The New Kids on the Bloc
How six councilors stuck together during Portland’s first budget vote—and shaped the outcome.
On May 21, Portland’s City Council met to approve Mayor Wilson’s $8.5 billion budget proposal. It quickly became clear that this wouldn’t be a rubber-stamp session. Over the course of 15 hours, councilors debated and voted on 25 proposed amendments to the mayor’s plan.
The headline-grabber? An eleventh-hour vote to shift $2 million from the Police Bureau to parks maintenance.
But while the decision deserved attention, the bigger story was the joint effort behind it. The amendment passed with support from a tight-knit group of six councilors who had been voting in near-lockstep throughout the day. It was the last of several narrow votes in which the group successfully recruited a seventh councilor to push their priorities through.
By the end of the night, it was clear: the group had emerged as a political force. What’s more, their strategy looked a lot like the kind of coalition politics reformers had predicted under Portland’s new proportional system.
“Our Intention is to Be Strategic”
Only four of the 25 amendment votes were unanimous. On the 21 non-unanimous votes, the following councilors landed on the same side 16 times: Candace Avalos (D1), Jamie Dunphy (D1), Sameer Kanal (D2), Tiffany Koyama Lane (D3), Angelita Morillo (D3), and Mitch Green (D4). Some councilors within the group cast the same vote as many as 19 times.
Their alignment was no fluke. In April, the same six councilors issued a press release announcing they had “united as allies” to advance shared values. Among them: economic, racial, and climate justice, support for the working class, and police accountability. The alliance traced back to the campaign trail. As early as November 2024, a newly elected Mitch Green spoke to OPB about plans to form a progressive bloc. Those efforts now appear to be bearing fruit.
“Our intention is to be strategic,” Green tells Rose City Reform. “We remember who elected us: progressives and people of color1.”
Green says the group meets regularly to discuss strategy. Yet he no longer uses the word “bloc,” believing it might lead people to assume the group always votes the same way. He prefers the label “values-aligned group.”
“We won’t always agree,” Green says, “but it’s that values-alignment that matters.”
Four of the six allies—Green, Kanal, Koyama Lane, and Morillo—are members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). All are Millennials. Avalos, Kanal, Koyama Lane, and Morillo identify as BIPOC. Three are women; three are men. Together, they represent half the council—just one vote shy of a majority.
Getting to Seven
On May 21, the allies proved adept at securing that crucial seventh vote on four separate occasions:
An amendment from Avalos to reallocate nearly $2 million from the Police Bureau to parks maintenance. Steve Novick joined to cast the deciding vote.
A Dunphy-Green amendment to raise golf tee fees and generate $1 million for parks operations. Novick again sided with the six.
An amendment from Morillo, modified by Kanal, to move $1 million from the Golf Fund to parks maintenance. Elana Pirtle-Guiney cast the seventh vote.
Another amendment from Morillo to shift over $800,000 from the Golf Fund into the Small Donor Elections program. Loretta Smith joined to make seven.
Not every attempt succeeded. Kanal’s proposal to move $3.4 million in one-time funds to the Police Oversight Board subfund—ended in a 6–6 tie, with no additional support beyond the allied councilors2. The group of six also split internally on a Dunphy-Green amendment to cut $13 million in general fund dollars from Prosper Portland. That measure failed, with only Dunphy, Green, Koyama Lane, and Morillo voting in favor.
Other councilors showed varying levels of support for amendments offered by the allied group. Steve Novick showed a slight lean towards the group; Dan Ryan opposed their proposals nearly 87% of the time.
Who’s with Whom?
So which councilors voted together most often? The chart below shows how frequently any two councilors cast the same vote—either yes or no—on non-unanimous items where both were present3.
See the large yellow-orange square in the upper left corner, indicating high agreement? That’s Avalos, Dunphy, Kanal, Koyama Lane, Morillo, and Green. For example, Koyama Lane and Morillo, who campaigned together in District 3, voted the same way 95% of the time. Compare that to Koyama Lane and Ryan, who agreed just 21% of the time.
Among the four councilors who are members of the DSA—Green, Kanal, Koyama Lane, and Morillo—the average agreement rate was 90%4. When Avalos and Dunphy are included, the average across all six drops slightly to 87%—still a high level of consistency for a group of that size.
