Beaverton parent, Jeff Myers of Save Oregon Schools has filed a lawsuit against the Beaverton School District over student privacy, parental rights, and a public school system that is increasingly operating without transparency or consent.

In January 2025, Beaverton School District quietly launched a new digital hall pass system (DHP) at eight of its middle schools. Students are now required to submit digital requests before leaving class for basic needs like using the restroom, going to the nurse, or accessing their locker. Teachers must approve the request, and the system logs the destination, time, and duration of each pass. These records are stored indefinitely in the district's Synergy Student Information System (SIS).

Myers says, “The DHP system is being actively used for behavioral monitoring and intervention. Staff teams regularly analyze student hall pass data to identify "top users" – students who leave class more frequently than average. These students may be flagged and referred to counselors or behavior specialists, often before parents are notified or involved.” Myers became concerned after his daughter displayed anxiety over this system being installed at her school, and decided to file a lawsuit.

The lawsuit asks the court to:

• Immediately suspend the use of the digital hall pass system district-wide;
• Prevent further collection and analysis of DHP data;
• Require the district to submit an inventory of the data collected through the system;
• Permanently purge all previously collected data;
• Affirm the rights of parents to be notified and provide meaningful consent before schools launch systems that collect and/or act on sensitive behavioral data.

Myers’ lawsuit argues that the district's actions violate both federal and Oregon law. Key claims include:

• The Fourteenth Amendment: Parents have a constitutional right to direct the upbringing and medical decisions of their children.
• ORS 336.184 & ORS 336.187: These laws require schools to notify parents and provide opt-out rights for behavioral or health-related screenings.
• ORS 326.565: Governs student educational records and restricts access to those with a legitimate educational interest.

The district has tried to justify the system under the doctrine of in loco parentis, but the lawsuit claims public schools are government actors and cannot override parental rights without due process.

Myers says: “The district has positioned this system as a solution to behavioral challenges in middle schools. But what they’re not saying is that these challenges were in large part created by their own policies. Over a decade ago, Beaverton phased out traditional disciplinary frameworks in favor of restorative justice, which has often led to inconsistent enforcement and a breakdown in accountability. Rather than confront this reality and reevaluate their discipline model, the district has doubled down—choosing to surveil every student instead.

“These systems are being marketed as modern tools for classroom management. But in practice, they function as behavioral surveillance networks that track kids in ways most parents are never told about.”

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

The lawsuit states: "This is not a digitized bathroom pass. It’s a behavioral surveillance platform that profiles students without their knowledge, and certainly without ours as parents."

This is not just a Beaverton issue. The DHP system impacts more than 6,400 students and was implemented without any meaningful explanation, opt-out process, or oversight. It’s becoming a nationwide trend to market the system as a tool to control every child, and not provide help to the few who misbehave. “That’s not innovation—it’s institutional overreach,” Myers says. “If your district isn’t using something like this yet, it might be next.”

Myers offers suggestion to parents wanting to question their child's school or school board.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-04-23 15:51:09

Last Update: 2025-04-23 14:12:03

The Oregon Senate Democrat Majority are claiming a victory in a 28 to 1 bipartisan vote on Senate Bill 1191. “Oregonians can inform others of their constitutional and civil rights without being guilty of interfering with law enforcement.” The bill was introduced in the Senate by Senator James Manning Jr.(D-Eugene/Springfield) and Senator Sara Gelser Blouin (D-Albany)

Democrats released this statement: “Rights granted in the United States Constitution and the Oregon Constitution include freedoms of speech and association along with rights to due process and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.” If the constitution already contains these rights, then what is the necessity of this bill? Could it be that the courts have gone rogue? And what about Second Amendment protections against “unreasonable searches and seizures” absent in SB 243, SB 3075 and SB 3076?

Under Senate Bill 1191, telling people about these rights does not qualify as the crimes of obstructing government and judicial processes or preventing law enforcement from performing their duties. However, the bill lacks where to draw the line of when vocal instruction becomes an obstruction. Does screaming in the face of an officer the advice to a detainee cross the line?

The Senate, according to the Democrats, acted on the bill knowing the federal administration has boasted about deploying law enforcement to punish political opposition. This presumption is mal-information, a false statement to bolster their position. The federal administration has repeatedly stated, they will only seek out criminal activity. To interpret that as punishing political opposition” is false.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

“If you see someone being questioned, it’s okay to say, ‘Hey you have the right to an attorney,’” said Senator James I. Manning, Jr (D – Eugene, Elmira & Veneta), chief sponsor of the measure. “It’s not against the law as long as no one physically intervenes. Free speech is what this is about, and we need to defend it against growing threats.”

We’ve all heard of “ambulance chasers”. Those people have a legitimate license. This bill opens the door for illegitimate chasers, no license required. In Oregon, it isn’t just interfering with judicial administration, it’s the unauthorized practice of law (UPL) can also include impersonating a lawyer providing advice, even if the person is not charging for their services. Federal law forbids unauthorized immigration consultants or "notarios" who provide immigration advice on specific situations can be prosecuted under federal law.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-04-20 19:48:19

Last Update: 2025-04-20 20:58:30

On Tuesday, House Republicans forced a vote on the House Floor for legislation that would lower taxes for the most tax-burdened Oregonians, including middle class income tax cuts and ‘No Tax on Tips.’ Republicans also forced a vote on the repeal of Oregon’s hidden sales tax on businesses and consumers, also known as the Corporate Activity Tax (CAT).

“Today we pursued tax relief that empowers families to keep more of what they earn,” said House Republican Leader Christine Drazan (R-Canby). “Despite these missed opportunities, House Republicans remain committed to making Oregon more affordable and will continue to use every tool to lower the cost of living and improve the quality of life in our beautiful state.”

From the time the Democrat House Caucus announced their priorities. The Republican Caucus has tried to help them meet their goals to increase prosperity, make Oregon more affordable, make Oregon safer and healthier, and protect rights and freedoms. House Majority Leader Ben Bowman (D-Tigard, Metzger, & S. Beaverton) said, “The legislature’s job is to improve Oregonians’ lives...and the values-driven leaders in our caucus will work hard to deliver results for working people." The Republican House gave Democrats an opportunity to advance their priorities.

Legislation to cut taxes and address the cost of living for working Oregonians include:

• HB 3753 – Income Tax Cut
• HB 3914 – No Tax on Tips
• HB 2033 – Repeal Oregon’s Hidden Sales Tax (CAT)

House Democratic Leadership strategically permitted some Democratic members to vote for the motions, while blocking a path to a majority vote using what has been dubbed a “hall pass.” The motion on all three measures ultimately failed.

“Today, on Tax Day, this body missed an opportunity to help the working poor in our state by making Oregon more affordable. Passing this bill would lower income taxes for hard-working Oregonians who earn lower wages,” said Rep. E. Werner Reschke (R-Klamath Falls), chief sponsor of HB 3753 and Vice Chair of the House Revenue Committee. “It seems like just what the doctor ordered in a world still riddled with inflated costs.”

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

“By eliminating taxes on tips today, we could have sent the message to Oregonians that we entrust them with more economic freedom. But instead, this body decided to tell them that once again, we think the government knows best,” said Rep. Lucetta Elmer (R-McMinnville), chief sponsor of HB 3914 and Deputy House Republican Leader. “I fundamentally disagree with this notion.”

“We can’t tax our businesses into prosperity,” said Rep. Boomer Wright (R-Reedsport) chief sponsor of HB 2033. “Repealing the CAT Tax would eliminate Oregon’s hidden sales tax on businesses and consumers, which would incentivize job growth and get rising costs under control. Oregonians have been taxed enough and today we missed a huge opportunity to ease the tax burden. It’s time to neuter the CAT.”

On April 1st, House Republicans hand-delivered a letter to House Speaker Julie Fahey requesting fair hearings, work sessions, and a Floor vote on priority cost-of-living legislation that would provide desperate relief for Oregonians. As of April 15th, House Republicans have not received a response.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-04-20 12:44:45

Last Update: 2025-04-20 20:19:14

On Tuesday, House Republicans forced a vote on the House Floor for legislation that would lower taxes for the most tax-burdened Oregonians, including middle class income tax cuts and ‘No Tax on Tips.’ Republicans also forced a vote on the repeal of Oregon’s hidden sales tax on businesses and consumers, also known as the Corporate Activity Tax (CAT).

“Today we pursued tax relief that empowers families to keep more of what they earn,” said House Republican Leader Christine Drazan (R-Canby). “Despite these missed opportunities, House Republicans remain committed to making Oregon more affordable and will continue to use every tool to lower the cost of living and improve the quality of life in our beautiful state.”

From the time the Democrat House Caucus announced their priorities. The Republican Caucus has tried to help them meet their goals to increase prosperity, make Oregon more affordable, make Oregon safer and healthier, and protect rights and freedoms. House Majority Leader Ben Bowman (D-Tigard, Metzger, & S. Beaverton) said, “The legislature’s job is to improve Oregonians’ lives...and the values-driven leaders in our caucus will work hard to deliver results for working people." The Republican House gave Democrats an opportunity to advance their priorities, but uniting on the same goal seems to be out of the question.

Legislation to cut taxes and address the cost of living for working Oregonians presented on the House Floor:

• HB 3753 – Income Tax Cut
• HB 3914 – No Tax on Tips
• HB 2033 – Repeal Oregon’s Hidden Sales Tax (CAT)

House Democratic Leadership strategically permitted some Democratic members to vote for the motions, while blocking a path to a majority vote using what has been dubbed a “hall pass.” The motion on all three measures ultimately failed.

“Today, on Tax Day, this body missed an opportunity to help the working poor in our state by making Oregon more affordable. Passing this bill would lower income taxes for hard-working Oregonians who earn lower wages,” said Rep. E. Werner Reschke (R-Klamath Falls), chief sponsor of HB 3753 and Vice Chair of the House Revenue Committee. “It seems like just what the doctor ordered in a world still riddled with inflated costs.”

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

“By eliminating taxes on tips today, we could have sent the message to Oregonians that we entrust them with more economic freedom. But instead, this body decided to tell them that once again, we think the government knows best,” said Rep. Lucetta Elmer (R-McMinnville), chief sponsor of HB 3914 and Deputy House Republican Leader. “I fundamentally disagree with this notion.”

“We can’t tax our businesses into prosperity,” said Rep. Boomer Wright (R-Reedsport) chief sponsor of HB 2033. “Repealing the CAT Tax would eliminate Oregon’s hidden sales tax on businesses and consumers, which would incentivize job growth and get rising costs under control. Oregonians have been taxed enough and today we missed a huge opportunity to ease the tax burden. It’s time to neuter the CAT.”

On April 1st, House Republicans hand-delivered a letter to House Speaker Julie Fahey requesting fair hearings, work sessions, and a Floor vote on priority cost-of-living legislation that would provide desperate relief for Oregonians. As of April 15th, House Republicans have not received a response.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-04-17 11:44:45

Last Update: 2025-04-17 00:13:09

Governor Tina Kotek convened Oregon businesses to discuss the potential impacts of President Trump’s U.S. tariffs on all countries and territories that went into effect earlier this month, as well as a series of other tariffs his administration has threatened to enact. Following the meeting, Governor Kotek and Business Oregon launched a survey to hear directly from Oregon businesses.

Governor Kotek stated: “Oregon has one of the most trade-dependent economies in the nation. What business owners need right now is stability and predictability. President Trump’s 10% minimum tariff was one of the most drastic trade decisions since 1930. Had these tariffs been in place on Oregon's $28.2 billion in imported goods last year, companies in Oregon would have had an additional $7.4 billion tax bill to pay." She must mean $2.8 billion, but the idea is to buy American that will expand the U.S. economy, which will result in a return back to Oregonians in increased jobs and wages.

Kotek continues, “Though little will be known about the impacts of the tariffs for several months, I want to raise awareness about the effect on Oregon businesses because business owners and families who are already struggling to make ends meet are forced to live with uncertainty while the price of everyday goods like groceries keep climbing.

“That’s why I brought together Oregon businesses from across sectors, the State Treasurer, the State Economist, and Business Oregon to discuss everything we know today, understand what the top concerns are, and how the state can be an ally in this fight. And I am eager to hear from more businesses, which is why Business Oregon is launching a survey. To our businesses –your success is Oregon’s success, and we are in this together.”

If it's stability that's desired, Kotek should listen to the reasons businesses would leave the state. A University of Oregon Institute for Policy Research and Engagement School of Planning, Public Policy, and Management, says in a report that thousands of potential jobs and billions of potential private investments have been lost to Oregon in the past five years and the state will lose even more in the next five years. A number of businesses indicated they were choosing to relocate because of tax and regulatory burdens, problems associated with attracting and retaining talent, combined with an unfavorable business climate. The report indicates Oregon businesses are being actively recruited because of the poor business environment. Tariffs will settle at a more advantageous level, but tariffs won't cause businesses to relocate out-ot-state.

