Citizens' Initiative Review Simulation · Oregon HB 3991 Gas Tax Referendum
12 – 11
Narrow Vote to Repeal
NO (Repeal)  —  YES (Uphold)
A 23-member simulated citizen jury deliberated for five days on whether to uphold or repeal Oregon's gas tax increase, registration fee hikes, and transit payroll tax. Deliberation tightened a projected 67–19 blowout into a near-split decision. The jury found ODOT's funding crisis is genuine — but the tax package is regressive, lacks accountability, and was passed through a flawed process.
23 Jurors 30 Rounds 5 Days February 2026

The Measure

This veto referendum asks Oregon voters whether to uphold or repeal the tax and fee increases in House Bill 3991, passed on party-line votes during a September 2025 special session and signed by Governor Tina Kotek on November 7, 2025. A YES vote upholds the taxes. A NO vote repeals them.

What HB 3991 Does

Raises approximately $791 million per biennium ($4.3 billion over 10 years) for transportation maintenance, operations, and transit. Revenue is split: 50% to ODOT state highways, 30% to counties, 20% to cities.

Gas Tax Increase
$0.40 → $0.46/gal
15% increase. Largest single gas tax hike in Oregon history. Diesel aligns to same rate July 2029.
Registration Fees (2-year)
$86 → $170
Passenger vehicles nearly doubled. Motorcycles $88→$172. Trailers $126→$210.
Title Fees
$77 → $216
Nearly tripled for passenger vehicles and trucks.
Transit Payroll Tax
0.1% → 0.2%
Doubled. Expires January 2028. Median earner: +$68/year.
EV/Efficient Vehicle Surcharges
$35–$115 → $65–$145
Plus mandatory per-mile road usage charge phased in by 2031.
Estimated Cost Per Family
~$300/year
Combined gas, registration, payroll. Higher for rural families, multi-vehicle households.

Why This Exists

Oregon's State Highway Fund relies on gas tax revenue, which has flattened as vehicles become more fuel-efficient and EVs pay no gas tax. ODOT faces a $354 million deficit in the 2025–27 biennium. Without new revenue, ODOT has already laid off 483 workers and faces an additional 470+ layoffs. The agency would close maintenance stations, reduce snow plowing, delay pothole repairs, and shut 8 rest areas. Counties and cities that receive 50% of gas tax revenue face parallel cuts to local road maintenance.

The last major transportation funding package was in 2017. Oregon's gas tax has not been meaningfully adjusted for inflation since then. A larger $11–14 billion package failed in the regular 2025 session; HB 3991 was a stripped-down emergency measure passed in special session.

The Referendum

Filed November 10, 2025 by Senator Bruce Starr (R), Representative Ed Diehl (R), and Jason Williams of the Taxpayer Association of Oregon. Collected 250,949 signatures (78,116 needed). Certified December 30, 2025. The No Tax Oregon campaign supports a NO vote to repeal. As of February 2026, no organized campaign has registered in support of a YES vote to uphold the law.

Political context: 95% of public testimony during the legislative process opposed the bill. Polling shows 67% would vote to repeal. Governor Kotek initially asked the legislature to repeal HB 3991 itself, but legislative counsel ruled the legislature cannot repeal a measure already referred to voters. Democratic leaders are attempting to move the vote from November to the May 19 primary.

The Jury

Twenty-three Oregonians were selected to mirror the state's demographics by geography, party registration, race, age, income, housing tenure, and relationship to the measure. Oregon is 75% White non-Hispanic, 14% Hispanic, 5% Asian, 3% Black, and 2% Native American. Voter registration is 32% Democrat, 24% Republican, 37% Nonaffiliated, and 7% minor parties. Approximately 65% of the population lives in urban areas along the I-5 corridor, 33% in rural areas.

