“Thou Shalt Not Kill Animals” initiative petition drive fails in Oregon

Was “Thou Shalt Not Kill Animals” initiative petition effort worth $300,000?  Did it help at all?

SALEM, Oregon––The Oregon Secretary of State’s Office on July 24,  2026 announced that Initiative Petition 28,  described by Oregon Capital Chronicle editor Julia Shumway as “an effort led by Portland-based vegan advocates to dramatically expand the state’s animal cruelty laws,”  has failed to qualify for the November 2026 election ballot.

Initiative Petition 28 appears,  however,  to have come closer to qualifying for inclusion on the ballot than any of the other 88 initiative petitions for which campaigns collected signatures,  meaning that no initiative measures on any subject will go before Oregon voters in 2026.

Fell more than 25% short

The Oregon Secretary of State’s Office “determined Initiative Petition 28 had less than 75% of the valid signatures it needed,”  explained Shumway.

“Oregonians trying to pass laws through a statewide vote need to collect signatures from 6% of voters who cast ballots in the last gubernatorial election,”  detailed Shumway.

That would have been 117,173 signatures.  The Initiative Petition 28 petitioners submitted 142,784 signatures.

“But through two statistical samples,”  wrote Shumway,  “state election officials determined that just 104,262 of those signatures matched individual Oregon voters’ signature records.

Sought to end exemptions from cruelty laws for hunting,  fishing,  husbandry & slaughter

“Initiative Petition 28,  titled People for the Elimination of Animal Cruelty Exemptions,”  summarized Alejandro Figueroa on July 2,  2026 for Oregon Public Broadcasting,  sought to “extend legal protections to animals beyond just cats and dogs.  Insects wouldn’t count since they are not considered animals under Oregon law.”

Otherwise,  Initiative Petition 28 sought to remove existing exemptions for hunting,  fishing,  animal husbandry,  and slaughter from the Oregon law forbidding animal abuse law.

Initiative Petition also would have “set up a transition fund to help ranchers,”  Figueroa continued,  “with financial assistance,”  or training for other occupations.

Much less controversially,  Initiative Petition 28 sought to prohibit people convicted of animal abuse from owning other animals,  a provision for which mainstream animal advocates have lobbied off and on as an option in felony animal abuse sentencing.

This option would be particularly useful in preventing recidivism among serial sadists and animal hoarders.

Third time was no charm

“This is the third time organizers have tried to get this petition on the ballot,”  recounted Figueroa.  “The first time,  during the 2022 election cycle,  organizers collected some 2,000 signatures.  Then in 2024, they got roughly 40,000 signatures,  Michelson said.

“What has changed this time,”  assessed Figueroa,  “is the campaign was more organized and had more money to spend,” including “more than $300,000 in cash contributions and loans, according to state campaign finance records.”

Donations included $35,000 Leonid Postnov,  variously identified by Figueroa as “a consultant from St. Petersburg, Russia,”  and by Initiative Petition 28 originator David Michelson as “just the father of someone in Oregon who was a volunteer for the campaign.”

Continued Figueroa,  “Michelson,”  a substitute public school teacher,  “contributed over $30,000 of his own money to the campaign.

“The campaign also received about $30,000 from the Craigslist Charitable Fund and at least $20,000 from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.”

Animal use groups freaked

Little known Bitcoin billionaire Owen Gunden gave $25,000.  Former software engineer Amit Dhuleshia loaned the campaign $25,000.

Michelson told Figueroa that he met Dhuleshia at a Buddhist monastery,  and met Gunden “at a vegan and animal advocacy conference.”

Though Initiative Petition 28 had no realistic hope of passage,  even if it had qualified for the November 2026 Oregon state ballot,  it generated unusually vociferous denunciations from animal use industry groups as far away as Arkansas,  Montana,  and Washington D.C..

This in turn generated unusually intensive media coverage,  and eventually produced statements of opposition from the Oregon House Democrats,  Oregon governor Tina Kotek,  a Democrat up for re-election in November,  and Republican gubernatorial nominee Christine Drazan.

Organizer compared campaign to seeking women’s suffrage

Said Michelson,  “I think that any time you propose an idea that is such a minority position, it’s going to be labeled extreme.  I think that this is something that,  if we want to succeed in the future,  it will help if we start asking for it now.”

Michelson “compared the Initiative Petition 28 campaign to Oregon’s women’s suffrage movement,  which went to the ballot six times until it finally passed in 1912,  giving women the right to vote,”  Figueroa paraphrased.

