Oregon legislation

Help overturn Oregon's Sanctuary Statute - gather signatures for IP #22

Alert date: 
July 21, 2017
Alert body: 

Oregon was the first state in the country to pass a "sanctuary" statute 30 years ago.

Today, with illegal aliens causing a myriad of problems in states across the country, it makes no sense to have laws that prohibit law enforcement officers from aiding in the enforcement of our Federal immigration laws.

Illegal aliens are not and should not be a "protected class" of people, allowed to break our laws if it suits their purposes. 

Oregonians for Immigration Reform and three Oregon Legislators (Rep. Sal Esquivel, Rep. Greg Barreto and Rep. Mike Nearman) are working to overturn Oregon Revised Statute 181A.820 - Oregon's Sanctuary Statute - to allow law enforcement to more easily assist ICE in removing criminal aliens from our communities.

Please help OFIR by volunteering to collect the needed signatures of your friends, family, at events you attend etc. to get this initiative on the November 2018 General Election ballot. Voters can tell our Oregon Legislature, loud and clear,  to stop shielding people in our country illegally. Remove the state statute that prohibits law enforcement officials from working with ICE to remove criminal aliens from our state!

Call 503.435.0141 to request signature sheets.  If you get the answering machine, please leave the following information:


FULL Mailing address  - including County

Telephone number

How many TEN line signature sheets you would like OFIR to send to you

Let's get busy!

Thank you!


Please visit the Stop Oregon Sanctuaries website!

Oregon legislators push to allow police to enforce immigration laws

Three Oregon legislators are spearheading an initiative petition that would repeal the Oregon law prohibiting local and state police from enforcing federal immigration laws.

Rep. Mike Nearman, R-Independence, Rep. Sal Esquivel, R-Medford, and Rep. Greg Barreto, R-Pendleton, certified a ballot title with the Elections Division for Initiative Petition 2018-022, which is proposed for the November 6, 2018 General Election.

The trio is hoping voters will support repealing Oregon Statute 181.850 [ORS 181A.820], which states law enforcement agencies may not use agency money, equipment or personnel to detect or apprehend people who are only violating federal immigration laws by being foreign citizens in the United States.

Oregonians for Immigration Reform, an organization calling for an end to illegal immigration, is "cosigning" the initiative, said communications director Jim Ludwick.

"Every nation has a sovereign right to set its own immigration policies and we believe the state statute is in violation of federal law," Ludwick said. "People should have the chance to vote on this."

Ludwick said OFIR plans to lead a community campaign which includes providing information to residents an gathering signatures for the initiative at places like the Oregon State Fair and other public venues.

"We're going to start a vigorous process to make sure we overturn the sanctuary state of Oregon," Ludwick said.

88,184 signatures are required to certify the initiative for a ballot measure, according to the Oregon Secretary of State Elections Division.

Rep. Nearman and Rep. Barreto did not respond to requests for comment. Rep. Esquivel was out of state and could not be reached by publication time.

Andrea Williams, executive director of immigrant rights organization Causa Oregon, said Causa has been keeping an eye on the initiative ever since it was filed.

"The last thing we need is our local law enforcement resources being used for federal immigration purposes," Williams said.

She said Causa has passed 14 inclusivity resolutions across Oregon cities and counties that vow to not allow city resources to be used to enforce federal immigration law. Salem City Councilors voted unanimously to pass the resolution in February.

Williams said the initiative would undue the bipartisan effort in 1987 that brought ORS 181.850 into law, which she says was in response to accusations of police racial profiling.

When President Donald Trump released an executive order that halted federal funding to sanctuary cities and allowed law enforcement to perform the functions of immigration officers in January, local and state police officials said they would not alter the way they operate.

Salem Police, Marion County Sheriff's Office and Oregon State Police stated they would follow state law as long as it an Oregon statute.

Ludwick said, however, local and state law enforcement should follow federal law.

"People need to understand the cost of illegal aliens on the state of Oregon," Ludwick said. "Everybody has to obey the law."

The prospective petition, which was initially filed on April 25, is currently in an appeal period. Registered voters have the opportunity to submit comments and requests for the Oregon Supreme Court to review the ballot until Monday, July 31.

For questions, comments and news tips, email reporter Lauren Hernandez at lehernande@statesmanjournal.com , call 503-983-6030 or follow on Twitter @LaurenPorFavor


Lane County commissioners weigh protections for local unauthorized immigrants

Lane County commissioners on Tuesday could add new language to the county’s policy manual barring county employees from using public funds to enforce federal immigration laws in most cases.