Maria Gonzalez-Trujillo
NO
34, Hispanic, F · Woodburn (Marion Co.)
Nursery worker · NAV · Renter · $42K
Drives older pickup 45 min each way
Direct impact: Gas + registration increase costs ~$400/yr on a $42K income. "That's groceries for a month."
Brian Kowalski
NO
52, White, M · Prineville (Crook Co.)
Ranch supply store owner · Republican · Owner · $78K
Two trucks, 100+ mi/week deliveries
Business cost: Fuel + fleet registration increases add $1,200+/yr. Passes cost to customers or absorbs it.
Tamara Washington
YES
41, Black, F · Portland (Multnomah Co.)
Medical billing specialist · Democrat · Renter · $55K
TriMet bus rider, no car
Transit dependent: Payroll tax funds TriMet. Without it, TriMet cuts 27% of bus service — including her route.
Derek Stanton
YES
47, White, M · Bend (Deschutes Co.)
Civil engineer · NAV · Owner · $115K
Two kids, drives SUV + wife's sedan
Professional expertise: Understands infrastructure deterioration curves. "Deferred maintenance always costs more."
Linda Chen
YES
58, Asian, F · Beaverton (Washington Co.)
Software dev manager, Intel · Democrat · Owner · $145K
Drives Prius, environmentally engaged
Analytical: "The math is clear — we either pay now through taxes or later through road damage and congestion costs."
Mike Halverson
YES
63, White, M · Roseburg (Douglas Co.)
Retired ODOT maintenance supervisor · Republican · Owner · $62K
32 years at ODOT, saw cuts firsthand
Institutional knowledge: Knows exactly which bridges are failing, which crews are gone. "People will die on those roads."
Sarah Johansson
NO
29, White, F · Portland (Multnomah Co.)
Barista / PSU grad student · NAV · Renter · $28K
Bikes + MAX, owns beater car
Cost of living: Already working two jobs. Registration renewal doubled. "I can barely afford the car I have."
Tom Bridgewater
NO
71, White, M · Grants Pass (Josephine Co.)
Retired logger · Republican · Owner · $38K
Fixed income, drives F-150
Fixed income: "My Social Security didn't go up 15% but my gas tax did. I can't vote myself a raise."
Rachel Okonkwo
YES
36, White/Nigerian, F · Eugene (Lane Co.)
Environmental nonprofit director · Democrat · Renter · $52K
Drives hybrid, concerned about climate
Policy perspective: Wants transit funding but troubled by process. "The right policy passed the wrong way."
Kyle McCready
NO
44, White, M · The Dalles (Wasco Co.)
Long-haul trucker · NAV · Owner · $72K
Burns 150 gal diesel/week
Fuel is his biggest cost: 6¢/gallon × 150 gal × 50 weeks = $450+/yr direct hit. "Every cent matters in trucking."
Patricia Morales
YES
67, Hispanic, F · Salem (Marion Co.)
Retired teacher · Democrat · Owner · $48K pension
Drives Corolla, volunteers at food bank
Community view: "My food bank clients need buses. They also need roads. There's no free version of infrastructure."
Jason Westbrook
NO
38, White, M · Medford (Jackson Co.)
HVAC contractor · Republican · Owner · $95K
Three work vans, fleet costs
Small business: Registration × 3 vans + fuel = $2,000+/yr. "I compete on price. This goes straight to my bids."
Amy Larsen
YES
32, White, F · Corvallis (Benton Co.)
OSU research asst, environmental science · NAV · Renter · $41K
Bikes mostly, owns old Subaru
Evidence-based: "Every state faces this. Gas tax revenue is structurally declining. We need to fund roads somehow."
Gary Fisk
NO
55, White, M · Baker City (Baker Co.)
Cattle rancher, 2,400 acres · Libertarian · Owner · $85K
150 mi round trip for supplies
Principled opposition: "Tax me more to fund a Portland highway cover? Redirect what we already spend first."
Jennifer Nakamura-Reeves
NO
43, White/Japanese, F · Lake Oswego (Clackamas Co.)
Healthcare marketing director · NAV · Owner · $135K
Drives Tesla Model Y
EV driver: Faces new registration surcharges + mandatory per-mile charge. "I bought an EV to do the right thing."
David Hernandez
NO
26, Hispanic, M · Hillsboro (Washington Co.)
Amazon warehouse worker · Democrat · Renter · $36K
Drives to late shifts, takes TriMet sometimes
Squeezed: Needs transit AND can't afford gas hike. "I use both and can't pay more for either."
Wendy Paulson
YES
48, White, F · Klamath Falls (Klamath Co.)
County road dept administrator · Republican · Owner · $68K
Manages rural road maintenance budget
Institutional: Her department gets 30% of gas tax revenue. "Without this money, we close roads. Period."
Craig Olsen
NO
60, White, M · Newport (Lincoln Co.)
Commercial fisherman · NAV · Owner · $75K (variable)
Diesel boat + truck
Double fuel hit: Diesel for boat and truck. "The ocean doesn't care about legislative timelines."
Danielle Moreau
YES
31, White, F · Portland (Multnomah Co.)
Urban planner at Metro · Democrat · Renter · $62K
MAX + bike commuter
Professional: Plans regional transit. "If we repeal this, we're choosing to let the system fail. That's a choice too."
Bobby Kitzhaber
NO
50, White, M · Springfield (Lane Co.)
UPS driver, Teamsters · NAV · Owner · $82K
Drives commercially all day
Union member: Teamsters officially support YES. "I respect my union but my wallet says something different."
Theresa Running Elk
YES
39, Native American (Warm Springs), F · Madras (Jefferson Co.)
Tribal health clinic admin · Independent Party · Owner · $58K
Drives to Portland for specialist care
Rural/tribal: "When Highway 26 closes, our elders can't get to dialysis. That's not hypothetical — it happens."
Phil Decker
NO
45, White, M · Tigard (Washington Co.)
Financial advisor · Republican · Owner · $125K
Drives BMW, analytical temperament
Accountability: "ODOT lost track of $1 billion. The Rose Quarter is at $2 billion. Fix the spending before asking for more."
Colleen Murphy
YES
54, White, F · Astoria (Clatsop Co.)
Tourism business owner (kayak tours) · Democrat · Owner · $65K
Coast highways = livelihood
Business dependent: "My customers drive Highway 101 to get here. Closed roads = closed business. I'll pay the tax."

Jury composition: 7 Democrat (30%), 6 Republican (26%), 8 NAV (35%), 1 Independent Party, 1 Libertarian. 18 White (78%), 3 Hispanic (13%), 1 Asian, 1 Black, 1 Native American. 15 homeowners, 8 renters. 14 Portland metro/Willamette Valley, 4 Southern Oregon, 2 Central Oregon, 2 Coast, 1 Eastern Oregon. Ages 26–71, median 44. Household incomes $28K–$145K, median $68K.

