Talk:List of Oregon ballot measures

Notes

This is a very incomplete list, of course. I added the ones I found most significant, from 1990 onwards. Maybe I'll go back to some older important ones earlier.

Clipdude 21:12 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Please can someone update this page?

There weren't any ballot measures in Oregon in 2005, and there weren't any in the 2006 Primary Election. There will be some in the fall General Election, but the Secretary of State's Office is still verifying the signatures and assigning measure numbers. PDF file from the Oregon SOS Office--Clipdude 07:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Complete

Can we please update the information past 2008, its been multiple years and some of the alst ballots are extremely important to our functioning as a modern state. I will work on it if I get the chance but in the meantime can someone please take some time to research and add the past few years, it would be awesome and is critical for this page. -michaelkemp2 161.38.218.188 (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

structure

It would be nice if there were a strong visual cue for measures that passed vs. failed, and those that amend the constitution vs. those that don't.

Not sure the best way to go about it, but I'll mull it over.

-Pete 20:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I found that the California page does this pretty well. I'm thinking a table would be best, with columns for number, pass/fail, constitutional/statutory, tax-increase(?), and description. -Pete 07:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, it would be good to come up with a standard "tense" that doesn't vary according to whether the measure passed or not. Instead of, for example, "would have amended" and "amended," maybe it would be best to just use the word "amend" - ? -Pete 23:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

results for 2006

Since the results are in, I'm moving the 2006 issues to the 2000's section, and stating which ones passed and failed. If the results turn out to be different in the morning, please change them. I am Girl 05:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ballot Measure 6 (1922)

I believe there's a mistake in the description of Measure 6 (1922). According to the Wikipedia page about the court case involved (linked), the ballot initiative was merely an amendment to an existing statute. It appears to me that the existing statute is the one described here, erroneously.

I know nothing about this except what I've found on Wikipedia, and have no legal experience...I'll modify the content to match my understanding, but hope that better legal minds will come along to review this section!

-Pete 06:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Chart

I like the idea of putting every ballot measure in a chart like at the bottom of the page, except we definitely need to go with a new color scheme. I'd say red/green ala sports wins and losses (Like at 2006 Oregon State Beavers football team). I'd also support a "notes" column at the end to mention any particularly notable ballot measures (For instance, we can write "Oregon becomes the first state in the United States to legalize medical marijuana" next to that measure. VegaDark 00:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Red and green is an interesting idea, though mapping those to "win" and "lose" is highly POV.

My first impression about the shaded background is mixed: good for on screen viewing, but not obviously helpful for black and white printing. For that reason, the table without the "passed" column (on User:Peteforsyth/measurechart) is probably not a good idea. Also, it's no longer necessarily the case that 50 percent or more "yes" results in passage, at least on tax measures.

List of California ballot propositions 2000-present is minimalistic, simple and to-the-point: probably good enough. Though, for this kind of list, it seems way more useful with all the information in the list: votes counts, percentage, initiative/referendum, later overturned, etc. But only the measure number (plus wikilinkage) and a one sentence summary of the measure is great too. (I like both the vote counts and the percentage: supports different uses, but also the redundancy is a good sanity check.) —EncMstr 01:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't implying we should say green = win red = loss, that would definitely be POV. I was thinking we could have it as green = passed, red = failed. VegaDark 01:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick feedback!! EncMstr, good points re: b/w printing and the double-majority for tax-related measures. Can you guys spell out what you'd like to see from color choice? I don't have a strong opinion, but I'm curious about your thinking. (I suppose leaving failed measures white could leave some ambiguity between "rejected" measures and "editor doesn't know." But I intend to have this list completed in the near future, and "Passed" measures have much more historical significance than "Rejected" ones, so I'm a little ambivalent about coloring the rejects.) Also: putting in ALL the information requested might be a little cumbersome on small monitors: Passed, Percentage, YES votes, NO votes, and a "notes of major significance" column. Doesn't mean I oppose it…but worth considering. -Pete 01:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Undecided if I like it, but this attempts to balance printing concerns with the desire to highlight new laws:

Measure	Result	Margin	Summary
39	pass	67%	Restrict the use of Eminent Domain
40	fail	5%	Restrict eligibility to the Oregon Supreme Court based on geographic origin
41	fail	19.27%	Allow Federal Tax Credit on Oregon Taxes
42	fail	8%	Ban credit reports in determining insurance premiums
43	fail	27%	Require parental notification for abortions for girls aged 15-17
44	pass	73%	Extend discount prescription drug program to all Oregon citizens
45	fail	28%	Require term limits for Oregon Legislative Assembly
46	fail	18%	Permit laws that limit campaign contributions
47	pass	63%	Revise campaign finance laws to limit or prohibit campaign contributions for state and local elections

Those are made up numbers for the percentages. I didn't find a good whole line color: various text was invisible or hard to read. Notice how the footnote next to 47's pass is nearly impossible to see. I fear that alternate stylesheets and skins might interact poorly too. —EncMstr 02:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I like that approach. Footnotes could be put in a different column, and/or we could use a lighter color in the box, so that black text shows up better. For easy reference, here's a chart of HTML/wiki names for colors. -Pete 02:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In the long run, I think there should be a separate "Notable Oregon ballot measures", which would be text-based, without all the charts. In the meantime, a brief introduction before each decade's list could be a good place for extra-notable features. -Pete 03:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

@_@<mind boggling at possibilities>If we're going to fancy it up, I prefer the tables over the minimalist approach. In either case I like the idea of red and green, but having read all the above I can see the limitations. EncMstr's approach seems handy and easiest on my eyes (except for that pesky footnote), perhaps adding "(amends constitution)" at the end of the summary where applicable? The above comment by Pete makes sense, my only caveat being how will someone find the "greatest hits" article? Perhaps add it to the newly minted Politics of Oregon article? Katr67 04:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you all for the feedback. On second thought, I think "Notable Oregon legislation" would be a better complementary article - so it could include other laws like the Bottle Bill. Some day…meanwhile, I'll keep pecking away at this list! -Pete 20:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

New column proposed: There should be a column indicating which measures were referred by the Legislature. I'd like to better understand the various ways measures can make it to the ballot though, before making that change. -Pete 19:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Colors or check/X mark?

I have been working on the individual measure articles, and have tweaked the referendum box templates and the referendum infobox templates. In those I leveraged the green "check mark", and red "X-mark" to visually denote pass or fail (the terminology in the results/votes charts being "yes" or "no". The green and red color scheme being carried over into county result state maps that another user began creating (example pages of a passed ballot measure infobox here and a rejected ballot measure here).

Yes icon and No icon

I recommend that we either adopt the green and red color schemes, or the inclusion of the green "check mark" and the red "x mark" icons over a white cell background. I suggest the later is the most advantageous since blue and red are partisan colors in recent decades and the icons with the red and green (as opposed to background color fields) denote a yes/no (go/stop) and when used in conjunction with the map, do not denote a POV pr partisan visual cue, but a pass/fail quick and easy read. The icons also have the critical advantage of being printable on a black and white laser printer and effectively convey the same type of visual distinction between result status. Here is the above example with the icons used:

Measure	Result	Margin	Summary
39	pass	67%	Restrict the use of Eminent Domain
40	fail	5%	Restrict eligibility to the Oregon Supreme Court based on geographic origin
41	fail	19.27%	Allow Federal Tax Credit on Oregon Taxes
42	fail	8%	Ban credit reports in determining insurance premiums
43	fail	27%	Require parental notification for abortions for girls aged 15-17
44	pass	73%	Extend discount prescription drug program to all Oregon citizens
45	fail	28%	Require term limits for Oregon Legislative Assembly
46	fail	18%	Permit laws that limit campaign contributions
47	pass	63%	Revise campaign finance laws to limit or prohibit campaign contributions for state and local elections

References

Thoughts? Lestatdelc (talk) 06:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that works quite well. Great suggestion! —EncMstr (talk) 07:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I would tweak the above a bit, to better balance the the visual weight so the eye better differentiates between the two. This would probably work better:

