LEGISLATION
THE BLUEPRINT FOR MASS-ELECTION FRAUD
The evidence of mass-election fraud in Oregon isn’t buried. It’s codified. You’re told to believe vote by mail is convenient and accessible. In actuality, our government betrayed us establishing an ecosystem to support mass-election fraud, evade accountability, and conceal the truth. From automatic voter registration and permanent absentee voting to electronic adjudication and ballot harvesting loopholes, the rigging is designed into the system. The laws themselves are indisputable proof that our elections are nothing more than a massive smoke and mirror show.
Below, is a list of bills that lays out the architecture of engineered elections in Oregon. Washington, California, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada have similar, if not identical, election structures each based on the Oregon model.
Every bill is verifiable with links directly to the Oregon Legislative Information System. Beware: The most dangerous features are often hidden amongst seemingly well-meaning language. Every feature, function and process listed here can only exist in a vote-by-mail system.
1980 - 1999
The Framework
Vote by Mail system built to bypass polling safeguards.
DATESTAMP: 1981 - HB 3099
BILL CATCHLINE: ALLOWS COUNTIES TO CONDUCT CERTAIN ELECTIONS BY MAIL
DECLASSIFIED: The legislative debate to institute vote by mail was brought forth by a small faction within the Democrat party. However, a widely bipartisan majority opposed vote by mail on the basis of compromised election security. After years of failed attempts, HB 3099 passed the legislature allowing counties to conduct certain elections entirely by mail. HB 3099 is not available online, but is retained by the Oregon State Archives.
DATESTAMP: 1987 - BILL NUMBER REDACTED
BILL CATCHLINE: CODIFIES VOTE BY MAIL FOR ALL LOCAL COUNTY ELECTIONS
Oregon Legislature makes VBM a permanent option for local county elections. The bill number is missing, but multiple sources (including Wikipedia) confirm this as fact.
DECLASSIFIED: The public debate to expand VBM was led by the League of Women Voters, AARP and the Oregon Education Association. The coalition argued it would increase participation by making voting more convenient. Today, in 2025, the Psychological Theater is well established with the majority of citizens brainwashed into believing that voting in person is so challenging that it’s actually anti-democratic. Opposition was led by Bill Sizemore and Lynn Snodgrass who believed VBM would invite election fraud. With vote by mail, it cannot be confirmed that a single person cast a single vote.
DATESTAMP: 1991 - HB 2153
BILL CATCHLINE: ALLOWS VOTE BY MAIL FOR FEDERAL ELECTIONS
DECLASSIFIED: HB 2153 allowed vote by mail to be used for federal elections under specific circumstances, such as special elections. This bill paved the way for Senator Ron Wyden (D) to narrowly defeat Gordon Smith (R) in 1996 by 1%. Wyden has not experienced a close race ever since and remains in power to this day [2025]. This bill is not available online but is retained by the Oregon State Archives.
DATESTAMP: 1998 - MEASURE 60
BILL CATCHLINE: “VOTE BY MAIL FOR BIENNIAL ELECTIONS INITIATIVE”
DECLASSIFIED: After a 17 year effort to consolidate power through the election system, Oregon becomes the first state in the U.S. to adopt an exclusive vote-by-mail system. Measure 60, conducted both in person and by mail, was supported by League of Women Voters, AARP, Oregon League of Conservation Voters and the Oregon Education Association. All current forms of mass-election fraud and the institutional disenfranchisement of Oregon voters is a result of this Act. The Measure passed with 70% of voters approving it.
2000 - 2014
TESTING STRUCTURAL WEAKNESS
Absentee pilot, no-ID requirements, diagnostics and pressure tests.
DATESTAMP: 2009 - HB 2386
BILL CATCHLINE: “DIRECTS SECRETARY OF STATE TO ADOPT ELECTRONIC VOTER REGISTRATION SYSTEM.”
DECLASSIFIED: It wasn’t just about convenience. It was about centralizing and digitizing voter registration without checks, without in-person validation, and without citizenship verification. This bill laid the digital groundwork for Oregon’s ballot flooding strategy. Once vote-by-mail was in place, this system made it possible to mass-register voters and ship ballots without ever confirming if the recipient was eligible or even real.
MECHANISMS THAT ENABLE FRAUD
Electronic Voter Registration System Introduced: Section 2(1-2)
Requires the Secretary of State to create a fully electronic registration system for anyone with an Oregon driver’s license, permit or ID card.
Registrations can be completed and submitted online with no paper, no in-person interaction, and no proof of citizenship.
Effect: Opens the door for mass, unverifiable, automated registrations. Any individual or (today) AI bot with access to state ID information (legally or illegally) can register voters with zero human oversight.
Consent to Use DMV Signature: Section 2(3-4)
Anyone registering electronically automatically consents to have their DMV signature used.
Department of Transportation must transmit signature and data to the Secretary of State.
Effect: Binds a person’s signature to a registration without verifying citizenship or intent. Anyone holding another person’s ID could fraudulently register in their name with a forged digital trail.
No Citizenship or Identity Verification Required
Nowhere in the bill is proof of citizenship, legal presence, or physical identity verification required for registration.
Effect: The system trusts the DMV’s records, which are not designed to vet for U.S. voter eligibility. This creates legal cover for non-citizen registrations and fraudulent voter roll inflation.
Backdoor Registration via DMV Address Updates: Section 3(1)(c)
Voter registration can also occur by merely changing an address at the DMV.
Effect: Makes it easier to move phantom voters across districts, padding rolls and facilitating ballot distribution to non-residents or ineligible voters.
COVER-UP INFRASTRUCTURE
No Explicit Audit Trail or Log Requirement
The bill includes no mandates for logs, audits, or flagging anomalies in digital registration.
Effect: Fraudulent or duplicate entries can flow through the system with no alerts, and little or no trace for citizens or third parties to investigate.
Registrations Accepted Without In-Person Review: Section 3(1)(d)
Accepts registrations completed 100% online.
Effect: Makes it impossible for election officials to validate the identity of the applicant at the time of registration. Combined with automatic mailing of ballots, this is a fraud incubator.
Scrivener’s Errors Quietly “Fixed” by Election Clerks: Section 3(4,6)
Allows county clerks to “correct” errors or supply missing data like birthdate or address using previous records.
Effect: Gives government employees quiet authority to patch flawed registrations, removing the opportunity for external review, rejection, or flagging.
DATESTAMP: 2014 - SB 1515
BILL CATCHLINE: “RELATING TO ELECTIONS AMENDING ORS 250.048, 254.135, 254.431, 254.548, 255.295; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.”
DECLASSIFIED: SB 1515 expands the regime of ballot control and petition suppression. It weaponizes the Secretary of State’s office to regulate who can gather signatures, erecting a firewall around the citizen initiative process. It slows transparency on challenged ballots and permits strategic ballot manipulation via write-ins and candidate labeling. It arms the state with tools to filter out dissent, obscure the truth, and suppress the people's voice. This bill is a keystone in the fortress protecting rigged systems from grassroots reform.
MECHANISMS THAT ENABLE FRAUD
Signature Gatherer Registration and State Oversight: Section 1, ORS 250.048
Requires individuals who are paid to gather initiative, referendum, or recall petition signatures to register with the Secretary of State, complete a training program, and submit detailed personal information including criminal background checks, photographs, and a signed liability acknowledgment from petitioners.
Effect: Creates a gatekeeping system where the state can control, monitor, and potentially block citizen-led ballot initiatives. Adds substantial barriers to initiative efforts that are grassroots or oppose establishment policy, to make it harder for We the People to challenge the system through the ballot.
Selective Criminal Disqualification and State Control: Section 1(4–6)
Applicants with any fraud/forgery/ID theft conviction in the last 5 years are disqualified. All signature gatherers must undergo background checks which are shared with the Secretary of State and cross-referenced against multiple state/federal systems.
Effect: Empowers the Secretary of State to blacklist individuals from participating in direct democracy. Also centralizes power to suppress initiative campaigns deemed threatening to the political status quo.