A Few Surprises
The chart also highlights a smaller cluster of councilors whose level of agreement rivaled that of the allied six. Two are no surprise: Olivia Clark and Eric Zimmerman. The duo, who campaigned together in District 4, aligned on 95% of the votes. A more unexpected pairing? Elana Pirtle-Guiney and Zimmerman, who agreed 84% of the time—even though Pirtle-Guiney frequently canvassed with members of the allied group.
Here, context matters. Pirtle-Guiney is Council President; Zimmerman chairs the Finance Committee. Both played central roles in the budget process, and their overlap may reflect the hours spent working closely together. It could also be an early sign of a hallmark feature of proportional representation: temporary alliances between ideologically different legislators to achieve specific outcomes.
Another twist? Councilor Novick’s slight lean toward the allied group may have caught some observers off guard. During his campaign, he was often framed as the more “moderate” alternative to Koyama Lane and Morillo, due in part to his endorsement from the Portland Police Association. But in the May 21 meeting, he stood out for casting the deciding vote on the amendment to reallocate funds from police to parks—an amendment the police union strongly opposed. Other councilors endorsed by the police union—Clark, Smith, and Zimmerman—voted no.
Perhaps signaling some discomfort with that divergence, Novick later wrote in a May 28 newsletter that the decision might not be final: “It may be that on June 11th, in one way or another, the $2 million for police might be restored,” he said, referring to the approved budget’s first hearing later this month.
As Always, There’s Nuance
Looking at the pairwise agreement chart, Councilors Ryan and Smith stand out for their low alignment with the six allies. Ryan’s highest overlap was with Zimmerman at 68%; Smith’s was with Clark, also at 68%. But those numbers only tell part of the story. Both councilors showed independent streaks, occasionally casting the sole dissenting vote on amendments that otherwise passed unanimously. That pattern lowered their agreement rates not just with the allied group, but with all councilors—especially in Smith’s case.
While both registered similarly low levels of alignment with the six allies, Ryan’s voting record showed a clearer pattern of opposing amendments sponsored by members of the group.
It’s worth noting here that the agreement chart treats votes as binary—yes or no—but council decisions are often more nuanced. For example, Koyama Lane and Morillo broke with their group on a proposal to cut council office budgets—not because they disagreed with the amendment, but because they supported even deeper reductions.
A Bloc By Any Other Name
Beyond the budget vote, what impact might the allied six have on policy going forward?
If their coordination5 continues, they may come to function as a bloc—a group of legislators who vote together frequently and pursue a shared agenda. A bloc doesn’t require unanimous voting—just a consistent pattern of alignment around common priorities.
The six currently hold a majority on four of the council’s eight policy committees, increasing their chances of having bills referred to the full council for a vote. It also allows them to shape policy and public opinion early—at the stage when proposals are developed and narratives are built.
Why haven’t other councilors announced a similar alliance? Messaging may be part of the challenge. The allied six quickly claimed the “progressive” label, making it harder for others who share those values to organize under the same banner.
Three councilors outside the group—Novick, Ryan, and Smith—have previously held elected office and may be more cautious about aligning too closely with any one faction. Past experiences may have taught them that holding a group together is no small task. With time, disagreements are bound to surface—even among allies.
For now, the immediate effect may be prolonged suspense: will the six stick together—and who will join them? And beyond tactics, are there real policy differences at stake? Despite the intensity of the May 21 hearing, most disputes centered on details, not on overarching goals—such as Mayor Wilson’s $25 million overnight shelter plan.
Same Block, Different Bloc
If blocs—or coalition-style politics—are beginning to form, one thing is clear: they aren’t forming along geographic lines. In the contentious budget hearing, councilors from the same districts frequently landed on opposite sides, while alliances crossed district boundaries.
That kind of split isn’t a bug in the system—it’s a feature. When Portlanders adopted multimember districts in 2022, the goal wasn’t to elect multiple versions of the same candidate. It was to reflect a range of perspectives within each district.
On May 21, our new system did exactly that.
The first reading of the approved budget—when councilors can still propose additional changes—is scheduled for June 11. The final vote is set for June 18.
The mayor does not cast a tiebreaking vote on amendments. As a result, a tied amendment fails.
Two votes are excluded, where one or two councilors were temporarily absent.
Based on votes where all of the councilors being compared were present. This differs from votes where the entire council was present, which is why the agreement rates may vary slightly from the all-councilor chart.
Refers to the political science concept of coordination—strategic alignment or collaboration among elected officials. Oregon law restricts the level of coordination that can by done by councilors on specific votes.