Oregon pioneered the Citizens' Initiative Review—randomly selected voters who study ballot measures and share their findings. It works. Let's bring it to Portland city measures.
Oregon invented this process in 2010. Here's how it works.
20–24 registered voters are randomly selected and screened to form a demographically representative panel—like a jury, but for democracy.
Over 4–5 days, panelists hear from advocates on both sides, question expert witnesses, and discuss the measure's real-world implications.
The panel produces a balanced "Citizens' Statement" with key findings—facts they believe voters should consider—plus their final vote.
The statement goes in the official Voters' Pamphlet, reaching every household. Voters get trusted, peer-reviewed information—not just ads.
Oregon's CIR has been studied extensively. The results are remarkable.
In controlled experiments by researchers at Penn State, voters who read the Citizens' Statement were significantly more likely to align with the jury's verdict—not because they were told how to vote, but because they received better information.
Bring citizen juries to city ballot measures—at no extra cost to petitioners.
Petitioners redirect money from signature-gathering busywork into actual voter education. Portland voters get a trusted, peer-reviewed analysis of every citizen initiative.
And why a citizen jury is actually a better filter for ballot access.
The theory behind signature requirements is that they filter out frivolous measures by requiring demonstrated public support. But here's the problem: any issue can collect 9% of registered voters if the backers have enough money.
At $12–15 per signature, qualification is simply a function of budget. A wealthy interest group or out-of-state PAC can buy their way onto the ballot regardless of whether Portlanders actually support the idea. The signature requirement isn't a test of public will—it's a toll booth.
When a circulator asks "Will you sign this petition?", the only possible outcome is support or indifference. There's no mechanism for opposition. Someone who thinks a measure is a terrible idea simply doesn't sign—their view is invisible.
This means signatures can never answer the question that actually matters: "Is this thing likely enough to pass that it's worth putting before voters?"
When 20+ randomly selected Portlanders spend four days studying a measure and then vote 17-7 against it, that's meaningful signal. It's not perfect prediction—sometimes juries and voters disagree—but it's informed signal from a representative sample.
More importantly, when a jury votes against a measure, voters hear about it. The CIR statement goes to every household. That 6–10% opinion shift means bad measures are more likely to fail.
| Filter Mechanism | Signature Requirement | Citizen Jury |
|---|---|---|
| Tests actual support? | No—only tests funding | Yes—jury deliberates and votes |
| Allows opposition voice? | No—signatures are only "yes" | Yes—jury hears both sides |
| Demographically representative? | No—skews to those approached | Yes—random stratified sample |
| Informed decision? | No—30-second pitch | Yes—4-5 days of study |
| Affects election outcome? | No—just gate to ballot | Yes—6-10% opinion shift |
We're not proposing that juries decide what reaches the ballot. The measure still goes to voters. But the jury's verdict travels with it—educating voters and creating meaningful consequences for measures that can't survive informed scrutiny.
A measure that a jury of peers rejects 18-6 after careful study faces a 6–10% headwind with voters. That's a real filter. And unlike signatures, it's a filter based on merit, not money.
The path to citizen juries for city measures.
Portland could adopt this through a citizen initiative or City Council action. The charter already governs initiative signature requirements (currently 9% of registered voters)—this would modify that threshold and add the CIR funding requirement.
Portland already has MOUs with Multnomah County for election administration (they partnered on RCV implementation). A similar agreement could ensure CIR statements appear in the county voters' pamphlet alongside city measures.
Oregon's existing CIR Commission has deep expertise in running these panels. Portland could contract with them or establish a city-level process using the same proven methodology.
The cleanest design: petitioners who want the reduced signature threshold (5%) must fund the CIR panel. Those who prefer the traditional path (9%) can skip it. This preserves choice while creating strong incentives for participation.
We pioneered ranked-choice voting for city elections. We can pioneer citizen juries for city measures. Let's build democracy infrastructure that helps voters make informed decisions.