2026 Portland & Multnomah County election results
The count
behind the result.
One county lead reversed. Council incumbents led from the start. Follow the votes that made the difference.
Preliminary Results 4
Published Nov. 5 at 4:17 p.m. Pacific.
Tabulated Nov. 5, 3:10 p.m. Later ballot updates may change the outcome.
County update schedule ↗November 5 update / Compared with November 4, 4:30 p.m.
More votes.
Same six council leaders.
The County’s November 5, 4:17 p.m. release adds more valid votes and reruns the count. All seven contests below now use this release. Results remain unofficial.
Portland council · District 3
+6,941 valid first-round votes
- Valid votes
- 57,611 → 64,552
- Election threshold
- 14,403 → 16,139
- Counting rounds
- 15 → 8
Morillo now has 103 more first-choice votes than Koyama Lane. Morillo reaches the threshold in round 7, previously round 14.
Portland council · District 4
+6,221 valid first-round votes
- Valid votes
- 53,120 → 59,341
- Election threshold
- 13,281 → 14,836
- Counting rounds
- 11 → 12
Green reaches the threshold in round 2, previously round 8. Zimmerman crosses in round 11, previously round 10. Arnold remains fourth.
The county leads also widen: Williams’s final-round margin over Cruz grows from 4,413 to 5,956; Singleton’s over Brim-Edwards grows from 28,144 to 35,251. These are revised snapshot totals, not a count of transfers between reporting dates.
Council first choices: every candidate’s change
Portland council · District 3
| Candidate | Latest | Change |
|---|---|---|
| Steve Novick | 17,992 | +1,549 |
| Angelita Morillo | 15,738 | +2,027 |
| Tiffany Koyama Lane | 15,635 | +1,912 |
| Kellie Torres | 6,540 | +577 |
| Esther León | 1,068 | +133 |
| Joel Corcoran | 1,017 | +97 |
| Matthias Hallett | 992 | +113 |
| John Sweeney | 884 | +67 |
| Keir Legree | 730 | +63 |
| Cristal Otero | 580 | +57 |
| Tom Sollitt | 570 | +57 |
| Patrick Hilton | 460 | +52 |
| Terry Parker | 421 | +47 |
| Martin Ward | 358 | +40 |
| Guy Frankenstein | 318 | +30 |
| Ali Beaudoin | 314 | +34 |
| Larry Kelly | 265 | +21 |
| Heart Free Pham | 212 | +20 |
| Kenneth (Kent) R Landgraver III | 154 | +20 |
| Kimberly Tucker | 145 | +12 |
| Darren McCormick | 128 | +13 |
| Uncertified Write In | 31 | +0 |
Final round: 8. Quota-retained totals are not first-choice totals.
Portland council · District 4
| Candidate | Latest | Change |
|---|---|---|
| Olivia Clark | 17,835 | +1,491 |
| Mitch Green | 14,688 | +1,974 |
| Eric Zimmerman | 11,487 | +1,016 |
| Eli Arnold | 5,905 | +526 |
| Jamey Evenstar | 2,645 | +369 |
| Jeremy Beausoleil Smith | 2,607 | +381 |
| Jayne Cronlund | 1,667 | +171 |
| Matt Schulte | 832 | +87 |
| Josh Leake | 619 | +83 |
| John McDonald | 489 | +50 |
| Timothy (TJ) Anderson | 375 | +61 |
| John J Goldsmith | 185 | +12 |
| Uncertified Write In | 7 | +0 |
Final round: 12. Quota-retained totals are not first-choice totals.
01 / A lead changed hands
Williams moved ahead
on the last transfer.
Bri Williams began 514 votes behind Serena Cruz. After Nathan Ong Norris was eliminated, Williams received 10,251 votes from his pile; Cruz received 2,904.
Williams finishes this snapshot at 54.41% of continuing votes.
County District 2 report ↗Where the final transfer went
Williams received 71.5% of the 14,338 votes counting for Norris in round 4. That pile included votes transferred from other candidates earlier.
This tells us how the count changed. It does not tell us why voters ranked candidates that way.
Nathan Ong Norris · elimination after round 4
02 / Two districts, six seats
The first three
stayed the final three.
In both council districts, the three candidates with the most first-choice votes are the three who reach the threshold in this snapshot. Transfers determine when they get there.
Threshold: 16,139 votes
First choices + transfers up to the threshold-crossing round. Candidates below it use the last round.
