260.665 Undue
influence to affect registration, voting, candidacy, signing petitions;
solicitation of money or other benefits. (1) As used in this section, “undue influence” means
force, violence, restraint or the threat of it, inflicting injury, damage,
harm, loss of employment or other loss or the threat of it, or giving or
promising to give money, employment or other thing of value.
(2) A person,
acting either alone or with or through any other person, may not directly or
indirectly subject any person to undue influence with the intent to induce any
person to:
(a) Register or
vote;
(b) Refrain from
registering or voting;
(c) Register or
vote in any particular manner;
(d) Be or refrain
from or cease being a candidate;
(e) Contribute or
refrain from contributing to any candidate, political party or political
committee;
(f) Render or
refrain from rendering services to any candidate, political party or political
committee;
(g) Challenge or
refrain from challenging a person offering to vote;
(h) Apply or
refrain from applying for a ballot as an absent elector; or
(i) Sign or
refrain from signing a prospective petition or an initiative, referendum,
recall or candidate nominating petition.
(3) A person may
not solicit or accept money or other thing of value as an inducement to act as
prohibited by subsection (2) of this section.
(4) This section
does not prohibit:
(a) The
employment of persons to render services to candidates, political parties or
political committees;
(b) The public
distribution by candidates, political parties or political committees of sample
ballots or other items readily available to the public without charge, even
though the distributor incurs costs in the distribution;
(c) Public or
nonpromissory statements by or on behalf of a candidate of the candidate’s
intentions or purposes if elected;
(d) A promise by
a candidate to employ any person as administrative assistant, secretary or
other direct personal aide;
(e) Free custody
and care of minor children of persons during the time those persons are absent
from those children for voting purposes;
(f) For persons
voting, free transportation to and from places designated for the deposit of
ballots under ORS 254.470 or to and from locations described in ORS 254.472 or
254.474; but no means of advertising, solicitation or inducement to influence
the vote of persons transported may be used with that transportation;
(g) Individuals
or political committees from providing refreshments incidental to a gathering
in support of or in opposition to a candidate, political committee or measure;
(h) The public
distribution of registration cards by a person approved by the Secretary of
State under ORS 247.171 to print, copy or otherwise prepare and distribute
registration cards, even though the distributor incurs costs in the
distribution; or
(i) An elections
official from providing return identification envelopes for ballots that may be
returned by mail at no cost to the elector under ORS 254.473. [Formerly
260.412; 1983 c.83 §31; 1987 c.464 §1; 1987 c.727 §10; 1989 c.173 §2; 2001
c.960 §1; 2007 c.154 §53; 2009 c.533 §10; 2013 c.520 §20; 2019 c.638 §4]
260.670 [Amended by 1957 c.644 §21; 1971
c.749 §62; 1973 c.744 §44; repealed by 1979 c.190 §431]
Notes of Decisions
Oregon Repub. Party v. State of Or., 717 P.2d 1206 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 19× “The Attorney General responded with an opinion that the proposed mailing would violate ORS 260.665. Plaintiff thereupon filed this action, seeking a declaration that the mailing would not violate the statute.”
Oregon Repub. Party v. State of Oregon, 722 P.2d 1237 (Or. 1986).
· cites it 6× “The trial court, agreeing with the State, ruled that providing the stamped envelope constituted giving something of value in order to induce a person to vote, thereby directly violating ORS 260.665(1) and (2)(a). The Party appealed to the Court of Appeals.”
Dansereau v. Ulmer, 903 P.2d 555 (Alaska 1995).
· cites it 4× “Or. Rev. Stat. § 260.665 (1) & (2)(a) (1993).”
Coultas v. City of Sutherlin, 871 P.2d 465 (Or. 1994).
“Last, the Tax Court concluded that plaintiffs’ allegations that the “two percent limitation was ‘invalid from its inception’ and the actions related thereto violate Article II, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution and ORS 260.665” were not within the jurisdiction of the Tax…”
Porter v. Jones, 518 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 2× “BOWEN course, the buyer of the vote may be cheated by secret non- performance of the promise he bought, and have no legal rem- edy, but a promise is good consideration even if the promise is unenforceable,19 and even if it is “not binding or against public policy.”
Oregon Repub. Party v. State, 726 P.2d 412 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“This court had little difficulty in holding that the plan proposed by plaintiffs did not violate ORS 260.665(2)(a). We also concluded that this case is not moot.”
Oregon Repub. Party v. State, 726 P.2d 412 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“This court had little difficulty in holding that the plan proposed by plaintiffs did not violate ORS 260.665(2)(a). We also concluded that this case is not moot.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 260.665(1) — 4 cases
Oregon Repub. Party v. State of Oregon, 722 P.2d 1237 (Or. 1986).
“The trial court, agreeing with the State, ruled that providing the stamped envelope constituted giving something of value in order to induce a person to vote, thereby directly violating ORS 260.665(1) and (2)(a). The Party appealed to the Court of Appeals.”
Oregon Repub. Party v. State of Or., 717 P.2d 1206 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“The Attorney General responded with an opinion that the proposed mailing would violate ORS 260.665. Plaintiff thereupon filed this action, seeking a declaration that the mailing would not violate the statute.”
Dansereau v. Ulmer, 903 P.2d 555 (Alaska 1995).
“Or. Rev. Stat. § 260.665 (1) & (2)(a) (1993).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 260.665(2) — 2 cases
Oregon Repub. Party v. State of Oregon, 722 P.2d 1237 (Or. 1986).
“The trial court, agreeing with the State, ruled that providing the stamped envelope constituted giving something of value in order to induce a person to vote, thereby directly violating ORS 260.665(1) and (2)(a). The Party appealed to the Court of Appeals.”
Oregon Repub. Party v. State of Or., 717 P.2d 1206 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“The Attorney General responded with an opinion that the proposed mailing would violate ORS 260.665. Plaintiff thereupon filed this action, seeking a declaration that the mailing would not violate the statute.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 260.665(2)(a) — 4 cases
Oregon Repub. Party v. State of Oregon, 722 P.2d 1237 (Or. 1986).
“The trial court, agreeing with the State, ruled that providing the stamped envelope constituted giving something of value in order to induce a person to vote, thereby directly violating ORS 260.665(1) and (2)(a). The Party appealed to the Court of Appeals.”
Oregon Repub. Party v. State of Or., 717 P.2d 1206 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“The Attorney General responded with an opinion that the proposed mailing would violate ORS 260.665. Plaintiff thereupon filed this action, seeking a declaration that the mailing would not violate the statute.”
Oregon Repub. Party v. State, 726 P.2d 412 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“This court had little difficulty in holding that the plan proposed by plaintiffs did not violate ORS 260.665(2)(a). We also concluded that this case is not moot.”
Oregon Repub. Party v. State, 726 P.2d 412 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“This court had little difficulty in holding that the plan proposed by plaintiffs did not violate ORS 260.665(2)(a). We also concluded that this case is not moot.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 260.665(2)(e) — 1 case
Oregon Repub. Party v. State of Or., 717 P.2d 1206 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
“The Attorney General responded with an opinion that the proposed mailing would violate ORS 260.665. Plaintiff thereupon filed this action, seeking a declaration that the mailing would not violate the statute.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 260.665(4)(f) — 1 case
Dansereau v. Ulmer, 903 P.2d 555 (Alaska 1995).
“Or. Rev. Stat. § 260.665 (1) & (2)(a) (1993).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.