Multi-Party Candidate Labeling and Controlled Ballot Design: Section 2, ORS 254.135
Allows candidates to be listed with up to three political parties but requires the candidate to select which parties appear. The state sets formatting rules and controls designations.
Effect: Facilitates electioneering through party stacking and alliance manipulation where establishment candidates can appear as if endorsed by multiple factions. Further allows government to curate ballot appearance for strategic political impact.
Extended Write-in Candidate Process with Delays: Section 4, ORS 254.548
Extends the timeline for write-in candidates to accept nomination and for certificates of nomination to be issued.
Effect: Increases lag time in official certification, opening the door to manipulation, confusion, or post-election “adjustments” to outcomes under the guise of write-in formalities.
COVER-UP INFRASTRUCTURE
Public Records Suppression for Challenged Ballots: Section 3, ORS 254.431
For 7 days post-election, no public records can reveal who had a challenged ballot. After that, only name, address, and reason for challenge can be released.
Effect: Delays transparency and blocks watchdog groups from examining signature discrepancies, ballot challenges, or strange trends until well after damage is done. The window to detect and report fraud shrinks dramatically.
Ballot Collection Restrictions That Appear Strict but Have Loopholes: Section 6, ORS 260.695
Prohibits misleading ballot collection drop sites unless they disclose that they are not official. Also bans "providing election advice" within 100 feet of drop locations, but enforcement is vague and exceptions for elections officials are wide.
Effect: Gives the appearance of securing the chain of custody while legalizing third-party ballot collection with minimal oversight, provided a sign is posted. Perfect cover for ballot harvesting under a legal technicality.
2015 - 2018
INSTALLING THE STEAL
Activate core systems: AVR, Algorithmic tabulators
DATESTAMP: 2015 - HB 2177
BILL CATCHLINE: “DIRECTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO PROVIDE SECRETARY OF STATE WITH ELECTRONIC RECORDS CONTAINING LEGAL NAME, AGE, RESIDENCE AND CITIZENSHIP INFORMATION AND ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE OF EACH PERSON WHO MAY QUALIFY AS ELECTOR AS PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARY BY RULE.”
DECLASSIFIED: HB2177 is Oregon’s ballot manufacturing machine. It legalized automatic voter registration through the DMV without proof of citizenship, without consent, and without requiring the voter to ever engage. It turned every driver's license into a potential vote. Ballots are now mailed to people who never asked for them, and whose eligibility may never have been confirmed. That’s not modernizing democracy. That’s flooding the zone with unverifiable votes. HB 2177 is the operational core of the rig.
MECHANISMS THAT ENABLE FRAUD
Automatic Voter Registration (AVR) Without Consent: Section 1(3)
The Department of Transportation is required to send legal name, age, residence, citizenship, and signature to the Secretary of State for every qualifying individual.
That person is automatically registered to vote unless they opt out within 21 days.
Effect: Registration without application. Individuals may be added to the voter rolls without their knowledge or consent, including non-citizens who possess Oregon IDs for lawful presence or driving privileges.
Ballots Mailed Before Citizenship Verified: Section 1(4)
Counties are prohibited from sending a ballot or adding someone to the registration list until 21 days after notification.
But if they fail to detect ineligibility, the person is registered by default and can receive a ballot.
Effect: There's no pre-vote validation mechanism built into the system. If bad data slips through, whether non-citizen, ineligible, or a ghost identity, ballots can be sent out without verification.
No Requirement for Proof of Citizenship
No section of the bill mandates the use of proof of citizenship. Only that the Department of Transportation supplies “citizenship information” already on file.
Effect: DMV records are not verified immigration databases. Many non-citizens legally hold Oregon ID cards. This allows the seeding of the voter rolls with non-citizen voters, and the system presumes eligibility unless proven otherwise.
DMV Data Becomes Voter File Data: Section 3(1)(c)
An electronic DMV record is now considered a valid voter registration card if not declined within 21 days.
Effect: Weaponizes the DMV as a ballot generation factory. Sloppy or fraudulent DMV records now automatically generate voter registrations.
Voter Registration Can Be Triggered by Change of Address
The bill doesn’t prevent registrations from being triggered by routine DMV activity like a change of address.
Effect: Creates conditions for phantom voter movement between counties or precincts, enabling illegal ballot delivery to newly registered but unverifiable voters.
COVER-UP INFRASTRUCTURE
DMV Signatures Used Without Applicant Awareness: Section 1(3)
Once a person’s record is sent to the Secretary of State, their DMV signature is attached to their voter record without signing anything related to voting.
Effect: No explicit attestation. The “signature on file” is presumed valid for voting, allowing third-party or state-led registrations to occur with no audit trail of intent.
Suppressed Public Records for Underage Voters: Section 8(3)
Anyone who registers at 17 will be added to the voter file but their information is sealed from public records disclosure.
Effect: Creates hidden voter records not visible to the public, watchdogs, or parties. Perfect place to bury pre-registration records for ballot stuffing.
No Mention of Signature Verification or Oversight
The bill introduces no language about strengthening signature matching, ballot chain-of-custody, or identity verification.
Effect: Adds registrants and ballot recipients while doing nothing to ensure those registrants are real, eligible, or even aware.
DATESTAMP: 2015 - SB 28
BILL CATCHLINE: “CLARIFIES THAT COUNTY CLERK MAY USE ELECTOR’S REGISTRATION RECORD, RATHER THAN PHYSICAL REGISTRATION CARD, TO AUTHENTICATE SIGNATURES.”
DECLASSIFIED: SB 28 weakens Oregon’s election system in every direction. It legalizes digital ballot submission without secrecy. It removes physical protections like the secrecy envelope. It outsources fraud safeguards to administrative rulemaking. It hides challenged ballots from public scrutiny until it's too late. And it allows ballot harvesting and bulk return with zero chain of custody. This is not modernization. It’s a tactical weakening of ballot integrity.
MECHANISMS THAT ENABLE FRAUD
Electronic Voting Without Secrecy (Military & Overseas Ballots): Section 2, ORS 253.690
SB 28 authorizes military and overseas voters to submit ballots via fax or email, bypassing traditional mail safeguards.
Effect: Ballots cast by electronic means can be intercepted, manipulated, or falsely submitted. Even more dangerous: the voter must waive their right to a secret ballot, creating trackable votes. A feature ripe for coercion, retaliation, or manipulation. The bill claims it aims to "ensure the secrecy... to the greatest extent possible," which is no standard at all.
Signature Verification by Rule, Not Law: Section 1, ORS 253.080, Section 2(4)
Clerks verify voter signatures based on administrative rules written by the Secretary of State, not by statutory standards.
Effect: Signature verification becomes a subjective process governed by unelected bureaucrats, with no consistent legal standard. Weak rules = weak security.
No Secrecy Envelope = Vote Visibility: Section 3, ORS 254.470(2)
County clerks are no longer required to include a secrecy envelope in the ballot packet.
Effect: Oregon’s return envelopes have transparent address windows and holes, making it possible to see how a person voted through the envelope—violating ballot secrecy and opening the door to targeted harassment, vote buying, or ballot harvesting verification.
Ballot Return Chain of Custody Loopholes: Section 3(6)(d–e)
Permits ballots to be returned by any person, with no requirement for ID, chain-of-custody documentation, or vetting—as long as it’s returned within two days.
Effect: Creates an opening for mass ballot harvesting without accountability. Fraudsters can collect and return ballots in bulk—knowing that nothing ties the action back to them.
Ballots Still Counted After Election Day: Section 3(6)(e)
Ballots must be “received” by the end of the open period on election day but Oregon’s postmark law already allows ballots to be accepted up to 7 days later, which SB 28 does not address or restrict.
Effect: Makes Election Day a target date, not a deadline, allowing late-arriving ballots to flood in after unofficial results are released.
Unregulated Ballot Replacement Process: Section 3(7)
Replacement ballots can be issued up to 5 days before the election and returned with minimal oversight.
Effect: Opens a secondary pipeline of ballots that can be used to introduce fraudulent votes. No explicit process exists to prevent duplicate voting beyond signature match.