Explained Michelson,  “Those organizers in their own writings and reflections on the movement mentioned that simply forcing the conversation made it more likely to happen.  So we want to do the same thing with animal rights.  We want to start advocating for these legal protections specifically in the hopes that over time we will be able to both build a stronger base of supporters,  but also start to shift public opinion closer in this direction.”

Initiative veteran comments

The most seasoned initiative campaigner in animal advocacy,  by far,  is Animal Wellness Action and Center for a Humane Economy president Wayne Pacelle.

Pacelle has compiled a 42-17 record in 59 initiative campaigns in 19 states,  according to his personal website page Post-1990 Initiative and Referendum Summary – Animal Issues.

“I don’t know David Michelson,”  Pacelle told ANIMALS 24-7,  “but I did look into this ballot measure and it seems he made a very major effort to qualify it.  He seemed to raise some substantial money.  He also seemed to know it was too far-reaching and would fail,  but thought that the measure would trigger an important discussion.

“I think it’s a good thing that the ballot measure failed to qualify,”  Pacelle ventured.

“Drubbing would be an embarrassment”

“They were serious about qualifying it but not about passing it.  Frankly,  I doubt such a measure would get even close to 25%,”  Pacelle estimated,  “and such a drubbing would be an embarrassment to the cause of animal protection.  It was headed for a landslide loss,  with no major groups with experience in ballot measures supporting it.

“Animal protection is a big tent,  with vegans and meat eaters alike,”  Pacelle emphasized.  “There are plenty of people who consider themselves animal advocates who abhor factory farming,  canned hunting,  and trapping animals for their fur,  but do not oppose fishing,  hunting,  or other uses of animals if they are conducted in a way that minimizes pain and suffering to the animals.

“I think of animal protection as heterodox,”  Pacelle said,  “and not orthodox,”  meaning “that you only get membership in the club if you are a hard-core vegan.”

“Cause is about addition,  not subtraction”

Initiative Petition 28,  Pacelle explained,  “was at odds with perhaps the majority who  themselves with animal protection.  In my book our cause is about addition,  not subtraction,  where we attract people from many backgrounds and philosophical strains,  rather than winnow our ranks by demanding orthodoxy.

“We are a stronger cause when we adhere to core values about respect for animals,”  Pacelle said,  “but don’t demand strict adherence to a no-animal-use lifestyle.

“I want to be clear that I have deep respect people who strive for moral consistency,”  Pacelle again emphasized.  “I have been a vegan for 40 years,  but I have never believe that veganism is a requirement for engagement in animal advocacy.”

Initiative Petition 28,  however,  took “a very absolutist,  orthodox view of animal protection,  and that’s just a small segment of the backers of animal protection.

Finding “the sweet spot”

“The ballot measures I’ve led to ban bear baiting,  use of body-gripping traps, cockfighting,  and extreme confinement of farm animals,”  Pacelle recounted,  “were measures that drew the support of not only more orthodox animal advocates,  but also people who ate meat and even hunted or fished.

“That’s the sweet spot you want to find in American politics,”  Pacelle explained.

“Most good people don’t want to see cruelty,  but they are okay with some forms of animal use.  We need that kind of coalition to stop horse slaughter,  animal fighting,  gestation crate confinement [of pigs], animal testing on dogs,  cats,  and primates,  live pigeon shoots,  mink farming, and so many other acute abuses,”  many of which practices were as of 1990 barely questioned by mainstream middle America,  but are now all largely rejected in the court of public opinion.

“I never launched a single ballot initiative,”  Pacelle said,  “where we didn’t start with more than 60% support on a policy reform.  Every campaign was carefully polled and assessed.  In fact,  I really wanted 65% or better to proceed.

“When we lost ballot measures,  I saw no good to come from that kind of outcome.

“Wins change political perceptions”

“When we won,”  Pacelle remembered,  “it changed political perceptions,  setting us up for a torrent of wins in state and federal legislatures,  and with corporations who finally understood that the public was aligned with us in opposing cruelty to domesticated and wild animals.

“For instance,”  Pacelle said,  “after we won on Proposition 2 in California in 2008,  to halt extreme confinement of laying hens,  breeding sows,  and veal calves,  we went on to pass 50 new state laws in California and wiped out a vast array of other forms of animal abuse and cruelty.

“That said,”  Pacelle acknowledged,  “any serious movement must take risks in trying to overcome powerful entrenched interests trying to stymie even modest reforms.

“Losing is an inevitable consequence,  at times,  even of highly strategic action.  But you learn from each loss and never want to make mistakes.

“Animals deserve our best performance,”  Pacelle concluded,  “and that means winning and establishing legal standards to prevent cruelty.”

Please donate to help our work:

More related posts: