Oregon — Republican gubernatorial candidate and State Senator Christine Drazan submitted a declaration supporting a federal motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in a lawsuit challenging Oregon’s rules for submitting arguments to the official state Voters’ Pamphlet.
The lawsuit, Mary Martin v. Tobias Read, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon on behalf of Mary Martin, a 73-year-old Klamath Falls resident who uses a wheelchair and lives on Social Security. Martin was a volunteer in the campaign to refer parts of House Bill 3991—a $4.3 billion transportation tax and fee package—to Oregon voters.
More than 250,000 signatures were submitted to qualify the referendum for the November 2026 General Election ballot.
Martin’s lawsuit challenges provisions in Senate Bill 1599 that require individuals who want to submit arguments to the state Voters’ Pamphlet to either pay a $1,200 filing fee or gather 500 signatures within a short window before the filing deadline.
Attorneys argue the rule creates a barrier for low-income and disabled residents who may not have the financial resources or physical ability to meet the requirements within the limited time frame.
Joining Drazan in filing declarations supporting the TRO are State Senator David Brock Smith (R-Port Orford), Representative Shelly Boshart Davis (R-Albany), Representative Ed Diehl (R-Scio), and Representative Matt Bunch (R-Canby).
Drazan criticized the rule as unfair to voters who helped place the transportation tax referral on the ballot.
“Once 250,000 Oregonians signed the petition referring Tina Kotek’s costly taxes to the November ballot, they took control of this measure and deserve their day in court,” Drazan said. “When the government creates rules that silence everyone but those with money or power, there must be a reckoning.”
Martin said the requirement effectively prevents her from sharing her argument with voters.
“I helped gather hundreds of signatures so voters could decide this issue themselves,” Martin said. “Now the state is telling me that unless I can pay $1,200 or collect hundreds more signatures in just a few days—something my disability makes impossible—I’m not allowed to share my argument with voters.”
The complaint argues the rule violates the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act by creating wealth-based and disability-based barriers to political speech.
Attorneys also note that the timeline established under SB 1599 shortened the window for submitting arguments, leaving individuals only a few days to meet the fee or signature requirement before the March 12 filing deadline.
The lawsuit asks the federal court to issue an injunction allowing Martin and other residents in similar circumstances to submit arguments to the Voters’ Pamphlet without paying the $1,200 fee or collecting 500 signatures.
Alternatively, the plaintiffs request the court prevent the transportation referendum from being moved from the November 2026 ballot to the May 2026 election.
The case was filed by Fir Law Group and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief restoring access to the Voters’ Pamphlet for low-income and disabled voters across Oregon.
About the Author