17,992 first choices
Threshold reached · round 1
15,738 first choices + 402.2369 transferred
Threshold reached · round 7
Transfer sources & amounts
- Darren McCormick8.4067
- Kenneth (Kent) R Landgraver III8.4237
- Kimberly Tucker30.3353
- Steve Novick212.6943
- Tiffany Koyama Lane138.3769
- Uncertified Write In4
15,635 first choices + 703.2186 transferred
Threshold reached · round 2
Transfer sources & amounts
- Steve Novick703.2186
6,540 first choices + 617.1641 transferred
Below threshold · final round 8
Transfer sources & amounts
- Darren McCormick11.9865
- Kenneth (Kent) R Landgraver III12.0133
- Kimberly Tucker18.5653
- Steve Novick546.1932
- Tiffany Koyama Lane26.3029
- Uncertified Write In2.1029
Threshold: 14,836 votes
First choices + transfers up to the threshold-crossing round. Candidates below it use the last round.
17,835 first choices
Threshold reached · round 1
14,688 first choices + 360.9107 transferred
Threshold reached · round 2
Transfer sources & amounts
- Olivia Clark360.9107
11,487 first choices + 4,062.3303 transferred
Threshold reached · round 11
Transfer sources & amounts
- Jayne Cronlund830.8511
- Jeremy Beausoleil Smith841.5658
- John J Goldsmith43.2057
- John McDonald152.5707
- Josh Leake180.0013
- Matt Schulte168.174
- Mitch Green37.0967
- Olivia Clark1,763.0328
- Timothy (TJ) Anderson45.8322
5,905 first choices + 1,862.9466 transferred
Below threshold · final round 12
Transfer sources & amounts
- Eric Zimmerman404.2611
- Jayne Cronlund314.8508
- Jeremy Beausoleil Smith478.1392
- John J Goldsmith6.2127
- John McDonald103.1442
- Josh Leake162.8664
- Matt Schulte86.4569
- Mitch Green8.159
- Olivia Clark234.8357
- Timothy (TJ) Anderson64.0206
District 3: Steve Novick clears the threshold immediately. Tiffany Koyama Lane crosses after his surplus transfers; Angelita Morillo crosses in round 7. Kellie Torres remains fourth.
District 4: Olivia Clark clears the threshold immediately. Mitch Green crosses in round 2; Eric Zimmerman crosses in round 11. Eli Arnold remains fourth.
The biggest early council transfers
Novick’s surplus helped Koyama Lane and Torres
Of his 1,853 surplus vote value, 703.2186 went to Koyama Lane, 546.1932 to Torres and 212.6943 to Morillo. Koyama Lane crossed the threshold in the next round.
Clark’s surplus mostly went to Zimmerman
Zimmerman received 1,763.0328 of Clark’s 2,999 surplus vote value (58.8%). Green received 360.9107; Arnold received 234.8357.
A surplus transfers fractions of ballots. These values are not numbers of distinct voters, and they are not evidence of an agreement between candidates.
Council / Incumbents and challengers
Three in four first choices
went to incumbents.
All six sitting councilors lead their races in this unofficial snapshot. Their support was already substantial before any transfers.
49,365 incumbent votes · 15,187 other votes
| Candidate | Votes | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Steve Novick | 17,992 | 27.9% |
| Angelita Morillo | 15,738 | 24.4% |
| Tiffany Koyama Lane | 15,635 | 24.2% |
| All others, including write-ins | 15,187 | 23.5% |
44,010 incumbent votes · 15,331 other votes
| Candidate | Votes | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Olivia Clark | 17,835 | 30.1% |
| Mitch Green | 14,688 | 24.8% |
| Eric Zimmerman | 11,487 | 19.4% |
| All others, including write-ins | 15,331 | 25.8% |
This is an incumbent lead, not a measurement of the advantage caused by holding office. The results alone cannot separate name recognition, performance, ideology, fundraising or challenger strength. “First choices” here means votes counted for candidates in round 1, not all ballots returned or all registered voters. Officeholders verified against the City’s roster ↗
Testing the one-third hypothesis
The final three look equal because the count fixes their retained totals.
Once a candidate reaches the threshold, surplus value moves onward and their later tally is set to the quota. These bars keep the denominator fixed at all valid first-round votes.
