OR: Editorial endorsement May 2026: Vote ‘no’ on Measure 120 and set the stage for a new transportation funding deal

There’s a sense of inevitability surrounding Ballot Measure 120, which seeks voter approval of $4 billion in new taxes and fees passed by Democrats last year to fund transportation. The tax package, plagued from the start by poor stewardship and bad luck, appears destined for defeat in this May’s election.

Opponents of the package needed only two weeks to gather enough signatures to refer the costliest portions of the legislation before voters. The lightning quick response prompted the governor to initially seek to repeal the bill, until a legal analysis found it could not be undone by legislators. Now, the governor, Senate president and House speaker who muscled it through the Legislature are doing very little to support it.

Voters should vote “no” on Measure 120 and drive a stake through the heart of this cursed transportation package. Once this goes down, leaders must immediately get to work fashioning a true compromise that addresses the increasingly urgent road and infrastructure hazards threatening people’s safety and damaging our economy.

Measure 120 would increase the statewide gas tax, from 40 cents a gallon to 46 cents a gallon; almost triple vehicle title fees from $77 to $216; and nearly double registration fees for most vehicles. The money would go to the State Highway Fund, half of which would go to the state and the other half to counties and cities.

It would also double the existing 0.1% tax on employees’ wages that helps fund public transit. If the measure passes, workers making $60,000 a year would be giving up $10 a month, up from $5 a month.

Supporters argue that the state needs a sustainable way to fund basic maintenance and the workers who do such work, instead of depending on gas tax revenue, as more drivers drive fuel-efficient and electric cars. The Oregon Department of Transportation has already lost employees amid the uncertainty of funding and concerns of potential layoffs. And while the package — $4 billion over 10 years — is a big investment, Oregonians must consider the costs of delay, from inflationary increases for maintenance work to the safety threats posed by crumbling bridges, ice-covered highways and other transportation hazards.

But the legislation leaves too many open questions that Democrats must be prepared to address in a future proposal.

Among them: how to ensure that the money goes to maintenance and isn’t siphoned off to backfill highway projects that have been underestimated and poorly managed; whether lawmakers will ensure that the money is used as efficiently as possible and without labor mandates that have been shown to increase expenses, as Kotek sought to; and whether there is a middle ground that allows local communities greater say in how payroll taxes, meant for public transit, can be used, particularly in rural areas.

Had some of these issues been hammered out, it’s possible legislators would not have had so much drama throughout last year, including the spectacular failure of the original $15 billion bill, the white-knuckled passage of the current package in an extended special session and the quick referendum effort.

They should also show a greater sensitivity to Oregonians’ weariness with taxes. In defending the package, Rep. David Gomberg, D-Otis, pointed out that the $4 billion increase, spread over 10 years, amounts to only $400 million a year in new revenue. With 4 million Oregon residents, he said, that works out to $100 a person per year.

The better math would consider the impact to a family of four — $400 a year — hardly something to dismiss, even with the state’s passage of an increase in the earned income tax credit that Gomberg pointed out.

Republicans, too, need to consider what is realistic and recognize that a no-tax position may be a no-win deal. Certainly, there are opportunities to reallocate some money, or rework other policies contributing to Oregonians’ rising costs. Sen. Bruce Starr, R- Dundee, is right to point out some of the state’s unique environmental policies drive up costs for Oregonians far more than those in other states, including Washington and California.

But there is no getting around the need for more funding for infrastructure maintenance and limits in how much revenue can be moved around. The future of key Republican-backed infrastructure projects, such as a new bridge over the Columbia River, will also require additional funding that has yet to be identified.

Legislators and the governor should be prepared to kick off that conversation as soon as voters definitively end Measure 120.

-The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board

©2026 Advance Local Media LLC.
Visit oregonlive.com.
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.