diff --git a/proposals/pattern-variables.md b/proposals/pattern-variables.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..2a78cb9c0a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/proposals/pattern-variables.md
@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+# Variable declarations under disjunctive patterns
+
+## Summary  
+
+Allow variable declarations under `or` patterns and across `case` labels in a `switch` section.
+
+## Motivation
+
+This feature would reduce code duplication where we could use the same piece of code if either of patterns is satisfied. For instance:
+```cs
+if (e is (int x, 0) or (0, int x))
+    Use(x);
+  
+switch (e)
+{
+    case (int x, 0):
+    case (0, int x):
+        Use(x);
+        break;
+}
+```
+Instead of:
+
+```cs
+if (e is (int x1, 0))
+    Use(x1);
+else if (e is (0, int x2))
+    Use(x2);
+  
+switch (e)
+{
+    case (int x, 0):
+        Use(x);
+        break;
+    case (0, int x):
+        Use(x);
+        break;
+}
+```
+
+## Detailed design
+
+Variables *must* be redeclared under all disjuncitve patterns because assignment of such variables depend on the order of evaluation which is undefined in the context of pattern-matching.
+
+- In a *disjunctive_pattern*, pattern variables declared on one side must be redeclared on the other side.
+- In a *switch_section*, pattern variables declared under each case label must be redeclared under every other case label.
+
+In any other case, variable declaration follows the usual scoping rules and is disallowed.
+
+These names can reference either of variables based on the result of the pattern-matching at runtime. Under the hood, it's the same local being assigned in each pattern.
+
+Redeclaring pattern variables is only permitted for variables of the same type.
+
+## Unresolved questions
+
+- How identical these types should be?
+- Could we support variable declarations under `not` patterns?
+    ```cs
+    if (e is not (int x, 0) and not (0, int x))
+    ```
+- Could we relax the scoping rules beyond pattern boundaries?
+    ```cs
+    if (e is (int x, 0) || a is (0, int x))
+    ```
+- Could we relax the redeclaration requirement in a switch section? 
+    ```cs
+    case (int x, 0) a when Use(x, a): // ok
+    case (0, int x) b when Use(x, b): // ok
+        Use(x); // ok
+        Use(a); // error; not definitely assigned
+        Use(b); // error; not definitely assigned
+        break;
+    ```