Amendments to the Oregon Constitution

Since 1857, the Oregon State Constitution has been amended 260 times. Some amendments affected more than one section of the constitution. Each square below represents when a section was changed by an amendment.

Scroll through the timeline to view amendments to the constitution by year and historical context for significant amendments.
 

1860
1870
1880
1890
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
+4
+10 2010
2020

Each block on this histogram represents a change—e.g., a substantive change, repeal & replace, or renumbering—to an individual section rather than an amendment. Some amendments result in multiple changes, resulting in multiple blocks being attributed to one amendment. Likewise, a section may be amended more than once in an year, but these amendments will only appear as one block on the histogram. When a block or blocks are marked red in a specific year, that means that a new constitution went into effect that year.

The Oregon Constitution & Its Amendments

In 1857, the people of the Oregon Territory ratified the Oregon Constitution. The Constitution, which has been in effect since 1859, has been amended 259 times.

There are two ways for the Constitution to be amended: by voter initiative or legislative referral. To place an initiated constitutional amendment on the ballot, proponents must gather signatures of qualified voters equal to 8% of the total votes cast in the prior gubernatorial election. For the legislature to place a proposed amendment on the ballot, both houses must pass the amendment by a majority vote. Once submitted to voters, a proposed constitutional amendment must receive a majority of “yes” votes cast on the question to be carried into effect, no matter whether it was introduced via initiative or legislatively referred. The constitution also permits both the legislature and the voters to call a constitutional convention in order to formulate proposals for amendments and revisions, or to write a new constitution altogether. A law passed by the legislature calling for a convention must then be approved by voters in a referendum vote. 

A third method for altering the state’s fundamental law is included under Art. XVII, § 2 and provides that the constitution may be “revised” by legislative referral if both houses agree by a two-thirds supermajority and voters ratify the revision by a simple majority.

For more information about revising the Oregon Constitution, see 2009.

Oregon State Capitol. Gary Halvorson.
 

In 2024 the Constitution was Changed 1 Time

2022

Prohibition on Slavery or Indentured Servitude

Although the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution aimed to abolish slavery, it contains language, known as the “Punishment Clause,” which permitted enslavement and involuntary servitude as a form of punishment for crime. Similar language was commonly included in the founding documents of new states and territories—including in Oregon’s Constitution, despite Oregon voters explicitly rejecting slavery during the states’ constitutional convention. In 2022, Oregon was one of five states that voted to close the “slavery loophole” found in its state constitution. This amendment was advanced as part of a broader national effort to amend the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to remove the Punishment Clause.

Proponents argued that the Oregon Constitution is “statement of values” and urged that “there must be no exception to an unqualified and absolute prohibition on slavery and involuntary servitude.” The inclusion of the punishment clause was a “dehumanizing relic,” pervaded with racial animus, that was exploited throughout the country’s history to arrest and re-enslave Black people. Supporters urged that removing this language would ensure that the Oregon Constitution “better reflects our modern values.” 

Oregon prisoners building a road. Centennial History of Oregon.

In 2020 the Constitution was Changed 1 Time

In 2018 the Constitution was Changed 1 Time

2010

Regulation of Lotteries and Use of Net Proceeds

In 1998, the state was about to close 65 state parks for lack of funding, thirty-thousand miles of waterways were in poor condition, and state salmon populations were experiencing sharp decline. To prevent the closure of a significant portion of Oregon’s park system and avert environmental disaster, Oregonians approved a measure to allot 15% of state lottery proceeds to the Parks and Natural Resources Fund. The provision was originally slated to sunset in 2015, but voters approved an indefinite extension of the amendment in 2010. The 2010 amendment also added a preamble to the section to emphasize and affirm the importance of environmental protections for the people of Oregon. 

Cleawox Lake in Honeyman State Park. Rick Obst.

In 2010 the Constitution was Changed 30 Times

Article III. Distribution of Powers
Section 3.

Article IV. Legislative Department
Section 6.

Article IV. Legislative Department
Section 10.

Article IX. Finance
Section 5.

Article IX. Finance
Section 14.

Article XI. Corporations and Internal Improvements
Section 11l.

