Oregon — Measure 48 (1996)

Overview

Oregon voters considered Measure 48 (1996), proposing a system of voter instruction directing Members of Congress to support a constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits.

The measure presented voters with a plebiscite expressing support for the proposed amendment but did not create a ballot informational statement system or candidate declaration mechanism.

The proposal formed part of the ballot-instruction phase of congressional term-limits reform that followed U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995).

The measure was defeated.

Measure Identification

• Measure name: Measure 48

• Year: 1996

• Adoption method: Citizen initiative

• Election date: November 5, 1996

• Result: Defeated

Ballot Language

Measure 48 asked Oregon voters whether Members of Congress should be instructed to support a constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits.

The proposed amendment specified limits of:

• three terms for Members of the House of Representatives

• two terms for Members of the Senate

Institutional Architecture

Voter Instruction Mechanism

The initiative proposed a voter instruction directing Oregon’s Members of Congress to support a constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits.

The instruction would have expressed the position of Oregon voters regarding the proposed amendment.

Ballot Information Architecture

Measure 48 did not establish informational statements attached to candidate names on election ballots.

Instead, the measure relied on the plebiscite result itself as the mechanism communicating voter instruction.

Candidate Declaration / Pledge Mechanism

The initiative did not create a candidate declaration or pledge system.

Election Administration

Ballot Implementation

Because the measure was defeated, no administrative system implementing the proposed voter instruction was established.

Administrative History

No election administration procedures were implemented following the defeat of Measure 48.

Litigation History

No significant litigation arose from the proposed measure.

Relationship to Cook v. Gralike (2001)

Oregon’s Measure 48 did not create ballot informational statements attached to candidate names.

As a result, the proposal did not produce litigation comparable to the ballot-label architecture addressed in Cook v. Gralike.

Institutional Design Observations

Oregon’s proposal illustrates a plebiscite architecture within the Ballot Instruction Phase.

Rather than creating administrative mechanisms affecting congressional candidates or election ballots, the initiative sought to communicate voter instruction through a statewide advisory vote.

Sources

• Oregon Secretary of State — Measure 48 (1996) initiative text and election records
  https://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Pages/history.aspx

• Oregon Secretary of State — 1996 General Election Results
  https://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Documents/results/november-general-1996.pdf

• Ballotpedia — Oregon Congressional Term Limits Instruction Initiative (Measure 48, 1996)
  https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Congressional_Term_Limits_Instruction_Initiative,_Measure_48_(1996)