Executive Summary

Rose City Reform is a research and journalism project dedicated to tracking and analyzing Portland’s historic reform process. 

From February 2022 to December 2024, Rose City Reform conducted well over 100 interviews with reform advocates, political scientists, city staff, elected officials, candidates, and others. Our election coverage included a searchable candidate tracker featuring information about candidates’ platforms, endorsements, and pledges. We invited candidates to verify their profiles, and most active campaigns participated, giving us high confidence in the accuracy of our research on endorsements and pledges—data that is otherwise often difficult to track due to selective publication by candidates and endorsing organizations.

While this report identifies trends and practices that may shape future elections, it emphasizes that the 2024 election was a once-in-a-lifetime event. Our findings should not be interpreted as predictors of future elections, since those will entail different conditions, such as fewer available seats, established incumbents, and new and evolving political norms.

---

Key Findings

Increased Representation for Underrepresented Groups: Our research found that while the 2024 candidate pool was diverse, election outcomes resulted in even greater representation for historically underrepresented groups. Women, who comprised 27% of the candidate pool, won 50% of council seats. Candidates identifying as Black, Indigenous, or People of Color (BIPOC), while representing 31% of the field, secured 42% of council seats. Similarly, candidates who openly identified as members of the LGBTQ+ community accounted for 19% of the candidate pool and now hold 33% of council positions. For the first time in Portland’s history, the Asian community gained representation on the council—electing two members (17%), despite Asian-identifying candidates accounting for 4% of the candidate pool..

Broader Geographic Representation: Portland’s new district-based system brought broader geographic representation to the city council. This was especially significant for District 1 (East Portland), a historically underrepresented area east of Interstate 205. In the 2024 election, East Portland gained more representation than it had in all four decades since its annexation. In one district, the election of three seats resulted in all representatives being clustered in one area: all District 4 representatives live in southwest Portland.

Diversity Varies Across Districts: The level of racial and ethnic diversity among representatives varies significantly between districts. District 1, home to a high concentration of BIPOC residents, elected two members who are BIPOC. In contrast, District 4, which has the lowest BIPOC population, elected no BIPOC candidates. Based on the 2024 election, districts where the BIPOC population surpassed the election threshold of 25% elected at least one BIPOC representative.

A Generational Shift: For the first time, Millennials will serve on Portland’s City Council. Representing 36% of the candidate pool, they now hold 67% of the seats. This move toward younger leadership represents a significant change from the previous council, which was dominated by Generation X. Among the newly elected council members, only one (8%) is from Gen X.

Critical Role of Endorsements:  In a low-information election, endorsements appear to have been critical to candidates’ success. Our analysis identifies multiple organizations whose endorsements had a measurable impact on outcomes. Among them are SEIU, Northwest Labor Council, United for Portland, and three local newspapers. Candidates endorsed by prominent organizations, such as media outlets and labor unions, generally outperformed their peers. However, the sheer volume of endorsements, often overlapping among ideologically different candidates, potentially diluted their effectiveness as direct cues for voters. Endorsements were most impactful when paired with tangible support such as financial contributions, campaigns paid for by outside groups, and voter mobilization efforts.

The Promise of Candidate Alliances: The new electoral system reshaped campaign dynamics by encouraging collaboration between candidates and discouraging negative campaigning. While the level of collaboration varied widely, 2024 election results suggest that both formal and informal alliances between candidates in the same district may have contributed to their wins.

Fundraising as a Secondary Factor: All winning candidates qualified for public campaign financing, but their overall fundraising amounts varied widely. Some candidates succeeded with relatively modest funding, underscoring the importance of other factors like grassroots organizing, name recognition, endorsements, and campaigns paid for by outside groups.

Pledges as Ideological Cues: Multiple winners signed pledges during their campaigns to signal their priorities once elected. Our analysis shows that councilors-elect who pledged to reject contributions from law enforcement, support expanded renter protections, or advocate for increased funding for programs like Portland Street Response align significantly as a group emphasizing progressive policies. In contrast, candidates who did not sign these pledges appear more likely to advocate for centrist policies or position themselves as potential swing votes. We also find some evidence that pledges had a positive effect for candidates who signed them.

Barriers to Voter Information: Amidst unprecedented choice on the ballot, voters faced a significant shortage of information about council candidates. Media outlets, constrained by limited resources, focused largely on the mayor’s race, leaving council candidates with little to no individual coverage. This lack of reporting deprived voters of a reliable source of objective information about the 98 candidates competing to represent Portland’s four new districts. Consequently, media endorsements likely gained outsized influence, emerging as one of the few widely available media resources for voters evaluating candidates.