COVER-UP INFRASTRUCTURE
Ballot Challenges Kept Secret Until After the Election: Section 5, ORS 254.431(3)
Information about ballots challenged due to mismatched or missing signatures is kept confidential for 7 days after the election.
Effect: Obstructs real-time monitoring of signature issues or suspicious voting behavior. Prevents meaningful observation during the window when fraud could be exposed.
Signature Challenges Lead to Voter Inactivation, Not Investigation: Section 5, ORS 254.431(2)(b)
If a challenged voter doesn’t fix their signature in time, they’re marked “inactive” without audit of the suspicious signature.
Effect: Potentially fraudulent attempts just slide into “inactive” status with no consequence, leaving fraud undetected and unprosecuted.
Ballot Secrecy Waiver Buried in Fine Print: Section 2(2)
The mandatory waiver for electronic ballots includes this soft language:
Effect: Makes military and overseas votes trackable and attributable, violating the fundamental promise of private voting. Voter data + vote choice = surveillance-ready.
DATESTAMP: 2016 - SB 1586
BILL CATCHLINE: “DIRECTS PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES AND COMMUNITY COLLEGES TO INCREASE VOTER REGISTRATION ACCESS AND INFORMATION.”
DECLASSIFIED: SB 1586 is the campus-to-ballot pipeline. It turns Oregon’s public colleges into permanent vote factories, arming student governments with access to class rosters, dorm rosters, and drop boxes, while letting political operatives return ballots with no accountability.
On top of that, it forces the state to pick up the tab for every returned ballot, making Oregon the most harvest-friendly state in the nation. This isn’t civic empowerment. It’s a taxpayer-funded voter engineering program.
MECHANISMS THAT ENABLE FRAUD
State Mandated Business Reply Mail for All Ballots: Section 5(1)
Requires the state to provide pre-paid return identification envelopes (business reply mail) for every election.
Effect: Eliminates individual voter accountability for ballot submission. Prepaid envelopes increase the volume and ease of mass ballot harvesting, because there's no friction or financial trace. Ballots can be mailed in bulk without any proof of who actually cast them.
Universal Ballot Drop Site Mandates Near College Campuses: Section 1(2)
Requires at least one official drop box within 4 miles of every major college campus in Oregon.
Effect: Centralizes ballot access points near dense, ideologically homogeneous populations—like college campuses making it easier for partisan operatives to target high-yield drop zones with ideological alignment. Creates soft targets for harvesting efforts with no oversight.
Mandated Access for Voter Registration Activism in Classrooms and Dorms: Section 1(3)(b–d)
Colleges must allow student governments and individuals to conduct nonpartisan voter registration drives during orientations, classroom presentations, residence life activities, and public campus areas.
Effect: Converts taxpayer-funded campuses into year-round voter registration hubs. No controls exist for auditing whether these efforts remain “nonpartisan.” Opens the door to one-party political activism under the cover of civic engagement.
Facilitates Dorm-Based Ballot Delivery: Section 1(3)(e)
Schools are required to obtain from county elections offices the exact address formatting needed for students in on-campus housing to receive ballots and to provide that information to student governments.
Effect: Aids the creation of valid, campus-based voter registrations. This enables ballots to be legally sent to transient addresses with minimal verification. Perfect for targeting unengaged or low-information voters for ballot collection.
Ballot Return Flexibility and Loopholes: Section 6(6–8)
Allows ballots to be returned by anyone within two days of receiving it, with no ID or tracking. Verification is only signature-based.
Effect: Creates massive opportunity for chain-of-custody violations. Anyone can return someone else’s ballot and, without real-time oversight, there's no practical way to stop fraudulent ballot handling or swaps.
COVER-UP INFRASTRUCTURE
No Postmark or Proof of Mailing Required: Section 5, Section 6(6)(b)
With pre-paid return mail and no requirement for postmarks or voter tracking, there’s no trail to audit whether ballots were mailed by actual voters.
Effect: The state pays to move anonymous, unverifiable paper. No postage = no accountability. No voter interaction = no evidence of intent.
Facilitates Mass Anonymous Ballot Collection: Section 6(6)(d)
If someone returns a ballot for a voter, they are only required to drop it off within two days. No ID, no disclosure, no documentation.
Effect: A ballot mule can legally return harvested ballots with zero tracking or audit trail, even days after collection. Facilitates organized ballot harvesting while shielding participants from scrutiny.
Drop Box Location Mandate without Transparency Mechanism: Section 1(2)
The bill mandates drop boxes within four miles of campuses but imposes no requirement for surveillance, audit logs, or public reporting on ballot volume or retrieval frequency.
Effect: Enables high-volume, untraceable ballot deposits in vulnerable locations without oversight. The infrastructure is required but the controls are not.
Embedded in Educational Institutions: Section 1(3)(a–e)
Directs colleges to embed voter registration infrastructure into orientation, student housing, and student life, directly linking non-government actors to state ballot activity.
Effect: Outsources state voter engagement to partisan-aligned student organizations, removing state oversight and control while expanding voter roll access to third-party actors. This provides indirect control over the voter base under the guise of “engagement.”
2019
Erase public oversight
Fortify the fraud: disable transparency, rig the game behind closed doors.
DATESTAMP: 2019 - HB 3310
BILL CATCHLINE: “PROHIBITS SCHOOL DISTRICT, COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT AND CERTAIN EDUCATION SERVICE DISTRICT ELECTIONS FROM BEING CONDUCTED IN A MANNER THAT IMPAIRS ABILITY OF MEMBERS OF PROTECTED CLASS TO HAVE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO ELECT CANDIDATES OF THEIR CHOICE AS RESULT OF DILUTION OR ABRIDGEMENT OF RIGHTS OF ELECTORS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF PROTECTED CLASS.”
DECLASSIFIED: HB 3310 is not about protecting minority representation, it’s about hijacking it. This bill builds a Trojan Horse task force with the power to recommend changes to how Oregonians vote, count votes, and elect leaders without public debate or consent. It invites outside influence, buries intent behind equity buzzwords, and positions unelected operatives to reshape the electoral system from within. This is elections “reimagined.”
MECHANISMS THAT ENABLE FRAUD
Framework for Altering Election Methods Behind Closed Doors: Section 1(2)(d)
The bill establishes a “Task Force on Fair Representation” empowered to study and recommend alternative voting methods such as ranked-choice voting, cumulative voting, and “other methods” not defined.
Effect: Opens the door for unelected operatives to quietly advance complex vote-counting schemes that distort direct voting outcomes. These methods reduce transparency, obscure the audit trail, and are prone to manipulation.
Pretext of ‘Equity’ to Justify System Changes: Section 1(2)(c)
The task force is charged with evaluating “structural barriers” to minority representation—without defining what those barriers are or requiring evidence.
Effect: Uses undefined social justice language to justify election system overhauls. Creates a moral smokescreen to pre-empt dissent and fast-track radical changes under the banner of inclusion.
Recommending Changes Without Public Oversight: Section 1(4)–(6)
Allows candidates to be listed with up to three political parties but requires the candidate to select which parties appear. The state sets formatting rules and controls designations.
Effect: Facilitates electioneering through party stacking and alliance manipulation where establishment candidates can appear as if endorsed by multiple factions. Further allows government to curate ballot appearance for strategic political impact.
Extended Write-in Candidate Process with Delays: Section 4, ORS 254.548
The task force is appointed by the Governor and legislative leadership, not elected by voters, and is only required to submit a report, not place recommendations to a public vote.
Effect: Concentrates the power to change voting methods into the hands of a “protected” small political class. No voter consent required. No transparency. No checks and balances.
COVER-UP INFRASTRUCTURE
Task Force Appointments Not Subject to Accountability: Section 1(3)
Members are appointed from state commissions, legislative bodies, and unelected political groups, including “minority-focused commissions.”
Effect: Constructs an ideologically pre-loaded body with no electoral accountability. Appointees can propose dramatic election changes outside public scrutiny.
Public Funds, No Public Debate: Section 1(7)
Allows for reimbursement of task force expenses using taxpayer dollars but provides no requirement to disclose meeting proceedings or data used in forming conclusions.
Effect: Voters fund the architects of election manipulation without ever seeing the blueprint.
DATESTAMP: 2019 - SB861
BILL CATCHLINE: “REQUIRES STATE TO PAY FOR BALLOT RETURN ENVELOPES THAT CAN BE RETURNED BY BUSINESS REPLY MAIL, OR OTHER MAILING SERVICE DETERMINED BY SECRETARY OF STATE TO BE MORE COST EFFECTIVE OR EFFICIENT, FOR EACH ELECTION HELD IN THIS STATE.”
DECLASSIFIED: SB 861 publically funded the fraud. It removed every last obstacle to mass ballot harvesting, third-party returns, and untraceable voting and centralized control in the hands of Oregon’s political ruling class. It even used $1.67 million in taxpayer funds to do it. This is not an election reform bill. It’s the operational expansion of Oregon’s vote-by-mail regime. Built to flood the system with unverifiable votes, then suppress the evidence.Ballots for all. Oversight for none. This is rigging by design.
MECHANISMS THAT ENABLE FRAUD
Mandated State-Paid Return Ballot Postage: Section 2(1-3)
All electors must be provided a return identification envelope that can be mailed back for free via business reply mail. The state covers the cost.
Effect: Eliminates all physical and financial friction for mass ballot harvesting. Anyone can collect, fill out, and return ballots without the knowledge or participation of the actual voter. Free return postage creates a zero-accountability environment.
No-Excuse Third-Party Ballot Collection: Section 6(d), ORS 254.470
Any person may return a ballot on behalf of an elector as long as it's submitted within 2 days of receipt.
Effect: Legalizes unsupervised ballot trafficking. There's no ID, chain of custody, registration, or audit trail for ballot couriers. The 2-day rule is unenforceable and purely symbolic.
Mass Mailing of Ballots to "Active Electors": Section 2, ORS 254.470
Ballots must be mailed to all active electors between 14–20 days before the election.
Effect: “Active” includes individuals automatically registered through DMV and never verified as citizens. Mailing millions of ballots to an unverified list creates an ocean of loose ballots ripe for abuse.
Signature is the Only Validation: Section 8-9, ORS 254.470
Ballots are only counted if returned in the ID envelope and signed. That signature is matched against the voter registration file.
Effect: No ID. No in-person validation. No way to prove who filled out the ballot. Signature verification is subjective and handled by rule, not statute, leaving it vulnerable to partisan manipulation.
No-Questions-Asked Ballot Replacement Section 7, ORS 254.470
Any elector can request a replacement ballot. The county must issue one and log it.
Effect: Opens the door to ballot duplication. Fraudsters who gain access to a registration file can request a second ballot under a real identity and only one will count, with no investigation into the attempt.
Ballot Receipt Extended via Mail Timing: Section 6(e), ORS 254.470
Ballots must be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day, but third-party delivery creates lag time loopholes.
Effect: There is no mechanism to enforce whether harvested ballots were submitted on time. The system relies on trust, not tracking.
Centralized Control by the Secretary of State: Section 2(2), ORS 254.470(1)
The Secretary of State is granted power to decide alternate return methods and rulemaking authority over drop site logistics.
Effect: Core election procedures are handed to one partisan official. Rulemaking replaces statutory guardrails—making it easier to change outcomes without legislative input.
No Mention of Cast Vote Records (CVRs) Omission:
The bill does not mention CVRs or mandate their creation, retention, or public access.
Effect: CVRs are the foundation for any meaningful election audit. Their omission makes full transparency impossible and shields algorithmic rigging from detection.
Drop Box Security Left to Rule, Not Law: Section 1, ORS 254.470
Rules for security and access to ballot drop sites are left entirely to administrative rulemaking.
Effect: No requirement for 24/7 surveillance, chain of custody, or real-time reporting. A wide-open lane for ballot dumping.
Electioneering Exception Created for Free Return Mail: Section 4(i), ORS 260.665
State-paid ballot return postage is exempted from laws barring things of value in exchange for votes.
Effect: While the law bars giving voters food, drinks, or rides that might influence them, it explicitly carves out free ballot return postage. This makes it harder to challenge vote-by-mail bribery in court.
COVER-UP INFRASTRUCTURE
DATESTAMP: 2019 - SB 224
BILL CATCHLINE: “REMOVES REQUIREMENT THAT COUNTY CLERK MOVE ELECTOR TO INACTIVE STATUS IF ELECTOR HAS NEITHER VOTED NOR UPDATED REGISTRATION FOR FIVE OR MORE YEARS.”
DECLASSIFIED: SB 224 is a quiet but devastating piece of legislation for election transparency. It legalizes non-auditable ballot return, disconnects Oregon from national election standards, and gives one elected official the power to certify or decertify voting systems without public input, without federal testing, and without independent review.
This isn’t modernization. It’s centralized control over the machinery of elections, cloaked in administrative language. From unverifiable digital ballots to voting systems immune from federal scrutiny, SB 224 creates the ideal conditions for rigging elections and hiding it in plain sight.
MECHANISMS THAT ENABLE FRAUD
Proprietary Software and Trade Secrets Shielded from Scrutiny
While not spelled out directly in SB 224, the removal of federal certification enables the use of voting systems that rely on non-disclosable code and proprietary components. These are already shielded from public records review and open-source audit.
Effect: Makes system-level cheating harder to detect. Software logic, tabulator behavior, and data flows can now legally remain opaque, even to courts and watchdogs. The bill strengthens the legal firewall that keeps the public from inspecting the "guts" of Oregon’s voting system.
Gives Secretary of State Unilateral Control Over Voting Equipment Standards: Section 2
Amends ORS 246.590 to grant the SoS power to adopt, repeal, or amend standards for voting machines or vote tally systems without public vote or legislative approval.
Effect: Consolidates too much authority into one office. This creates a control bottleneck where election integrity can be either protected or sabotaged—depending entirely on the person in office. It removes checks and balances.
Sealed Records and Reduced Transparency
Throughout the bill, voter information is increasingly classified as confidential and withheld from public inspection particularly during updates or purges initiated by government databases.
Effect: Independent audits or oversight of voter roll changes are made more difficult. Voters may not even know they’ve been added, altered, or removed.
Discretion Given to the Secretary of State
The Secretary of State is repeatedly empowered to adopt rules “as necessary” and make determinations without legislative approval.
Effect: Power is centralized in one office, removing public oversight and enabling the tailoring of election processes to benefit those in control. The framework is laid for unilateral rule changes with no public accountability.
COVER-UP INFRASTRUCTURE
Unverifiable Ballot Return Options for Military and Overseas Voters: Section 6
Authorizes ballot return by electronic means for military and overseas voters. The term "electronic means" includes fax and other digital transmission methods, with no clear requirement for a verified paper trail.
Effect: This introduces a non-auditable pathway into the election system. Without physical chain-of-custody, electronic ballot return opens the door to interception, duplication, alteration, or spoofing. There’s no way to guarantee who cast the vote—or that it was cast at all.
State Certification of Voting Systems May Ignore Federal Guidelines: Section 1
Revises the statute (ORS 246.560) to allow the Secretary of State to adopt state-specific standards for voting systems that do not have to match federal voluntary voting system guidelines (VVSG). The language removes the obligation to align certification with national norms.
Effect: Oregon can now legally certify home-grown or vendor-specific voting systems with no oversight or vetting by federal authorities. This invites the use of non-standardized, opaque systems, increasing the risk of backdoor manipulation or hidden features.
Removal of Public Oversight of Vendor Certification Process: Section 1(4)
Voting system vendors no longer have to submit their technology for federal testing. Instead, the Secretary of State alone determines if a system meets Oregon's vague new standards.
Effect: Removes independent review. Centralized power in one elected official means decisions about voting system approval may be politicized or influenced by vendors, especially those with state contracts. This benefits vendors to manipulate election outcomes.
Automatic Voter Registration Updates Without Affirmative Consent: Sections 1–4
Allows the Secretary of State and county clerks to use data from the Department of Transportation and other state databases to automatically update voter registration information including names, addresses, and eligibility without requiring direct confirmation from the voter.
Effect: This creates a system where individuals can be moved or altered on the rolls without their knowledge or participation. Phantom voters or mismatched records may remain unchallenged, and real voters can be displaced without ever knowing it.
Relaxes Deadlines for Signature and Ballot Challenges: Sections 14–16
The timeline for when challenged ballots are addressed is extended, and processing procedures are reworded to allow more discretion at the county level.
Effect: This opens a window for post-election manipulation. A longer window allows election officials to reconcile—or fabricate—ballots as needed to match desired outcomes.
Vague Use of “Any Other Method” for Ballot Handling
Multiple sections reference that ballots may be handled or transmitted by “any other method authorized by the Secretary of State.”
Effect: Grants wide latitude to introduce unvetted, untransparent ballot transmission technologies, including those lacking adequate security measures. This discretionary power can be exploited to circumvent traditional security protocols.
Cleansing of Voter Rolls Based on Discretionary Criteria: Section 6(1)(e)
The Secretary of State is authorized to cancel a voter’s registration based on vague criteria—such as “inactivity” or “out-of-date” information without clearly defined thresholds.
This creates opportunity for targeted voter suppression. Unwanted or politically disfavored voter segments could be purged based on arbitrary administrative rules while ineligible records (ghost voters) could be retained.
2020 - 2022
Secure the system from Dissent
Enforce silence: criminalize election scrutiny, suppress challenges
DATESTAMP: 2021 - HB 2323
BILL CATCHLINE: “RELATING TO COMMUNICATING FALSE INFORMATION ABOUT AN ELECTION; CREATING NEW PROVISIONS; AND AMENDING ORS 250.048, 260.345, 260.532, 260.695, 260.993, AND 260.995.””
DECLASSIFIED: HB 2323 is a censorship framework dressed as voter protection. It empowers Oregon’s election officials — often partisan players to target political dissent with lawsuits, restraining orders, and public retractions. It criminalizes election speech at the most critical time in the cycle and grants political committees the power to sue their critics for simply hurting their “purpose. This is not election security. It’s a speech suppression tool designed to protect the narrative, not the voters.
MECHANISMS THAT ENABLE FRAUD
Criminalizes Election Speech, Even if True: Section 2(1–5)
Prohibits anyone from making a “false statement of material fact” about election-related procedures in the 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election.
Effect: Grants the state power to define “false,” including potentially subjective or disputed facts, and enforce censorship just as voters are tuning in. It creates a chilling effect on free speech, especially for grassroots campaigns, whistleblowers, and watchdogs.
State Officials Can Sue Political Opponents: Section 2(6–8)
Authorizes the Secretary of State and Attorney General to bring civil actions, including injunctions and restraining orders, against individuals or organizations that violate the speech restriction.
Effect: Empowers partisan officials to legally suppress dissent, target activists, or block narrative-shifting speech close to the election. This is a government-operated speech control mechanism masquerading as “voter protection.”
Political Committees Can Sue and Demand Retractions: Section 2(7–8)
Allows any political committee to initiate legal action and demand a published retraction for any “injury” caused by a “false statement of material fact.”
Effect: Opens the door for political hit-jobs via lawsuit. True but inconvenient speech could be deemed damaging, forcing small operations into legal fights with deep-pocketed party machines.
COVER-UP INFRASTRUCTURE
90-Day Complaint Window for Citizens vs. Years for the State: Section 2(4)(d)
Citizen complaints must be filed within 90 days of the incident. But if the Secretary of State or Attorney General alleges “fraud or deceit,” they can act up to 5 years later.
Effect: The system gives state officials a five-year runway to pursue opposition speech but handcuffs citizens who discover abuse after an election has passed.
No Clear Definition of “False”
Nowhere in the bill is “false statement of material fact” clearly defined.
Effect: Gives broad discretion to suppress factual opinions, analysis, satire, or even misunderstood or outdated information which is especially dangerous when wielded by partisan actors in government.
DATESTAMP: 2021 - HB 3291
BILL CATCHLINE: “REQUIRES BALLOTS RETURNED BY MAIL TO HAVE POSTAL INDICATOR SHOWING BALLOT WAS MAILED NOT LATER THAN DATE OF ELECTION AND BE RECEIVED BY COUNTY CLERK NOT LATER THAN SEVEN DAYS AFTER DATE OF ELECTION.”
DECLASSIFIED: HB 3291 is Oregon’s post-election fraud enabler. It legalized the counting of ballots after election day, up to a full week later, so long as someone “believes” they were mailed on time. It created a back door for fraudulent ballots to be added with no way to prove otherwise. The bill erases clarity, weakens accountability, and opens the door for controlled injection of ballots after the votes are known. This isn’t voter access—it’s voter manipulation. HB 3291 proves the system is rigged and that the legislature rigged it.
MECHANISMS THAT ENABLE FRAUD
Ballots Counted for 7 Days After Election Day: Section 1(2)(b)
Ballots postmarked by election day but received up to 7 days later must still be counted.
Effect: Extends the ballot window, breaking the chain of custody and allowing manipulation after polls close. Creates a floating deadline for ballot delivery, enabling ballot harvesting and ballot stuffing operations with plausible deniability.
Vote Totals Can Change After Election Night: Section 1(2)(b), Section 2(4)
Official election results must now include ballots received and verified during the post-election 7-day window.
Effect: Normalizes the idea of delayed and changing vote totals, providing cover for inserting new ballots as needed to change outcomes. This undermines public trust and enables fraud by design.
Counties Barred from Discarding Late Ballots: Section 2(2)(b)
Counties must not reject ballots simply because they arrive after election day, as long as they are postmarked on or before election day.
Effect: Enshrines in law the acceptance of late-arriving ballots, decoupling vote casting from vote counting timelines. Erodes transparency and opens the door to controlled delivery of fraudulent ballots.
Creates Loophole for Unverifiable Postmarks: Section 2(3)
If the postmark is missing or illegible, the ballot can still be counted if the county clerk "believes" it was mailed by election day.
Effect: Introduces subjectivity into ballot validation. This discretionary loophole invites abuse, making it nearly impossible to challenge fraudulent ballots with unclear postmarks.
COVER-UP INFRASTRUCTURE
Suppression of Public Challenges: Section 4(2)
Requires election workers to “hide” ballots from challenge if received late but presumed postmarked by election day.
Effect: Silences scrutiny. Ensures that no one can effectively monitor, audit, or question late-arriving ballots, especially if postmarks are missing or forged.
Removes Immediate Ballot Deadline Clarity: Section 1(1)
Deletes the clear statement that ballots must be received by 8:00 p.m. on election day.
Effect: Obscures the rules in public-facing documents. Makes it harder for average voters and watchdogs to understand the actual legal deadlines for ballot receipt and counting.
Backdoor Rule Changes via Emergency Clause: Section 6
Declares an “emergency” to implement the law immediately.
Effect: Cuts off public opposition and referendum options. Forces the new rules into effect without the normal public debate or review process. A classic sign of a strategic concealment operation.
DATESTAMP: 2021 - OREGON HB2681
BILL CATCHLINE: “PROHIBITS MOVING VOTER TO INACTIVE STATUS DUE TO VOTER NOT VOTING OR UPDATIN GVOTER REGISTRATION FOR ANY PERIOD OF TIME.”
DECLASSIFIED: HB 2681 is the “no voter left behind” bill even if that voter is dead, moved, or imaginary. This law blocks election officials from cleaning the voter rolls based on inactivity, mandates communication with questionable voters, and gives two weeks after the election to fix a ballot that fails basic verification. It handcuffs county clerks, shields the system from real-time review, and encourages bloated, unverifiable voter lists. It doesn’t modernize our elections. It buries them in permanent uncertainty. HB 2681 locks the back door open.
MECHANISMS THAT ENABLE FRAUD
Bans Inactivity-Based Voter Roll Clean-Up: Section 2(1-2)
Voter registrations can no longer be made inactive simply because the person hasn’t voted or updated their registration, no matter how many years pass.
Effect: Dead voters, moved voters, and phantom voters stay “active” indefinitely unless proactively caught by other mechanisms. Inactivity is no longer enough to remove or challenge a record.