Article XI-a. Farm and Home Loans to Veterans
Section 1.

Article XI-a. Farm and Home Loans to Veterans
Section 3.

Article XI-f (1). Higher Education Building Projects
Section 1.

Article XI-f (1). Higher Education Building Projects
Section 2.

Article XI-f (1). Higher Education Building Projects
Section 3.

Article XI-g. Higher Education Institutions and Activities; Community Colleges
Section 1.

Article XI-p. School District Capital Costs
Section 1.

Article XI-p. School District Capital Costs
Section 2.

Article XI-p. School District Capital Costs
Section 3.

Article XI-p. School District Capital Costs
Section 4.

Article XI-p. School District Capital Costs
Section 5.

Article XI-p. School District Capital Costs
Section 6.

Article XI-p. School District Capital Costs
Section 7.

Article XI-q. Real or Personal Property Owned or Operated by State
Section 1.

Article XI-q. Real or Personal Property Owned or Operated by State
Section 2.

Article XI-q. Real or Personal Property Owned or Operated by State
Section 3.

Article XI-q. Real or Personal Property Owned or Operated by State
Section 4.

Article XV. Miscellaneous
Section 4.

Article XV. Miscellaneous
Section 4.

Article XV. Miscellaneous
Section 4a.

Article XV. Miscellaneous
Section 4b.

Article XV. Miscellaneous
Section 4c.

Article XV. Miscellaneous
Section 4d.

Article XV. Miscellaneous
Section 4e.

2009

Failed Revision Efforts

In 2009, state legislators introduced a bill that would have called for a constitutional convention. Although the bill failed, this was not the first time Oregon had considered rewriting their constitution. In 1959, the voters approved the formation of a commission to draft a new constitution. In 1962, the commission submitted a proposed constitution to the state legislature. Although the House voted to pass the constitution, the Senate did not. Following the failure of the proposed constitution, efforts to write a new one continued until 1970. In fact, after the legislature rejected the commission’s proposed constitution in 1963, members of the commission (including two former governors) tried to have the proposed rewrite of the constitution put directly before the voters by initiative. Ultimately, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the proposed constitution amounted to a “revision” rather than an “amendment,” and therefore it could not be passed by initiative.

Although the difference between “amending” the constitution and “revising” the constitution dictates whether a change to the constitution can be accomplished by initiative, Oregon courts have yet to provide a definitive answer as to how to distinguish the two. Although the Oregon Supreme Court decision holding that the 1962 rewrite of the constitution cannot be an amendment, as it was a “thorough overhauling” and introduction of a new “complete constitution,” provides some guidance, it defines only one end of the spectrum between amendment and revision. In a more recent case, the Oregon Court of Appeals suggested that there is both a quantitative and qualitive dimension to the difference between amendments and revisions, concluding that some combination of numerosity and fundamentality of the changes determines whether a proposed alteration to the constitution should be considered a revision.

To date, no attempt to replace the original 1857 Constitution has been successful.

The Inception of the Birth of Oregon. Theodore Gegoux III.

2002

Removal of Historical Racial References

The Oregon Constitution was adopted before the Civil War and contained references to the state’s “white population,” “white inhabitants,” “free Negroes” and “mulattoes.” Over time, provisions discriminating against individuals on the basis of race were amended or repealed. However, references to race remained in the Constitution. In 2002, the legislature voted unanimously to refer an amendment to voters to remove all racially pejorative language from the Constitution. In part, the legislature hoped to “acknowledge… [Oregon’s] racial history and open dialogue” to “lead to racial healing and reconciliation.” No arguments were filed in opposition to the amendment, and it passed by a wide margin.

NAACP Picket Line in Portland, Oregon on September 30, 1963. Hugh Ackroyd.

In 2002 the Constitution was Changed 24 Times

1994

Political Campaign Contributions

In 1994, voters approved a constitutional amendment placed on the ballot via the initiative process that prohibited candidates from using or directing the use of monetary donations originating from individuals outside of their electoral district. Under the amendment, a prevailing candidate is disqualified from holding office for twice the tenure of the office sought if prohibited donations make up 10% or more of the candidate’s total campaign funding. 