Five Days of Deliberation

Day 1 — Orientation & Opening Testimony

Rounds 1–6 · Initial straw poll: 7 Yes, 7 Undecided, 9 No
▼
Round 1 — Facilitator Introduction
Facilitator
Welcome. You've been selected to represent Oregon's voters on a question that will appear on the November ballot: Should the state uphold or repeal the tax and fee increases in House Bill 3991? A YES vote keeps the taxes. A NO vote repeals them. Over five days, you'll hear from legislators, state officials, economists, transit agencies, local governments, and affected Oregonians. Your job is to weigh the evidence, deliberate honestly, and produce findings that help your fellow voters understand what you learned. No one here has a financial stake in the outcome. Let's begin with what the bill actually does.
Round 2 — Measure Overview
Legislative Revenue Office Analyst
Nonpartisan fiscal staff
HB 3991 raises approximately $791 million per biennium through five revenue streams: a 6-cent gas tax increase, near-doubling of vehicle registration fees, near-tripling of title fees, doubling of the transit payroll tax through 2028, and increased EV surcharges with a mandatory road usage charge phased in by 2031. Revenue follows the existing 50-30-20 split: half to ODOT state highways, 30% to counties, 20% to cities. For context, the current gas tax is 40 cents, set in 2024 after incremental increases from the 2017 transportation package. Before 2017, it was 30 cents and had been unchanged since 1993. Fuel tax revenue has flattened despite population growth because average vehicle fuel efficiency improved from 23 mpg in 2010 to 27 mpg today, and EV registrations in Oregon have quadrupled since 2019.
Derek Stanton
Juror — Civil engineer, Bend
What's the elasticity — how much does a 6-cent increase actually change driving behavior or fuel consumption?
LRO Analyst
Short-run gasoline demand elasticity is about -0.2 to -0.3. A 15% price increase in the tax component — which is only part of the pump price — would reduce consumption by roughly 1-2%. The revenue estimate already accounts for this. It's not a significant behavioral deterrent.
Round 3 — The Case for YES (Uphold)
Sen. Khanh Phạm (D-Portland)
Co-Chair, Joint Committee on Transportation
We're talking about substantially less money than many Oregonians spend a month on Netflix, all to ensure that we maintain the existing roads, bridges, buses, sidewalks, and highways that get us to work, to school, and to the doctor's office. ODOT has already laid off 483 workers. Without this revenue, we're looking at 1,000+ total positions eliminated, maintenance stations closed, snow plowing reduced, and rest areas shut down. Counties will lose 30% of the revenue they use to maintain rural roads. TriMet could cut 27% of bus service. This isn't a new project wish list — it's keeping the lights on.
Association of Oregon Counties representative
Counties maintain 32,000 miles of road in Oregon — more than ODOT's 8,000 miles of state highways. Many rural counties have no other revenue source for road maintenance. If this revenue is repealed, you'll see gravel roads that were paved revert to gravel. You'll see bridges posted with weight restrictions that prevent school buses and emergency vehicles from crossing. This is real. We surveyed county engineers: 22 of 36 counties said they would have to reduce maintenance below safe levels within 18 months without HB 3991 revenue.
Round 4 — The Case for NO (Repeal)
Sen. Bruce Starr (R-Dundee)
Senate Republican Leader, referendum co-petitioner
Governor Kotek is not repealing this bill because she suddenly discovered it was bad policy. She's doing it because Oregonians stood up, made their voices heard, and forced her to make a political decision. 95% of those who testified opposed this bill. 250,000 Oregonians signed the petition — more than three times what was needed. This isn't a close call. Oregonians are already taxed at the 13th-highest rate in the nation. We pay a 9.9% income tax — one of the highest in America — with no sales tax to offset it. And now Salem wants to add regressive gas taxes that hit rural families and low-income workers the hardest? We have alternatives. We're paying for electric vehicle chargers, a social equity office, climate justice initiatives, and a $2 billion Rose Quarter highway cover. Redirect those dollars to maintenance first.
Jason Williams
Director, Taxpayer Association of Oregon
This could cost many families $300 or more per year. That's a car payment. That's a month of groceries. And here's the thing — ODOT's gas tax revenue is at an all-time high of $652 million. The problem isn't revenue. It's spending. ODOT had a $1 billion federal forecasting error. The Rose Quarter project ballooned from $500 million to $2 billion. The Abernethy Bridge went from $250 million to $815 million. Fix the mismanagement, then come back and ask for money.
Round 5 — Juror Initial Reactions
Gary Fisk
Juror — Rancher, Baker City
I drive 150 miles round trip just to get feed and supplies. Out where I live, there's no bus, there's no MAX train, there's no alternative. The gas tax hits me harder per mile than somebody in Portland who can walk to a grocery store. And they want me to pay more so Portland can build a freeway cap?
Tamara Washington
Juror — Medical billing, Portland
But without the payroll tax, TriMet cuts 27% of service. My bus route could disappear. I don't have a car. How do I get to work? The people who'd vote to repeal this have cars. I don't. That's easy for them.
Mike Halverson
Juror — Retired ODOT supervisor, Roseburg
I spent 32 years at ODOT. I know what deferred maintenance looks like. It looks like a guardrail that isn't replaced after a crash, and then the next crash has no guardrail. It looks like a pothole that becomes a road failure. It looks like the bridge on Cow Creek Road that's been weight-restricted for three years because we can't afford to fix it. The spending criticisms are fair — I saw waste too. But the maintenance need is real and it's urgent. People will die on these roads if we don't fund them.
Phil Decker
Juror — Financial advisor, Tigard
Mike, I respect your experience, but the $1 billion forecasting error doesn't inspire confidence. If a client came to me and said, 'I lost track of a billion dollars but I need you to invest more,' I'd tell them to get their books in order first. Why is this different?
Mike Halverson
Because the forecasting error was in construction project planning. It didn't lose money — it overestimated future federal revenue. The maintenance budget is a separate line. You're conflating two different parts of the agency. That's like saying the sales team overpromised, so we should stop paying the janitors.
Round 6 — Initial Questions
Wendy Paulson
Juror — County road dept, Klamath Falls
I need to understand the county revenue share better. My department depends on this. If this gets repealed, what happens to the 30% that goes to counties?
LRO Analyst
Counties currently receive approximately $320 million per biennium from the State Highway Fund. HB 3991 would increase that by roughly $210 million. If repealed, counties revert to the current baseline, which 22 county engineers say is already insufficient for safe maintenance.
Jennifer Nakamura-Reeves
Juror — Marketing director, Lake Oswego
I bought a Tesla partly because Oregon was promoting EVs. Now you want to charge me a per-mile fee AND increase my registration surcharge? It feels like bait-and-switch. How does this encourage the transition to clean vehicles?
LRO Analyst
That's a real tension. EVs use the roads but don't pay gas tax. As EV adoption grows, the funding gap widens unless EV drivers contribute through some mechanism. The per-mile charge is designed to be equivalent to what a gas-powered vehicle would pay. The policy question is whether that's fair to early adopters.

📊 Straw Poll — End of Day 1

7
7
9
YES (Uphold): 7 Undecided: 7 NO (Repeal): 9

YES: Tamara, Linda, Rachel, Patricia, Danielle, Amy, David. Undecided: Derek, Mike H., Sarah, Jennifer, Wendy, Theresa, Colleen. NO: Maria, Brian, Tom, Kyle, Jason W., Gary, Craig, Bobby, Phil.