Most Winners Had Worked in City, County, or State Government

Nearly all winners had professional experience in city, county, or state government, suggesting that such credentials resonated with Portland voters. In addition to the officeholders previously mentioned, District 1 voters elected Candace Avalos, whose résumé includes serving on the Citizen Review Committee (a police oversight board) and the Portland Charter Commission, which drafted the city’s new charter. They also chose Jamie Dunphy, a former staffer for Senator Jeff Merkley and City Commissioner Nick Fish.

Voters in District 2 elected Elana Pirtle-Guiney, a policy advisor to former Governor Kate Brown, and Sameer Kanal, who served as project manager for the City of Portland’s Police Accountability Commission. In District 3, voters picked Angelita Morillo, a staffer to former City Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty, and in District 4, Olivia Clark emerged as the top vote-getter, bringing leadership experience from TriMet and Governor Kitzhaber’s office. She was joined by Eric Zimmerman, a former advisor to Mayor Ted Wheeler and chief of staff to County Commissioner Julia Brim-Edwards.

The only two councilors-elect without direct government experience are Tiffany Koyama Lane, a public school teacher and union organizer, and Mitch Green, an energy economist and community college educator. Both of these candidates were able to attract strong support from labor and the Portland chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Councilors-Elect Are Highly Educated

Portland’s councilors-elect are all college-educated, with 42% holding bachelor’s degrees and another 42% earning master’s degrees. By comparison, about 52% of Portland residents hold a bachelor’s degree. District 4 stands out as the most highly educated, with two representatives holding master’s degrees and one earning a Ph.D. Notably, at least three councilors-elect are first-generation college graduates.

All Are Progressives—But on a Spectrum

Portland’s councilors-elect are all registered Democrats, with some having strong ties to party politics. Loretta Smith chairs the Oregon Democratic Black Caucus, while Candace Avalos, Tiffany Koyama Lane, and Angelita Morillo are alumnae of Emerge, a campaign training program for Democratic women. Additionally, four winners—33%—serve as Precinct Committee Persons, engaging in voter outreach for the Multnomah County Democrats.

While they share a party affiliation, the councilors-elect reflect a range of ideological perspectives. Mitch Green, Sameer Kanal, and Tiffany Koyama Lane are members of the Democratic Socialists of America, but most lack formal ties to specific ideological groups. However, their attitudes toward various pledges circulated during the 2024 election offer insights into their positions on the political spectrum.

Many Have Signed Social Justice and Climate Pledges

During the 2024 campaign cycle, multiple progressive organizations invited candidates to sign pledges focused on social, racial, and economic justice. These commitments became a popular way for candidates to communicate their priorities to voters and to each other. 

Examples included:

• No Police Money Pledge: Circulated by Imagine Black, this pledge commits candidates to rejecting contributions and endorsements from police unions and associations.
• No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge: A national commitment to refuse contributions over $200 from the oil, gas, or coal industry.
• Save Portland Street Response Pledge: Circulated by Save Portland Street Response, this pledge supports fully funding a citywide, unarmed, non-police team for mental health emergencies in every budget cycle.
• Renters Bill of Rights Pledge: Circulated by the Portland Chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America and others, this pledge supports expanded renter protections, including relocation assistance for rent increases over 5% and tying rent limits to the minimum wage.
• Gaza Ceasefire Resolution Pledge: A commitment to introducing and supporting a Gaza ceasefire resolution, circulated by candidate Andra Vltavín

The majority of the council signed the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge, but other pledges divided councilors-elect into two groups: those who signed and those who did not. Four councilors—Green, Kanal, Lane, and Morillo—signed all five, while Avalos and Dunphy each signed three. Generally, the more pledges a candidate signed, the more likely they were to advocate for progressive and reform-oriented policies. Endorsements followed this pattern, with more prolific pledge-signers more likely to secure endorsements from progressive and left-of-center organizations such as the Working Families Party (WFP), the Democratic Socialists of America, and progressive PACs like Portland for All and Next Up Action Fund.

By contrast, candidates who signed fewer pledges were more likely to advocate for moderate or centrist policies and to receive support from business or real estate groups, as well as police and firefighter unions. Importantly, there were exceptions, such as Elana Pirtle-Guiney, who signed no pledges but still received endorsements from multiple progressive groups, including WFP and Portland for All.

Pledges Were Useful, but Imperfect, Value Signals

Two pledges—the Save Portland Street Response Pledge and the No Police Money Pledge—took on added significance in the 2024 election, particularly in the context of one of its most hotly debated issues: law enforcement’s role in addressing unsheltered homelessness.