This amendment, however, does not prohibit acceptance of volunteer time, information, and government campaign funding. Nor does it prohibit political action committees, corporations, or individuals from spending money originating from outside a candidate’s electoral district as long as there is no direct coordination with the candidate.

Supporters of the amendment argued that the initiative “strikes at the root of a pervasive abuse of our political process” and ends the “vulnerability of Oregon elections to being unduly influenced by outside special interests.” An unregulated campaign finance system, supporters contended, allowed major outside donors to exert powerful pressures, thus violating the purpose of voting districts. Opponents argued that supporters were creating a “solution to problems that don’t exist.” They also argued that such a prohibition favored candidates who could self-fund their campaigns, while disadvantaging opponents who need to rely on donations to compete. 

Although this amendment passed, it is not in effect. In 1998, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the amendment violated the First Amendment. Related campaign finance provisions were deemed unconstitutional by the Oregon Supreme Court.

Oregon Supreme Court. Gary Halvorson.

1992

Term Limits

In 1992, Oregon voters passed an initiated constitutional amendment imposing term limits on both state and federal elected officers. However, the amendments were short-lived and were invalidated within 10 years by both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Oregon Supreme Court.

First, in 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton that the federal Constitution prohibits states from adopting congressional qualifications in addition to those enumerated in the Constitution. Then, in 2002, the Oregon Supreme Court issued its ruling in Lehman v. Bradbury, declaring that the state component of the term limits initiative was unconstitutionally proposed under Article XVII, § 1, requiring that amendments to the state constitution be submitted to voters in separate ballot measures. The Oregon Supreme Court reasoned that term limits for state and federal elected officials should have been treated as separate amendments.

In 1987 the Constitution was Changed 1 Time

1984

Reconstitutionalizing Capital Punishment

Oregon voters have voted on the issue of capital punishment in a number of different elections: 1914, 1920, 1958, 1964, 1978, and finally in 1984. Over the course of these elections, Oregon voters chose to prohibit capital punishment twice, but also voted to reinstate it twice. This pattern of abolishing and reinstating the death penalty as a punishment for murder demonstrates both the power of direct democracy and the frequency with which state constitutions change when compared to the federal constitution.

In 1978, after abolishing capital punishment in 1964, Oregon voters approved a statutory initiative to reinstate the death penalty as a possible sentence for individuals convicted of committing certain murders. This 1978 initiative overrode the law, earlier passed by the legislature, that fixed the maximum penalty for first-degree murder at life imprisonment with no possibility of parole for at least 10 years. This initiated statute also amended the definition of murders eligible for the death penalty to include those murders committed by bombing and during an attempt to hijack a plane.

Under the new statutory scheme, judges were required to impose the death penalty if the judge found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the following conditions exist: (1) that the convicted person acted on purpose, with reasonable belief that the victim would die; (2) that the convicted person is a continuing violent threat to others; and (3) that, if provoked by the victim, the convicted person responded unreasonably.

This statutory scheme was challenged in court and, in 1981, the Oregon Supreme Court held that, that the statute was unconstitutional because it allowed capital punishment to be imposed based on the judge’s determination of a different and more culpable mental state than could be found by a jury. Due to statutory changes to the definition of murder made after capital punishment had previously been abolished, there were no cases in which, under the then current statutory scheme, a defendant could be constitutionally sentenced to death.

However, in 1984, voters approved a pair of ballot measures reinstating the death penalty in Oregon. The first was a constitutional amendment exempting death sentences imposed by unanimous juries from constitutional guarantees against cruel, unusual, and disproportionate sentences. The second was an initiated statute requiring a sentencing hearing before the trial jury following a conviction for aggravated murder. At the sentencing hearing, the jury was to find whether the conditions first outlined in the 1978 statutory scheme exist. If the jury finds that those conditions exist beyond a reasonable doubt, the required sentence is death. 

Although the constitutional provisions which permit the death penalty have been left untouched since 1984, every Oregon governor beginning in 2011 has decided to issue a moratorium on carrying out executions. 

Recall

In 1984, Oregonians voted to amend the recall provision first added to the Oregon Constitution in 1908. This amendment lowered the signature requirement to make it easier for voters to initiate a recall election. The amendment also replaced gendered language in the provision with gender-neutral terms.

