Across Oregon, the word “recall” is being used more often and with greater intensity than in years past. From Salem to Grants Pass, campaigns are underway to remove elected officials before their terms end, testing both the legal mechanics of recall and the political will of voters. While the term may be applied broadly, the recalls now in motion differ dramatically in scale, stakes, and potential consequences. The growing frequency of these campaigns raises a fundamental question: will these recalls truly reshape leadership in Oregon, or simply expose deeper political divides?
The most high-profile effort is the campaign to recall Governor Tina Kotek. Spearheaded by Oregon for the People and Chief Petitioner Bill Minnix, the movement has grown rapidly since its launch earlier this year. Organizers describe what they call “unprecedented momentum,” with volunteers stationed at parks, businesses, and community events across both urban and rural communities. They report growing voter participation, including a notable increase in activity on vote.gov as some residents update their party registrations to support the campaign.
Dissatisfaction with state leadership has emerged from multiple fronts. Critics point to Oregon’s tax structure, sanctuary policies, homelessness, crime, and what many describe as a lack of responsiveness from the governor’s office. Governor Kotek, who took office in January 2023, has faced contentious debates over spending priorities and education funding. Her administration argues that its policies address long-standing systemic problems, while opponents contend that state government remains out of touch with residents’ daily realities.
The legal hurdles for a gubernatorial recall are significant. Petitioners must collect signatures from at least 15 percent of those who voted in the most recent governor’s race. Those signatures are then verified by the Secretary of State’s office. If the number is sufficient, a statewide recall election is triggered, giving voters the option to remove the governor before the end of her term. Minnix has already retained legal counsel to challenge what organizers describe as unclear wording on the petition cover sheet and signature validation instructions. They argue that vague standards could result in legitimate signatures being thrown out, potentially stalling the campaign before voters ever see a ballot.
While that legal battle plays out at the state level, another recall movement is underway in Josephine County targeting Commissioners Chris Barnett and Andreas Blech. On August 26th, 2025, Jim Goodwin and the Restore Josephine County recall committee filed the necessary paperwork to launch the effort, with Eve Arce overseeing the financial reporting. Organizers must gather more than 7,500 valid signatures for each commissioner to place the recalls on the ballot. Petition tables began appearing almost immediately outside key public locations like the Grants Pass Post Office, signaling an aggressive timeline.
The local recall petitions are built on months of controversy surrounding county leadership. Barnett and Blech, both elected in early 2025, have faced sharp criticism over transparency, governance, and financial decision-making. Barnett’s actions have drawn particular scrutiny. Petitioners cite his support for a measure that temporarily shifted authority to a single unelected commissioner, triggering lawsuits, layoffs, and sudden departmental changes. They also highlight his role in a voluntary resignation program that cost the county more than $700,000 in severance payments, which opponents describe as mismanaged.
Compounding those issues is Barnett’s business history. Earlier this year, the Oregon Supreme Court upheld a now $4.8 million judgment against him, his wife, and his company in a case involving elder financial abuse and breach of contract tied to a resort property sale. While unrelated to his county role, petitioners argue the judgment raises serious questions about his fitness for public office. He is also accused of canceling the Grants Pass Library District lease agreement, promoting material hostile to the library’s interests, and threatening citizens and members of the press.
Blech’s petition focuses on management style, alleged disrespect toward constituents, and a lack of transparency. Opponents point to the commissioners’ move to centralize control over public records as an example of diminishing accountability. Recall supporters maintain their effort is not about partisan politics, but about restoring trust in local government.
Together, these campaigns reflect Oregon’s evolving political landscape. The state has long been considered a Democratic stronghold, with blue majorities in statewide offices and the legislature. Yet vast portions of rural Oregon remain deeply conservative, creating sharp contrasts between urban policy priorities and rural concerns. The question remains whether red counties can realistically “flip” blue leadership through mechanisms like recall—or whether these efforts will simply underline the existing divides.
Recall campaigns are powerful tools for voter intervention between elections, but they are also complex, resource-intensive, and often unpredictable. A successful recall of a sitting governor would be unprecedented in Oregon’s modern history and would trigger significant political realignments. At the county level, the removal of Barnett and Blech could reshape the Board of Commissioners and potentially reset local governance—but would not address statewide issues.
As deadlines approach, both campaigns will test the ability of grassroots movements to organize effectively, navigate legal requirements, and build cross-party coalitions. Whether the outcome results in real political change or simply another chapter in Oregon’s increasingly polarized politics remains to be seen.