A board order commissioners are scheduled to vote on Tuesday would add a provision to the Lane County Manual, under “foreign citizenship,” banning the use of money, equipment or personnel for “detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is that they are persons of foreign citizenship present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.”

The language would allow county staff to help if a federal judge had ordered a person to be arrested for violating federal immigration law. However, such situations appear to be extremely rare.

The language virtually echoes Oregon law, as well as an ordinance the Eugene City Council approved in March. The Oregon law applies to the state and to all political subdivisions in the state, including county governments.

The county move comes amid a national debate over so-called “sanctuary city” policies, and efforts by liberal-leaning states that don’t want to use local staff and money to enforce stricter federal immigration policies sought by President Donald Trump’s administration.

The proposed Lane Manual change puts into county rules the policies already practiced by agencies such as the Lane County Sheriff’s Office and Lane County Health and Human Services, county officials say.

The proposal “makes it more clear at a local level how (state law) plays out here for the county,” Lane County spokeswoman Devon Ashbridge said. “So it’s valuable in that sense. It takes a look specifically at county services and how it will guide how employees will work within that framework.”

The language doesn’t violate state or federal law, Ashbridge said. A provision permits the sheriff’s office to give information to federal immigration agencies about someone arrested for a criminal offense.

It also authorizes the sheriff’s office to arrest anyone charged with violating federal immigration law if a federal judge issues an arrest warrant.

But Lane County Sheriff’s Office Sgt. Carrie Carver said the agency is “not aware of any specific cases” of someone being arrested solely on a such an order. Typically, the federal government arrests illegal immigrants without a judge’s order.

Members of the public have spoken up at recent county commissioners’ meetings about protecting local unauthorized immigrants who haven’t committed any crimes besides entering and living in the country unlawfully.

In November, Lane County, mayors of nine cities and other organizations co-signed a statement of unity vowing to protect marginalized residents such as immigrants.

But dozens of speakers and numerous letter writers have urged local governments such as the city of Eugene and Lane County to go further and commit to not help in federal deportation arrests — even though such assistance is already prohibited by state law.

Follow Elon on Twitter @EGlucklich . Email elon.glucklich@registerguard.com .

For our friends in Lane County - take action now!

Alert date: 
July 9, 2017
Alert body: 

The election is over and President Trump won.  His campaign focal point was to, once and for all, reign in the rampant disregard for our immigration laws and to finally put citizens first.

Now, it seems that many counties, cities, schools etc. have been whipped up into a frenzy by the paid advocates of unfettered immigration and open borders.  They seem to be trying to scare the very people they are supposed to be advocating for.  Why?

When ICE was contacted about the charges made that they are conducting sweeps across the state, they explained they haven't, they don't and they won't enforce our immigration laws in such a way.  But, open border advocates can't get the emotional driver they need unless they enhance the stories they hear far beyond the reality.

Unfortunately, citizens once again, take a back seat to illegal aliens.  Why on earth are these entities creating "safe havens" for people here illegally?  Are these Commissioners, Mayors, Professors etc, willing to accept the responsibility and the cost of harboring illegal aliens?  I doubt it - that's what they have the tax-payer for.  You get to pay for schools, healthcare, prisons, roads and on and on...

And, one last note.  It was mentioned that the idea was to "protect" people whose only issue was being in the country illegally.  Typically, an illegal alien obtains a stolen identity, typically, they are working here illegally, hired by a business that is using illegal labor,  They may also be getting paid under the table - that's tax fraud.  How are they getting around - probably driving without a license or insurance.  Is it fair to break certain laws, if it benefits the law breaker?

Lane County will be holding a meeting and anyone able to attend should be there and speak up against this sick policy.

ANARCHIC: Criminal aliens shielded by Left's symbolism

SALEM, Ore.-Democrats in the Senate today passed a proposal that will force Oregonians to obstruct justice by restraining them from cooperating with law enforcement in dealing with criminals at public schools, public health facilities, courthouses, public shelters and other public facilities.