Mandated Notices to Inactive Voters: Section 3(1-2)
County clerks must reactivate contact with voters considered inactive due to mismatched signatures or name changes and send notices ahead of each election.
Effect: Instead of quietly purging outdated records, clerks are now instructed to actively maintain contact with those whose eligibility is already questionable, pushing reactivation rather than validation.
Signature Mismatch Still Leads to Ballot Counting Window: Section 4(2)(a)
If a ballot is returned with a mismatched or missing signature, the voter has 14 days after the election to correct it.
Effect: Allows bad actors a two-week post-election window to fix or forge signature issues once they know whether their vote was needed. Combined with no real enforcement or ID, this is ripe for abuse.
Delayed Public Disclosure of Challenged Ballots: Section 4(3)(a–b)
Ballot challenge info (name, address, and reason) can’t be released publicly until 8 days after the election.
Effect: Prevents watchdogs or campaigns from reviewing ballot challenges in real-time, reducing transparency in signature mismatch and provisional ballot processes until after votes are counted.
Statewide Standardization of Inactive Notices: Section 3(4)
Secretary of State will design a standardized form for notifying inactive voters.
Effect: Centralizes control of “inactive” communications, making it easier for a partisan Secretary of State to influence how aggressively (or weakly) county clerks engage with questionable voters.
Name Change = No Verification = Ballot Access: Section 5(2)
Voters who change their name and don’t update registration stay on the rolls and must be mailed notices before being made inactive.
Effect: Encourages duplicate records. A voter could re-register under a new name without removing the old one and both stay on the rolls unless caught elsewhere.
Signature Disputes Shift Burden of Proof: Section 4(2)(a)
Signature mismatches don’t result in invalidation; they result in the voter being asked to prove it’s them. Notably, there is no penalty or audit for repeated mismatches.
Effect: Opens the door to widespread signature manipulation with minimal risk. If it’s caught, it’s just a request for a fix, not a disqualification.
COVER-UP INFRASTRUCTURE
2023 - 2024
empower select groups
Privileged access: handpicked NGOs, operating above the law, shielded from accountability
DATESTAMP: 2023 - OREGON SB166
BILL CATCHLINE: “EXPLICITLY GUARANTEES ELECTORS RIGHT TO VOTE AND RIGHT TO SECRET BALLOT”
DECLASSIFIED: FURTHER ENSHROUDS ELECTION SYSTEM, INTRODUCES NEW CHEATING MECHANISMS, AND CRIMINALIZES CIVILIAN PROTEST, IN WHICH AN ELECTION WORKER FEELS “HARASSED,” WITH FIVE YEARS IMPRISONMENT.
MECHANISMS THAT ENABLE FRAUD
Extends dependency on vote-by-mail: Section 30 (ORS 254.470)
Ballots may now be mailed as early as 43 days before an election.
Ballots accepted up to 7 days after the election.
Third-party ballot return allowed within 2 days of receiving someone else’s ballot.
Effect: Massive extension of the “ballot in the wild” period. Enables harvesting, interception, and loss of chain of custody. Early mailing and late deadline destabilize any effort to reconcile ballots to real voters in real time.
Limited Hand Count Triggers & Weak Audit Thresholds: Section 27 (ORS 254.529)
Hand counts only occur if the margin is less than 2%, with randomized sampling as low as 3% of batches.
Up to 0.5% discrepancy between machine and manual counts is still considered valid.
Effect: Tolerates statistically significant mismatches. Makes it nearly impossible to detect algorithmic fraud or systemic manipulation unless results are extremely close.
Gives Secretary of State the Power to Alter Election Language: Section 18
SOS can unilaterally change the wording of any election-related document so long as it “does not materially change the meaning.”
Effect: Narrative and informational control. Subtle rewording of ballot instructions, official notices, or process language can affect voter behavior or perception and weaken statutory intent.
Curtails Party Oversight of Voter Rolls: Section 9 (ORS 247.940)
Political parties may only request voter data 3 months prior to an election.
Requests banned during and for 14 days after an election.
Effect: Prevents real-time tracking of who voted and where. Obstructs ballot reconciliation, targeted canvassing, and challenges to suspicious turnout spikes.
COVER-UP INFRASTRUCTURE
Confidentiality Expansion for Election Workers: Sections 3, 11, 12
Election workers and their family members’ addresses shielded from public records.
Broad exemption from disclosure even if wrongdoing occurs.
Criminalized protest with 5 years imprisonment if election worker feels “harassed.”
Effect: Creates a legal shield around those handling ballots, tabulators, and chain of custody processes. Protects bad actors from public exposure.
Limits Forensic Transparency: Sections 3(2)(a-b)
Prohibits public access to ANY INFORMATION that could reveal how an elector voted.
Gives Secretary of State power to define any type of “information” by rule.
Effect: Creates a sweeping, undefined category of restricted information, giving the state total discretion on what is "sensitive" under the guise of protecting ballot secrecy.
Security Plans Hidden from the Public: Section 4 (ORS 254.074)
Entire elections security plans, and all related communications, are exempt from public records requests.
Effect: The public cannot verify the procedures used to secure ballots, machines, or drop boxes. The system audits itself in secret.
Expands Voter File Confidentiality: Sections 8, 9 (ORS 247.948 & 247.940)
Removes data fields from the voter registration file.
Removes records in the Address Confidentiality Program (ACP).
Removes voters granted privacy exemptions under “threat” or due to election employment.
Effect: This makes it impossible to fully audit voter registration rolls. ACP and exemption categories can now obscure real or fake registrations with no way to verify.
Signature Sheet Access Restricted: Section 14
Signatures on petitions are viewable but not copyable. Only in person and not subject to public distribution.
Effect: Prevents citizens from conducting large-scale verification of petition authenticity, essentially centralizing signature validation in the same office that accepted them.
Delayed Compliant Notification: Section 22 (ORS 260.345)
The Secretary of State or AG only notifies subjects of election complaints if they decide to investigate.
Effect: Enables selective enforcement. Political targets can be leaked or investigated quietly while others are ignored without record.
DATESTAMP: 2023 - OREGON SB 53
BILL CATCHLINE: “ADDS MEMBERS OF HOUSEHOLD AND DOMESTIC PARTNER OF CANDIDATE TO LIST OF PERSONS WHO MAY NOT BE EMPLOYED TO OPPEN BALLOT ENVELOPES, HANDLE BALLOTS, PREPARE BALLOTS FOR COUNTING OR COUNT BALLOTS. LIMITS PERSONNEL AUTHORIZED TO VERIFY SIGNATURES ON BALLOTS TO MATCH PERSONNEL AUTHORIZED TO COUNT BALLOTS.”
DECLASSIFIED: SB 53 weakens voter privacy, expands insecure vote methods, and opens new vectors for manipulation. It legalizes electronic voting for military and overseas voters with no encryption requirements and only a secrecy waiver for protection. It removes the requirement for secrecy envelopes, even though Oregon's ballot envelopes have holes that reveal vote markings. And it continues the seven-day postmark delay window that invites fraud and undermines same-day election finality. SB 53 is a direct assault on vote secrecy and ballot integrity.
MECHANISMS THAT ENABLE FRAUD
Voting Without Secrecy Envelope: Section 2(2)(d), Section 2(4)(b)
County clerks are not required to mail a secrecy envelope if the Secretary of State approves an alternative process that provides “substantially the same degree of secrecy.”
Effect: Oregon ballot envelopes have holes in them. Without a true secrecy envelope, election workers or others can potentially view how a ballot is marked before it's processed, breaking the principle of a secret vote and increasing opportunities for undue influence, tampering, or selective rejection.
Electronic Voting for Military and Overseas Voters: Section 3, ORS 253.690
Military and overseas electors are allowed to cast ballots via fax or email. The voter must waive their right to a secret ballot to use this method.
Effect: These electronic transmissions bypass the standard ballot chain-of-custody and paper trail, undermining security and opening the door to digital interception, manipulation, or impersonation. No end-to-end encryption or audit mechanisms are mentioned. This creates a non-traceable backdoor in the vote system.