The chart below illustrates how councilors-elect who signed both pledges were more likely to oppose arresting unhoused individuals who refuse shelter. Conversely, councilors-elect who refrained from signing these pledges often supported increasing the number of sworn police officers and viewed arrests as a necessary last resort for addressing public camping. 

Additionally, the chart shows the interplay between pledges and endorsements. Candidates who signed the Portland Street Response pledge were endorsed by the organization that circulated the pledge, Save Portland Street Response. While support for increasing police staffing was not a pledge per se, candidates who went on the record as supportive of adding sworn officers tended to be endorsed by the Portland Police Association.

It should be noted that while signing a pledge signals support for an issue, the reverse is not always true. For example, Elana Pirtle-Guiney did not sign the Save Portland Street Response pledge but earned the organization’s endorsement, and Steve Novick was endorsed by the Portland Police Association despite not advocating for increasing the number of officers.

Pledges May Have Helped Candidates

There is some evidence that signing pledges benefited candidates. While pledges may have helped candidates send useful cues to voters, another possible explanation is that pledge-signers typically received endorsements from the circulating organizations and others with similar values. These endorsing groups typically promoted candidates on social media, and sometimes provided financial support or assistance with voter mobilization efforts. For example, multiple candidates who signed the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge received endorsements from the national group Jane Fonda Climate PAC, which offered both visibility and monetary support. Similarly, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which circulated the Renters Bill of Rights Pledge, endorsed two signatories and greenlit one, with its volunteers actively canvassing on their behalf.

Bivariate correlation tests conducted by Rose City Reform found that the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge and the Renters Bill of Rights Pledge showed moderately positive correlations with candidate success in District 1. Similarly, the No Police Money Pledge and the Renters Bill of Rights Pledge correlated moderately with candidate performance in District 3.

It is worth noting that, according to conventional political wisdom, pledges can become political liabilities if candidates fail to uphold them or if the pledge’s subject matter becomes unpopular. The positive effect of pledges in the 2024 election may be tied to the fact that most candidates who signed them had no prior electoral experience and therefore lacked prior policy records. Additionally, most pledges with financial implications, such as the Save Portland Street Response Pledge and the Renters’ Bill of Rights Pledge, were introduced in this election cycle.

Conservative Portlanders Have No Representation

While representation for many underrepresented groups increased in the 2024 election, conservative or Republican voters elected none, including in District 1, where Republicans make up 13% of registered voters.

This raises the question of whether Portland’s new electoral system, which lowers the election threshold, could create opportunities for conservative candidates to win seats. While it remains unlikely that a Republican would be able to amass 25% of the vote in any district, election results suggest that candidates supported by the Republican Party—even if not party members—could find pathways to success.

The Multnomah County Republican Party endorsed three of the 98 council candidates and supported Rene Gonzalez for mayor. While none of these candidates were elected, two had relatively strong showings. Terrence Hayes and Kezia Wanner placed fourth in Districts 1 and 3, respectively, effectively becoming runners-up in their races. These results may signal potential for future candidates backed by the Republican Party to compete, particularly in District 1, which has the largest Republican voter base in the city.

The Booming Candidate Pool Overwhelmed Both Reporters and Voters

The unprecedented size of the 2024 candidate pool presented considerable challenges for local media. Without a primary election to winnow the field, reporters were tasked with covering nearly 120 city candidates—including the mayoral pool—on a compressed timeline, as general election coverage traditionally ramps up around Labor Day.

Media coverage largely focused on the mayor’s race, which featured only a handful of viable contenders. In contrast, council candidates rarely received individual attention, and when they did, it often centered on campaign finance issues, such as candidates contributing to one another to qualify for public funding. Much of the reporting on council races leaned toward big-picture themes or voter education about the new electoral system. The Oregonian and OPB published candidate questionnaires addressing key election issues, but the sheer number of responses made individual research a time-consuming endeavor.

This lack of detailed coverage left a significant information gap, particularly for voters accustomed to relying on the media to help navigate local races. An exit poll commissioned by the City of Portland found that 61% of voters relied on local media to understand the new voting system, underscoring its importance as an information source during the election.

Crowded council races are not new to Portland. The 2020 primary for City Council Position 2, for example, drew 19 candidates, a number comparable to the 16 and 22 candidates who ran this year in Districts 1 and 2, respectively. However, in 2020, the frontrunners Dan Ryan and Loretta Smith received substantial news coverage. In 2024, media largely avoided elevating coverage of council frontrunners, even as they identified leading candidates in the mayoral race. This approach likely reflected both limited resources and a reluctance to be seen as gatekeepers in a system intended to broaden access to candidacy.

