|
PORTLAND, Ore. - An update released today by Portland City Elections about petition verification for 1PDX2026 provided information already available to Chief Petitioners to the public in the interest of transparency. The evidence demonstrates unequivocally that Chief Petitioners’ accusations, which sought to undermine the legitimacy of our process, are unfounded. The petition verification process is proceeding according to relevant Oregon statutes and the Secretary of State’s rules, and elections officials know of no uncorrected errors. We urge all stakeholders, including elected officials, to review the facts and help us preserve the integrity of Oregon’s safe, fair, and accurate elections.
Yesterday, results from the first statistical sample indicated petitioners had submitted a total of 32,880 valid signatures — a result that is insufficient to qualify the petition to the ballot. Elections officials are currently verifying a second statistical sample, as required by law. The process is expected to conclude by August 5, as Oregon law requires.
As the process continues, Chief Petitioners and supporters are making unsubstantiated attacks on the use of routine, legally required procedures.
- Chief Petitioners suggested that reported signature totals changed during signature review. The total number of potentially verifiable signatures did change as Portland City Elections conducted pre-processing, as required by law. But this is a feature, not a bug. As signatures are disqualified, the number of signatures that may count toward petition qualification goes down. Petition verification is supposed to disqualify things that should not count and count the things that do.
- Chief Petitioners asserted that petition sheets were renumbered and elections officials failed to preserve records. But renumbering is part of routine petition processing. Elections officials renumber sheets whenever they disqualify a full sheet, to facilitate statistical sampling. All documents have been preserved, including tracing information for each renumbered petition sheet.
- Chief Petitioners contend that elections officials failed to communicate with them. This is incorrect. City Elections and Multnomah County Elections have been open and transparent, meeting and corresponding with Chief Petitioners before and throughout the process. This level of communication is offered to all Chief Petitioners. Elections officials have been in regular contact with Chief Petitioners. They have answered all of Chief Petitioners’ questions and have provided substantial documentation to address their concerns. Those efforts are above and beyond what the law requires. We continue to welcome and answer questions from observers at all steps in the process.
- Chief Petitioners alleged bias by elections officials after a City employee participated in complaints to the Secretary of State about signature gathering practices for 1PDX2026. As media has already reported, that employee, Susan Mottet, is not part of Portland City Elections and has no role in petition verification. According to a public statement from Ms. Mottet’s City supervisor, her participation was personal and occurred on personal time.
- Finally, Chief Petitioners charge that the petition verification process suffers from “systemic errors.” Finding and correcting errors is part of the signature verification process. Last week, a single data entry error caused officials to select too many signatures for sampling. That error was corrected, and an accurate sample selected. We have no evidence and have received no credible allegation from anyone about any specific legal or factual error that remains uncorrected.
Accountability and transparency are core tenets of the independent Auditor’s Office. We encourage stakeholders, including Chief Petitioners, to participate, take interest, and ask questions. However, we urge all parties to avoid leveling unfounded accusations without asking for facts or waiting for us to provide them.
“Independent election administration cannot bend to political pressure — from petitioners, opponents, or elected officials,” said Auditor Simone Rede. “As an office, we welcome scrutiny, but scrutiny must begin with facts. Portlanders deserve a final determination based on the law and the evidence, not speculation or demands for a preferred outcome.”
“The stakes of any signature verification process are high,” Auditor Rede said. “Inevitably, some Portlanders will be dissatisfied with the result. But we do not cater to those with the loudest voices. We administer elections with integrity and in accordance with the law.”
We continue to communicate with the Secretary of State’s office, as we have since the beginning of this process. We continue to invite any guidance they provide, and we will comply with any directives they may issue.
|