Postmark-Based Ballot Acceptance: Section 2(6)(e)(B)
Ballots postmarked by Election Day are accepted up to 7 days later.
Effect: Extending the count window beyond Election Day enables late ballot harvesting and introduces a timing mismatch that facilitates ballot manipulation. Voters, activists, or operatives could coordinate post-election submissions based on initial results, undermining trust in final tallies.
COVER-UP INFRASTRUCTURE
Waived Ballot Secrecy for Electronic Voters: Section 3(2)(b)
Military and overseas voters must explicitly waive their right to a secret ballot to vote electronically.
Effect: A waiver means these ballots are identifiable and traceable—and could be used to intimidate or retaliate against voters. The state acknowledges it can’t secure their vote, but allows it anyway.
No Secrecy Envelope with Holes in Return Envelopes: Section 2(2)(d), Section 2(4)(b)
The Secretary of State can approve alternatives to mailing a secrecy envelope, even though Oregon’s return envelopes are physically see-through via alignment holes.
Effect: This policy normalizes ballot visibility, destroying secrecy protections and making Oregon’s vote-by-mail system ripe for targeted interference and ballot surveillance.
Signature Verification Rules Controlled by the Secretary of State: Section 2(11), Section 3(4)
Signature verification procedures are set entirely by rules from the Secretary of State.
Effect: Centralizes control of ballot authentication under a political office. The rules can be quietly adjusted, and there’s no mandatory transparency or public audit of verification standards.
DATESTAMP: 2023 - OREGON SB 1094
BILL CATCHLINE: “AUTHORIZES SECRETARY OF STATE TO SECURE FEDERAL GRANT MONEYS TO FUND PILOT PROJECT PROVIDING LIVE VIDEO FEED OF ROOMS IN WHICH BALLOTS ARE COUNTED AND OFFICIAL BALLOT DROP SITES.”
DECLASSIFIED: SB 1094 is not transparency, it’s optics. It offers a federally-funded performance of transparency without accountability, no requirements, and a built-in expiration date. Under the guise of restoring trust, it installs state-controlled surveillance that the public can neither verify nor rely on. This bill grants broad rulemaking power to the Secretary of State to control what the public sees. Excludes critical elements of ballot handling and tabulation from meaningful oversight. Sunsets itself before any long-term structural reform can take hold. SB 1094 is window dressing, not transparency. It’s a smokescreen to pacify voters while preserving opaque systems.
MECHANISMS THAT ENABLE FRAUD
Video Feed Pilot Project with Loopholes: Section 1(1)
Authorizes the Secretary of State to apply for federal funds to operate a pilot program providing live-streamed video of ballot tally rooms and official ballot drop sites.
Effect: At first glance, this appears to promote transparency but the pilot framework has no teeth. There are No guarantees of implementation. It's voluntary and dependent on funding. No audit trail requirement. The feeds may not be stored, recorded, or preserved for public review. No language mandating uninterrupted visibility or standardizing camera placement to ensure ballots aren’t manipulated off-camera.
COVER-UP INFRASTRUCTURE
Video Coverage Exempt from Real Oversight: Section 1(2)(a–b)
Empowers the Secretary of State to adopt rules for the video feeds, including limitations to avoid revealing how someone voted.
Effect: The Secretary has unilateral discretion to Limit camera placement, rendering surveillance symbolic. Use security justifications to block camera access to meaningful parts of the process (like ballot chain of custody or signature verification). Avoid any requirement to archive footage, so the public has no evidence in case of discrepancies or fraud.
Pilot Program Has a Built-In Expiration: Section 2
The video transparency program automatically sunsets on July 1, 2026.
Effect: This limits any long-term accountability impact and ensures no structural transparency reforms will be made permanent without new legislation. In essence: performative transparency with an expiration date.
Manipulative Framing in the Legislative Preamble
Frames election skepticism as a threat born of "false information," undermining legitimate scrutiny.
Cites foreign disinformation and “violence” to justify limiting transparency efforts to a tightly-controlled and reversible pilot.
Weaponizes the narrative of safety and security to justify restricting real-time public oversight.
Effect: This narrative shifts the blame for eroded trust from election practices to citizens raising concerns, thus softening public demand for stronger election integrity safeguards.
DATESTAMP: 2023 - OREGON HB 2107
BILL CATCHLINE: “EXTENDS AUTOMATIC VOTER REGISTRATION TO OREGON HEALTH AUTHORITY IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.”
DECLASSIFIED: HB 2107 is Oregon’s mass registration Trojan Horse. It weaponizes non-election agencies and NGOs as ballot factories, feeding automatic registrations into the system with no voter application, no consent, and no proof of citizenship. All under the total discretion of the Secretary of State.
This isn’t modern voter access. It’s mass voter roll laundering, wrapped in government process. The more agencies plugged in, the more phantom voters appear. The more phantom voters appear, the easier it is to game vote-by-mail.
HB 2107 doesn’t make democracy more inclusive. It makes the system more exploitable. It’s not integrity. it’s a cover operation in plain sight.
MECHANISMS THAT ENABLE FRAUD
Expands Automatic Voter Registration (AVR) to NGOs and Non-Election Agencies: Section 1(1)(b)
Authorizes the Secretary of State and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to designate “any state agency or tribal government” as an AVR source if they collect citizenship data and residential addresses.
Effect: Opens the door to automatic voter registration through welfare offices, Medicaid administrators, housing authorities, and potentially NGO partners under contract. These entities are not trained in election law, but they would now generate voter registrations without voter intent or consent.
No Requirement for Voter Consent: Section 1(2)
Continues the opt-out structure, where any qualifying individual will be automatically registered to vote, with ballots mailed unless they decline within 21 days.
Effect: Voter registration becomes passive and default, regardless of eligibility. Non-citizens with driver's licenses or agency interactions may be swept onto the rolls.
Ballots Can Be Mailed Before Eligibility Is Verified
Like previous AVR expansions, this bill presumes citizenship if not otherwise disproved. Since participating agencies are not linked to federal immigration databases, there is no failsafe against registering ineligible individuals.
Effect: Ballots may be sent to non-citizens, duplicates, or individuals with unverifiable identities. It shifts the burden to the individual to opt out rather than prove eligibility first.
Secretary of State Unilateral Power to Add AVR Partners: Section 1(1)(b), Section 1(3)
Allow the Secretary of State to “designate” AVR partners by rule, with no legislative oversight or external validation process.
Effect: The state’s top election official can hand-pick government agencies or even contracted third parties to participate in automatic voter registration, behind closed doors. This paves the way for politicized roll expansion.
No Requirement for Paper Applications or Signed Attestation
The bill treats electronic records from non-election entities as valid voter registrations without a signed application or attestation of eligibility.
Effect: Destroys the integrity of the registration process by removing the voter’s responsibility to affirm eligibility. Creates perfect conditions for third-party manipulation and ghost voter creation.
COVER-UP INFRASTRUCTURE
Secrecy of Source Agency and Voter Data
There is no requirement that the source agency (i.e., NGO, tribal office, or DHS-type agency) be disclosed to the public, or that audit trails of data transmission be made transparent.
Effect: Makes it impossible to determine which agencies are feeding data into the voter file. Enables quiet manipulation of rolls without traceable accountability.
No Transparency in Rulemaking or AVR Criteria
The bill allows the Secretary of State to adopt rules for AVR partners without public input, public hearing, or legislative review.
Effect: Locks the AVR program in a black box, further separating the public from the mechanics of how the voter file is built and who’s controlling it.
No Strengthening of Signature Verification or Eligibility Checks
The bill focuses exclusively on expanding registration pipelines, with zero language strengthening ID verification, voter roll audits, or signature validation processes.
Effect: Creates a pipeline in, but no checks or balances to prevent abuse—thus preserving a structurally opaque and manipulable election system.
DATESTAMP: 2023 - OREGON HB 2004 - REJECTED BY THE PUBLIC
BILL CATCHLINE: “ESTABLISHES RANKED CHOICE VOTING; AND PROVIDING THAT THIS ACT BE REFERRED TO THE PEOPLE FOR THEIR APPROVAL OR REJECTION.”
