Measure 113 is a bust. It didn’t stop legislative walkouts. It’s not as clear as its backers thought. It fostered division and recrimination in the Oregon Senate this year.

Below, I propose three other approaches. Meanwhile, the measure, which Oregon voters overwhelmingly approved last year, will linger long in state and probably federal courts before its meaning is resolved.

The issue is that the Oregon Constitution requires the presence of two-thirds of senators or House members in order to act on bills in their respective chamber. That’s a high bar, which is why a minority of Republican and Independent senators have been able to disrupt business, whether for weeks or a few hours, seven times since 2019.

One obvious solution would be to ease that quorum requirement. Many states require only a bare majority for their legislative quorum. However, Oregon public employee unions and other Democrat-leaning groups determined that idea and other proposals didn’t poll as well with potential voters as did Measure 113’s concept: Any legislator who reaches 10 unexcused absences from floor sessions – i.e., walks out – would be barred from serving in the Legislature “for the term following the election after the member’s current term is completed.”

That timing now is in dispute.

In addition, Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade this week declared that Senate Republican Leader Tim Knopp of Bend, along with other boycotting senators who accumulated 10 or more unexcused absences, may not file for re-election. 

Say what?

Her decision, which she said was supported by legal advice from Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum’s staff, contradicts the Measure 113 explanatory statement in the Nov. 8, 2022, Oregon Voters Pamphlet. The measure’s backers helped write that statement, which says: “A candidate may run for office in the next primary and general elections and win, but cannot hold office under this measure due to ten or more unexcused absences.”

Alas, citizen-written initiatives in retrospect often are unclear. Or course, so is some legislation.

Regardless of what the courts decide on Measure 113, here are three ways the Legislature could reduce the likelihood of business-blocking boycotts. The common denominator is increasing clarity, understanding and openness – and thus cooperation – for the 2024 Legislature and subsequent sessions.

1. Agree on standards and appeals for “excused” vs. “unexcused” absences

To quote the explanatory statement again: “Currently there is no right of appeal against those determinations and no requirement for the Senate President or House Speaker to formally explain their decision to declare a legislator’s absence as unexcused.”

The Senate and House erred badly by not developing standards – on a bipartisan and bicameral basis – and incorporating them into their rules adopted for the 2023 Legislature. Thus, Measure 113 gave uncontrolled power to the presiding officers, who for years have been Democrats – currently Senate President Rob Wagner, D-Lake Oswego, and House Speaker Dan Rayfield, D-Corvallis.

Legislators historically were excused for the flimsiest of reasons – akin to, “The goldfish ate my homework” – as long as they filed the appropriate paperwork. It was not unheard of for legislators to skip a floor session to avoid being recorded as voting “yea” or “nay” on a controversial bill (although that’s not what the legislators rationalized in their paperwork).

Once the Republican and Independent senators began their walkout this year, Wagner denied most excuses, including for senators absent for religious services or family events such as a wedding. Sens. Fred Girod, R-Lyons, who participated in the boycott, and Chris Gorsek, D-Troutdale, had long-term medical excuses.

Wagner also contended he had no authority to retroactively excuse the absences after the walkout ended, although the boycotters asked him to do so. That, too, needs clarity.

2. Limit the number of bills

Nearly 3,000 bills were introduced during the 2023 Legislature. Only 653 passed. That’s at least a 75% failure rate. 

It’s true that some concepts need time to ripen, requiring three or four legislative sessions before they gain understanding and widespread backing. However, unnecessary bills waste tax dollars; staff, legislator and public time; and emotions. Folks get excited, or bent out of shape, about measures that are going nowhere. Decisive bill limits for individual legislators, committees, agencies and others would force hard but necessary choices.

As it stands, Republicans introduce controversial bills they know are dead on arrival but serve a purpose: They provide fodder for complaining that Democrats stifled much of the minority party’s agenda. Democrats similarly introduce experimental or fringe ideas that please only diehard supporters but inflame partisan headlines.

The Legislature’s 35-day sessions, held in even-numbered years, have some bill limits. For the 2024 Legislature, each senator or representative may introduce two bills; most legislative committees, three bills each; and the governor and chief justice of the supreme court, three bills each. However, the presiding officers and a few committees are exempt. During 160-day sessions, such as this year’s, lawmakers are virtually unimpeded.

Strict bill limits, fair for all sides, could sideline many of the extreme, divisive proposals that sabotage meaningful governance. The House and Senate could build in an escape clause, allowing additional bills with adequate bipartisan approval.

I’d go even further, arguing that the Legislature should require every measure to have specific bipartisan support in order to advance. Former Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, tried to maintain such an unofficial standard. Over time, his increasingly progressive Senate Democratic Caucus neutered his centrist approaches.

3. Increase public access and involvement

People are more likely to accept an outcome, even if they don’t fully agree with it, if they believe legislators have heard them, treated their views with respect and given them a legitimate opportunity to affect the outcome. This reality applies to legislators when giving testimony, as well as to lobbyists and everyday Oregonians.

Currently, Oregonians’ testimony in committees may be limited to two or three minutes per person. So-called expert testimony sometimes is divided unequally between supporters and opponents. With fewer bills to consider, committees would have more time for testimony and, equally important, two-way discussion with the people testifying. 

None of these three proposals is a cure-all. However, each lessens the prospect of avoidable miscommunication, unforeseen consequences and partisan antagonism.