Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 260.715 (2026)

Prohibited conduct

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      260.715 Prohibited conduct. (1) A person may not knowingly make a false statement, oath or affidavit when a statement, oath or affidavit is required under the election laws.

      (2) A person may not request a ballot in a name other than the person’s own name.

      (3) A person may not vote or attempt to vote more than once at any election held on the same date.

      (4) A person may not vote or attempt to vote both in an election held in this state and in another state on the same date.

      (5) A person, except an elections official in performance of duties, may not willfully alter or destroy a ballot cast at an election or the returns of an election.

      (6) A person may not willfully place a fraudulent ballot among the genuine ballots.

      (7) A person may not falsely write anything purporting to be written by an elections official in performance of duties on the ballot.

      (8) A person may not commit theft of a ballot or tally or return sheet, or willfully hinder or delay the delivery of the tally or return sheet to the county clerk, or fraudulently break open a sealed tally or return sheet of the election.

      (9)(a) A person may not:

      (A) Manufacture or knowingly use a fraudulent ballot return identification envelope or secrecy envelope; or

      (B) Sell, make an offer with the actual intent to sell, purchase or make an offer with the actual intent to purchase, for money or other valuable consideration, any official ballot, replacement ballot, ballot return identification envelope or secrecy envelope.

      (b) As used in this subsection, “ballot return identification envelope” and “secrecy envelope” mean those envelopes used to return ballots to the county clerk. [1979 c.190 §392; 1999 c.318 §45; 2005 c.797 §58; 2007 c.154 §57; 2007 c.155 §10; 2017 c.749 §41]

 

      Note: The amendments to 260.715 by section 19a, chapter 9, Oregon Laws 2024, become operative January 1, 2027. See section 23, chapter 9, Oregon Laws 2024. The text that is operative on and after January 1, 2027, is set forth for the user’s convenience.

      260.715. (1) A person may not knowingly make a false statement, oath or affidavit when a statement, oath or affidavit is required under the election laws.

      (2) A person may not request a ballot in a name other than the person’s own name.

      (3) A person may not vote or attempt to vote more than once at any election held on the same date.

      (4) A person may not vote or attempt to vote both in an election held in this state and in another state on the same date.

      (5) A person, except an elections official in performance of duties, may not willfully alter or destroy a ballot cast at an election or the returns of an election.

      (6) A person may not willfully place a fraudulent ballot among the genuine ballots.

      (7) A person may not falsely write anything purporting to be written by an elections official in performance of duties on the ballot.

      (8) A person may not commit theft of a ballot or tally or return sheet, or willfully hinder or delay the delivery of the tally or return sheet to the county clerk, or fraudulently break open a sealed tally or return sheet of the election.

      (9)(a) A person may not:

      (A) Manufacture or knowingly use a fraudulent ballot return identification envelope or secrecy envelope; or

      (B) Sell, make an offer with the actual intent to sell, purchase or make an offer with the actual intent to purchase, for money or other valuable consideration, any official ballot, replacement ballot, ballot return identification envelope or secrecy envelope.

      (b) As used in this subsection, “ballot return identification envelope” and “secrecy envelope” mean those envelopes used to return ballots to the county clerk.

      (10) A person may not establish an entity for the purpose of evading contribution limits or disclosure requirements.

 

      260.718 [1999 c.1002 §6; repealed by 2005 c.797 §73]

 

      260.720 [Repealed by 1971 c.749 §82]

 

      260.725 [1993 c.743 §22; 1995 c.79 §90; renumbered 260.174 in 1995]

 

      260.730 [Amended by 1957 c.644 §23; repealed by 1971 c.749 §82]

 

      260.735 [1993 c.710 §3; 2005 c.797 §20; repealed by 2011 c.652 §11]

 

      260.737 [1993 c.710 §§4,5; 1995 c.607 §56a; 1999 c.999 §21; 2001 c.965 §17; 2005 c.809 §§47,48; 2009 c.818 §18; repealed by 2011 c.652 §11]

 

      260.740 [Repealed by 1957 c.644 §28]

 

      260.750 [Amended by 1957 c.644 §24; repealed by 1971 c.749 §82]

 

      260.760 [Amended by 1957 c.644 §25; repealed by 1971 c.749 §82]

 

      260.770 [Repealed by 1971 c.749 §82]

 

      260.780 [Amended by 1957 c.644 §26; repealed by 1971 c.743 §432 and by 1971 c.749 §83]

 

      260.790 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432 and by 1971 c.749 §83]

 

      260.800 [Repealed by 1957 c.644 §28]

 

      260.810 [Repealed by 1957 c.644 §28]

 

      260.820 [Repealed by 1971 c.749 §82]

 

      260.990 [1971 c.749 §§24,74; repealed by 1973 c.744 §46 (260.991 enacted in lieu of 260.990)]

 

      260.991 [1973 c.744 §47 (enacted in lieu of 260.990); repealed by 1979 c.190 §431]

 

      260.992 [1973 c.623 §6; repealed by 1977 c.678 §4]

 

PENALTIES

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1986–2016 · leading case: State v. Hirschman, 379 P.3d 616 (Deschutes Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
State v. Hirschman, 379 P.3d 616 (Deschutes Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). · cites it 37× “*351 Defendant argues that, if — as we have held — ORS 260.715 (9) requires the state to prove only that he made what would objectively be recognized as an “offer” to purchase a ballot (and not to also prove subjective intent to accomplish the transaction), then the statute…”
State v. Moyer, 200 P.3d 619 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 10× “2d 915 (1987), this court concluded that ORS 260.715(1), a statute prohibiting false statements, oaths, or affidavits in elections, was subject to the historical exception for conduct constituting perjury.”
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Kumley, 75 P.3d 432 (Or. 2003). · cites it 3× “110 (statements of economic interest shall contain written declaration that statement is made under penalties of false swearing and no person willfully shall return statement containing such declaration that person does not believe to be true); ORS 162.”
State v. Huntley, 728 P.2d 868 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 11× “Defendant appeals three convictions for providing a false statement under the election laws in violation of ORS 260.715(1). 1 We affirm. Defendant was a candidate for State Representative in the 1982 primary and general elections and in the 1984 primary election.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 260.715(1) — 3 cases
State v. Moyer, 200 P.3d 619 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “2d 915 (1987), this court concluded that ORS 260.715(1), a statute prohibiting false statements, oaths, or affidavits in elections, was subject to the historical exception for conduct constituting perjury.”
In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of Kumley, 75 P.3d 432 (Or. 2003). “110 (statements of economic interest shall contain written declaration that statement is made under penalties of false swearing and no person willfully shall return statement containing such declaration that person does not believe to be true); ORS 162.”
State v. Huntley, 728 P.2d 868 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). “Defendant appeals three convictions for providing a false statement under the election laws in violation of ORS 260.715(1). 1 We affirm. Defendant was a candidate for State Representative in the 1982 primary and general elections and in the 1984 primary election.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 260.715(9) — 1 case
State v. Hirschman, 379 P.3d 616 (Deschutes Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). “*351 Defendant argues that, if — as we have held — ORS 260.715 (9) requires the state to prove only that he made what would objectively be recognized as an “offer” to purchase a ballot (and not to also prove subjective intent to accomplish the transaction), then the statute…”
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.