DECLASSIFIED: HB 2004 is the gateway to digital vote laundering. It replaces clear, single-vote elections with a convoluted system of preferences, rankings, and software-driven redistributions. Final tallies no longer reflect who got the most votes, they reflect who survived the algorithm.
This bill hands full control of that algorithm to the Secretary of State and permits the use of software and central counting beyond public inspection. Meanwhile, it launches a taxpayer-funded PR campaign to convince you it’s more democratic.
HB 2004 is not about improving elections, it’s about making fraud harder to detect and power harder to challenge.
MECHANISMS THAT ENABLE FRAUD
Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) Vote Redistribution: Section 2 & 4
Establishes RCV for federal and statewide elections beginning 01JAN2028. Votes are tabulated in rounds, with the lowest-ranked candidates eliminated and their votes redistributed until one receives a majority.
Effect: This replaces one-person-one-vote with a layered algorithmic process where a voter’s first choice may never be counted. It disconnects original voter intent from the final outcome, allowing for vote manipulation and post-election engineering.
Secretary of State Controls Algorithm: Section 4(3)
Grants authority to the Secretary of State to determine the formula for calculating vote thresholds and how ballots are redistributed in multi-winner elections.
Effect: Gives an unaccountable bureaucrat full control over how votes are assigned, creating a black-box system that can be quietly tuned to influence outcomes in favor of favored candidates or coalitions.
Centralized Counting, Not County-Level: Section 8
Permits the Secretary of State to conduct central tabulation of RCV ballots, superseding the authority of county election officials.
Effect: Removes local oversight. Concentrates control in Salem and disconnects the count from community-based scrutiny. This expands the potential for centralized fraud and manipulation without checks.
Multi-Winner Office Math Left Undefined: Section 4(3)
The method for tabulating results in races with more than one winner is not codified. Instead, it’s left to future rules by the Secretary of State.
Effect: No transparency. No standard. Allows a future Secretary of State to invent a proprietary, manipulated redistribution formula that shifts the composition of representation at will.
No Standardization of Voting Equipment: Sections 5,16
Counties must implement RCV but no statewide equipment standards are set in law — only required to comply with future rules or procure new tech.
Effect: Opens the door to third-party software and algorithmic tabulators. Election security depends on vendor contracts and code that the public is not allowed to see.
COVER-UP INFRASTRUCTURE
Confidentiality Expansion for Election Workers: Sections 3, 11, 12
Election workers and their family members’ addresses shielded from public records.
Broad exemption from disclosure even if wrongdoing occurs.
Criminalized protest with 5 years imprisonment if election worker feels “harassed.”
Effect: Creates a legal shield around those handling ballots, tabulators, and chain of custody processes. Protects bad actors from public exposure.
Limits Forensic Transparency: Sections 3(2)(a-b)
Prohibits public access to ANY INFORMATION that could reveal how an elector voted.
Gives Secretary of State power to define any type of “information” by rule.
Effect: Creates a sweeping, undefined category of restricted information, giving the state total discretion on what is "sensitive" under the guise of protecting ballot secrecy.
Security Plans Hidden from the Public: Section 4 (ORS 254.074)
Entire elections security plans, and all related communications, are exempt from public records requests.
Effect: The public cannot verify the procedures used to secure ballots, machines, or drop boxes. The system audits itself in secret.
Expands Voter File Confidentiality: Sections 8, 9 (ORS 247.948 & 247.940)
Removes data fields from the voter registration file.
Removes records in the Address Confidentiality Program (ACP).
Removes voters granted privacy exemptions under “threat” or due to election employment.
Effect: This makes it impossible to fully audit voter registration rolls. ACP and exemption categories can now obscure real or fake registrations with no way to verify.
Signature Sheet Access Restricted: Section 14
Signatures on petitions are viewable but not copyable. Only in person and not subject to public distribution.
Effect: Prevents citizens from conducting large-scale verification of petition authenticity, essentially centralizing signature validation in the same office that accepted them.
Delayed Complaint Notification: Section 22 (ORS 260.345)
The Secretary of State or AG only notifies subjects of election complaints if they decide to investigate.
Effect: Enables selective enforcement. Political targets can be leaked or investigated quietly while others are ignored without record.
Delayed Compliant Notification: Section 22 (ORS 260.345)
The Secretary of State or AG only notifies subjects of election complaints if they decide to investigate.
Effect: Enables selective enforcement. Political targets can be leaked or investigated quietly while others are ignored without record.
DATESTAMP: 2024 - OREGON HB 4024
BILL CATCHLINE: “ESTABLISHES POLITICAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS APPLICABLE TO CANDIDATES, POLITICAL COMMITTEES AND MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATIONS.”
DECLASSIFIED: HB 4024 doesn’t reform campaign finance, it codifies corruption. It pretends to impose limits while building new escape hatches for unions, special interests, and establishment campaigns. It empowers insider-controlled agencies while leaving voters in the dark. There’s no residency requirement for donors, no verification system for small contributors, no safeguards against foreign influence, and no transparency for enforcement. This bill is a blueprint for laundering political power through shadow networks.
MECHANISMS THAT ENABLE FRAUD
Creates New “Small Donor Committees” With Massive Loopholes: Section 3 – 8, Sections 18–19
This bill creates a new category of political committee: the “Small Donor Committee,” which is exempt from contribution limits when giving to candidates or measures, as long as the committee only accepts small contributions (≤$250 per individual per year). But there’s no mechanism for verifying donor identities or aggregating donations across affiliated entities.
Effect: Shell NGOs or activist fronts can create multiple committees, each funneling hundreds of thousands into coordinated campaigns under the guise of “grassroots” support to essentially launder big money through distributed micro-donations.
No Verification System for Contribution Origins
The bill fails to implement any residency or citizenship verification mechanism for contributors. Nothing prevents out-of-state or foreign actors from funding campaigns through proxies.
Effect: It enables political money laundering. Foreign or domestic entities can channel influence through straw donors or untraceable small contributions via shell PACs and fake “small donor committees.”
Carveout’s for “Membership Communications” and “Coordination:” Section 1(6)(b), Section 10(2)(b)(B)
The bill explicitly exempts communications from labor unions or organizations to their members from the definition of “independent expenditures” or “contributions.”
Effect: Unions and NGOs can coordinate election activity, polling, and persuasion tactics without triggering any contribution reporting or limits — creating two-tier rules that benefit aligned groups.
Expanded Power to Oregon Ethics Commission: Section 30
Empowers the Oregon Government Ethics Commission (OGEC) to investigate campaign finance violations, but without requiring transparency or public oversight of investigations, especially during the election cycle.
Effect: Centralizes campaign finance enforcement in an agency already politically influenced. Investigations could be delayed, blocked, or selectively enforced to protect establishment candidates and suppress challengers.
COVER-UP INFRASTRUCTURE
No Real-Time Disclosure Requirements: Section 11, 12
Contribution disclosures are still delayed and based on outdated reporting schedules. There is no mandate for real-time reporting of large or suspicious donations close to election day.
Effect: Voters can’t see who is funding candidates or ballot measures until after ballots are mailed or elections are over, enabling dark-money influence and post-election coverups.
Redefines “Coordination” to Allow Loopholes: Section 10
By narrowly defining what constitutes “coordination,” the bill opens the door for campaigns to collaborate with PACs and outside groups on strategy, polling, and timing, while claiming independence.
Effect: Campaigns can appear legally clean while benefiting from fully coordinated support. Rigging the process without triggering enforcement.
No Enforcement for False Reporting
There is no mechanism to require auditing of campaign reports or criminal prosecution for knowingly submitting false information.
Effect: Bad actors can flood the campaign finance system with fraudulent records, and the worst-case scenario is a minor civil penalty. If discovered at all.
Ambiguity in Definitions and Thresholds: Multiple Sections
Terms like “coordination,” “material involvement,” “membership,” and “affiliate” are vaguely defined or left to the discretion of OGEC.
Effect: Loopholes remain open for politically aligned actors to skirt rules, while enforcement can be selectively applied to silence opposition.