Portland council · District 3
Final retained vote value
16,139 each ≈ 25% each
The same three candidate colors as above.
- Three incumbents combined
- 75.0%
- Still held by other candidates
- 24.6%
- Inactive after round 1 + rounding
- 0.4%
One quota ÷ three quotas = 33⅓%. That percentage excludes the vote value outside the top three. It does not measure how many voters ranked each of them.
Portland council · District 4
Final retained vote value
14,836 each ≈ 25% each
The same three candidate colors as above.
- Three incumbents combined
- 75.0%
- Still held by other candidates
- 21.5%
- Inactive after round 1 + rounding
- 3.5%
One quota ÷ three quotas = 33⅓%. That percentage excludes the vote value outside the top three. It does not measure how many voters ranked each of them.
What the transfers add—and what they cannot tell us
Portland council · District 3
1,054.2898 vote value transferred between incumbent piles; 51.1657 moved from other candidates’ piles to incumbents; 857.1669 moved in the other direction.
These are immediate transfers. A pile can include earlier transfers, so these are neither distinct people nor exclusively that candidate’s first-choice voters.
| Candidate | Round | Vote value |
|---|---|---|
| Steve Novick | 1 | 17,992 |
| Angelita Morillo | 7 | 16,140.2369 |
| Tiffany Koyama Lane | 2 | 16,338.2186 |
Portland council · District 4
2,161.0402 vote value transferred between incumbent piles; 2,262.2008 moved from other candidates’ piles to incumbents; 1,437.2914 moved in the other direction.
These are immediate transfers. A pile can include earlier transfers, so these are neither distinct people nor exclusively that candidate’s first-choice voters.
| Candidate | Round | Vote value |
|---|---|---|
| Olivia Clark | 1 | 17,835 |
| Mitch Green | 2 | 15,048.9107 |
| Eric Zimmerman | 11 | 15,549.3303 |
The later totals are closer, but reaching the quota stops further accumulation for that candidate. These observations occur in different rounds and transferred value can appear in more than one candidate’s total. They cannot test equal popularity or be added together as unique voters.
What does 25% establish?
The threshold is a little more than one-quarter of valid first-round vote value: floor(votes ÷ 4) + 1. Each of these six candidates reached it. That is substantial electoral support, including later preferences. It is not a majority or a measure of ideology; “fringe” has no numerical definition in these results.
The City’s rules also allow remaining candidates to fill remaining seats without reaching the quota. That exception was not needed for these six candidates.
What would settle the rankings question?
Anonymous cast vote records (CVRs) would let us count each candidate’s ranks 1–6, the share ranking any incumbent, and overlapping support for the final three. Those shares can overlap and need not sum to 100%.
No November 2026 CVR download was found on the County’s results or statistics pages checked Nov. 6. Statistics are scheduled after certification; a CVR release date is not specified. The County published anonymous CVRs for 2024. Aggregate transfers cannot recover the unused rankings.
Download this analysis as JSON · Every council candidate as CSV · Definitions, sources and missing data
03 / A lead narrowed, then held
Brim-Edwards gained more.
Singleton stayed ahead.
Sharon Meieran’s transferred votes favored Julia Brim-Edwards. They narrowed Shannon Singleton’s first-round lead, but did not erase it.
Shannon Singleton
Julia Brim-Edwards
The lead narrowed from 42,818 to 35,251 votes. The separate write-in transfer added 139 to Brim-Edwards and 100 to Singleton; 352 became inactive.
County chair report ↗Sharon Meieran · elimination after round 1
What the percentages mean
A majority of which votes?
In the two contested county races, the final percentage uses votes still counting for a candidate. It excludes votes that became inactive during transfers.
Bri Williams
5,684 became inactive after round 1 (7.8%).
Shannon Singleton
12,422 became inactive after round 1 (4.9%).
Neither denominator is turnout. The JSON omits ballots already inactive before the first round. It also does not explain the reason each later ballot becomes inactive. These figures cannot measure ballot-error rates.
04 / Check any contest
Every candidate.
Every reported round.
Follow candidate colors through the count. Switch to Transfers only to magnify the smaller flows, highlight a sender, or open a bar for exact amounts. The last round is selected first.
County commissioner · District 2
Official report ↗Round 5: Bri Williams reaches the threshold in this snapshot.
Who contributed to each candidate’s total?
Each bar adds first choices and transfers received. Votes sent onward are shown separately below it.