U.S. tariffs are taxes paid by companies in the U.S. when they purchase tariffed goods coming from outside the country. The new tariffs in place today, including a 145% tariff on goods from China and 25% on goods from Canada and Mexico, along with 10% for all other countries and territories, amount to the combined equivalent of a 26% sales tax on imported goods coming into Oregon. This new tax significantly increases the cost of inputs for Oregon manufacturers and can ultimately significantly increase costs for Oregonians.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

In response, the Governor convened the following Oregon business executives:

• Trey Winthrop, CEO, Bob's Red Mill
• Todd Nelson, Co-owner, Bountiful Farms Nursery
• Steve Gibbs, VP of Government Affairs, Columbia Distributing
• Paul Durant, Owner and General Manager, Durant Vineyards & Olive Oil Mill
• Dave Dillon, President, Food Northwest
• Jeff Stone, Executive Director/CEO, Oregon Association of Nurseries
• Nick Edwards, Vice President, Oregon International Port of Coos Bay Commission
• Curtis Robinhold, Executive Director, Port of Portland
• Emma Mcilroy, CEO, Wildfang
• Lisa Charpilloz Hanson, Director, Oregon Department of Agriculture

Oregon State Treasurer Elizabeth Steiner said, “The administration’s tariffs are an unwanted and unnecessary tax that many Oregonians can’t afford. Too many Oregonians are reeling from seeing their college, retirement, and home buying savings eroded by this avoidable turmoil in the market. Too many businesses are seeing their supply chains disrupted, their plans frozen, and their bottom lines battered by tariffs no one outside the administration asked for. I urge the Trump Administration to change coursbute and end these reckless trade wars once and for all.”

In addition to the Governor’s roundtable discussion, Business Oregon is launching a brief survey to hear directly from Oregon companies regarding tariffs and global trade. Small- and medium-sized businesses currently engaged in global trade are encouraged to participate.

Overall, while some businesses might be faced with economic headwinds due to the tariffs, the majority has the potential to benefit from increased domestic manufacturing and potential employment, return of 'made in Oregon' pride, and overall economic growth.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-04-16 17:09:22

Last Update: 2025-04-16 19:06:24

The imbalance of the Oregon legislature is very clear in the lack of separation of powers among the executive branch. This problem is never more clear when there is a conflict of interest involved.

This imbalance is the Problem in Senate Bill 96, which proposes a significant salary increase for judges, with the Oregon Supreme Court Chief Justice Meagan A. Flynn as the chief sponsor. This bill lacks legislative sponsorship and seeks to raise judges' salaries by over $100,000 per year immediately upon passage via the Emergency Clause. The fiscal impact is estimated to be $33.3 million General Fund in the 2025-27 and 2027-29 biennium for the Oregon Judicial Department (OJD). These funds would come from the Oregon General Fund, to which all taxpayers contribute. SB 96 has passed out of the Senate committee and is currently in the Ways and Means Committee.

This is just one of many bills drafted and submitted without legislative branch involvement. Two hundred-sixty-six legislative bills have been introduced in the current legislative session that doesn't have a legislator as sponsor.

The Solution is Senate Bill 1006. According to the Constitution, the Legislative branch is responsible for creating bills and overseeing the state budget, including the general fund. Since 1953, Oregon has allowed the Executive and Judiciary branches to draft and make laws.

Senator Kim Thatcher introduced SB 1006 to restore the proper balance of the three branches of government and ensure that only the Legislative branch can draft and introduce bills. This bill has garnered bipartisan support and aims to align Oregon with the best practices of 40 other states that prohibit non-legislative entities from drafting and introducing bills.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Quote from Senator Thatcher “The Oregon Constitution is clear: the Legislature is the only branch of government responsible for making laws. The executive and judicial branches play critical roles in enforcing and interpreting laws but writing them is not their job. Yet, for too long, they have been enabled to bypass the system, introducing legislation without any direct accountability to the people. This practice undermines the role of the Legislature and, ultimately, the voice of the people. SB 1006 is about restoring the proper balance of power and ensuring that Oregonians’ elected lawmakers determine the laws that govern our state.”

SB 1006 received a public hearing in March. The next step is to email your legislators, particularly those on the Senate Rules Committee, to request a work session for SB 1006 and move the bill forward for a floor vote. This action would demonstrate citizens' involvement and concern for their government and governance.

SB 1006 can be tracked with email options at Oregon Citizens Lobby Alerts.


--Silver Eagle

Post Date: 2025-04-16 11:04:35

Last Update: 2025-04-16 14:55:06

When enforcement fails, legislators always look for more money to solve problems. Oregon Humane Society (OHS) is behind Senate Bill 1076, sponsored by Senator Floyd Prozanski (D-Springfield/Eugene). SB 1076 is hoping to find new money from a new licensing program for animal rescue and breeders.

Oregon has been active in passing animal protection laws within the state. In 2023, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek signed two bills into law that aim to protect the well-being of animals in the state, and those brought into the state. In addition to animal protection, it made animal cruelty a felony. But, in doing so, they have made Oregon a destination state for mistreated animals.