For more information about the recall power, see 1908 and 1926.

1977

Senate Confirmation of Executive Appointments

In 1977, Oregon voters ratified an amendment requiring state senate confirmation of all gubernatorial appointments to state public office. Prior to the amendment, the senate exercised confirmation authority only where required by law. This change formalized the role of the legislature in the appointments process and enshrine it in the Oregon Constitution, mirroring the requirements found in the U.S. Constitution.

Proponents called the measure “a desirable check in the system of checks and balances” that would continue the tradition of the state legislature playing a strong role in the appointment process. Prior to 1891, the Oregon Legislature made almost all appointments to state public office. Even after the legislature conferred more appointment powers on the governor, they nonetheless maintained some role in the process by including “advice and consent” provisions in the process for appointing many of those positions now filled by the governor. Opponents of the measure, meanwhile, argued “the legislature should have all of the tools it needs to enact essential legislation, but not to act as an executive.” In their view, the provision improperly delegated appointment power to the legislature, and “a few senators or their staffs, representing few, if any, of the people of Oregon” could “frustrate the executive appointments of a governor elected statewide by all the people.”

Oregon Senate chambers. Cacophony.

In 1966 the Constitution was Changed 1 Time

1964

Abolishing Capital Punishment (Again)

Renewed efforts to abolish the death penalty in Oregon were successful in 1964, when voters ratified a constitutional amendment eliminating the death penalty and granting the legislature the power to fix the penalty for murder in the first degree. At the time the amendment was put to voters, “the legislature [had] already decided on the matter of the penalty for first degree murder,” and had passed laws that would immediately go into effect upon ratification of the amendment. The new laws provided for a maximum punishment of life imprisonment with no possibility of parole for at least 10 years. 

A similar amendment had previously been rejected in 1958.

For more information about the history of the death penalty in Oregon, see 1984.

In 1938 the Constitution was Changed 1 Time

1934

Non-Unanimous Jury Verdicts

For almost a century in Oregon there was no requirement of a unanimous jury verdict to convict a criminal defendant. A 1934 amendment provided that a guilty verdict of at least 10 of 12 jurors was sufficient to convict, except in cases of first-degree murder. 

Proponents at the time argued that the amendment’s purpose was to “prevent one or two jurors from controlling the verdict or causing a disagreement.” They reasoned that “[d]isagreements occasioned by one or two jurors refusing to agree with 10 or 11 other jurors is a frequent occurrence,” and “[o]ne unreasonable juror of the 12, or one not understanding the instructions of the court can prevent a verdict either of guilt or innocence.” Some historians, however, have pointed to more nefarious motivations behind the amendment. In their view, the amendment was driven by “anti-immigrant fervor,” prompted by a case earlier that year involving a Jewish immigrant named Jacob Silverman. Silverman was accused of aiding and abetting the fatal shooting of a Protestant white man. At the trial, eleven jurors were for a verdict of murder in the second degree, and one juror held out for acquittal. To avert a hung jury and prevent a retrial, the eleven jurors compromised with the one juror by agreeing to return a verdict of manslaughter. Silverman was sentenced to three years in prison and a $1,000 fine. 

The non-unanimous jury verdict requirement in Oregon persisted all the way up until 2020, when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana, holding that “if the Sixth Amendment’s right to a jury trial requires a unanimous verdict to support a conviction in federal court, it requires no less in state court.” At the time, only Oregon and Louisiana allowed criminal defendants to be convicted on a 10-2 vote.

In 1934 the Constitution was Changed 1 Time

1926

Repealing the Exclusion Clause

At the state’s founding constitutional convention, delegates submitted two proposals to voters: one to legalize slavery and one so-called “exclusion clause,” that would forbid Black people from being in the state. While Oregonians rejected the slavery proposal by a wide margin, they approved the exclusion clause and incorporated it into the Bill of Rights. It prohibited Black people from “being in the state, owning property, and making contracts.” Oregon was the only state without slavery that had an exclusion clause in its constitution. Although the legislature made multiple attempts to pass enforcement provisions, the clause was never enforced.

