A judge ruled largely in favor of the police union-backed initiative, but its future remains unclear. by Taylor Griggs Last week, a Multnomah County judge ruled largely in favor of the Portlanders backing an initiative petition seek ing to divert a portion of the city’s clean energy fund to police. But the future of the effort to tap the Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund (PCEF) for police hiring remains unclear, with people on both sides of the issue claiming victory over the court decision.  In November 2025, two Portlanders filed a petition for what they called the “Enhanced Community Safety Initiative,” hoping to collect enough signatures to get it on the city ballot this fall. The prospective ballot measure, which is backed by Portland’s police union, would use 25 percent of PCEF’s revenue to hire more police officers.  News of the potential ballot measure quickly sparked conversation and controversy. PCEF, approved by voters in 2018, collects a 1 percent surcharge on local sales at large businesses. The program, which is intended to pay for carbon reduction and climate justice programs, quickly proved more lucrative than initially expected. The program’s financial success has been a double-edged sword amid a broader city funding crisis, as other agencies vie for a piece of the pie.  A coalition of climate and social justice advocates filed a challenge against the initiative, hoping a judge would determine it was not legally sound enough to qualify for the ballot. After hearing from both sides, Multnomah County Judge Eric Dahlin concluded the initiative lacked the full text of the proposal–a technical error in the original paperwork that was swiftly corrected. He dismissed most of the challengers’ arguments, clearing a path for the pro-police effort to move forward.  But Dahlin’s ruling wasn’t a complete win for the petitioners. Pro-PCEF advocates celebrated the judge’s decision to mandate the community safety initiative backers refile their ballot initiative with the city, due to an error in their original paperwork. That administrative hurdle could prove difficult to overcome, with petitioners facing a tight deadline to collect signatures for the ballot initiative.  The initiative sponsors filed a corrected petition February 25, restarting the clock on the lengthy approval process, with two more opportunities for electors to bring challenges against the petition. Even if nobody brings forward a challenge, it’s unlikely the petitioners could begin collecting signatures until late March. In order to qualify for the November ballot, they’ll need to get at least 40,437 signatures by July 6. “In November, voters will have a chance to invest a portion of this surplus to hire more police for a safer, better and stronger Portland,” Jason Little, a spokesperson for the initiative sponsors, said after the judge announced his decision last Tuesday.  The pro-PCEF challengers also claimed victory, believing Dahlin’s requirement that the petitioners refile with the city will make it impossible for the initiative to get a spot on the November ballot. Still, PCEF supporters are on guard, fearing the future will bring more threats to the clean energy fund.  The initiative  The community safety initiative was filed by Portlanders Bob Simril and Juanita Smartwood. Smartwood is a former Prosper Portland employee who previously led initiative petitions to roll back Measure 110–Oregon’s drug decriminalization measure. Simril is a business advisor who ran for Portland City Council in District 2 in 2024. In an interview with OPB shortly before the 2024 election, Simril said he supported maintaining the clean energy fund for climate-related purposes, and was in favor of “phased police funding as budgets allow.” In a recent statement to the Mercury, Simril said his opinion has changed as the program has seen its revenue increase.  "I’ve come to understand that we have enough resources to fully support climate change initiatives while expanding jobs for people of color and [increasing] safety and prosperity for all," Simril said. "We need multidimensional solutions that serve our broader community interest. We can accommodate all voices and perspectives."  Simril and Smartwood’s community safety initiative would divert 25 percent of PCEF’s earnings to a new fund for hiring police officers. The measure, if approved, would require the city to create a plan establishing how it would “recruit, hire, maintain, and support” enough Portland police officers to reach staffing levels they deemed adequate—at least two officers for every 1,000 Portland residents—prior to 2030 and beyond. The plan would need to be in place prior to June 30, 2027, a little more than six months after the November 2026 election.  