In Crowded Races, Media Endorsements Were Crucial

IIn early October, The Oregonian highlighted how little was known about individual candidates with an article titled, “SE Portland voters to choose from 30 City Council candidates saying nearly the same thing.” While there were in fact notable differences between candidates—such as their stances on public camping, law enforcement, and upcoming city labor negotiations—reporters lacked the time and resources to fully explore these distinctions.

As an example of the effort involved in covering so many candidates, in June 2024, Willamette Week began conducting Q&As with all council candidates who qualified for public financing. With 47 applicants, the process was so time-intensive that the final Q&A wasn’t published until November 1—over a week after ballots were mailed to voters.

If journalists struggled to keep up with candidates, voters likely did too. Ironically, media’s decision not to spotlight council frontrunners may have increased the influence of media endorsements. Of the twelve winning council candidates, eleven received at least one endorsement from Willamette Week, The Oregonian, or the Portland Mercury. The exception, Loretta Smith, likely benefited from her name recognition as a former county commissioner.

Seven of Willamette Week’s 12 endorsed council candidates went on to win seats, reflecting a 58% conversion rate from endorsed to elected candidate. This publication also endorsed Mayor-elect Keith Wilson. The Portland Mercury similarly followed with seven successful council endorsements (it endorsed Carmen Rubio for mayor), and The Oregonian saw five of its endorsed candidates get elected (with Rene Gonzalez as the mayoral pick). Candidates endorsed by multiple publications fared the best: five of the seven candidates with more than one endorsement from these outlets won a seat (71%).

According to correlation and regression tests conducted by Rose City Reform, endorsements from the Portland Mercury, Willamette Week, and the Oregonian were statistically significant predictors of both electoral outcome and vote share. A linear regression found that the Portland Mercury’s endorsement was associated with approximately a 6.6% in first-round vote share. For Willamette Week, the corresponding value was 4.8%, and for The Oregonian, 4.3%. A separate analysis using bivariate correlation tests found that Portland Mercury’s endorsement strongly correlated with success in Districts 2 and 4, while Willamette Week’s endorsement moderately correlated with success in Districts 1 and 2, and The Oregonian’s endorsement moderately correlated with winning in District 4. 

It is worth noting that endorsement strategies varied between media organizations. While all three provided three endorsements per district, Willamette Week and the Portland Mercury also provided suggestions for lower rankings, which may have influenced voters.

Fundraising Was Important, but Not a Predictor of Success

City candidates were eligible for public campaign financing under Portland’s Small Donor Elections program, which provides a 9-1 match for individual contributions of up to $20. While mayoral candidates faced a $100,000 match cap for their citywide campaigns, council candidates were allowed up to $120,000 for district races. The more generous level of funding for council hopefuls was based on the assumption that mayoral candidates would benefit more from support by outside groups. Yet, due to budget constraints caused by the large number of candidates, match caps were reduced by 60% compared to the previous election. 

Most candidates participated in the Small Donor Elections program, with 47 qualifying for taxpayer funding by collecting at least 250 individual contributions. All eventual winners came from this group, and many were among the program’s top performers. Seven incoming council members placed in the top 10 fundraisers across all districts. Yet, fundraising varied significantly among councilors-elect. Only Koyama Lane and Morillo unlocked the maximum amount of financing, $120,000. Six others—Avalos, Clark, Dunphy, Green, Novick, and Ryan—reached the second tier, receiving $80,000. Sameer Kanal collected approximately $69,000, while Pirtle-Guiney, Smith, and Zimmerman each qualified for the first tier, receiving $40,000.

Multiple candidates with similar fundraising levels did not secure seats. District 1’s Steph Routh reached the maximum amount of financing without being elected; nine others qualified for the second tier of funding, and seventeen for the first tier. This suggests that other factors also influenced electability. Candidates like Smith, Ryan, and Novick may have benefited from significant name recognition. Others gained momentum through high-profile media endorsements, extensive personal networks, or strong social media reach. Several winners were also supported by well-organized interest groups that mobilized voters and funded outreach efforts such as mailers and social media campaigns. These dynamics suggest that while fundraising played a role, name recognition, independent expenditures, and institutional support were also critical factors.

The New System Encouraged Collaborative Campaigning

In our State of the Race report, we highlighted the collegial tone among council candidates, even among those competing for seats within the same district. This widespread friendliness was likely influenced by Portland’s new voting method, which allows voters to rank multiple candidates. Under this system, candidates do not rely solely on securing first-choice votes but must also appeal to their competitors’ supporters for second and third rankings. Candidates with similar platforms—whether moderates in a majority-progressive district or progressives in a majority-moderate district—may have been especially mindful of not alienating each other’s supporters, despite competing for the same votes.

The understanding that three candidates from each district would ultimately serve together further reduced the incentive for negative campaigning. Reflecting this dynamic, candidates frequently referred to each other as “colleagues” rather than competitors. Interviews conducted by Rose City Reform also revealed that many candidates genuinely bonded over the shared experience of being the first cohort to campaign under the new system.

Candidate Alliances Show Promise for Electoral Success

There is evidence suggesting that candidates who campaigned as allies may have gained an advantage. For instance, councilors-elect Tiffany Koyama Lane and Angelita Morillo canvassed together, distributed a joint campaign mailer, and consistently encouraged voters to rank them first and second. Cast vote records analyzed by FairVote show that 45% of Koyama Lane’s voters ranked Morillo second, and 43% of Morillo’s voters ranked Koyama Lane second.

In District 4, winners Olivia Clark and Eric Zimmerman also recommended each other to voters, though their collaboration was less publicized than that of Koyama Lane and Morillo. A similar pattern of close rankings emerged. According to FairVote, 48% of Zimmerman voters ranked Clark second, while 43% of Clark voters put Zimmerman as their second choice.

In the weeks leading up to the election, council candidates were often asked which other contenders they would prefer as colleagues. During an October District 2 forum, Sameer Kanal, Jonathan Tasini, and Marnie Glickman expressed mutual support. This alignment may have contributed to Kanal receiving 21% of Tasini’s votes and 36% of Glickman’s votes when those candidates were eliminated.

Assessing the impact of allied campaigning on close rankings is complicated by other factors that shaped voter behavior. Both Koyama Lane and Morillo, as well as Clark and Zimmerman, appeared on mailers from endorsing organizations encouraging voters to rank them highly. Since outside groups are prohibited from coordinating with candidates, these efforts were separate from candidates’ own campaigns. Media endorsements also likely influenced rankings, as voters turned to trusted publications for guidance. For example, Sameer Kanal also received 40% of fellow District 2 candidate Michelle DePass’s votes when she was eliminated, likely influenced by their shared endorsement from the Portland Mercury.

Allied Campaigning Benefited Some More than Others

Allied campaigning produced mixed results for candidates. In District 1, Candace Avalos and Steph Routh canvassed together and promoted each other to voters. While Avalos secured a seat, Routh—despite being the district’s top fundraiser and a presumed frontrunner—finished sixth. When Routh was eliminated, Avalos received approximately 30% of her vote transfers, while another politically-aligned candidate, Jamie Dunphy, captured 24%, perhaps indicating that this alliance was less influential on vote transfers than the alliances between Koyama Lane and Morillo and Clark and Zimmerman.

In District 4, progressive candidates Mitch Green and Chad Lykins each formed separate alliances with Lisa Freeman, encouraging voters to rank them highly. When Freeman was eliminated, Green received 28% of her votes, while Lykins received only 5%. A parallel alliance between Freeman and Sarah Silkie likely influenced these results, with Silkie receiving 23% of Freeman’s votes. The overlap in preferences between Freeman and Silkie voters may also indicate a shared desire for female representation.

Although Green and Lykins did not actively promote each other to voters, they were the most popular second-choice candidates for their respective supporters, according to an analysis by FairVote. When Lykins was eventually eliminated, Green picked up nearly a third of his votes (32%). According to FairVote, 33% of Green voters ranked Lykins second, while 23% of Lykins voters ranked Green as their backup. This likely indicates that many voters viewed Green and Lykins as closely aligned, even in the absence of a formal alliance, and despite the candidates themselves promoting alternative second choices.

Announcing Early Offered No Clear Advantage

The 2024 election cycle was unusually long, beginning with the first candidacy announcement in July 2023. However, there is little evidence that starting early was associated with electoral success. While a longer campaign may have helped some candidates qualify for public financing or build name recognition, winners launched their campaigns at varying times.

In District 1, Candace Avalos and Jamie Dunphy filed their intents to run in September 2023, ten months before Loretta Smith entered the race in July 2024. Smith, who also won a seat, likely relied on her name recognition as a former county commissioner. Yet, lesser-known candidates who joined later also succeeded. Tiffany Koyama Lane, for example, filed in March 2024 and quickly became the top fundraiser across all council districts. Similarly, Sameer Kanal entered the race in late May 2024 with limited name recognition but secured a seat with the backing of progressive groups.