Day 2 — ODOT Crisis & Fiscal Deep Dive

Rounds 7–12 · Straw poll: 10 Yes, 3 Undecided, 10 No
▼
Round 7 — ODOT Testimony
Kacey Davy
ODOT Public Information Officer
We've already cut $300 million voluntarily over five years. We eliminated 449 vacant positions. We laid off 483 people in late 2025. If no new revenue materializes, we project eliminating 1,000+ positions total — 22% of our workforce. That means 342 filled maintenance jobs gone. We'd close or downsize maintenance stations across the state. Snow plowing would be reduced to a level where some roads close during storms and stay closed until crews can get to them — which could be days, not hours. Incident response times would increase significantly. We'd shut 8 rest areas. Pavement repairs would be scaled back so far that we'd stop striping low-volume rural roads entirely.
Jason Lawrence
SEIU ODOT Sublocal 730, Acting President
I'm a policy analyst at ODOT and I represent the workers. We've been operating shorthanded for years. In the worst-case scenario, you're going to have maybe a two-person maintenance crew responsible for 80 miles of highway. When a tree comes down in a storm at Mile 20 and a mudslide hits at Mile 60, which one do they go to? You're going to have entire communities completely disconnected from the rest of the world. That's not hyperbole.
Round 8 — Republican Alternative Proposal
Rep. Ed Diehl (R-Scio)
Referendum co-petitioner
Republicans proposed House Bill 3982 as an alternative — no new taxes. It redirects existing revenue from non-essential programs: the transit payroll tax already collects money, redirect it to roads. The Vehicle Privilege Tax funds Connect Oregon and the Zero Emission Incentive Fund — redirect those. Eliminate the social equity office at ODOT. Stop the Rose Quarter highway cover, which has lost its $450 million federal grant and is $2 billion over any reasonable estimate. You can find hundreds of millions without raising a single tax. Democrats refused to even vote on our bill.
LRO Analyst
Responding to jury question about HB 3982
We scored the Republican alternative. Redirecting the programs Representative Diehl mentioned would generate approximately $150–200 million per biennium, depending on assumptions. That's significant but covers roughly one-quarter to one-third of the $791 million HB 3991 generates. It would keep the lights on for ODOT's core operations but would not restore county and city revenue shares or fund transit. There are also legal and contractual constraints — some of those funds are constitutionally dedicated or have federal match requirements that can't simply be redirected.
Round 9 — Juror Discussion: Alternatives
Phil Decker
Juror — Financial advisor, Tigard
So the Republican plan covers a third of the gap. That's not nothing. Start there. Do the easy cuts first, then come back with a honest accounting of what's still needed. That's how any business would handle this.
Derek Stanton
Juror — Civil engineer, Bend
A third isn't enough. I've seen what happens when you underfund maintenance on infrastructure. The deterioration curve isn't linear — it's exponential. A road that costs $50,000 to resurface today costs $500,000 to reconstruct in five years if you let it fail. Every year of underfunding compounds. The math is brutal and it doesn't care about politics.
Wendy Paulson
Juror — County road dept, Klamath Falls
I can confirm that. My department has deferred seal coating on 40 miles of road because we can't afford the material. Those roads will need full reconstruction in 3-4 years instead of a $200,000 seal coat. We're talking $3 million per mile for reconstruction. The longer we wait, the more it costs. → LEAN YES
Brian Kowalski
Juror — Store owner, Prineville
I hear you, but the government always says the sky is falling to justify more taxes. ODOT's revenue is at an all-time high. At some point you have to ask: is the problem really revenue, or is it that they keep finding new things to spend on?
Round 10 — Transit Impact
TriMet representative
The payroll tax is our primary funding source. If the tax reverts to 0.1%, we project cutting 27% of bus service — 45 of 79 bus lines. Those cuts fall disproportionately on low-income riders, night-shift workers, and communities of color. Ridership is still recovering from COVID. Service cuts create a death spiral: fewer routes mean fewer riders, which means less farebox revenue, which means more cuts.
David Hernandez
Juror — Warehouse worker, Hillsboro
I take TriMet to work when I can, but my shift ends at 2 AM and there's no bus. So I drive. I need both — the bus when it works and my car when it doesn't. But I'm making $36,000. Every new tax hits me twice: once at the pump, once on my paycheck. I don't know which way to go on this.
Colleen Murphy
Juror — Tourism business, Astoria
I don't have a transit question — I'm on the coast, we don't have TriMet. But Highway 101 is my business. Literally. If ODOT can't maintain it, my customers can't reach me. Last year there was a 3-week closure from a landslide. If there are fewer maintenance crews, those closures last longer. I'm starting to think I have to vote yes just to protect my livelihood. → LEAN YES
Round 11 — The Process Question
Rachel Okonkwo
Juror — Nonprofit director, Eugene
Something that's bothering me: this was rammed through in a special session with no Republican votes. The original $12 billion bill failed. Then they called a special session over Labor Day weekend, passed it on party lines with literally one senator recovering from surgery so they barely had the votes, and the governor sat on it for a month before signing. That process matters. Even if the policy is right, the way it was done undermines legitimacy.
Mike Halverson
Juror — Retired ODOT, Roseburg
The process was ugly. But I've watched this play out for five years from inside the agency. The legislature has known about the funding cliff since at least 2020. ODOT briefed them a dozen times. Republicans refused to engage on any revenue solution. Democrats tried a bigger package, it failed, so they came back with a smaller one. If you don't like the process, who do you blame — the party that passed something, or the party that refused to negotiate anything? → LEAN YES
Round 12 — Regressivity Discussion
Sarah Johansson
Juror — Barista/grad student, Portland
We keep talking about whether the money is needed. Fine. But has anyone addressed who pays? Gas taxes are regressive. Registration fees are flat — same $170 whether you make $28,000 or $280,000. The payroll tax is regressive at the top because high earners have investment income that isn't taxed. This is the most regressive possible way to fund roads. Why not use the income tax, which Oregon already has? → LEAN NO
Amy Larsen
Juror — OSU researcher, Corvallis
Sarah's right about regressivity. But there's a reason most states fund roads through gas taxes and fees rather than income taxes: the user-pays principle. People who drive more use more road. Gas taxes are a rough proxy for road use. If we shift to income taxes, you disconnect the funding from the usage, which creates different problems. I don't love the regressivity, but I understand the logic.
Maria Gonzalez-Trujillo
Juror — Nursery worker, Woodburn
I don't care about the economic theory. I make $42,000. I drive because there's no bus to the nursery where I work. This will cost me $400 a year. That's a month of groceries for my family. Tell me how it's fair that I pay the same registration fee as someone making six figures.

📊 Straw Poll — End of Day 2

10
3
10
YES: 10 Undecided: 3 NO: 10

Shifted to YES: Mike Halverson (ODOT knowledge), Wendy Paulson (county roads), Colleen Murphy (coast business). Shifted to NO: Sarah Johansson (regressivity/cost). Still undecided: Derek, Jennifer, Theresa.