"This bill is all about the 'undocumented,' and while it serves as a symbol for the Left, it is in reality a shield for criminal aliens to avoid justice," said state Sen. Alan Olsen, R-Canby. "Democrats have used the politics of fear to ignite division and they have stoked fear in the hearts of undocumented workers. Making it possible for criminal aliens to evade justice not only makes Oregonians less safe, it also puts undocumented immigrants in danger."
Olsen asked a series of questions to the carrier, Senate Majority Leader Ginny Burdick, D-Portland. He said the bill is nothing more than a "Trump bill." Olsen said that the senators took their oath to uphold the constitutions of both Oregon and the United States, and that everyone said "yes," or that he hopes they did. 
While Oregon Democrats are bidding to block and deny federal law enforcement legal access to critical information that would help ensure public safety, Union-backed Democrats, formally requested information from the federal government about federal law enforcement activities in Oregon.

Murder victims advocate and child of an immigrant Maria Espinoza has worked across the nation to stand up for the victims of violent lawlessness. Espinoza spoke out on the horrific slaying of college football player Parker Moore. Moore was brutally stabbed to death as he shopped in a convenience store. The unprovoked perpetrator of this tragedy violated multiple laws. Espinoza is worried sick about HB 3464 and is urging Oregon lawmakers to oppose the bill. 
"How will you explain to the families of Parker Moore, Dani Countryman and others, that you had a part in making our communities dangerous for our children?" questioned Espinoza. "To move forward [in passing HB 3464] would be an outrage."
Espinoza recalled in an interview on her advocacy work how a relative, a World War II veteran, had his monthly pension cut from $240 a month to $200 - "and yet there were people illegally in the country who got everything free."
"And sadly, shamefully, I never did anything about it," she said. "For years."
Richard LaMountain, a Cedar Mill resident, served as a chief petitioner of the rejected 2014 initiative, Measure 88, which would have directed the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to issue at taxpayer-expense driver licenses to criminal aliens. The measure failed in the Nov. 4 election with a two-thirds no vote.
"It was an overwhelming rejection of giving drivers' licenses to illegal aliens," said Jim Ludwick, communications director for Oregonians for Immigration Reform in an interview about Measure 88. "But somehow that doesn't apply to people who are here illegally and think the law doesn't apply to them." 
Familias En Accion and Los Ninos Cuentan, on behalf of criminal aliens, sued the State of Oregon following voters defeating Measure 88. Their lawsuit was an effort to undo Oregonians' votes for Measure 88. Kristina Edmunson, then-spokeswoman for Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, said during the dilemma the state "is reviewing the case" but declined to comment further.
"When used for the intent of thwarting potential referenda, the emergency clause perverts the relationship between Oregonians and the legislators they elect to represent them," LaMountain said. "We need to restore that clause to its proper, limited role in lawmaking - and the voice of the citizen, as manifested in the referendum, to its paramount place in Oregon's representative democracy." 
"We should provide support for [law enforcement] and not support criminal behavior," Marion County resident Karen Franke said. Franke disagrees with Democrats that criminals should be shielded from accountability.
Rosenblum says the passage of HB 3464, "is imperative." And that Oregon must take "this important step to protect the rights of all Oregonians."
The bill now heads to sanctuary state-advocate and presumed leader of the Trump so-called "resistance" movement Gov. Kate Brown to sign into law.
For follow-up commentary please contact Olsen spokesman Jonathan Lockwood at 971-645-2140, or Jonathan.Lockwood@OregonLegislature.gov.

Oregon Republicans shrug off politics, extend benefits to undocumented children

Oregon Republicans took the lead in arguing for spending $36 million on health care for undocumented Oregon children during a Monday session.

The “cover all kids” Senate Bill 558 passed the body on a 21-8 vote. The bill now proceeds to the House where it's likely to find favor with the majority Democrats.

Senate Republican Leader Ted Ferrioli, R-John Day, said he’ll take a shellacking for his ‘yes” vote on the bill from constituents who believe extending benefits encourages illegal immigration.

“I can hear the town hall questions; I can write them,” he said.

“I will look at folks with anger in their eyes and they will not listen to the answer that it is less expensive (to provide coverage),” Ferrioli said, finally adding, “Folks can sharpen their knives and load up. I’ll be in the district after the session is over. I can answer the questions then just as I can now.”

The bill would extend coverage under the Oregon Health Plan to an estimated 15,000 children in the state who otherwise would be prohibited from signing up because they lack legal residency status.

Gov. Kate Brown highlighted the cover all kids program as a priority in her proposed budget. Ninety-eight percent of Oregon children are covered today. The bill, which takes effect Jan. 1, would bring the proportion even higher.

