregon State voters pamphlet. “The day of my abortion, the admitting clerk checked me in at a hospital in Portland and asked me to sign a permission from to dispose of the fetus. Until then I’d never heard the word fetus. This growth inside me was a ‘mass of cells, undeveloped tissue,’ not an unborn child. In that moment, I realized I was signing the death certificate for my child. In my shame, I chose my life over his.”
Burwell wrote that the current law is making is easy to “erase an entire generation” in a “genocide of the unborn children,” and that taxpayer funds would be better used for education, assistance and help for women to find “other options.”
“I am pro-choice, pro-responsibility, pro-Oregon, pro-women and pro-men,” wrote Angie Hummell of Hermiston. “I don’t necessarily like abortion (I wouldn’t choose one myself), but I also don’t believe I have the right to tell someone else what to do.”
Hummell stated that the issue was not about access to abortion, but whether or not it is right to ask those who do not believe in practice to help pay for it.
“Having person freedoms and individual rights are one thing — but asking YOU to fund MY rights is a totally different story,” she said, and then went on to liken the issue to the 2nd Amendment debate:
“...We all have the freedom of choice when it comes to gun ownership. But it doesn’t mean the government should reach into your pocket and buy my guns and ammo. … It’s exactly the same with elective abortions.”
Opponents of the measure argue that it would not stem the amount of abortions in the state but would only make them more dangerous and costlier.
“Lack of access to abortions harms low-income women and women of color,” City Club of Portland Executive Director Julia Meier wrote. “Policies that attempt to restrict funding for
abortions do not reduce the number of abortions sought or obtained. However, these policies do make abortions less safe and contribute to the economic instability of low-income women.”
For Christel Allen of NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon, the measure is about keeping healthcare available to all Oregonians.
“We believe that every Oregonian — especially those who have historically been marginalized — must have access to the full range of reproductive health care, starting with proper preventative care, and continuing through postpartum care,” she wrote. “This includes access to safe, affordable abortion care.”
Allen compared the measure to the national debate regarding women’s rights, stating, “...We have seen a fervor in attacks on women — we are living in a time when many of our elected officials and policies do not represent the views of the majority. This is why it’s so important that we hold the line in Oregon by opposing Measure 106.”
Fiscally, the measure would most likely have a negative effect on the Oregon tax base, according to the state.
If passed, the measure is inspected to increase public spending by $19.3 million annually, according to a report written by Oregon Secretary of State Dennis Richardson and other state agencies.
The report states that $2.9 million would be saved annually by preventing the types of abortions mentioned in the measure, according to the report.
However, there would be an increase of $22.2 million annually from those born due to the ban. The expenditures would come from health care, food and nutritional services provided by the state.
That financial impact wouldn’t be felt immediately, however. The first year is only expected to see an increase in $4.8 million in state costs.
One of the main reasons for budget increase is the income level of those who utilize abortion services. According to a 2017 study done by the Guttmacher Institute, which back legalized abortion, 49 percent of women who get abortions are below the federal poverty level, a group that traditionally utilizes state and federal social programs.
Organizations that are for the measure’s passage include a variety of grass roots organizations such as Women for Measure 106, Oregon Right to Life PAC, Public School Teachers for Measure 106 and Medical Professionals for Measure 106.
Opponents include the Oregon Medical Association, Oregon Nurses Association, Oregon Public Health Association and the Northwest Health Foundation.