The Change We Need: Charter Measure Will Make Portland the City That Works for Everyone
The Co-Chair of the Portland Charter Commission explains why her commission's proposals, which are facing organized political opposition, are right for Portland
I came to Portland from Dallas, Texas 25 years ago in 1997. Back then, as a low-income, mixed-race woman, I did not feel empowered to believe I had much say in the decisions made by elected leaders. With no real idea of what to expect in moving to Portland, I was soon pleasantly surprised and inspired by the spirit of courage, community solutions, and coming together across differences that I found here.
I arrived in Portland just in time to be part of finally defeating the toxicity and hatred of Oregon’s Measure 9 ballot initiatives, which would have demonized LGBTQ+ people and had echoes in today’s “Don’t Say Gay” laws in other states. I also got to help pass the ballot initiative that expanded vote-by-mail to primary and general statewide elections, making Oregon the first state to do so.
Vote-by-mail was a big change and presented a lot of unknowns to most voters. Yet, here we are, almost 24 years later: the system works well and voters from all parties love it. We now have an entire generation of Oregonians who know no other way to cast their ballot, and a system that is the model for other states as well as for federal efforts to expand vote-by-mail. Vote-by-mail played a vital role in saving our democracy as we chose between Joe Biden and Donald Trump amidst the pre-vaccine days of the pandemic.
The charter amendment on its way to Portland voters is another big change, one we urgently need in order to address the present-day challenges facing our city. The interdependent components of this measure have been deeply studied, as well as successfully implemented in jurisdictions around the United States and in other countries worldwide. My colleagues and I on the Portland Charter Review Commission spent almost eighteen months and thousands of hours of research and listening to Portlanders from all backgrounds and areas of the city. Overwhelmingly, and across the usual lines of disagreement, we heard that our city is ready for change and a better way forward. Portlanders want to see ourselves consistently represented in leadership, for city services to be efficient and well-run, and to have our voices deeply heard and included.
Seventeen out of the 20 of us (a supermajority of 85%) came together from all walks of life to enthusiastically agree to send this measure to voters as our unified approach to creating the effective, accountable, and representative government that Portlanders have been asking for. If it passes this November, voters can express our full opinions by being able to rank city candidates in order of preference. When we need help solving a problem, we will have three city councilors who are local to our region and know our neighborhood well. Those city councilors will be released from overseeing city bureaus and free to focus on hearing from their voters, passing laws, and approving mayoral nominations of a city administrator who will oversee our bureaus and improve city services. Every part of this proposal works together to get Portland’s government working for the people again while leaving nobody behind.
Portlanders have a long history of blazing our own trails, of being unafraid to do things differently, of making change when we know we need it. Most of all, we have been unafraid of trusting ourselves and each other to make decisions about who governs us and how those representatives will govern. We hold a legacy of championing advancements in democracy and affirming inclusion and respect for all. Now is our chance to create a system where our leaders consistently come from and work for all of our communities: women, communities of color, people living with disabilities, immigrants, the working class, LGBTQ+ people, and more. If we can come together and say yes to this hopeful vision, then we can indeed be the city that works for everyone.
 | A guest post by
|
Vote-by-mail is a poor comparison here. Before voters approved it statewide, it had a decade of trials in school board and local elections and proved its value over time. It was not a big reach or an untested concept by the time it was enacted.
By contrast, the "single transferable vote" version of ranked choice voting included in the proposed amendment is a big leap into territory where council seats will be awarded to candidates who secure just 25%+1 of the vote in the initial round of voting, followed by the transfer of "surplus votes" from top vote getters to lesser vote getters in subsequent rounds. Unlike the centering effect of ranked choice voting to secure majority outcomes, this process will have a splintering effect. And it's not a process in use in any major city in the U.S., mush less one that has proven itself in Oregon.
Portland sorely needs a change in its charter to do away with the commission form of government and the dysfunction it has brought. But that change has been overloaded with complicated, contrived and untested changes in our elections in this package. The election system we have now is not perfect, but it's pretty good -- non-partisan, attracting large fields of candidates, with runoffs to determine majority winners. And it has managed to elect three persons of color to the five-member council. Yes, district elections would be an improvement. And using ranked choice voting to determine majority winners is fine where you have more than two candidates. But the overriding problem to be solved is one of governance. And what's proposed here is a weak mayor, strong council form of government (arguably with new problems of its own) combined with an election system that is likely to worsen rather than improve the ability to reach consensus and get things done.
Well said, Debra. I am pleased by, and support, what the Charter Review Commission has come up with. And, yes, all the pieces fit together. I am especially pleased that multi-member districts are included. This has been shown to allow representation by various groups, rather than always representation by only the dominant group in a district - as single-member districts do.
In fact, if we had proportional representation on a federal level we would not have the divisions we now see. Almost every other advanced country in the world uses it. The only reason the U.S. does not is because our Constitution was written before PR was invented in the mid-19th Century! I look forward to having PR, multi-member districts grow locally throughout the country, and, eventually, to the state and, someday, national, level.