Why Was Measure 116 Defeated? (lawmaker pay)

I’ve been trying to understand Measure 116’s defeat. At 52.7%, it wasn’t by a large margin, but it looks wide enough to call now. It’s not like we’re waiting for ranked-choice calculations to be settled.

The first thing to understand is to what degree voters understood this was an effort to raise the pay of state-wide officeholders. The campaign for the measure’s passage framed this as a regulation preventing politicians from raising their own compensation. That led to an unwarranted implication that we have a problem with politicians raising their own pay too high. So, some voters who want elected officials to be higher paid may have been tricked by the Yes campaign into thinking that Measure 116 was an effort to lower pay.

The campaign for this measure was disingenuous, because their motive was to increase pay. It is precisely because politicians have the power to raise their own pay that they tend not to do so. It’s their responsibility, and when they exercise this power, it’s either unpopular or perceived to be unpopular. So, an independent commission is needed to take the blame off their hands.

That leads to another factor. Perhaps most voters don’t want to see higher pay for politicians. Perhaps some of them were tricked into voting for the measure by the Yes campaign.

I would generally expect progressives to favor higher pay for elected officials. This is consistent with a general support for higher public sector pay. Yet, when you get to the mass voter, even this level of reasoning is too unlikely.

Measure 116’s defeat looks like a random walk. The Yes campaign was fairly deceptive, which may have muddied the issue in many voters’ minds. Also, connecting the dots to this proposal and a general support for the public sector may be beyond even the most progressive voters. Therefore, Oregon legislators will still need a day job.

Eric Shierman lives in Salem and is the author of We were winning when I was there.