Case Study
In this case study of democratic innovation at the local level, the authors answer the questions: Why, in 2022, was voting representation and democratic reform firmly on Portland’s agenda? Did this shift contribute to Portlanders passing Measure 26-228?
This is a case study of democratic innovation at the local level. Portland adopted its “commission” form of government in 1913. Between 1917 and 2007, seven ballot initiatives attempted to reform this governance structure; however, they tended to focus on strengthening mayoral power rather than enhancing democratic representation and expanding voting rights. At the core of this case study is the question: Why, in 2022, was voting representation and democratic reform firmly on the agenda? Did this shift contribute to Portlanders passing Measure 26-228?
This analysis highlights the interplay between institutional structures and political agency. The opportunity for these reforms came from a permissive political environment, characterized by the widespread perception that Portland was “broken” alongside a broader context of racial reckoning amid the protest wave triggered by the murder of George Floyd. As the decennial charter review process commenced in late 2020, there was consensus across the spectrum on the need for governance reform. However, it was the Charter Review Commission that proposed the bundle of reforms included in Measure 26-228. This sparked opposition from local political elites and the business community, who were primarily concerned with strengthening the position of mayor. The authors identify a process of network building and community organizing that, at each stage of the reform process, proved critical to developing and passing the reform initiative.
This process was precipitated by a coalition of community organizations, local activists, and leaders, often connected to people of color, that acted as the key agents in the reform process. This, in and of itself, is a significant factor. In the authors’ view, it is relatively unusual for these types of organizations to successfully mobilize public support and pass reforms in the face of opposition from local political and business leaders.
Podcast
Oxford University Professor Pepper Culpepper joins Terms of Engagement hosts Archon Fung and Steven Richer to discuss corporate excess, bipartisan popular anger, and his new book “Billionaire Backlash: The Age of Corporate Scandal and How It Could Save Democracy.”
Podcast
Harvard Law School Professor Guy-Uriel Charles joins Terms of Engagement hosts Archon Fung and Stephen Richer to discuss the US Supreme Court’s decision to effectively dismantle the Voting Rights Act, its political aftermath, and what voting rights advocates can do to achieving electoral fairness in its wake.
Podcast
Princeton University Professor Kim Lane Scheppele, who studies the nexus of autocracy and constitutional democracy, joins Terms of Engagement hosts Archon Fung and Stephen Richer to discuss the recent resounding electoral defeat of Hungary’s longtime authoritarian prime minister, Viktor Orbán, and its potential ripple effects.
Commentary
Allen Lab Fellow Hillary Lehr convened a Voter Experience Summit at Harvard’s Ash Center in March, bringing together 25 cross-sector experts to rigorously map the voter journey. This essay explores how that collaborative process could lay the groundwork for new interventions to understand and improve the experience of voting for all.
Additional Resource
After Neoliberalism: From Left to Right brought together hundreds of leading economists, political scientists, journalists, writers and thinkers from across the political spectrum to explore and debate emerging visions for the future of the political economy.
Panel videos below.
Commentary
Allen Lab Affiliate Benjamin A. Barsky examines alternative emergency response programs — arguing for a democratic model of public safety governance in which responses to nonviolent incidents are shared across government and civil society rather than dominated by police.