Portland Police Bureau (PPB) has routinely claimed it lacks adequate staffing to properly serve the city. Portland is currently operating at a ratio of slightly more than 1.3 officers per 1,000 residents. According to often-cited FBI data, the national average is 2.4 officers per 1,000 residents. But many criminal justice experts warn against using that ratio as a staffing benchmark. The International Association of Chiefs of Police called officers-per-thousand population ratios “totally inappropriate as a basis for staffing decisions,” saying “ready-made, universally applicable patrol staffing standards do not exist.” The initiative petition seeks to use “surplus” revenue generated by Portland’s clean energy fund to pay for the additional police officers. PCEF, adopted by voters in 2018, charges large retailers 1 percent of their local sales. The fund has earned about $200 million a year, more than three times the amount initially projected. But PCEF’s scope has expanded along with its earnings. The program has committed more than $1.5 billion to government agencies and nonprofit organizations through 2029. The city now relies on PCEF to backfill bureau budget shortfalls.  The police funding initiative stipulates that any money directed to PPB through PCEF must add to the Bureau’s budget and shouldn’t be used “directly or indirectly” as a replacement for general fund money the city doles out to police each budget cycle. Put simply, the ballot initiative would require Portland to contribute the same amount or more of its general fund to PPB every year on top of PCEF revenue, regardless of other budget realities.  The initiative would allow any Portland resident or taxpayer to file a civil suit to enforce its budget and staffing provisions, with the city responsible for legal fees to a prevailing plaintiff.  Simril and Smartwood’s effort received $25,000 each from the Portland Police Association (PPA) and local auto and real estate magnate Jeff Swickard. But their mission was soon stalled. The challenge  About a month after Simril and Smartwood filed their Enhanced Community Safety initiative petition, they received a challenge from Portlanders Jenny Lee, Devin Ruiz, and Jackie Yerby—leaders with progressive organizations Coalitions of Communities of Color, Next Up Action Fund, Portland for All, respectively. The challenge was heard in Multnomah County court on February 13.  Lee, Ruiz, and Yerby’s challenge took aim at the measure’s constitutionality and its ballot title. Specifically, the challenge claimed the petition violates the Oregon Constitution’s “single subject rule,” which mandates a proposed law must only address one primary issue. The challengers said the initiative, in seeking to change both police funding and climate policy, did not meet those requirements.  Challengers also said the petitioners violated Oregon’s rule mandating initiative petitions include the full text of the proposed law. Lee, Ruiz, and Yerby’s argument alleged Simril and Smartwood’s petition seeks to amend Portland’s clean energy fund without including any text from the Portland city code pertaining to PCEF. In addition, the initiative petition as originally filed referenced a section of city code that doesn’t exist.  The chief petitioners acknowledged the error, but argued “there is no realistic possibility that the error would mislead voters” about what the initiative would enact.  Judge Dahlin disagreed. When he made his ruling on February 24, Dahlin said he agreed with the petitioners on everything except the erroneous ballot language.  “I don't think it's appropriate, for purposes of the full text rule, to put language [different from what’s actually intended to be enacted] in front of voters and then hope the language can be fixed later by the city auditor,” Dahlin said.  The judge said his decision in this case was based purely on procedural grounds. If the ballot initiative were to be approved by voters, opponents could bring substantive constitutional challenges against it, but the courts can’t weigh in until that time.  Whether or not the effort to divert PCEF funds to cops will succeed, advocates fear the clean energy program is at risk of being misused. The prospect of using PCEF funds to fill city funding gaps came up several times during last year’s budget cycle, and could be considered again this year. A proposal to tap PCEF for up to $75 million for Moda Center renovations—part of a broader effort to keep the Trail Blazers basketball team in Portland—may prove particularly contentious in upcoming months. PCEF supporters say they’re determined to maintain it as a way to pay for new climate justice programs, not as a general slush fund.  “This is not the first time powerful special interests have worked to override the will of the voters and redirect resources from their intended purpose and it likely will not be the last,” Yerby, one of the challengers to the pro-police initiative, said in a statement after Dahlin’s ruling. “As steadfast supporters of PCEF, we are fiercely committed to ensuring the fund is implemented responsibly, transparently, and fully aligned with what voters intended.” ...read more read less