Proposing amendment to Oregon Constitution relating to supermajority voting requirements for measures passed during even-numbered year regular sessions.
Impact
If passed, this bill would revise Article IV, Section 25 of the Oregon Constitution, fundamentally changing how legislative measures are approved. By imposing a supermajority requirement, the bill could lead to fewer laws being enacted during even-numbered years when these sessions coincide with elections. This alteration may lead to increased gridlock in the assembly, especially on contentious issues, and would require greater bipartisan support for any proposed legislation to succeed.
Summary
SJR20 proposes an amendment to the Oregon Constitution that would require a supermajority vote for any bills and joint resolutions passed during even-numbered year regular sessions of the Legislative Assembly. Specifically, it seeks to change the current voting requirement from a simple majority to two-thirds of the members in each house. This amendment aims to alter the legislative process significantly by making it more challenging for measures to be passed during these sessions, thus potentially impacting the volume and type of laws enacted in election years.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding SJR20 appears to be mixed among legislators and advocacy groups. Proponents endorse the bill as a way to ensure thorough consideration for measures, reducing the likelihood of hasty decisions during election cycles. On the other hand, critics argue that the supermajority requirement could obstruct necessary legislative actions, stifling progress and curtailing the ability of the assembly to respond effectively to pressing issues.
Contention
Notable points of contention regarding SJR20 include the implications of requiring a two-thirds vote, which may advantage the minority party in legislative negotiations and potentially lead to a significant slowdown in lawmaking during crucial election years. Critics of the bill express concerns that it undermines democratic principles by making it harder for voters' wishes to be translated into law, particularly when the electorate is more active. This conflict underscores the ongoing debate about legislative efficiency versus thorough deliberation.