Measure	Result	Margin	Summary
39	pass	67%	Restrict the use of Eminent Domain
40	fail	5%	Restrict eligibility to the Oregon Supreme Court based on geographic origin
41	fail	19.27%	Allow Federal Tax Credit on Oregon Taxes
42	fail	8%	Ban credit reports in determining insurance premiums
43	fail	27%	Require parental notification for abortions for girls aged 15-17
44	pass	73%	Extend discount prescription drug program to all Oregon citizens
45	fail	28%	Require term limits for Oregon Legislative Assembly
46	fail	18%	Permit laws that limit campaign contributions
47	pass	63%	Revise campaign finance laws to limit or prohibit campaign contributions for state and local elections

References

Better? Lestatdelc (talk) 08:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the rendered result for quite awhile to see any difference: pass is offset somewhat further right from the checkmark. Pretty subtle. Is that the intent? —EncMstr (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too. It wasn't "intentional" per se, but was just an artifact of making the red-check marks smaller to balance their visual weight. If there is a painless what to make the trailing text ("pass" and "fail" align, that would be good. Lestatdelc (talk) 12:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I like this, too. Good work! (I also have trouble seeing the difference between the two sizes.) We should probably use templates, like N ({{Xmark}}), which would make tweaks like this easier to make in the future (and keep the size of this file down a bit too.) We could make our own, like say {{XmarkORballot}}, to have finer control over the sizes, etc. (Also note templates like  Done ({{done-t}}), which use the text character checkmark, rather than relying on an image file). -Pete (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestions. How's this?

Measure	Result	Margin	Summary
39	✓ Pass	67%	Restrict the use of Eminent Domain
40	✗ Fail	5%	Restrict eligibility to the Oregon Supreme Court based on geographic origin
41	✗ Fail	19.27%	Allow Federal Tax Credit on Oregon Taxes
42	✗ Fail	8%	Ban credit reports in determining insurance premiums
43	✗ Fail	27%	Require parental notification for abortions for girls aged 15-17
44	✓ Pass	73%	Extend discount prescription drug program to all Oregon citizens
45	✗ Fail	28%	Require term limits for Oregon Legislative Assembly
46	✗ Fail	18%	Permit laws that limit campaign contributions
47	✓ Pass	63%	Revise campaign finance laws to limit or prohibit campaign contributions for state and local elections

References

Better? Lestatdelc (talk) 12:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the way that looks, Lestatdelc. I'm split on text versus images, but I like that "pass" is in bold. Here are some things I think would make everything look better:

• Align the measure numbers center-wise.
• If it's possible, line up the decimals of the margin figures.
• Add a bit of padding, so it doesn't look like the text is squeezed in. This is especially noticeable in the cell for Measure 41's margin of nonpassage.

— Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 01:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I adjusted the bottom chart above to center the measure number (and bold it as well). What do you think? -Pete (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, relating to padding -- if we want to have consistent column widths from one table to the next (suggested elsewhere, below), these two issues could be dealt with together. -Pete (talk) 11:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I like. Can we define the width and padding with HTML/CSS for each table? That's the only way I know of, off the top of my head, that will make everything consistent.—Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 19:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You can define it in the header cell for each column (or any cell, I think). I made a (rather extreme) example above, making the "summary" field 35 px wide. You can do it as percentages too. -Pete (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

reverse order?

I'd like to reverse the order of this page, so more recent measures are listed first, and oldest last. Any objections or concerns? -Pete 03:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It makes a certain amount of sense, though I notice the Washington and California articles are in chronological order. Why do you want to reverse it? —EncMstr 05:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that more recent measures would be more frequently of interest. But, it now occurs to me that it will quickly grow to be overly long - I'm currently working on the 1990s, and ultimately want to include all measures. So maybe the better way to go is to split it out, like the California page, by decade.

Another possibility would be to keep this one literally a list (in table format), in whichever order, and put the text-based intros in their own article, by decade.

An advantage of that is that they could all be combined into one massive table, and by sorting, readers could compare vote totals and percentages across decades.

Still sifting all those possibilities out, so I'll hold off on making any changes for now. Any suggestions welcome though!

Finally, I'm thinking it's about time somebody made a template for ballot measures in the US, so it's easy to find similar measures from other states. There's some good info at Direct democracy#Direct democracy in the United States page that could be rolled in.

-Pete 05:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Potential reliable sources

Transcript from the NewsHour from 1998: Initiative Overload -Pete 00:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

lists of state (ballot measures OR propositions OR referendums OR questions OR initiatives)

Scarcely noticeable in the subsection above, Pete says somebody [should make] a template for ballot measures in the US, so it's easy to find similar measures from other states.

