Blab Politics
Oregons 2026 Ballot Will Be Empty After Hunting Ban Initiative Fails
When the Oregon Secretary of State’s office turned down a hunting‑ban proposal on July 24, 2026, it not only closed a door for one million hunters, trappers, and fishers but also left the November ballot empty for the first time in sixty years.
The measure, known as Initiative Petition 28 (IP 28) or the “PEACE Act,” was championed by a Portland‑based animal‑rights group. If it had qualified, the act would have declared hunting, fishing, trapping, and livestock slaughter illegal—effectively criminalizing the recreational and economic activities of nearly one million Oregonians. To appear on the ballot, IP 28 needed 117,173 valid signatures. Proponents filed more than 120,000 signatures in May, but a rigorous review by the Secretary of State’s office found the number of valid signatures fell short. The office confirmed the shortfall and removed the measure from the ballot.
IP 28’s rejection is notable because it was the only one of 88 petitions filed that came close to meeting the threshold. As a result, voters will see no initiative measures on the November ballot, a scenario that has not occurred since 1966 when Oregon’s entire slate was empty.
The state’s initiative and referendum process has evolved dramatically since its origins in 1902. In 2002, voters approved Measure 26, a constitutional amendment that banned payment for signatures in initiative campaigns. Four years later, lawmakers tightened enforcement of Measure 26 and raised the threshold for securing ballot titles from 25 to 1,000 signatures, curbing the practice of “ballot title shopping.” These reforms have made the signature‑gathering phase cleaner but also more expensive and time‑consuming.
The effect on the ballot has been clear. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Oregonians faced an average of ten initiatives on a general‑election ballot. That number dropped below four in the 2010s, and the 2026 ballot contained only two initiatives before IP 28’s removal. The current slate of zero initiatives reflects a broader trend of fewer citizen‑initiated measures.
While some argue the reforms have stifled the initiative process, others point to the potential for serious reforms that could address pressing state issues. The 2026 filing list included proposals to open closed primaries, adjust taxes, audit K‑12 schools, clear court backlogs, and reform mental‑health services. All of these petitions failed to gather enough signatures.
Tim Nesbitt, a former union leader who advised former Democratic governors Ted Kulongoski and John Kitzhaber, described the initiative process as a “playground for political weirdness.” He suggested that the lack of initiatives might signal either a healthy government that can address problems legislatively or a sign of democratic fatalism. The Oregon Capital Chronicle article, published July 28, 2026, highlighted that the initiative process’s current complexity may discourage business, labor, and civic leaders from pursuing ballot measures, even though they possess the resources to do so. Nesbitt cautioned that unless these groups re‑engage, the initiative system could become dominated by fringe interests.
Looking ahead, the next opportunity for citizen‑initiated measures will be the 2028 election cycle. Some of the petitions that fell short this year may find new sponsors, but if they do not, Oregon voters could again face a ballot without any initiative measures.
In summary, the failure of IP 28 to qualify for the 2026 ballot marks a historic moment for Oregon’s initiative process. The state will have an empty initiative slate for the first time in six decades, raising questions about the future role of direct democracy in Oregon’s political landscape.
The measure, known as Initiative Petition 28 (IP 28) or the “PEACE Act,” was championed by a Portland‑based animal‑rights group. If it had qualified, the act would have declared hunting, fishing, trapping, and livestock slaughter illegal—effectively criminalizing the recreational and economic activities of nearly one million Oregonians. To appear on the ballot, IP 28 needed 117,173 valid signatures. Proponents filed more than 120,000 signatures in May, but a rigorous review by the Secretary of State’s office found the number of valid signatures fell short. The office confirmed the shortfall and removed the measure from the ballot.
IP 28’s rejection is notable because it was the only one of 88 petitions filed that came close to meeting the threshold. As a result, voters will see no initiative measures on the November ballot, a scenario that has not occurred since 1966 when Oregon’s entire slate was empty.
The state’s initiative and referendum process has evolved dramatically since its origins in 1902. In 2002, voters approved Measure 26, a constitutional amendment that banned payment for signatures in initiative campaigns. Four years later, lawmakers tightened enforcement of Measure 26 and raised the threshold for securing ballot titles from 25 to 1,000 signatures, curbing the practice of “ballot title shopping.” These reforms have made the signature‑gathering phase cleaner but also more expensive and time‑consuming.
The effect on the ballot has been clear. In the 1990s and early 2000s, Oregonians faced an average of ten initiatives on a general‑election ballot. That number dropped below four in the 2010s, and the 2026 ballot contained only two initiatives before IP 28’s removal. The current slate of zero initiatives reflects a broader trend of fewer citizen‑initiated measures.
While some argue the reforms have stifled the initiative process, others point to the potential for serious reforms that could address pressing state issues. The 2026 filing list included proposals to open closed primaries, adjust taxes, audit K‑12 schools, clear court backlogs, and reform mental‑health services. All of these petitions failed to gather enough signatures.
Tim Nesbitt, a former union leader who advised former Democratic governors Ted Kulongoski and John Kitzhaber, described the initiative process as a “playground for political weirdness.” He suggested that the lack of initiatives might signal either a healthy government that can address problems legislatively or a sign of democratic fatalism. The Oregon Capital Chronicle article, published July 28, 2026, highlighted that the initiative process’s current complexity may discourage business, labor, and civic leaders from pursuing ballot measures, even though they possess the resources to do so. Nesbitt cautioned that unless these groups re‑engage, the initiative system could become dominated by fringe interests.
Looking ahead, the next opportunity for citizen‑initiated measures will be the 2028 election cycle. Some of the petitions that fell short this year may find new sponsors, but if they do not, Oregon voters could again face a ballot without any initiative measures.
In summary, the failure of IP 28 to qualify for the 2026 ballot marks a historic moment for Oregon’s initiative process. The state will have an empty initiative slate for the first time in six decades, raising questions about the future role of direct democracy in Oregon’s political landscape.