The Animal Rescue Entity oversight began in 2013 under city and county authority, designed to solve the spreading of diseases, but lacked funding. In 2019 enforcement was transferred to Oregon Department of Agriculture with enough funding to make the program self-funded, but licensing fees were insufficient. A raise in fees was not well received in 2024, so the proposal in SB 1076 is to duplicate breeding practices and animal cruelty statutes ORS 167.374 and ORS 609.420 with a new licensing program on top of other licensing requirements, which adds more administrative expenses than projected to bring in.

Denese Oster testified, “Rescue groups obtain a license with the state already, and breeders license their animals with the counties and cities, and if they are large enough, they obtain a kennel license with that same county or city.” This isn’t about protecting animals; it’s about collecting more money.

OHS historically has imported 60%, the highest number of dogs into Oregon annually, and under this bill would receive an even-greater share of the dogs. Once OHS confiscates animals, under an Oregon Supreme Court ruling, they own them and do whatever they choose with them, and have been known to sell them before a court determines guilt or innocence.

Gny Sgt Rodney Hames testified of the fear that this bill will result in more raid. “The OHS takes in donations, sells the animals they seize and have police powers to help them get those animals. Please remember, the OHS is so poor with their police procedures/due process, a court threw out a few years’ worth of convictions. This bill would also allow the agency staff and the OHS unfettered access to the homes and property of individuals. … The Oregon Humane Society has helped to import and dump onto Oregonians, some of the worst and problematic animals in the country, partly because “we must save all the animals”…. They don’t perform health testing on animals prior to finding homes…They are part of a larger network of groups across the country who transport animals from areas who have failed to control their own pet populations.”

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Several testified how SB 1076 will severely disrupt youth agricultural programs like 4-H and FFA, which depend on responsible breeders for animals used in educational projects. These programs teach invaluable life skills and provide important services to communities. The legislative fiscal office has identified the Oregon Youth Authority with the greatest impact. It will also disrupt Oregon’s pet-related events that generate more than $8.3 million annually for the state’s economy, harming tourism and negatively affect local businesses, potentially causing millions of dollars in losses.

Alexis Jacobson works with livestock breeders testified, “Youth members of these organizations rely on heritage breeders for their project animals, where they will learn responsibility, money management, marketing, career readiness, and much more. While some of these project animals may be sold at their local county fair at the end of the day, some return to their home or farm to become breeding projects for the youth member’s own herd/flock or their family’s herd/flock. If a youth livestock breeder must pay a fee to have a license for their project, that means that much less money is generated from their project. Often, the funds raised from their projects help pay for these members’ college tuition, their first car, their first business, and much more.”

SB 1076 will most likely create an ongoing expense to the state as there are not enough breeders or rescue shops to sustain a program without taxpayer general fund appropriations. Why should taxpayer support a program that is already well regulated and licensed, which could be solved without additional expense just by making the practice of importing unregulated dogs for fee-based adoptions illegal.

Track this bill on Oregon Citizens Lobby Alerts.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-04-15 23:01:21

Last Update: 2025-04-15 23:34:48

Oregon's gun regulations have evolved significantly in the last two decades. However, the step-by-step changes have accelerated this session. Democrat leadership has doubled-down introducing seven bills and has accumulated their priorities in a gut-n-stuff amendment to Senate Bill 243 with -4 Amendments. It has passed out of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, chaired by Senator Floyd Prozanski (D-Springfield/Eugene) regardless of the 60% in opposition.

SB 243 as Amended lists gunowner restrictions:

• Dealer purchase waiting period extended to 72 hours after the dealer receives approval number.
• Prohibits anyone to possess, purchase, receive, transport, manufacture, sell, offer to sell, or transfer a rapid fire activator.
• Creates a Class B felony crime of unlawful transport, manufacture or transfer of a rapid fire activator, and Creates a Class A misdemeanor crime of unlawful possession of a rapid fire activator if a person knowingly possesses, purchases, or receives a rapid fire activator. Exemption if registered with federal machine gun law.
• Expands public area restrictions for conceal carry to include grounds adjacent to restricted buildings such as a city, county, metropolitan service district, or port operating a commercial airport, hospitals, schools, residence of any state official, and anywhere a sign is posted, except if there is an adopted policy for concealed carry and post on their website.

House Bill 3075 and HB 3076 also passed out of committee. HB 3075 makes it harder to lawfully obtain a firearm by increasing the firearm permit provisions in Ballot Measure 114, including adding additional eligibility requirements, fees, and doubling the wait time to issue permits to 60 days. HB 3076 directs the Department of Justice to create a state licensure program, adding additional, unnecessary oversight to an industry that already follows extensive federal regulations, including background checks, ATF licensing, and strict compliance laws.