I set out to do this and learned quite a bit in the process:

• Oregon has—by far—the most prolific, in depth, and well organized election articles. Ours are extremely fact-based in comparison to what is out there.
• Most election articles for other states are year-specific, and seem to have been written by various politicians' staff.
• Oregon has unique patterns of thought regarding elections: we generally regard all the items on one election day's ballot as "an election". Evidently people in most states think of each item as a separate "election", so there are multiple elections on a state ballot. This leads to a confusing double-definition/ambiguity of the term in their articles' writing.
• Pete's suggested Direct democracy article says that ballot measure-like processes are permitted in 18, 21, 24, or 18 states: 18 allow initiative constitutional amendments, 21 allow initiative statute law, 24 allow referendum statute law, and 18 allow recall.
• Even though nearly half the states have "direct democracy", there are few such measures on the ballots—at least where I could find an article listing them.
• Several founding fathers opposed such direct democracy: James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Witherspoon are mentioned. They mostly were concerned of political majorities being unjust to minorities.
• Only a few states have corresponding List of [state] [direct democracy name]. Consider this your navigation box:
  • List of Arizona Ballot Propositions
  • List of California ballot propositions 1980-1989 • List of California ballot propositions 1990-1999 • List of California ballot propositions 2000-present
  • List of Colorado ballot measures
  • List of Oregon ballot measures
  • Texas constitutional amendment election 2007
  • List of Washington initiatives to the people • List of Washington initiatives to the legislature
• Virtually all the other states have categories, usually sparsely populated, of
  • category:[state] gubernatorial elections: almost every state
  • category:US Senate elections in [state]: 80–90% of the states
  • category:US House of Representatives elections in [state]: 40–50% of the states
  • category:US presidential election in [state], [year]: about 25%
  • category:<state> elections, [year]: about 25%
• There were some navbox attempts in a few of the articles. Elections by state had mostly bluelinks, but many others follow a pattern which isn't present in most and are huge collections of redlinks. Another had a peculiar twist and only attempted to list about six states, three of which were redlinked.

I was seriously tempted to clean up some of the worst, create some organizing list articles, suggest on talk pages they get to work, and pepper them with {{fact}} tags. But I think I appreciate home all the more, and that's good enough. —EncMstr 09:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, as one (of a number of) editors who've made it a point to beef up this aspect of WP coverage of Oregon, I'm flattered by your analysis. I agree, I think that we've done some good work here in Oregon, but I haven't made a concerted effort to compare it to other states. I'll echo your sentiments: I'm disappointed to hear that most other states are so behind, but proud of the work we've done here.

At any rate, I think it would be good to build a navbox out of the info you've assembled, even if that means a lot of redlinks. Pointing out what info is missing can be helpful in spurring future writing; I'd like to help prod editors in other states to get into this, and offer support if it's needed, and I think creating a navbox would be a good way to get the ball rolling. As far as expanding coverage, I'm much more interested in getting Oregon's coverage right, than in moving my focus to other states. Too much work here still to be done.

A couple of details: California actually has a List of California ballot propositions, a parent-page for each of the decades; I think that would be a good model for us to follow as we expand this article. And the Washington articles seem confusing in two respects: there's no effort to explain the terms "to the people" and "to the legislature," which seem odd; and the claim to comprehensiveness seems suspect, given all the gaps between numbers. (But maybe they make numbers for initiatives that fail to qualify, or something like that.)

Anyway, I will get to work on a navbox, and if I'm motivated enough, maybe I'll even make stubs for each state, in the hopes that somebody expands them. Thanks again for doing and sharing all that research! -Pete (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A place for Citizens' Initiative Review?

I added a bit here on Citizens' Initiative Review and would love to put it someplace Oregon-specific as well. This seems close, but clearly isn't the right page, and look through the pages that link here didn't turn up anything obvious - any recommendations? --John_Abbe (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

John -- I've actually been emailing back and forth with Elliot Shuford, who's a friend of mine, on exactly that subject. There's a little on Oregon Ballot Measure 58 (2008), and we should probably put something on Oregon state elections, 2008. Certainly worth writing a separate article on Citizens' Initiative Review. Not sure where else, though I wonder if History of elections in Oregon might be a worthy article to write. (By the way, the Oregon legislature considered a version of this in 1999 -- but I don't know much beyond what's in that article snippet.)

Thanks for the quick reply and the pointers (i'll probly put something on Oregon state elections, 2008). Another possibilitiy would be a Ballot measures in Oregon article. Didn't see anything in the snippet you linked (or here) about the Oregon legislature - is there another reference that mentioned that?--John_Abbe (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems like OPB is the only reliable source that's covered the Oregon effort in any depth. Do you know of any others? -Pete (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That's all i know of besides the Oregonian/Argus bits - Elliot or Tyrone might know others. --John_Abbe (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Time to adjust?

Thanks to a recent flurry of additions by EncMstr, we now have a complete list from 1972 to the present. Unless there's some objection, I'd like to start breaking these out by decade.

This is something that has been done with other states. It will reduce the size of this overlong article. When we're done, I would envision the current article being prose, rather than a list, offering an overview of all ballot measures without enumerating each individual one; and each decade's section would have a "main" link to that decade's complete list.

Any objections to this approach? -Pete (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds good. Organization and simplification is never a bad thing. Perhaps the current article could contain a short list of groundbreaking or particularly interesting/major legislative changes, in chronological order. I think what you mentioned, the article offering overviews by decade and containing links to 'main articles' with more detail, is a great idea. Would you happen to have another article similar to what you've described that can be used as an example or template? Whataworld06 (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

California takes this approach, though the "overview" article is just a table of contents: List of California ballot propositions We might be breaking new ground by trying to summarize. But, we do have text for some of the more recent election cycles, that could serve as a starting point. Thanks for your thoughts! -Pete (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm not particularly bothered by the length, and I like the idea of there being only one place to look. For example, which ballot measure was about the legislator's salaries? However, that could be accomplished by a sister article like Oregon ballot measure summaries which links to the appropriate decade and section. —EncMstr (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I, too, like the idea of all the information being in one location. However, it looks very long and cluttered the way it is now. Perhaps (at least) if all the charts were the same width (each column having a fixed width) and the information was aligned it would be easier to read.(?) Just my two cents. Thanks to EncMstr for the recent information--I enjoy having access to all this information, I just think it needs a bit of a facelift. Whataworld06 (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is an advantage of the current setup. But also, I was hoping to tie the other articles in a bit more tightly with articles about the legislature -- like Seventy-fourth Oregon Legislative Assembly. So for each decade, the ballot measure list would link to the five legislative assemblies, and vice-versa.

For an example like you mentioned, EncMstr, isn't the search feature sufficient? Also, do you agree that the current article length is getting a little unwieldy? This is the sort of info. I might want to look up, for instance, during a conversation with a legislator, on my slow cell phone connection. Huge pages don't work so well for that kind of use. -Pete (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Besides, just imagine how the page would look in 10 year. No harm in getting started with a new system early, before the task become too daunting.Whataworld06 (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Another thought -- maybe we could have it all. Take all the prose out of this one, and put it into Oregon ballot measures (or Direct democracy in Oregon or something), preserving this as a pure list. Then create separate articles for the decades, that duplicate the list info, but also have an overview of that decade in prose. Would that work? And if so, what's our best way to "get there", considering that it will be a while before we have a complete list, and also until we can write a lot of that prose? -Pete (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll continue expanding this article to its completion. I like Whataworld06's idea of making a single table. I'll prototype that in userspace and see how it works. If anyone would like to continue making the 1990 and later tables a consistent format, that would streamline that effort.