Colors identify the immediate sender, not necessarily a voter’s original first choice. Open any bar for exact amounts.
Serena Cruz30,776 received30,776 still held · 45.59%Continuing in this roundSources & amounts
| Source | Vote value |
|---|---|
| Serena Cruz · first choices | 23,069 |
| From Bruce Broussard | 1,267 |
| From Herman Greene | 694 |
| From Nabil Zaghloul | 2,444 |
| From Nathan Ong Norris | 2,904 |
| From Tony Robertson | 395 |
| From Uncertified Write In | 3 |
| Total received | 30,776 |
Bri Williams36,732 received36,732 still held · 54.41%Threshold reached · round 5Sources & amounts
| Source | Vote value |
|---|---|
| Bri Williams · first choices | 22,555 |
| From Bruce Broussard | 1,581 |
| From Herman Greene | 712 |
| From Nabil Zaghloul | 1,233 |
| From Nathan Ong Norris | 10,251 |
| From Tony Robertson | 399 |
| From Uncertified Write In | 1 |
| Total received | 36,732 |
Nathan Ong Norris14,338 received14,338 received − 14,338 sent onward = 0 still heldTransferred out after round 4Sources & amounts
| Source | Vote value |
|---|---|
| Nathan Ong Norris · first choices | 12,467 |
| From Bruce Broussard | 602 |
| From Herman Greene | 188 |
| From Nabil Zaghloul | 836 |
| From Tony Robertson | 243 |
| From Uncertified Write In | 2 |
| Total received | 14,338 |
Colors describe receipts before onward transfers. The aggregate report does not identify which incoming source supplied each onward transfer, so it cannot establish an exact color breakdown of the 0 still held.
Nabil Zaghloul6,149 received6,149 received − 6,149 sent onward = 0 still heldTransferred out after round 3Sources & amounts
| Source | Vote value |
|---|---|
| Nabil Zaghloul · first choices | 5,106 |
| From Herman Greene | 637 |
| From Tony Robertson | 403 |
| From Uncertified Write In | 3 |
| Total received | 6,149 |
Colors describe receipts before onward transfers. The aggregate report does not identify which incoming source supplied each onward transfer, so it cannot establish an exact color breakdown of the 0 still held.
Bruce Broussard5,199 received5,199 received − 5,199 sent onward = 0 still heldTransferred out after round 3Sources & amounts
| Source | Vote value |
|---|---|
| Bruce Broussard · first choices | 4,043 |
| From Herman Greene | 814 |
| From Tony Robertson | 340 |
| From Uncertified Write In | 2 |
| Total received | 5,199 |
Colors describe receipts before onward transfers. The aggregate report does not identify which incoming source supplied each onward transfer, so it cannot establish an exact color breakdown of the 0 still held.
Herman Greene3,720 received3,720 received − 3,720 sent onward = 0 still heldTransferred out after round 2Sources & amounts
| Source | Vote value |
|---|---|
| Herman Greene · first choices | 3,443 |
| From Tony Robertson | 274 |
| From Uncertified Write In | 3 |
| Total received | 3,720 |
Colors describe receipts before onward transfers. The aggregate report does not identify which incoming source supplied each onward transfer, so it cannot establish an exact color breakdown of the 0 still held.
Bars stay in first-round order; lengths show all receipts, including vote value later sent onward. Percentages refer to votes still held: as a share of continuing votes in this round. A vote can pass through several candidates; receipts across candidates must not be added as unique voters. Fractional amounts are vote value.