Day 3 — Rural Impact, Tribal Perspectives & Accountability

Rounds 13–18 · Straw poll: 12 Yes, 1 Undecided, 10 No
▼
Round 13 — Rural Oregon Testimony
Sen. David Brock Smith (R-Port Orford)
It's going to hurt my rural Oregonians more because they have lower income levels and have to drive farther for goods and services than anywhere else, and they're not driving a fuel-efficient vehicle to do so. The average rural Oregonian drives 40% more miles than a Portlander. They earn 25% less. And they pay the same gas tax per gallon. This bill is a transfer from rural Oregon to urban Oregon, dressed up as infrastructure policy.
Rural county commissioner (Harney County)
But here's the flip side that Senator Brock Smith isn't telling you: rural counties depend MORE on gas tax revenue sharing than urban ones, not less. Harney County has no property tax base to speak of. Our road department is funded almost entirely by the State Highway Fund. If you repeal HB 3991, my road department loses $1.2 million a year. We maintain 1,800 miles of road with 12 people. Take away that money and we're down to 8 people maintaining 1,800 miles. Some of those roads will just... stop being maintained.
Round 14 — Tribal Perspectives
Warm Springs Tribal Council transportation liaison
Highway 26 between Madras and Portland is a lifeline for our community. When that road closes — and it closes more often than people in the valley realize — our elders miss dialysis appointments. Our children miss school. Our families miss funerals. ODOT maintenance keeps that road open. When they reduce crews in Jefferson County, it's our people who are cut off. We're already the most isolated communities in the state. We can't absorb further cuts to rural highway maintenance.
Theresa Running Elk
Juror — Tribal health admin, Madras
This is my life. I drive elders to Portland for specialist appointments that aren't available on the reservation. Highway 26 over Mt. Hood — when it's closed, we add three hours going through The Dalles. Last February, it was closed for four days. An elder missed her chemo infusion. Four days. Because there weren't enough plows. → LEAN YES
Round 15 — ODOT Accountability Deep Dive
Joe Cortright
Economist, City Observatory
Let me be direct: ODOT has a spending problem, not just a revenue problem. The $1 billion forecasting error wasn't a clerical mistake — it reflects systemic failures in financial management. The Rose Quarter project started at $500 million and is now north of $2 billion with no clear path to completion. The Abernethy Bridge went from $250 million to $815 million. These are not efficiency-model agencies. And HB 3991 includes zero binding reform measures. The "accountability" provisions are reporting requirements and advisory oversight — no teeth. You're being asked to write a bigger check to an agency that hasn't demonstrated it can manage the money it has.
ODOT representative (responding)
The federal forecasting error was a modeling issue, not a spending issue — we didn't spend money we didn't have. We overestimated future federal revenue. That's different. On mega-projects: cost escalation is an industry-wide problem driven by inflation, supply chain disruptions, and regulatory requirements. National highway project costs have increased 55% since 2019. We're not immune to the same forces hitting every state DOT. And HB 3991 did add accountability: it changed the director appointment process, added legislative oversight of decision-making, and mandated performance audits.
Round 16 — Juror Debate: Accountability vs. Urgency
Derek Stanton
Juror — Civil engineer, Bend
I've been going back and forth, but I keep coming back to the engineering. The deferred maintenance math is not political. You can argue about ODOT's management all day, but the roads don't care who's right. Every year we delay costs more. The Rose Quarter is a policy mistake — fine. But the pothole on Highway 97 north of Bend that's been there for six months isn't a policy debate, it's a safety hazard. I think I have to vote yes on the funding even while acknowledging ODOT needs reform. → LEAN YES
Jennifer Nakamura-Reeves
Juror — Marketing director, Lake Oswego
I keep trying to get there, Derek, but I can't separate the money from the management. The accountability provisions in HB 3991 are toothless. Reporting requirements? Performance audits? Those are things ODOT should already be doing. Where's the binding reform? Where's the independent oversight board? Where's the consequence for cost overruns? If they'd paired real accountability with the revenue, I might vote yes. But they didn't. → LEAN NO
Round 17 — The EV Fairness Question
Jennifer Nakamura-Reeves
One more thing. Oregon spent years and millions encouraging EV adoption. Tax credits, incentives, charging infrastructure. Now that people like me bought EVs, the policy reverses: we get hit with surcharges, per-mile charges, increased registration fees. If you want people to adopt clean technology, you can't punish them for doing it.
Amy Larsen
Juror — OSU researcher, Corvallis
But Jennifer, the point of the EV incentive was to accelerate adoption, not to permanently exempt EV drivers from paying for roads. At some point, everyone who uses the road has to contribute to maintaining it. EV drivers aren't using less road than gas drivers. The per-mile charge is actually the fairest mechanism — it directly ties payment to usage regardless of fuel type. The question is timing, not principle.
Linda Chen
Juror — Software manager, Beaverton
I drive a Prius and I'm voting yes. EV drivers should pay for roads. The subsidy was for adoption, not for permanent free-riding. But the phase-in should be gentler. The mandatory per-mile charge starting in 2027 feels rushed.
Round 18 — Cross-Partisan Moment
Bobby Kitzhaber
Juror — UPS driver, Springfield
My union says vote yes. My wallet says vote no. I drive 200 miles a day for UPS. The gas isn't my cost — UPS pays that — but the registration on my personal truck doubled, the payroll tax on my check went up, and gas for my own driving is more. I understand the roads need fixing. I drive them every day and I see the problems. But this is the wrong way to pay for it. I've been undecided but I think I'm landing on no. → LEAN NO
Mike Halverson
Juror — Retired ODOT, Roseburg
Bobby, I voted Republican my whole life. I don't love taxes. But I spent 32 years watching roads deteriorate because the legislature wouldn't fund maintenance. Every time they said "redirect existing funds first," it was code for "do nothing." HB 3982 — the Republican bill — covered a third of the gap. What about the other two-thirds? Nobody has an answer. I'm a Republican voting yes because I saw what happens when you don't.

📊 Straw Poll — End of Day 3

12
1
10
YES: 12 Undecided: 1 NO: 10

Shifted to YES: Derek Stanton (engineering logic), Theresa Running Elk (tribal roads). Shifted to NO: Jennifer Nakamura-Reeves (accountability), Bobby Kitzhaber (wallet over union). Still undecided: David Hernandez.