Following the ratification of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the clause became moot. Nonetheless, it was not formally eliminated until 1926, thanks to the lobbying efforts of the NAACP and the League of Women Voters. The following year in 1927, voting restrictions against African Americans and Chinese Americans were also removed from the Oregon Constitution. Other racially discriminatory provisions remained in statute and in the Oregon Constitution into the next century.

Despite never being enforced, the exclusion clause and other pre-statehood policies with similar aims are thought, by some historians and civil rights advocates, to have effectively discouraged African Americans from settling in the state. This deterrent effect may have had a lasting impact on Oregon’s racial demographics.

For more information about removal of racial language in the state constitution, see 2002.

Vacancy Due to Recall

When the recall amendment first passed in 1908, the provision provided for two elections to take place simultaneously: first, the election to determine whether the officer would be recalled and, should the recall be successful, second, the election to determine the successor to the office. As first introduced, the provision allowed the officer subject to the recall to run in the election for a successor, meaning that, in theory, an officer could be recalled and then reelected to the same office they were just removed from.

The 1926 amendment to the recall provision eliminated this possibility. Instead of a second election, recalling an officer resulted in a vacancy that would be filled in the manner a regular vacancy in that office would be filled.

For more information about the recall power, see 1908 and 1984.

Preliminary Abstract of Votes for Ratification, Slavery, Exclusion; November 9, 1857 Territory of Oregon Special Election. Oregon Historical Society.

1921

Veto of Emergency Clauses

The Oregon Constitution was amended in 1921 to allow the Governor to veto what are known as “emergency clauses,” in bills passed by the legislature. These clauses were included as a means to allow legislation to take effect sooner than the default-rule of 90 days after the end of the legislative session. In practice, however, the inclusion of an emergency clause also prevented Oregonians from petitioning for a referendum on the bill, as the referendum power was limited to “any Act, or part thereof, of the Legislative Assembly that does not become effective earlier than 90 days after the end of session at which the Act is passed.” Instead, if voters wanted to repeal the legislation, they would have to do so by initiative, which required a greater number of petition signatures to make it onto the ballot.

In 1921, “the constitutional innovation of the popular initiative and referendum was still recent, and use of declarations of emergencies that prevented referendum petitions was controversial.” Oregonians began to feel there was a “tendency to misuse the emergency clause, and to attach it when not necessary or proper.” In response, voters ratified Ballot Measure 3, which provided the governor with a veto over emergency clauses, thus creating the possibility of referrals. The Oregon Supreme Court has since opined that, “Contemporaneous materials widely available to the voters in 1921…leave no doubt that the amendment…was intended to authorize the Governor to veto a declaration of emergency in a bill so as to protect the opportunity of voters to petition for a referendum.

1920

Restoring Capital Punishment

Just six years after the constitution was amended to abolish the death penalty, Oregon voters had an apparent change of heart when, in 1920, the constitution was again amended to restore capital punishment. Under the terms of the new provision, first-degree murder was punishable by death except when the jury recommends life imprisonment. 

For more information about the history of the death penalty in Oregon, see 1984.

1914

Prohibiting Capital Punishment

In 1914, Oregon voters narrowly approved (by a margin of just 157 votes) constitutional amendment prohibiting capital punishment and making life imprisonment the maximum punishment for any crime. Prior to the amendment’s enactment, the state constitution carried no provision regarding the death penalty. Proponents of the constitutional prohibition argued that the death penalty “does not prevent crime” and “brutalize[s] society.”

For more information about the history of the death penalty in Oregon, see 1984.

1912

Women’s Suffrage

In 1912, Oregon voters ratified an amendment placed on the ballot by initiative giving women the right to vote. The amendment had appeared on the ballot five times before finally being passed on the sixth try. Oregon is one of only two states who passed a women’s suffrage amendment by initiative, and one of fifteen states to give women the right to vote prior to the passage of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

The success of the initiative in Oregon can be attributed to the efforts of dozens of independent women’s suffragist organizations. In 1912, a coalition of 75 groups across the state, —including men’s equal suffrage leagues, Chinese American and African American women’s equal suffrage leagues, women’s clubs, farm groups, labor unions and civic organizations—campaigned in favor of the amendment.

