Featuring impeachment, cannabis unionization, a questionable kicker, and more. by The Mercury Election Strike Force [Hello! You know, putting these endorsements together takes LOTS of hard work—and that's on top of our regular excellent reporting. Show your appreciation for the Mercury with a small contribution, please, and thank you!—eds] malchev / getty images State Measure 115: Vote YES Impeaching a government official is (and should be) a last resort—a consequence to be used in only the most dire circumstances, and with the utmost thoughtfulness. That said, Oregon is the only state in the nation that does not have an effective set of tools at hand to remove an errant official, without the process taking an inordinate amount of time and financial resources. Currently Oregonians can recall an official—but not until after months of gathering signatures, spending a lot of money to put it on the ballot, and then hoping enough people turn out to vote in favor of it… at which point the official could be already out of office.  Measure 115 hopes to remedy that by granting partial impeachment powers to the state legislature—but only in a limited set of circumstances. First, impeachment would only happen in the case of certain offices: the governor, secretary of state, treasurer, attorney general, and labor commissioner. And then only if these people committed what amounts to “high crimes,” “corrupt conduct” or “willful neglect” of their duties. Secondly, impeachment would only be possible after two-thirds of the House agree to bring the charges, followed by an impeachment trial, and culminating in yet another two-thirds vote from the Senate to seal the deal. And even with all that, Measure 115 still doesn’t go very far compared to other states—many of which give their lawmakers the ability to impeach members of their legislature or state judges.  Sadly the days of corrupt politicians leaving office following media scrutiny and public shame are mostly over. While both former Governor Kitzhaber and Secretary of State Shemia Fagan left their offices willingly, many conservative politicians would almost certainly refuse to step down so gracefully. So while this is a small toolbox for the state to use in the fight against political corruption, Measure 115 is a necessary one—and an effective stick to wield in certain scenarios. godruma / getty images State Measure 116: Vote NO Jumping into the murky world of legislator salaries, Measure 116 seeks to amend Oregon’s constitution to create and empower an Independent Public Service Compensation Commission that will set the salaries of elected state politicians—from judges to state representatives to the governor.  The Oregon Legislature put this one on the ballot, seeking voter approval to adopt a practice found in other states, which arguably removes the supremely awkward endeavor representatives face when they try to give themselves a raise. Supporters tasked with campaigning for Measure 116 argue that politicians shouldn’t be able to set their own salaries. In reality, many of Oregon’s top offices haven’t seen a salary increase since 2014—our governor’s salary is the fourth worst in the nation. As a result, the legislature has lost a number of well-liked rising stars in recent years, for the frustrating reason that they can’t afford to support their families on such low wages.  This is an important problem to fix, but Measure 116 has drawn criticism for being too undefined and unilaterally powerful. The text dictates, “salary determinations would be final and would not be subject to review or modification by the Legislative Assembly, the Governor or any other official.” Then, despite that tone of finality, the measure fails to define clearly important considerations, like: Who would serve on the commission, and how would they be appointed? State Senator Kate Lieber, who served on a committee appointed to explain the measure, told the Mercury that “the Legislature will create the guidelines for who gets appointed to the commission—as well as data points needed to inform their decision making.” Lieber also said that the intention is to have human resources professionals serve on the commission to lend their expertise. That sounds great, but there’s no guarantee that’s the type of folks we’d end up with. For a measure that purports to give power to Oregonians, this might just lock it away with a group hand-picked by lawmakers. And the only way to undo it, if we don’t like it, is to pass another constitutional amendment.  Jabkitticha / getty images State Measure 117: Vote YES For years, voters in places like Alaska, Maine, and New York City have been successfully using a ranked choice system in their elections. Portland voters are already using it in this election and Multnomah County will start using the same process in 2026. Now, Oregon has the chance to implement a system that gives residents in every corner of the state more options and more voice in elections.  Proponents of ranked choice voting (RCV) say this method of casting and tallying votes leads to candidates with more broad support being elected, rather than the candidate with the largest base of zealous supporters. Recent data shows that in American RCV elections, 75 percent of voters ranked the winning candidate in their top three choices. In simple terms, it’s the difference between getting stuck at a brunch spot you hate because three of your friends have crappy taste, versus landing at a place that’s decent.  Ranked choice supporters also say it encourages more civility in elections. We’re already seeing evidence of that in Portland, where council candidates are teaming up and asking voters to rank all of them. When voters don’t have to pick just one person, candidates are less prone to mud-slinging and attacks on opponents (though let’s not pretend we don’t love a good cat fight). Opponents of Measure 117 claim the system complicates and slows down the tabulation process for elections offices. Multnomah County’s elections director says they’ll do fine. More importantly, the measure wouldn’t go into effect until 2028. That should be plenty of lead time.  Opponents also argue the process is too confusing and overwhelming for voters. Bullshit. That’s an insult to our collective intelligence. We think it actually takes the pressure off voters to pick “the right” candidate among several.  This measure won’t change Oregon’s primary elections, which will remain closed to unaffiliated voters, but maintaining elements of an old system doesn’t make it worse. Another quirk: As written, it wouldn’t apply to state legislative races. There’s no good reason for that and we’re not sure why this measure–one of several being referred to voters by the Oregon Legislature–was written to exclude those races. Still, we’re not losing anything here, and we owe it to ourselves to invest in a system that helps chip away at political divides. csa vintage / getty images State Measure 118: Vote NO We have a saying around here at the Mercury: “Don’t bring a malfunctioning switchblade to a gunfight.” In this analogy, the ones with the guns are capitalistic shitheads who turn a blind eye to poverty, and Measure 118 is the malfunctioning switchblade. (Sorry, we’re too poor to bring anything but a knife to this fight.) The proponents of Measure 118 want to give every single Oregonian (regardless of age or income) an estimated $1,600 per year that would be funded by a new corporate tax on really big businesses. Now you may be saying, “Don’t threaten ME with a good time!”, but hold on… there are a number of catches. While this is being billed as an example of “Universal Basic Income,” which simultaneously kicks big corporations—who regularly get out of paying their fair share of taxes in various ways—right in the scrabble bag, there’s a problem: $1,600 is nice, and could definitely help lots of folks in the short term… but at best it’s a Band-Aid, and all this energy could be focused on making sure employers pay every working Oregonian a living wage. Now that’s a sustainable income.  But we get it: that doesn’t help a lot right now. However, here’s problem number two with Measure 118: Why the fuck are we giving $1,600 to EVERYONE? Like, including Phil Knight who will just use it to buy gold-plated golf tees or drop it into some Republican’s campaign account? This “basic income” needs to be less universal, and more specific—as in getting the money to those who actually need it. Problem number three: Oregon state law says that corporations only have to pay the higher of two taxes—the tax on their profits, or the corporate minimum tax. Now, Measure 118 would skyrocket the cost of the corporate minimum tax, so big business would have no choice but to pay that one in order to fund all those $1,600 rebates. So if they’re pumping all their money into that bucket, they’d be pumping significantly less money into Oregon’s general fund, which provides fundamental services like K-12 public education (which we all agree remains ridiculously underfunded), health care, child care, and public safety. Newsflash: We need MORE investment in social services and schools—not less. Now proponents will yell that the legislature can simply “reverse engineer” the laws surrounding corporate taxes after Measure 118 passes. Okay… OR proponents can write a measure that helps the working poor, gives money to only those who need it, and kicks corporations in the scrabble bag while working with the laws we currently have. In short, Measure 118 is a partially good idea written by mostly good people… but poverty needs more than a malfunctioning switchblade in this fight. umyaisweet / getty images State Measure 119: Vote YES This wouldn't be necessary if federal agencies would just hurry up and reclassify cannabis as a less dangerous drug. However, it's been over two years since President Biden directed members of his cabinet to start a review of the drug's schedule level, and [checks DEA schedule] it’s not happening anytime soon. In the interim, cannabis is still considered a Schedule I drug on a federal level, and that has complicated the unionizing efforts of workers in the industry, who find themselves seeking federal labor protections, even as the very nature of their work could be considered illegal. Spearheaded by United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 555, Measure 119 came before voters via a signature campaign, financed by the local’s PAC. The text ties a cannabis business' OLCC license to an existing "labor peace agreement" between the business and a "bona fide labor organization." Both those terms appear to be fairly broad, the latter's description—for all its length—includes language like "any organization of any kind." While critics of Measure 119 say adding additional paperwork and cost to cannabis businesses overburdens the struggling industry, UFCW Local 555 Political Director Michael Selvaggio compares it to worker's compensation insurance. "Once the measure passes, there'll be a list or a directory, and it'll be relatively easy to find someone to enter into that agreement," Selvaggio told the Mercury. Additionally, just because an employer has an LPA with one union, doesn't mean workers need to organize with that specific one, should they choose to. Especially considering the scattershot of professions found in cannabis labor—retail, manufacturing, research and development—workers are free to seek out, or form, one to fit their needs. "The labor peace agreement does not bind the employees," Selvaggio says.  UFCW Local 555 tried to pass a version of this through the legislature in 2023, only to have it sent to committee over concerns that the LPA guidelines were not constitutional, so this time around the union took most of them out, allowing business and bona fide to tailor an agreement that works for both of them. The situation remains that we might be waiting a while on federal cannabis rescheduling, and the Mercury won't ask cannabis workers to also wait on their rights. The Mercury Election Strike Force is news editor Courtney Vaughn, reporter Taylor Griggs, arts & culture editor Suzette Smith, and editor-in-chief Wm. Steven Humphrey.