“These bills are an absurd attempt to target law-abiding Oregon gunowners,” said Rep. Alek Skarlatos (R-Winston). “They will ban standard size magazines, impose fees on the exercise of a constitutional right, and place prohibitive regulations on every local gunsmith and gun store, forcing these small businesses to close.”

A citizens initiative in 2000 opened the door for legislators with a passion against firearms to begin chopping away at Second Amendment Rights. Each success brought a new boldness with a new level of restrictions. There is one common sponsor on every bill with individual sponsorship, and that is Senator Floyd Prozanski (D-Springfield/Eugene). A close second is Representative Lew Frederick (D-N Portland) and Representative Kathleen Taylor (D-Milwaukie).

In 2000, Measure 5, called Oregon Background Checks for Transfer of Firearms, required background checks be completed before a gun dealers or gun show dealers hand over the gun to private parties.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

In 2015, Senate Bill 941, Oregon Firearms Safety Act, adds the requirement for private or unlicensed firearms sellers conduct background checks. It pass with over 1,000 submitting testimony. Also passed was Senate Bill 525, which prohibits convicted domestic violence offenders and people subject to domestic abuse restraining orders from possessing guns and ammunition. Passing with about 1200 submitted testimonies.

In 2016, Governor Kate Brown issued Executive Order No 16-12, which reinstated the policy for Oregon State Police to retain gun registration data for five years after it was suspending in 2010 due to a raid on David Pyles for multiple purchases. It also directed OHA to study the effects of gun violence and suicide, and propose policies related to gun violence and its effect on public health. This order has had the affect of shifting the blame for deaths on the gun and not the status of the individual misusing the gun.

In 2017, Senate Bill 719 created the Extreme Risk Protection Order Law prohibiting a person from possessing a deadly weapon when the court finds that person presents risk in near future, including imminent risk of suicide or causing injury to another person. Sponsored by Governor Kate Brown.

In 2018, House Bill 4145, called Gun Violence Protection People, allows a court order to prohibit possession of a firearm for a misdemeanor conviction. It deals with stalking and domestic violence convictions banned from owning firearms. Submitted testimony was over 2,000

In 2021, Senate Republicans tried eight maneuvers on the floor to derail Senate Bill 554. but passed with the help of three Republicans Senators giving the Democrats quorum to pass the bill. Required gun owners to secure their guns in locked storage when it is not under their control, restricted guns in the Capitol and allowed school districts, community colleges, and universities to ban guns on their premises. Submitted testimony was 1,179 in opposition to 201.

In 2022, voters passed Measure 114, also known as the Reduction of Gun Violence Act. It aims to change gun laws in the state by requiring a permit to purchase or acquire a firearm and banning the sale, transfer, and importation of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. It created a permit-to-purchase system in Oregon, required background check be completed before transfer of firearms, and limited the sale or transfer of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. The Appeals Court lifted the hold on the implementation of Measure 114, and is now headed to the appellate court for review of the decision.

In 2023, House Bill 2005 dealt with 'ghost guns'. Submitted testimony was 702 in opposition to 216 bearing out the uncertainty. The bill prohibits individuals from owning firearms with no metal parts and as well as firearms or firearm parts that do not have a serial number. Gives owner one year to get firearms and firearm parts serialized.

Gun owners have expressed that gun restrictions on their Second Amendment rights is declaring them guilty without the right to prove their Second Amendment rights, and without any criminal act or intent. One gunowner expressed, "They want to disarm us while at the same time they want to let more criminals go free (HB 2640) and extend sanctuary to sex offenders (SB 820 and SB 821)."

Follow and take action on these and other gun bills on Oregon Citizens Lobby Alerts.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-04-10 19:28:06

Last Update: 2025-04-11 16:39:30

The Trump Administration sent Oregon Department of Education a Requested Certification of compliance with Title VI and the Supreme Court decision in SFFA v. Harvard.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

This assurance is given “in consideration of” federal aid, and the federal government extends assistance “in reliance on” the assurance of compliance. See 3 R. Cappalli, Federal Grants § 19:20, at 57, and n. 12 (1982) (written assurances are merely a formality because the statutory mandate applies and is enforceable apart from the text of any agreement).

Dr. Charlene Williams, Director of the Oregon Department of Education responded, without signing the Requested Certification, by letter certifying compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the grants were issued.

Threats to this federal funding without lawful authority or established requirements put key programs at risk that students and schools across Oregon depend on every day. There is no circumstance where it is okay to leverage children’s resources as a political tool. Oregonians paid for and deserve these federal investments. We are standing up for the rights of all Oregonians and will continue to promote diversity in our schools because we recognize it enhances learning outcomes for all students.

Williams maintains since programs were certified compliant when accepted under the prior administration and because the Request for Certification hasn’t gone through rulemaking processes, it has no authority, and she isn’t signing it.

Governor Tina Kotek issued a statement in response: “Since the start of the new federal administration, I promised Oregonians that I would not back down from a fight when it comes to safeguarding Oregon values. Making sure every child has the opportunity to meet their future promise with a strong public education is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of government and one of my top priorities as Governor.

“The Trump Administration’s threat to shortchange Oregon students hurts children and families and undermines the dedication and work of our educators. That is why I directed ODE to hold the line today. We will not tolerate this unwarranted and unlawful attempt to take away resources promised to Oregon students and paid for by the tax dollars we send to the federal government.”

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Governor Kotek seems to forget that as Superintendent of Public Instruction, she is responsible for Oregon's fourth-grade students ranking third worst nationally in math and are tied for the fourth-worst score in reading. A study from Harvard and Stanford professors found that Oregon was the only state out of 30 studied where elementary and middle school students continued to lose ground in math and reading from 2022 to 2023. Oregon students are now three-quarters of a year behind in math and two-thirds of a year behind in reading.

Also at risk is the Title IX investigation in Portland schools for subjecting females to discrimination and indignity in their activities, denying them of their civil rights. Kotek continues to allow males to compete in female sports and use female facilities.

Senator Noah Robinson (R-Cave Junction) expressed on the Senate floor that “the Committee on Education explained the complexity of the education system requires the help of attorneys to keep schools in compliance with the myriad of laws pertaining to their funding and operation.” Still the legislature's leadership continues to push DEI bills through the legislature.

What Kotek promised Oregonians, just may not be what they want.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-04-10 16:34:07

Last Update: 2025-04-10 17:48:04

Oregon Senator Jeff Golden (D-Ashland) hasn't recovered from his wildfire mapping bill and now leads his Committee on Natural Resources and Wildfire to propose Senate Bill 1154 and the -1 amendment. The bill and amendment amounts to a sweeping overhaul of Oregon’s groundwater policy, threatening local decision-making, property rights, and transparency. This amendment grants unelected agencies excessive power to inspect private property, restrict rural development, and impose mandates without clear scientific evidence or due process. Farmers, homeowners, and rural communities will bear the brunt of these bureaucratic overreaches.

Representative Ed Diehl (R-Aumsville) testified: "The bill and amendment is a massive expansion of state bureaucratic power. Authorizes an unelected interagency team—under a Governor-appointed lead agency—to direct ground water investigations, inspections, permit reviews, and public messaging. These agencies gain authority to:

• Modify or revoke land use permits,
• Rewrite agricultural operating rules,
• Conduct private property inspections without a warrant, and
• Restrict homebuilding and well development outside urban boundaries.

No meaningful checks or opt-outs are provided to local governments or citizens. Once declared a "ground water management area," local landowners are subject to mandates with limited appeal or due process.

SB 1154-1 undermines local decision-making and property rights. Permits counties to prohibit new homes unless they are hooked up to urban-style water systems or community wells—even in rural zones. It also allows DEQ inspectors to enter private property to examine septic systems, with only minimal notice, regardless of consent. The result is a top-down regime that weakens home rule authority and forces Oregonians to comply with broad state mandates crafted by unelected administrators.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Targets farmers without guarantees of scientific accuracy. Agricultural operations are heavily implicated in this bill, yet:

• No standards are set for how contaminants are scientifically linked to farm practices,
• Agencies can impose restrictions and recordkeeping mandates based on correlations, not causation,
• Nutrient applications and water use can be limited with little recourse for landowners.

This opens the door for regulatory overreach that punishes land stewards who have not been proven to contribute to the problem."

Diehl concludes, "For the sake of Oregonians’ rights, rural communities, and transparent environmental stewardship. We must act now to preserve liberty, privacy, and local control."

Testimony may be submitted before 1pm on April 10. Access links and email address on Oregon Citizens Lobby Alerts.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-04-09 12:17:13

Last Update: 2025-04-09 14:27:37

A recent January poll conducted by Public Opinion Strategies, found that 80% of Oregonians oppose increasing the Gas Tax while 79% of Oregonians favor cutting taxes to make Oregon more affordable. The same poll showed that Oregonians see the cost of living as the top issue they face with 56% of Oregonians saying that taxes are too high. The same poll showed 70% favor eliminating state income taxes on tips and overtime pay, and 56% of Oregonians say that taxes are too high. Oregon ranks as the 10th most expensive state to live in, with the 5th highest individual income tax rate. Only California, Hawaii, New York and New Jersey have higher individual income tax rates.

