PORTLAND — In three elections, three out of every four people who bothered to vote supported giving more funds to a fire district in central Oregon’s high desert. That wasn’t enough, because in this state, not bothering has about the same effect as voting no.

First and only in many things, Oregon is the only state in the nation where local tax increases and other funding measures on the ballot require not only the support of a majority of voters, but the participation of at least half the people registered to vote.

Voters approved the “double majority” law in 1996 in a measure that also cut property taxes. Supporters say it’s not right for tax increases to be imposed on people if most don’t bother to vote.

Critics say the law makes it unnecessarily difficult for local districts to raise tax money, especially in a state that makes it exceptionally easy to vote. Oregon is the only state where all voting is done by mail, and every registered voter is mailed a ballot.

The law has caused turmoil in Oregon communities, scuttling plans for schools, parks, libraries and other projects. The law has caused the failure of 169 local tax increases that otherwise would have passed.

It has thwarted the majority even in instances such as a 2000 bond issue vote for Portland Community College. The measure won a 59-41 majority among voters, large enough so that even if the 4,000 nonvoters required to make the 50 percent threshold had all voted no, it still would have passed.

Other states have minimum turnout requirements, but none as high as Oregon’s. Arizona will vote on a law similar to Oregon’s on Nov. 4.

Oregon voters have rejected one attempt to repeal the law, and will decide on a measure Nov. 4 to modify it.

Measure 56 would exempt May primary and November general elections, which have the highest turnout. Currently, only the general election in even-numbered years is exempt from the requirement.

The effect would be to require double majorities only in elections reserved for local issues, which tend to attract fewer votes.

Jim Gustafson, fire chief for Central Oregon’s LaPine Rural Fire Protection District, is among those who hope the measure passes. He is responsible for 1,000 square miles of ambulance protection and 115 square miles of fire coverage in vast swaths of juniper and sagebrush.

Funding measures for the district have failed three times, with voter turnout approaching but never reaching 50 percent. Gustafson said the failed measures have forced him to cut staff and juggle remaining crews.

He said other agencies have had to answer 52 calls that have come in this year when both paramedic stations were empty.

“If it takes more than 20 or 30 minutes to reach a heart attack victim,” he said, “the outcome often isn’t good.”

Levies like those in LaPine are what comes to the mind of Oregon Senate Majority Leader Richard Devlin as he works against the double-majority law.

“Some are sewer or library measures with little impact outside of small areas,” he said. “Others involve public safety measures that hit hard and wide.”

Aside from the financial impact of the double-majority law on local communities, Devlin and other critics say there’s a fairness issue. He said it’s wrong that people who don’t vote have the same power as those who do.

Anti-tax activist Bill Sizemore, who pushed for the law, said the double-majority requirement was designed to prevent local governments from slipping tax increases onto low-turnout ballots.

“Before the double majority, tax measures commonly were approved by 10 to 15 percent of the voters,” Sizemore said. “Maybe 85 to 95 percent didn’t vote for it, but they had to pay for it. It was a rigged game. The idea was to get a low turnout that will vote yes.”

Assessing the measure’s chances, Bill Lunch, a political analyst and political science professor at Oregon State University, says attitudes have shifted in Oregon, and the conservative, anti-tax sentiment at its peak in the 1990s has waned.   Since it is on a statewide ballot, Measure 56 won’t require a double majority — a majority of votes would pass it. And because it will be on the general election ballot in an even-numbered year, the same is true for the LaPine district’s upcoming fourth effort to get more funding.