A hospital provider tax of 1.7 percent on large hospitals and 4 percent on small hospitals passed in June will pay for the expansion, according to legislative documents.

Sen. Jeff Kruse, R-Roseburg, carried the bill to the Senate floor and made the case that it is really a conservative bill. Children don’t go completely without care, he said. When they turn up sick at hospitals, hospitals have to treat them, and that’s the most expensive way to treat them.

“I know about the optics of this thing. We could get wrapped up in sanctuary this, sanctuary that. We could get wrapped up with immigration this or immigration that,” Kruse said. “This is not about the optics or the politics. This is about health care at a reasonable cost.”

Passing the bill will bring relief to hospitals large and small across the state.

“We have asked hospitals to step up in a major way with the provider tax,” Kruse said. “Now to ask them to absorb (emergency department) care for these kids is just one more ask. That is an ask too much. ...

“Chances are I’m going to take some political hits for this too, but quite honestly, I don’t give a damn. I don’t care about politics, I care about policy and I care about doing the right thing.”

Not all Republicans favored the bill.

“My priority are services to veterans who fought and have been injured for this country and for this state,” said Sen. Tim Knopp, R-Bend, who voted no. “We have not taken care of them the way we need to. If there are tens of millions of dollars, we need to start there.

“We can work our way to seniors who need care in their homes, those with disabilities, those who are vulnerable -- and there are many Oregonians who are in need,” he said.

All Senate Democrats voted in favor of the bill. Sen. Arnie Roblan, D-Coos Bay, a high school principal, said schools must teach all the children who turn up. “They only learn when they’re healthy,” he said.

Sen. Laurie Monnes Anderson, D-Gresham, is a public health nurse.

“Every child needs health care regardless of where they were born,” she said. “It is the moral and right thing to do. A child is not responsible for who their parents are, whether they’re legal or illegal, whether they’re rich or whether they’re poor.”

Democrats get aggressive on approving bills in final days of session

SALEM — After a session of restraint, Ore­gon’s Democratic lawmakers are flexing the power of their big majorities in Salem as the final bell approaches.

For months, Democrats have held back many controversial policy bills, as they pursued needed Republican votes on three major tax increases. Doing so, they hoped, would avoid antagonizing GOP leaders and swing votes.

But with a major new tax on health care providers already passed, a package of transportation taxes and fees moving forward, and a new corporate tax dead, Democrats are being more aggressive.

This week, they advanced a bill requiring Ore­gon insurers to cover abortions, among other reproductive health services, for women without charging them any out-of-pocket expense.

And they moved to extend government-funded health insurance to many unauthorized immigrants under age 19.

Those hot-button social policies are big priorities for key Democrat constituencies, but most Republican lawmakers oppose them.

Some Democrats also want to change the election rules for any bill passed this session that’s successfully referred to voters. The idea drew angry accusations of “electioneering” and “turnout suppression” from Republicans this week.

Immigrants’ health care

In the final days of the session, Democrats expect to pass a bill that would enroll an estimated 15,000 young unauthorized immigrants into the Oregon Health Plan, the state’s version of Medicaid.

Thanks to $550 million in recently approved taxes on hospitals and health insurance companies, lawmakers have identified the projected $36 million needed to pay for that health insurance coverage for the next two years.

The minors, but not their parents, would become eligible for medical and dental services starting in 2018.

Unlike for the rest of the Medicaid population, where the federal government picks up most of the tab, the state will have to pay the full bill for the young immigrants.

But supporters say Senate Bill 558 is a humane and sensible idea.

“This means that children in our state will no longer suffer from preventable illness or death,” Linda Roman of the Ore­gon Latino Health Coalition told lawmakers this week.

Women’s health bill

Democrats are forging ahead with a women’s health bill that is controversial mostly because of its provisions on abortions.

House Bill 3391 would require Oregon insurers to provide a wide array of reproductive health care services, including abortions, to women for free.

Those services also include birth control, prenatal and postpartum care, screenings for sexually transmitted diseases, cervical and breast cancer, breastfeeding support and supplies, and counseling for domestic violence victims and tobacco cessation.

In an attempt at compromise, the latest version of HB 3391 would exempt religious employers from having to provide health plans with abortion coverage. Instead, it would set aside $500,000 in new state funds to provide abortions for their workers through the Oregon Health Authority.