An old chemistry teacher often reminded us that Anything worth doing is worth overdoing. With that philosophy, perhaps someone might start the decade article series? Then we could have two kinds of all-in-one, plus a decade series, plus a prose collection, in addition to the other fine ideas from a year ago. —EncMstr (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, not so sure about the ubertable -- I think it would defeat the purpose of most sorts (i.e., "which 2006 amendments were constitutional amendments," "which 1994 measure got the most votes," and the like.) Just a first thought -- I thought Whataworld was just suggesting consistent column widths, which is possible without combining the tables? I am mostly braindead, so I'll leave it at that for now :) -Pete (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh and yes, I will work on making the more recent tables' columns consistent. (Also, I think we need exact ballot titles for a lot of them -- they have more general descriptions. Probably my fault.) -Pete (talk) 09:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's complete. Except for whatever mistakes I made.... —EncMstr (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

See User:EncMstr/sandbox2 for a rough prototype of the summary version I described above. Future edits will make it sort dates rationally and finish filling out the empty columns. —EncMstr (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts

• It's my understanding that the consensus decision is to display information in tables. Is this correct? I'm fairly partial to California's minimalist approach, as I think someone else also said, but I suppose tables work too. I do like their capacity for the rows to be resorted.
• Has a consensus been reached on divvying up the list per decade? I approve of such an idea. I think the list presently is unwieldy. Even more unwieldy, in my opinion, is the idea of a monolithic übertable like EncMstr is working on. I think breaking it up into sections would make it easier to navigate, and that's what we got now.
• What is the use of displaying the raw tally of votes for each measure? Displaying the measure number, its type, whether it's a constitutional amendment, whether it passed, the percentage of yes votes, and a description, all make logical sense to me. But I think perhaps the raw tallies in this list are clutter. The only way I see it being notable is maybe to show if turnout varied wildly for each measure in a given election, or something like that. Percentages make more sense to me than raw figures. These tallies certainly would fit in their respective measure's article, so maybe it's better to do this. Thoughts?
• The idea of a green–red color coding was mentioned above. I had the idea myself. The columns in our tables showing passage or failure ask for whether a measure passed, implying a yes–no answer. Green can mean "yes" (as in yes, the measure passed), and red "no" (no, it did not pass). This is different from green "pass, red "fail", as well as from green "win", red "lose". Or is my idea decidedly POV? In case it's not, I should mention there are templates for color-coding table cells to show "yes" or "no", making the article's source code more manageable. They are, quite surprisingly, {{yes}} and {{no}}.

Äþelwulf Talk to me. 12:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't understand the incentive for splitting ballot measures into decade-specific articles or how that makes navigation more "wieldy". It presumes one already knows or has a good idea when a ballot measure came up. I understand and agree that the übertable isn't for everyone, and might be appropriate as List of Oregon ballot measures übertable, or Gory list of Oregon ballot measures, or List of Oregon ballot measures ad nasaseum, and not as List of Oregon ballot measures.
• I sympathize with eliminating some of the details to improve readability and make it look more digestible. But after looking at List of California ballot propositions 2000–2009 I'm far from sold. How soundly was proposition 27 (2000) defeated? A percentage would go a long way to answering that. How interested were voters in the measure? The vote totals compared to other measures is the most concise way (which is easily sourced) to show that. Starting with the external links given, it took 22 clicks to find the answers. (40.4% yes, and 15-20% less than other measures)
• I don't think a red-green scheme is POV, as long as it applies consistently to pass-fail. Oregon is blessed in that a "no" vote for a ballot measure always means "no change". As for indicating results by color coding the table, we had a discussion (above) which balances something visual with general uses such as monochrome printing. —EncMstr (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to do is start writing more time-specific bits of history of Oregon. This is why I started articles like Seventy-fourth Oregon Legislative Assembly. Decades are a convenient chunk, because they correspond to things like redistricting (following censuses).

But, that reason really doesn't require doing away with this list, and what you (EncMstr) say does make sense. I guess my hope is that in the long run, it will be easy to find such things by any number of means -- by searching by topic, or by decade, or browsing categories, etc. But it will be a long time before we get to that level of comprehensiveness, and having a single list with the ability to do a search within the page is probably the most complete solution in the meantime. Ultimately, maybe the "decade" articles become more prosey things, focusing on measures according to their importance, and not exhaustively listing every failed referral etc.

Maybe Legislation in Oregon, 1991–2000 is a good example of a title? Covering both ballot measures and legislative action? -Pete (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Referendum" vs. "ballot measure"

Lestatdelc and I have been working on categorizing ballot measures. There's an existing category structure of referendums by year, e.g. Category:2008 referendums. We've just begun making some like Category:2008 ballot measures.