Every transfer through round 5 · data table
| After round | From | To | Vote value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Uncertified Write In | Bri Williams | 1 |
| 1 | Uncertified Write In | Bruce Broussard | 2 |
| 1 | Uncertified Write In | Herman Greene | 3 |
| 1 | Uncertified Write In | Nabil Zaghloul | 3 |
| 1 | Uncertified Write In | Nathan Ong Norris | 2 |
| 1 | Uncertified Write In | Serena Cruz | 3 |
| 1 | Uncertified Write In | Became inactive | 27 |
| 1 | Tony Robertson | Bri Williams | 399 |
| 1 | Tony Robertson | Bruce Broussard | 340 |
| 1 | Tony Robertson | Herman Greene | 274 |
| 1 | Tony Robertson | Nabil Zaghloul | 403 |
| 1 | Tony Robertson | Nathan Ong Norris | 243 |
| 1 | Tony Robertson | Serena Cruz | 395 |
| 1 | Tony Robertson | Became inactive | 414 |
| 2 | Herman Greene | Bri Williams | 712 |
| 2 | Herman Greene | Bruce Broussard | 814 |
| 2 | Herman Greene | Nabil Zaghloul | 637 |
| 2 | Herman Greene | Nathan Ong Norris | 188 |
| 2 | Herman Greene | Serena Cruz | 694 |
| 2 | Herman Greene | Became inactive | 675 |
| 3 | Bruce Broussard | Bri Williams | 1,581 |
| 3 | Bruce Broussard | Nathan Ong Norris | 602 |
| 3 | Bruce Broussard | Serena Cruz | 1,267 |
| 3 | Bruce Broussard | Became inactive | 1,749 |
| 3 | Nabil Zaghloul | Bri Williams | 1,233 |
| 3 | Nabil Zaghloul | Nathan Ong Norris | 836 |
| 3 | Nabil Zaghloul | Serena Cruz | 2,444 |
| 3 | Nabil Zaghloul | Became inactive | 1,636 |
| 4 | Nathan Ong Norris | Bri Williams | 10,251 |
| 4 | Nathan Ong Norris | Serena Cruz | 2,904 |
| 4 | Nathan Ong Norris | Became inactive | 1,183 |
Exactly what moved into round 5
Nathan Ong Norris: elimination
| Destination | Votes |
|---|---|
| Bri Williams | 10,251 |
| Serena Cruz | 2,904 |
| Became inactive | 1,183 |
All candidates and rounds · data table
| Candidate | Round 1 | Round 2 | Round 3 | Round 4 | Round 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Serena Cruz | 23,069 | 23,467 | 24,161 | 27,872 | 30,776 |
| Bri Williams | 22,555 | 22,955 | 23,667 | 26,481 | 36,732 |
| Nathan Ong Norris | 12,467 | 12,712 | 12,900 | 14,338 | — |
| Nabil Zaghloul | 5,106 | 5,512 | 6,149 | — | — |
| Bruce Broussard | 4,043 | 4,385 | 5,199 | — | — |
| Herman Greene | 3,443 | 3,720 | — | — | — |
| Tony Robertson | 2,468 | — | — | — | — |
| Uncertified Write In | 41 | — | — | — | — |
Tabulated November 05 2026 03:10:48 PM · Download official JSON · Official CSV
Sources / Reproduce the analysis
The evidence
is yours to inspect.
Download the official round files, normalized data, source links and checksums. No login required. The ZIP contains everything used here, including documented gaps.
What this snapshot can and cannot establish
One update, not a final outcome
These seven reports are Preliminary Results 4, published Nov. 5 at 4:17 p.m. Pacific. They were tabulated Nov. 5 between 3:10:39 and 3:10:48 p.m. The City reports consolidate Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas county results. The County’s schedule lists certification by Nov. 30.
The underlying JSON calls threshold-crossing candidates “elected.” Here they are described as reaching the threshold in this snapshot. Subsequent updates rerun the count with more ballots. The November 4 afternoon snapshot and earlier midnight snapshot remain available separately.
Vote value is accounted for
All candidate tallies in the five RCV CSVs match their JSON counterparts. Every transfer reconciles to the next round, preserving four decimal places. The ZIP includes two transcriptions of the non-RCV source tables, with their inconsistent total and undervote fields flagged.
Each round is a step in one tabulation, not an update over time. Colors identify the immediate transfer sender, not necessarily the original first choice. Receipt bars include vote value later sent onward; the explorer separately reports how much remains held. The aggregate files cannot trace each ballot through multiple transfers. No vote margin estimates ballots remaining or a certified result.
Different rules, different denominators
Council races fill three seats with a fixed threshold. Surpluses move fractional vote value. One-seat RCV contests use a threshold recalculated from continuing votes. The County’s counting guide explains both systems.
The JSON’s inactive values cover transfers after round 1 only. Rounding remainders are kept separate. See the official file documentation.
What is still unknown
These reports do not supply individual ballots, precinct patterns, voter demographics or reasons for rankings. They do not establish whether campaign spending caused a result. Our campaign-finance explorer remains a separate source of evidence.
The County auditor and sheriff table totals do not reconcile. Their candidate counts are reproduced as reported; turnout and blank-ballot comparisons are withheld.