Sen. James Manning, a Eugene Democrat, said Thursday he supports the bill.

“Why are we bickering about women’s reproductive health care, but not about men’s health care?” he said.

But Republican lawmakers objected to the new state funding for abortions, which they said could pay for around 300 procedures.

“It is difficult to be accused of being discriminatory for expressing a pro-life view,” House Republican Leader Mike McLane of Powell Butte said. “Many of us believe that a human life is ended with an abortion.”

SB 558 and HB 3391 were voted through to the floor of the Senate and the House, respectively, on Thursday evening.

Both votes fell largely along party lines, with Democrats in support and Republicans opposed.

Voter referral rule rewrite

The proposal to temporarily rewrite the rules for voter referrals, meanwhile, caused a partisan firestorm in the Capitol this week.

Under the bill, lawmakers — not the Oregon attorney general — would get to draft the initial ballot title and explanatory statement for any bill passed in the 2017 session that is successfully referred to voters.

Majority Democrats would get four of the six seats on the committee drafting the ballot materials. The committee’s final product could be appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court.

While the details of ballot drafting can seem arcane, the wording that voters see can have a significant impact on a measure’s chances of success.

The bill also would set a special election date in January 2018 for any referrals, as opposed to November’s general election.

Democrats say their target is an embryonic campaign aimed at referring to voters the $550 million in new taxes on health care “providers.”

If that campaign gathers enough signatures, under current law, the taxes would have to be suspended until the question goes voters in November 2018.

That would jeopardize health insurance for more than one million Ore­gonians on Medicaid, said Rep. Dan Rayfield, a Corvallis Democrat, because the state is relying on the new taxes to fund those services for the next two years.

A vote in January 2018, on the other hand, would allow lawmakers to fill the Medicaid budget hole during the 2018 short session in February should voters reject the taxes, he argued.

“Leaving the whole process up to chance would be a failure on our part,” Rayfield said.

But Republicans were incensed by the move.

Rep. Julie Parrish, a West Linn Republican who expects to work on the campaign to strike down the provider tax, called it a “travesty for voters.”

Turnout in a January special election is guaranteed to be low, she said, and bypassing the November election “is akin to voter suppression.”

“We have a referendum process that creates a check on our power,” she wrote in an email. “We should not steal that process from voters to strengthen the power of politicians and special interests.”

Republican Secretary of State Dennis Richardson, meanwhile, decried the proposal as “political shenanigans.”

The proposed ballot writing process “subverts the nonpartisan process for drafting a ballot title by injecting partisan politics and political bias,” he said.

But Rayfield said the accusations of partisanship around the ballot drafting were unfounded.

“Opponents often feel that going through the Attorney General is political too,” he said. “A bipartisan committee gives us a better chance for finding consensus” on ballot language.

The House Rules Committee could approve the referral changes as soon as Friday.

To place the Medicaid tax before voters, Parrish will need to gather more than 58,000 signatures within a 90-day window.

Follow Saul on Twitter @SaulAHubbard . Email saul.hubbard@registerguard.com .

Oregon House votes to expand privacy for undocumented immigrants

A bill that would limit the assistance of schools, courts and other public agencies in federal immigration enforcement passed the Oregon House of Representatives Tuesday.

Under the bill, public institutions would be prohibited from disclosing personal information such as a workplace or phone number to federal immigration authorities unless that disclosure is required by federal law.

The bill was introduced by Reps. Teresa Alonso Leon, D-Woodburn, and Diego Hernandez, D-Portland, and passed 35-23 along party lines...

Alonso Leon and Hernandez, along with 26 House and seven Senate Democrats...wish to increase privacy for immigrants "in response to recent Immigrations and Customs Enforcement raids throughout the state," according to a news release by House Democrats...

The bill would also prohibit public agencies from collecting information about a person's immigration status...

A statement from House Republicans called the bill "an attempt to subvert federal immigration policy."

"This bill would make it nearly impossible for state and local law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration officials and would allow even individuals who have been convicted of serious crimes to escape immigration enforcement," Rep. Andy Olson, R-Albany, said in a statement.

During the House session, Rep. Greg Barreto, R-Cove, read a letter from Immigration and Customs Enforcement representative Melissa Nitsch, who said the agency "does not conduct raids, sweeps, or checkpoints, or conduct random enforcement activity," but rather does "targeted, lead-driven enforcement" on individuals the agency deems a threat to public safety.

As a sanctuary state, Oregon already prohibits the use of state and local resources in federal immigration enforcement if a person's only crime is being in the country illegally...

Next OFIR meeting - Saturday, June 24 at 2:00pm

Alert date: 
June 15, 2017
Alert body: 

Mark your calendar and invite a friend to join you Saturday, June 24th at 2:00pm for OFIR's next meeting at the Best Western Mill Creek Inn, across from Costco in Salem, OR.

Things are heating up in the Oregon Legislature as time is running short and so many things are yet unresolved.  OFIR has invited Representatives Greg Barreto and Mike Nearman to join us.  Your questions are welcome and encouraged as time allows!

Initiative Petition #22  - to overturn Oregon's Sanctuary Statute ORS 181A.820 is now in the hands of the Attorney General, awaiting a ballot title.  Perhaps by meeting day, we will have a ballot title.

OFIR has been closely monitoring HB 3464 and it's particularly troubling legislation.  Read the press release.  The bill has now advanced to the House Floor and OFIR members are encouraged to phone or email their Representatives and encourage them to vote no on this terrible bill.

As usual, our agenda is packed with the most up-to-date information regarding recent immigration issues here in Oregon and across the country.



HB 3464 -State Rep. Barreto explains why this legislation is bad for Oregon

Alert date: 
June 14, 2017
Alert body: 
My Eastern Oregon

OREGON: House Bill 3464 Issued by Barreto

Posted on June 12, 2017

Representative Greg Barreto has issued a statement on House Bill 3464, The Governors sanctuary state bill.  That statement can be viewed below.

House Bill 3464, the Governor’s sanctuary state bill, had a public hearing in the House Committee on Rules. Our office has received numerous calls and emails from constituents opposing this bill, and I want to shed some light on my position, where we are in this process, and what you can do to help.

HB 3464 came about based on the Governor and other Democrat leaders’ desire to oppose federal immigration laws. As President Trump seeks to regain control over lax immigration policy, Oregon leaders have used it as an opportunity to bolster the liberal agenda by using appeals to emotion and fear about deportation in Oregon, effectively creating an environment where being in favor of immigration reform and enforcement is equated to bigotry and racial prejudice.

The mistruth of that narrative is sort of insignificant in the climate we live in here in Oregon. Daily we see emotionally driven narratives fly out of Democrat offices and they are spread as truth, and any argument against is considered uninformed or hateful. Unfortunately, these so called “truths” are often very effective calls to action.

For example, late last week our office received a press release from the House Majority (Democrat) Office about the upcoming hearing on HB 3464. In the press release it said, “the increase of ICE raids and deportations in Oregon has created an environment of fear in communities throughout the state.” We requested a list of sources from the House Majority Office to verify that fact. We received a list of five links to articles about ICE activity in Oregon and throughout the US. It was interesting to go through the articles. Many talked about increased fear, most referenced national ICE activity, and two talked specifically about the well-known Woodburn case. There was not a single article with statistics related to increased ICE activity specific to Oregon, and the statistics we’ve found point to a decrease in deportations this year. But it is loose claims like this that, regardless of verifiability, that get people mobilized.

Last night at the hearing on HB 3464, the Governor used Japanese internment camps to advocate on behalf of this bill. The rhetoric of using a horrifying piece of United States history to advance a bill that would hinder our state from enforcing federal immigration laws would lead folks to believe that those who oppose the bill are bigoted and hateful when in fact they simply have a high regard of the rule of law.  This is an unsound argument and a gross misuse of strategy in continuing to push their inflammatory agenda.

Our office has received an overwhelming number of calls and emails from constituents in opposition to this bill. I also stand in opposition to this bill, and will not be falsely shamed into voting for a bill against my values, and those constituent concerns when bills like this are undermining federal law. Without a doubt, this issue has been neglected and undealt with and there have been decades of lack of action, but that does not mean that current law should be ignored or subverted when we now have an interest at a national level in addressing the problem and working towards a solution.

The rules committee adjourned last night after testimony both in favor and against HB 3464. The committee will not vote on this bill until a work session is held, and it has not yet been scheduled. I would encourage all of you to continue to reach out to legislators on the Rules committee, the Governor, and the Attorney General and voice your opposition of this bill. My vote alone does not express nearly what your calls and emails can, and they need to hear from all of you.



Subscribe to RSS - Oregon legislation