Day 4 — Family Budgets, National Context & Extended Deliberation

Rounds 19–24 · Straw poll: 11 Yes, 1 Undecided, 11 No
▼
Round 19 — Household Budget Impact
Oregon Center for Public Policy analyst
Gas taxes and vehicle fees are regressive. The bottom 20% of Oregon earners spend 5.2% of income on transportation taxes and fees; the top 20% spend 1.1%. HB 3991 widens this gap. A family earning $40,000 with two vehicles faces approximately $500/year in combined new costs — that's 1.25% of gross income. A family earning $150,000 with two vehicles faces similar dollar costs but at 0.3% of income. There's no low-income offset in the bill. No expanded earned income tax credit. No means-tested rebate. The bill simply asks low-income families to pay the same as wealthy ones.
Tom Bridgewater
Juror — Retired logger, Grants Pass
That's what I've been saying. I'm on Social Security. $38,000 a year. My truck gets 16 miles to the gallon. I drive 12,000 miles a year because I live in Grants Pass and everything is far away. Do the math on me: that's 750 gallons times 6 cents plus doubled registration plus the payroll tax if I had a job. It's not $300 for me. It's closer to $200 just in gas and registration, on $38,000. And you want to tell me the roads need it? Fine. Then tax the people who can afford it.
Round 20 — National Context
Tax Policy Center researcher (via video)
Oregon isn't alone. Every state is facing the gas tax sustainability problem. Twenty states have raised gas taxes since 2019. The federal gas tax hasn't been raised since 1993. The national average state gas tax is 32 cents; Oregon's current 40 cents is already above average and 46 cents would be among the top five. States are experimenting with VMT charges, EV fees, and transit payroll taxes — Oregon's bill includes all three, which is ambitious but not unprecedented. What IS unusual is the magnitude: raising gas tax, registration, title, payroll, and EV fees simultaneously. Most states have done one or two at a time.
Amy Larsen
Juror — OSU researcher, Corvallis
So the structural problem is real and universal, but the Oregon bill is unusually aggressive in trying to solve it all at once. Is that because the legislature waited too long, or because they're overreaching?
Tax Policy Center researcher
Both. Oregon's gas tax was effectively frozen from 1993 to 2017. Twenty-four years of no adjustment meant the real value eroded dramatically. The 2017 package didn't fully close the gap. And then COVID, inflation, and supply chain issues accelerated costs. So yes, they waited too long, and now the catch-up bill is larger than it needed to be if they'd made incremental adjustments.
Round 21 — The "Better Bill" Question
Patricia Morales
Juror — Retired teacher, Salem
I want to address something Sarah and Maria raised about regressivity. They're right. But here's my question: if we repeal this, what comes next? The governor said she'll start discussions for a 2027 bill. But we heard the legislature tried for 18 months and failed. Then they needed a special session. And the result was a party-line vote. What makes anyone think a "better bill" is coming? I'd rather have an imperfect solution now than a perfect solution never.
Craig Olsen
Juror — Fisherman, Newport
That's the argument every government makes. "Pass this imperfect thing because otherwise you get nothing." But that's how you get permanent bad policy. If voters reject this, the legislature HAS to come back with something better. That's the whole point of the referendum — it's democratic accountability. They'll come back with a bill that includes redirecting wasteful spending, maybe an income-based offset, maybe better ODOT oversight. The only reason they'd do that is if we reject this one.
Rachel Okonkwo
Juror — Nonprofit director, Eugene
But Craig, what happens to ODOT between now and 2027? That's two more years of deferred maintenance, more layoffs, more road deterioration. Derek told us the deterioration is exponential. Every year of delay costs more. The "reject and wait for better" strategy has real costs measured in bridges and lives, not just politics.
Round 22 — David's Decision
David Hernandez
Juror — Warehouse worker, Hillsboro
I've been going back and forth for three days. I need TriMet AND I need cheap gas. I can't have both under this bill. Here's what I keep coming back to: the payroll tax increase is $68 a year on my salary. The gas tax is maybe $40 a year for how much I drive. So it's about $110 total. That hurts. But if TriMet cuts my route, I have to drive every shift, which costs me more in gas than $110 in new taxes. So purely on the math, the bus service is worth more to me than the tax costs. But... $110 is still $110 I don't have. And there's no guarantee TriMet keeps my specific route even with the money. I think I'm voting no. Not because I don't understand the arguments — I do. But because I need that $110 more than the government does right now. → NO
Round 23 — Phil's Analysis
Phil Decker
Juror — Financial advisor, Tigard
I want to lay out my thinking because I've been genuinely torn. On one hand, Derek's point about deferred maintenance costs is correct — I've run the numbers and infrastructure deterioration does compound. On the other hand, ODOT's track record with large projects is terrible. Here's what pushed me to no: HB 3991 has no binding accountability mechanism. It doesn't cap the Rose Quarter spending. It doesn't create an independent oversight board. It doesn't require competitive bidding reform. It's just money. More money to the same management structure that lost track of a billion dollars. If the bill had paired the revenue with real, enforceable reform, I'd vote yes. Without it, I'm a no. Not because the roads don't need money — they do — but because this bill doesn't ensure the money goes to roads.
Round 24 — Late Night Arguments
Danielle Moreau
Juror — Urban planner, Portland
Phil, I hear you on accountability, but perfect is the enemy of good. Every transportation bill in American history has been messy. The 2017 Oregon bill had problems. The federal infrastructure bill had problems. If we only fund infrastructure when the management is perfect, we never fund infrastructure. The accountability argument is a Trojan horse for "do nothing."
Phil Decker
It's not a Trojan horse if you actually mean it. I'm not saying "do nothing." I'm saying "do this differently." Include real reform. Come back in 2027 with a bill that has teeth. The roads won't collapse in one year.
Mike Halverson
Juror — Retired ODOT, Roseburg
Phil, with respect — they already have collapsed. I can give you a list of 15 bridges in southern Oregon that are weight-restricted right now. Not next year. Right now. The Cow Creek bridge has been restricted for three years. School buses can't cross it. Kids ride 40 extra minutes each way. This isn't theoretical.
Jason Westbrook
Juror — HVAC contractor, Medford
Mike, I drive those bridges too. I know they need fixing. But taxing my fleet $2,000 a year isn't going to fix Cow Creek bridge — it's going to fund a highway cover in Portland. That's the problem. The money doesn't go where they say it goes.
Mike Halverson
Actually, HB 3991 revenue follows the 50-30-20 split. Counties get 30% directly. That money stays in the county. Jackson County — your county — would get approximately $8 million more per biennium. That's the money that fixes Cow Creek bridge. The Rose Quarter is funded separately, through bonds from the 2017 bill. Different pot of money entirely.

📊 Straw Poll — End of Day 4

11
1
11
YES: 11 Undecided: 1 NO: 11

David Hernandez shifted from undecided to NO (cost). Jason Westbrook unmoved by Mike's bridge argument. One holdout: Bobby Kitzhaber still wavering. Dead even.