It's my understanding that "referendum" usually means measures that are put to a popular vote after they have been voted on by the legislature. It seems that in some places, the term is used more generally, but in Oregon that specific meaning seems pretty common.

So I think it's best to populate the new categories, and avoid putting anything but the very few measures that are actually referendums into the existing categories. Thoughts? -Pete (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I was more just trying to get my cranium around how the subcategory tags, etc. work, than getting into the particulars of what the technical differences are and what Oregon ballot measures do, or do not merit actually being termed referendum. Lestatdelc (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Source for expansion/citations

Not sure if those editing here have seen this, but some good info (need to scroll down the page a bit) in the lesson plan materials. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed measures included?

Is this page meant to discuss only ballot measures that have been on the ballot? If so, is there another place for proposed measures for upcoming elections? The Secretary of State's web page is useful but unwieldy. Gelasticjew (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

An article about proposed measures would have problems with verifiability—significant problems I would think—given the vast quantities of point of view rhetoric which flies around. I imagine such an article would be a magnet for paid staffers to alter to their purposes as well, though that's hardly a reason not to have such an article. —EncMstr (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of just a list of ballot measures that have certified ballot titles, summary, and yes/no vote results; I could note which ones were on appeal at the Supreme Court and then the disposition. It's all available on the SecState's website. Maybe the section could be called "Ballot Measures Certified for the 2010 Election".Gelasticjew (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That seems like it would be fine addition. I especially like having it on this article instead of some new article because the previous measures add a nice deep context. —EncMstr (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Useful Websites

There is a wiki project that covers ballot measures and news for every state at http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php It includes actual ballot measures and proposed measures at http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/List_of_Oregon_ballot_measures Just thought I'd throw this out here. Seemed relevant. TimeClock871 (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a useful addition to me, I've used BallotPedia some over the years, and it's becoming a pretty useful site. Definitely a service to the reader to have a link there. Thanks. -Pete (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Anachronistic references to measures before 1954

Today's practice is to give each measure a number, such as "Measure 1". The State of Oregon uses this convention in its modern list of all past ballot measures, and we have copied them. Furthermore, we say, "Vote yes on Measure 1", or simply, "No on 2", when recommending a vote. But in looking through voters' pamphlets and contemporary newspapers, I've discovered that we've only been doing this since 1954. So, referring to any measure before 1954 as "Measure 1", for example, is an anachronism, and I wonder if we should change this article as a result.

Up until 1952, each ballot option was given a number. For measures, the numbers would start with 300, which was the "yes" option for the first measure listed on the ballot. Number 301 would be the corresponding "no" option. The options for the second measure would be numbered 302 (for "yes") and 303 (for "no"), then 304 and 305 for the third, and so on.

The official voters' pamphlet would cite a measure by referring to the numbers for its ballot options (although it would often refer to it by a descriptive title too). The first measure on the ballot would be "Nos. 300 and 301", the second would be "Nos. 302 and 303", and so on. In contemporary newspapers, only occasionally would a measure be referred to as "Measure No. 300", and as far as I can tell, only by someone who happened to support a "yes" vote.

When recommending how to vote on a measure, the practice was to refer to the corresponding option's number. Contemporary newspapers and the arguments in the voters' pamphlet would say, "Vote 300 X YES", or simply, "303 X NO". (Incidentally, something like "300×YES" would occasionally appear when advanced typography was possible, which to me suggests this was considered the most typographically correct form.) My hypothesis is that people would indicate their vote by writing an X in the space between the number and the word "Yes/No" on their ballot, and telling people, "Vote 300 X YES" emulated that.

I'm not sure how it could be done, but I'm curious what people think about adjusting the article to identify measures in the same way they were identified by the state and the media at the time they were on the ballot.—Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 01:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Author links

I noticed Kate Brown is linked as the author of many of these under her capacity as Oregon Secretary of State. But I would argue that she isn't the author, it is the Office of the Secretary of State. Any objections to removing the authorlinks or am I missing something? Valfontis (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Oregon ballot measures. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070426111417/http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S48450.htm to http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S48450.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Oregon ballot measures. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929103322/http://www.oregonfollowthemoney.org/Press/2006/101806.htm to http://www.oregonfollowthemoney.org/Press/2006/101806.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)