Suffragists rally in Laurelhurst Park. Oregon Historical Society Research Library.

1910

Single-Tax

The single-tax is a “method of raising money for the necessary expenses of government by taxing the rent, or the annual yield of land-values, alone, abolishing all other forms of taxation, direct or indirect.” Reformers during the Progressive Era of the early 1900s believed that the single-tax could break up the concentration of wealth that was held by a few land owners. This concentration was thought to be the primary cause of poverty and inequality.

Between 1908 and 1916, a form of a single-tax provision appeared on the ballot at every Oregon election, placed there by the efforts of citizens through the initiative system. Supporters of the single-tax also supported county home rule over issues of taxation in the hopes that counties would adopt the single-tax, thus implementing the policy piecemeal across the state county-by-county. In 1910, Oregon voters approved a taxation home rule amendment, but it was repealed shortly thereafter in 1912 at the next election.

“Help Him to Get Out,” Oregon Labor Press cartoon in favor of the Single Tax. Oregon Historical Society Research Library.

1998

Proportional Representation and Election by a Plurality  

In 1908, Oregon voters adopted a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment that allows for the legislature to provide for proportional elections, rank choice voting, and elections by a majority rather than plurality. For proponents, “the goal [was] to transfer to the people control of the government” by “eliminating boss and machine rule.” It was also thought that proportional elections would reduce the need to use the initiative and referendum system. By contrast, opponents believed that abolishing the district system would destroy majority rule and disenfranchise voters. At the time the amendment passed, proportional representation was expected to reduce the number of Republican legislators while increasing the number of Socialist and Prohibitionist legislators.

Although the amendment passed with a comfortable margin, the legislature has never enacted a proportional representation or rank-choice voting system. Although legislators proposed a constitutional amendment to make proportional representation mandatory in 2023, the legislature did not pass that proposal.

Recall of Elected Officers

In 1908, Oregon voters amended the constitution to provide for the ability to recall any elective public officer in the state, including at the local level. Following the initiative and referendum measures, recall was the final pillar of direct democracy advocated by progressive reformers. It has been called the “final crowning act to complete the temple of popular government.” While proponents argued that it was a way for voters to hold public officials accountable, opponents described the measure as overly complicated and expensive. There were “simpler remedies no less effective” to remove unfaithful public servants that didn’t require the “trouble and expense of a special election,” opponents reasoned.     

As noted by the National Conference of State Legislatures, recall attempts at the state level have been largely unsuccessful throughout history. There has never been a successful recall effort against an Oregon Governor, although there was an attempt as recently as 2020. Only three state legislators have ever been successfully recalled, the first in 1935, and two others during the 1980s. By contrast, the recall is used much more often, and with more success, at the local level. In Portland alone, for example, there have been six recall elections since 1914. Two were successful, resulting in the recall of two city commissioners. 

For more information on amendments to the recall provision, see 1926 and 1984.

Opening of the 2009 Oregon legislature. M.O. Stevens.

1902

Initiative and Referendum

In 1902, Oregon became the third state to adopt an initiative and referendum process. This amendment, which endures to this day, gave Oregonians the power to initiate constitutional amendments, enact statutes, and overturn statutes passed by the legislature. 

During the latter part of the 19th century, progressive reformers began championing initiatives and referenda as a means of passing popular statutes and amendments that were ignored or disfavored by politicians. Proponents of the initiative and referenda system argued that it would “keep power in the hands of the people rather than under the control of a bureaucratic and sometimes corrupt legislature.” Meanwhile, opponents feared that, if adopted, the system would cause voter confusion and make the state a “mecca of socialism.”

Voters ultimately approved the measure and, in 1904, Oregon became the first state to vote on a statewide ballot initiative. Two years later, voters approved another amendment to extend the powers to the voters of municipalities and districts as to “local, special, and municipal legislation.” The initiative and referendum amendments, along with the later recall amendment, established a trio of democratic tools intended to help align government and policy with the popular will.

For more information on the recall power, see 1908.

Political cartoon critiquing direct democracy, c. 1912. Joseph Gaston.