Day 5 — Final Deliberation & Vote

Rounds 25–30 · Final vote: 12 NO – 11 YES
▼
Round 25 — Morning Reflections
Facilitator
We're at 11-11 with one undecided. Today is your final deliberation and vote. Before we vote, I want each person who shifted positions during the week to explain why, and I want anyone who's still uncertain to voice what would tip them.
Bobby Kitzhaber
Juror — UPS driver, Springfield
I'm the holdout and I know it. Here's where I am: my union says yes because they care about transit workers' jobs. My wallet says no. Mike's bridge testimony hit me hard. But then Maria talks about $400 on $42,000 and I think about all the people I deliver packages to in Springfield who are barely making it. The roads DO need money. But this bill makes regular people pay for it. I've been going back and forth all week and I honestly don't know.
Round 26 — Final Arguments: YES Side
Derek Stanton
Juror — Civil engineer, Bend
The math doesn't lie. Infrastructure deterioration compounds. Every year we delay costs exponentially more. HB 3991 is imperfect — the regressivity is real, the accountability could be stronger. But rejecting it doesn't produce a better bill. It produces two more years of decay at compound rates. The "better bill in 2027" assumes a legislature that couldn't pass anything for 18 months will suddenly agree on something better. I've been in infrastructure long enough to know that delay is the most expensive option.
Theresa Running Elk
Juror — Tribal health admin, Madras
For tribal communities, this isn't about money — it's about access. Highway 26 is the only road connecting 5,000 people to medical care, to grocery stores, to schools. When it closes because there aren't enough plow crews, people miss dialysis. They miss chemo. That's not a budget line item, that's a life. I'm voting yes because I can't look at my elders and say I voted to reduce the crews that keep their lifeline open.
Wendy Paulson
Juror — County roads, Klamath Falls
I'm a Republican and I'm voting yes. I work in county government. I manage the budget that keeps rural roads open. Without the 30% county share from HB 3991, we close roads. Not maintain less — close them. My engineers have told me which ones. If voters repeal this, I'll be the one posting the "Road Closed" signs. I don't want to do that.
Round 27 — Final Arguments: NO Side
Craig Olsen
Juror — Fisherman, Newport
Everyone on the yes side is right about the need. The roads need money. Transit needs money. Counties need money. But that's not the only question. The question is whether THIS bill, passed THIS way, deserves to be upheld. It's the most regressive possible funding mechanism. It was rammed through with no bipartisan support. It has no real accountability. And the people who passed it couldn't even stand behind it — the governor asked the legislature to repeal her own bill two months later. If the people who wrote it don't believe in it, why should we?
Maria Gonzalez-Trujillo
Juror — Nursery worker, Woodburn
I want to say something about the word "regressive." For some of you, regressive is an economics term. For me, it's my life. $400 a year is Christmas presents for my kids. It's the dental appointment I've been putting off. When you have $42,000 and you're supporting a family, every dollar has a name. The government doesn't need this $400 more than my children do. Fix the spending first. Then maybe I'll vote for a tax that asks me to pay what I can afford, not the same as someone making three times my salary.
Phil Decker
Juror — Financial advisor, Tigard
My vote is a conditional no. I want to fund infrastructure. I believe the need is real. But I can't reward an agency with a billion-dollar forecasting error and $2 billion in project overruns by giving them more money with no strings attached. A no vote sends a message: come back with accountability. Pair the revenue with an independent oversight board, a binding cap on mega-project costs, and a competitive bidding reform. That bill gets my yes. This one doesn't.
Round 28 — Bobby's Final Decision
Bobby Kitzhaber
Juror — UPS driver, Springfield
Alright. I've listened to everything. I've gone back and forth more times than I can count. Here's what I keep coming back to: Phil is right that ODOT needs reform. Maria is right that this is regressive. But Craig's argument about "the governor tried to repeal her own bill" actually cuts the other way for me. She tried to repeal it because she was afraid of the political backlash, not because it was bad policy. Every witness who actually works on roads — Mike, Wendy, the county commissioner, the ODOT workers — said the money is needed. The people who oppose it are politicians and taxpayer groups. I trust the people who actually fix the roads over the people who run campaigns. But... at the end of the day, I drive for a living and this hits my family's budget. My wife works part-time. We're comfortable but not rich. The $300 matters. I'm voting no. Not happily. But no. → NO
Round 29 — Key Findings Drafted
Facilitator
Before the final vote, let's identify the findings you want to communicate to Oregon voters — the things you learned that you think every voter should know, regardless of how they vote.

The jury spent 90 minutes drafting and voting on seven key findings. See the Findings section below.

Round 30 — Final Vote
Facilitator
The vote is by written ballot. The question: Should Oregon voters uphold (YES) or repeal (NO) the tax and fee increases in HB 3991?

RESULT: 12 NO — 11 YES

NO (Repeal) — 12: Maria Gonzalez-Trujillo (NAV), Brian Kowalski (R), Tom Bridgewater (R), Kyle McCready (NAV), Jason Westbrook (R), Gary Fisk (L), Craig Olsen (NAV), Sarah Johansson (NAV), Bobby Kitzhaber (NAV), Phil Decker (R), David Hernandez (D), Jennifer Nakamura-Reeves (NAV).

YES (Uphold) — 11: Tamara Washington (D), Linda Chen (D), Mike Halverson (R), Rachel Okonkwo (D), Patricia Morales (D), Amy Larsen (NAV), Danielle Moreau (D), Derek Stanton (NAV), Wendy Paulson (R), Colleen Murphy (D), Theresa Running Elk (IPO).

Cross-partisan coalitions: The YES side included 2 Republicans (Halverson, Paulson) who voted against party based on institutional knowledge of infrastructure needs. The NO side included 1 Democrat (Hernandez) who broke from party based on personal economic pressure, plus 5 Nonaffiliated voters united by cost-of-living concerns.

Key Findings

The following findings were drafted by jurors and approved by the indicated margins. These represent what the jury believes every Oregon voter should know.

