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.
Book
Empowering Affected Interests explores the radical implications of the All-Affected Principle—the idea that all those impacted by collective decisions should have a say—by bringing together leading theorists to debate how democracy can address the interdependence of states, markets, and peoples on issues like immigration, climate change, and labor markets.
Article
In this study, the authors use nine months of trip planning data to understand how travelers engage with multiple transit options in real-time.
Feature
From global election trends to inflation anger, swing state performance, and failed voting reform initiatives, Harvard election law experts break down last week’s presidential election and what it might mean for the future of American democracy.
Book
Empowering Affected Interests explores the radical implications of the All-Affected Principle—the idea that all those impacted by collective decisions should have a say—by bringing together leading theorists to debate how democracy can address the interdependence of states, markets, and peoples on issues like immigration, climate change, and labor markets.
Feature
From global election trends to inflation anger, swing state performance, and failed voting reform initiatives, Harvard election law experts break down last week’s presidential election and what it might mean for the future of American democracy.
Commentary
As the dust settles from the U.S. presidential election, the American public can celebrate that the election process was largely nonviolent and smooth. However, it is important that the public not be lulled into thinking this signals the end of election administrators’ problems.
