Why is the number of signatures needed higher this time? I mean, it's great if it stops the bigots getting onto the ballot, but just curious...

Stu, last year's effort was a referendum of just-passed legislation, and that requires signatures from only 4 percent of the number of people who voted in the last gubernatorial election. Referenda can only happen before a law goes into effect.

This time around, they are using an initiative to repeal a law that is already in effect. Statutory initiatives require signatures that equal 6 percent of the number of people who voted in the last gubernatorial election (which this year means 82,769). Constitutional amendment initiatives require 8 percent.

I am very happy this may be going back on the ballot! Where can I sign?!

Civil unions and gay weddings and all are just stupid and must be stopped...and also all of the sham civil unions that have been done must be reversed asap.

Is it okay to rip up or steal the petitions if you are approached to sign them?

maricona,
Sure, if you don't mind getting arrested on a felony charge.

Hey Maricona - I was curious about that, so I asked the elections division. I got quite the answer:

Dear Amy,

Thank you for contacting us by email. I was asked to respond to your question.

You are correct that a petitioner who had a signature sheet destroyed by someone they approached for a signature could check into a property vandalism/theft issue, which our office would not have jurisdiction to advise about. I understand from previous questions that ORS 164.345, which is "Criminal mischief in the third degree" is a statute that could apply. However, as it's not an election law, we can't offer an opinion on that.

As to whether there is any state election law, which is what our office enforces, that addresses this possible situation, we've reviewed our statutes (ORS Chapters 246 to 260) and find that those potentially relevant to this situation are ORS 260.665, the "undue influence" statute and ORS 260.575, which prohibits extortion in respect to initiative, referendum or recall petitions.

A copy of an election law information memo is attached for your reference - on pages 18 to 25 there's a discussion of laws specific to initiative, referendum and recall petitions - with ORS 260.575 discussed on page 24. ORS 260.665, which is a generally applicable election law is discussed on pages 2-5.

The "short" answer is that the situation in question would have to involve all the elements in these statutes for a potential violation, and it itself, this scenario does not appear to do so - but we cannot make that determination without a review of all circumstances in an incident. Our advice on hypothetical situations could change based on actual circumstances.

The "long" answer that follows is an analysis that we've done on these statutes for similar questions in the past:

ORS 260.575, states that "No person, for any consideration, shall: (1) Offer, propose, threaten or attempt to sell, hinder or delay any part of an initiative, referendum or recall petition." (Emphasis added.) (Note: "consideration" means some type of compensation.)

If a written election law complaint were filed with this office about this type of situation, we would have to find evidence that any action described in the complaint was motivated by an intent to obtain compensation for the specific conduct alleged. A person violates ORS 260.575 if, "for any consideration," the person offers, proposes or threatens to engage in specified conduct in relation to an initiative, referendum or recall petition. Consideration or the intent to obtain it is an essential element. If the person tearing up the sheet did so instead solely due to political or personal convictions, without the consideration element, the situation would fail to meet the threshold requirements of ORS 260.575.

ORS 260.665 prohibits the use of "undue influence" as defined in the statute for certain purposes. Some subsections of this law are civil penalty offenses and the remaining subsections are criminal penalty offenses (Class C Felony). The specific definition of "undue influence" includes the use of: force, violence, restraint or the threat of it; inflicting injury, damage, harm, loss of employment or other loss or the threat of it; or giving or promising to give money, employment or other thing of value.

To violate this law, a person, acting either alone or with or through another person, must subject another person to "undue influence" with the intent to induce the person to take one of the following actions: register or not register to vote, vote or not vote, or register or vote in a particular manner; challenge or not challenge a person offering to vote; or apply or not apply for an absentee ballot; become or not become a candidate or cease being a candidate; contribute or not contribute to any candidate, political party or political committee; or render or not render services to any candidate, political party or political committee.

To find a violation of ORS 260.665, it would need to be proven that the person in question had intent to induce the other person to take one of the specific actions listed in ORS 260.665. Both of the above described elements must be present to indicate a violation of this election law. Many situations that may be considered "influence" are not considered to rise to the level of "undue influence." For instance, an expression of personal opinion on political issues, even if made forcefully, is not undue influence.

ORS 260.665 does not specifically address undue influence related to signing initiative, referendum or recall petitions. To have the statute include such provisions, the law would have to be revised by the state legislature or by a state initiative petition. This office may only enforce the statutes as they are currently written. The part of the statute this situation as described in the complaint may fit, to some extent, is if it can be characterized that a person is attempting to induce someone to, "render or not render services to any * political committee." We have received past legal opinions from the Attorney General's office that state that signing an initiative, referendum or recall petition is not considered a "service" to a political committee, while a person who circulates the petition can be said to provide a "service" to a political committee, if any, that sponsors the petition.

So, in the situation of a person stealing a petition sheet from a circulator, I believe it could be alleged that the person in some way threatens the petition circulator with some sort of harm or damage while they are destroying the petition sheet with the intent to get the circulator to stop circulating the petition ... but all the elements of the statute would have to be proven and we do not give determinations of whether there's a violation based on hypothetical questions.

I hope this information is useful to you. Let me know of any other questions. Thanks, Norma

Sincerely,
Norma Buckno
Compliance Specialist
Oregon Secretary of State
Elections Division

"God Hates You Amy" has some serious self esteem issues.