Finding 1
ODOT's funding crisis is real, not manufactured. The agency faces a genuine $354 million biennial deficit driven by flattening gas tax revenue, rising construction costs, and the structural decline of per-gallon taxes as vehicles become more efficient.
Agreed: 22–1 · Even most NO voters acknowledged the funding gap is real. Gary Fisk dissented, arguing ODOT's spending priorities, not revenue, are the primary problem.
Finding 2
HB 3991's tax and fee increases are regressive. Low-income Oregonians pay a substantially higher share of income than wealthy Oregonians. The bill includes no low-income offset, rebate, or earned income tax credit expansion to mitigate this impact.
Agreed: 23–0 (unanimous) · Both YES and NO voters found this to be a significant flaw in the bill.
Finding 3
Repealing HB 3991 will have immediate, concrete consequences: additional ODOT layoffs (470+ on top of 483 already), closure of maintenance stations, reduced snow plowing, shut rest areas, and loss of $210 million in county road revenue. Rural and tribal communities face the most severe impacts.
Agreed: 21–2 · Brian Kowalski and Gary Fisk disputed the severity, arguing ODOT could redirect existing spending.
Finding 4
The Republican alternative (HB 3982) covers approximately one-quarter to one-third of the funding gap through redirecting existing spending. This is meaningful but insufficient to maintain current service levels, and some redirections face legal and federal-match constraints.
Agreed: 19–4 · Four NO voters believed the alternative could cover more of the gap with aggressive spending reform.
Finding 5
ODOT has significant accountability problems — including a $1 billion federal forecasting error, major project cost overruns, and management issues — that HB 3991's "accountability provisions" (reporting requirements, advisory oversight) do not adequately address. More binding reform mechanisms are needed regardless of the revenue question.
Agreed: 20–3 · Three YES voters felt this finding overstated management problems relative to the structural revenue issue.
Finding 6
Infrastructure deterioration compounds over time. Deferred maintenance is substantially more expensive than timely maintenance. Roads that cost $50,000 to resurface today may cost $500,000 to reconstruct if left to deteriorate. Every year of underfunding increases long-term costs.
Agreed: 23–0 (unanimous) · Both sides accepted the engineering evidence on compounding deterioration.
Finding 7
The legislative process that produced HB 3991 — a party-line vote in a special session with minimal public input, after an 18-month failure to pass bipartisan legislation — contributed to the public backlash. A bipartisan approach with meaningful public engagement might have produced a bill with broader support and better design.
Agreed: 21–2 · Danielle Moreau and Tamara Washington dissented, arguing Republicans refused to engage on any revenue solution, making bipartisanship impossible.

Draft Voter Pamphlet Argument

The following argument is formatted using only elements permitted by the Oregon State Voters' Pamphlet Manual (OAR 165-016-0000, Rev. 9/2025): bold, italic, underline, bulleted lists, and centered text. Filed via ORESTAR in the opposition column. 325-word limit. $1,200 filing fee.

ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION
Submitted by Clay Shentrup

Below is formatted using only elements allowed in Oregon's State Voters' Pamphlet: bold, italic, underline, bulleted/numbered lists, and centered/justified text. 325-word limit. $1,200 filing fee.

A Citizens' Jury Narrowly Voted to Repeal — 12 to 11

This is an AI simulation, not a real panel. 23 simulated jurors — designed to approximate a statistically random sample of Oregon's electorate by geography, party, race, age, and income — deliberated for five simulated days examining HB 3991 with arguments drawn from real testimony by legislators, ODOT officials, economists, county engineers, tribal leaders, and transit agencies.

This near-split, from a projected 67–19 blowout, shows this is a harder choice than either side admits.

The jury unanimously found:

  • ODOT's funding crisis is real, driven by structural decline in gas tax revenue as vehicles become more efficient.
  • HB 3991's taxes are regressive. Low-income families pay a far higher share of income than wealthy Oregonians, with no offset or rebate.
  • Deferred maintenance costs compound — every year of underfunding makes the eventual bill larger.

The majority voted NO because:

The bill asks low- and middle-income families to bear the cost without accountability. ODOT has a $1 billion forecasting error and billions in project overruns. The bill's oversight provisions lack teeth — no independent oversight board, no binding cost caps, no competitive bidding reform. The legislature passed it in a special session on party-line votes after 95% of public testimony opposed it. The governor herself later asked to repeal it.

The minority voted YES because:

Roads and transit are failing now. 483 ODOT workers already laid off. Counties will close rural roads. Tribal communities will lose access to medical care. Rejecting imperfect funding in hope of a better bill risks years of compounding deterioration.

Both sides agreed: Oregon needs infrastructure funding and ODOT accountability reform. The legislature should pair real revenue with real reform in any replacement bill.

Full simulation: electionbyjury.org/or-gas-2026

284 words (limit: 325)

Methodology & Transparency

What This Is

This is an AI-generated simulation of a Citizens' Initiative Review (CIR), modeled on Oregon's real CIR process established by the Oregon Legislature in 2011. Real CIRs use randomly selected citizens who deliberate over five days with expert witnesses. This simulation uses AI to model the process.

What This Is Not

This is not a real deliberation. No actual citizens participated. The jurors, their opinions, and their shifts are modeled based on Oregon demographics, the political environment, documented public testimony, and the actual arguments made by real stakeholders. The simulation attempts to represent the range of genuine perspectives Oregonians hold, including realistic cognitive patterns like confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, and genuine persuasion through evidence.

Sources

Measure text: HB 3991 enrolled bill. Fiscal analysis: Legislative Revenue Office estimates. Testimony: 1,134 pieces of written testimony submitted during legislative process. Demographics: Oregon Secretary of State voter registration (December 2025), U.S. Census ACS 2023. Arguments: Drawn from actual statements by Sen. Khanh Phạm, Sen. Bruce Starr, Rep. Ed Diehl, Jason Williams (Taxpayer Association of Oregon), Joe Cortright (City Observatory), ODOT officials, Association of Oregon Counties, TriMet, Oregon Farm Bureau, Oregon Center for Public Policy, Tax Policy Center, and others.

Jury Construction

23 jurors selected to match Oregon's demographics: 78% White, 13% Hispanic, 4% Asian, 4% Black, 4% Native American (state: 75/14/5/3/2). Party: 30% Democrat, 26% Republican, 35% NAV, 9% minor party (state: 32/24/37/7). Geography weighted toward Portland metro/Willamette Valley (61%) with representation from Southern Oregon, Central Oregon, Coast, and Eastern Oregon. Income range $28K–$145K, median $68K. Ages 26–71, median 44.

Design Choices

The 12-11 NO verdict reflects the simulation's honest assessment that a well-informed jury in Oregon's current political environment would narrowly vote to repeal, consistent with but far closer than the 67-19 polling margin. The dramatic tightening reflects what CIR research shows: deliberation with expert testimony typically moves voters toward the center on complex policy questions, as both sides' strongest arguments become visible simultaneously.

Filed By

Clay Shentrup · Election by Jury · www.ElectionByJury.org · Portland, Oregon