Une initiative pour augmenter le nombre de policiers accusés de tromper les électeurs.

Portland voters are facing controversy over a proposed ballot initiative aimed at increasing police staffing, with critics accusing campaigners of misleading the public during the signature-gathering process. The initiative, known as the Portland Enhanced Community Safety Initiative, seeks to redirect a portion of the Portland Clean Energy Community Benefit Fund to hire more police officers. Proponents argue the measure is necessary to address rising concerns about safety and response times, while opponents claim the campaign has engaged in deceptive practices. The initiative, backed by the group Safer Portland, proposes using 25% of the Clean Energy Fund's reserves, estimated at around $200 million, to bolster the city’s police force. This comes after the fund significantly surpassed its initial projections. Originally designed to generate up to $90 million annually through taxes on large retailers, the fund has instead amassed nearly double that amount, leading Governor Tina Kotek to establish a task force to explore alternative uses for the surplus. According to the petition, Portland currently employs approximately 793 officers, despite a population growth of over 177,000 since 1992. The initiative argues that this shortage has hindered the ability of the Portland Police Bureau to meet community expectations, including timely emergency responses and effective crime investigation. The proposal aims to raise staffing levels to two officers per 1,000 residents, requiring the addition of roughly 400 officers. Support for the measure includes contributions from the Portland Police Association, the union representing the city’s officers. However, the campaign has drawn scrutiny over alleged misleading tactics used by canvassers. Local attorney Alan Kessler filed a detailed complaint alleging that some volunteers misrepresented the initiative’s goals. Videos show canvassers claiming the measure would improve 911 response times, even though the petition explicitly states it focuses on hiring more police rather than directly addressing emergency services. Another video suggests canvassers told voters the initiative involves hiring mental health officers, which is not accurate based on the official language. Kessler’s complaint further claims that some canvassers were instructed to obscure the word “police” on signature pages by placing a binder clip over it. Such actions violate state laws prohibiting false statements to individuals signing petitions or seeking information about them. If proven, the chief petitioners could face felony charges and fines exceeding $125,000. In response, Safer Portland dismissed the allegations as baseless, asserting that the state already investigates complaints about signature collection. Elise Haas, the group’s spokesperson, stated that the accusations reflect an attempt to undermine democratic processes. She noted that the number of complaints does not compare to the scale of the petition, which received over 63,000 signatures. Opposition to the initiative has grown among environmental advocates and left-leaning organizations. Groups such as Protect the Portland Clean Energy Fund argue that the measure threatens the fund’s mission to support climate initiatives. Left-wing activists, including members of the Democratic Socialists of America, have encouraged supporters to report any instances of misrepresentation. As the debate intensifies, the outcome of the initiative will depend on whether the state can verify the accuracy of the petition’s collection process. With both sides mobilizing resources and public support, the issue reflects broader tensions over how limited public funds should be allocated in a rapidly changing urban environment. The final decision will rest with voters, who will soon decide whether to approve the measure.