Oregon Republicans, lead by Senate Republican Leader Daniel Bonham (R-The Dalles), announced a way to fund critical state services without raising taxes by stop wasting money. Democrats immediately unveiled their grand Transportation plan framework. Republicans response to House and Senate Democrats’ draft proposal to make Oregonians pay billions more in taxes for ODOT’s failures is insensitive to Oregonians.

The Democrat proposal raises $1.9 billion in new taxes and fees. The proposal increases gas taxes by 20 cents (a 50% increase), increases taxes on truckers by nearly 17%, creates a new tax on tires, increases payroll taxes, and more. Read all the tax hikes on Oregon Transportation Reinvestment Package (TRIP) 2025 – Starting Point.

Representative Shelly Boshart-Davis (R-Albany), Vice Chair of the Joint Committee on Transportation says, “It threatens to increase or create over a dozen taxes to take billions more from Oregonians at a time when too many are struggling with some of the highest costs of living in history. I maintain that we need serious reforms at ODOT before we even consider taxing you more.”

“The Democrats’ tone-deaf proposal throws more money at a system that has repeatedly failed to recognize that its core mission is to provide safe and reliable roads and bridges,” said House Republican Leader Christine Drazan (R-Canby). “A dozen new taxes and fees is a slap in the face to all Oregonians that simply can’t afford to pay more for less.”

“Since the beginning of this session, House Republicans have pressed ODOT on budgeting errors, incomplete projects, and mishandling of tax dollars,” said Rep. Shelly Boshart-Davis. “It’s shocking that in spite of Oregonians’ resounding rejection of the tire tax proposal, Democrats are doubling down on this tax at a time when families are already struggling to make ends meet.” Boshart-Davis and Senator Bruce Starr (R-Rural Polk & Yamhill) serve on the Joint Committee on Transportation, appeared on the Oregon DOGE podcast to talk about some of the problems at ODOT and the need to provide real oversight.

It wasn't until ODOT testified that the committee was aware of the budget error in 2023 that resulted in over forecasting federal funding by $1.1 billion, which they used to front load projects that had to be delayed. Now they are requesting these projects get funded, however the Governor's budget is for $1.75 billion, and it takes $352 million to maintain core services.

Oregon DOGE discussed possibilities for ODOT reform including:

• Bike lanes and paths take up $70.5 million that doesn't move traffic.
• ODOT has it’s own Social Equity and Civil Rights Budget of $29.8 million for 30 employees (ORS 200.190 to emerging small business. Why is these not centralized in DAS?
• ODOT’s budget includes cleanup homeless camps.
• Sidewalks to nowhere. A settlement from 2017, AOCIL v. ODOT, awarded $18 million for curb ramps and traffic signals on the entire state highway system installing curb ramps where there is no sidewalk and opens into fields. Then Federal laws changed for handicap ramps and if not within one-eighth of an inch, they have to be redone.
• SB 715 adds $10 million for a metro high-speed rail.
• The Clean Truck temporary rule went into effect January 1, 2025, which requires converting to electric. There are currently 12 electric long-haul trucks in Oregon. The technology and infrastructure won't support even 100 trucks, which is equal to all the houses in Eugene. It would take building 55 power station per week, which ODOT lacks funding for. Boshart-Davis has introduced a 2-year waiting period in HB 3119.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Transportation affects everything you buy and where you go. The proposed new taxes will also impact the economy, and future developments. It will raise the cost on Governor Kotek's affordable housing plans. A recent study highlighted how other states are actively poaching Oregon businesses by offering more favorable regulatory environments. High taxes and burdensome labor mandates are among the factors driving companies and their jobs out of state. Additionally, as housing becomes less affordable due to inflated building costs, more Oregonians are leaving for states with lower living expenses


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-04-09 11:55:23

Last Update: 2025-04-09 14:26:44

The Oregon legislature is entertaining three legislative bills that defy the court decision and ignores consequences from the Trump Administration on DEI issues. The uncertainty of what the federal government will do to Oregon’s budget doesn’t seem to be of concern to Democrats. They are full-steam ahead challenging President Trump that could cut a good portion of $38.6 billion that Oregon receives.

There are about 12 bills that are related to diversity in education in this 2025 legislative session. A couple of bills are aimed at bringing the state into compliance, but they never received a hearing. These three bills received a hearing despite having a court decision against them.

• HB 3006 would allow the Higher Education Coordinating Commission to award grants to school leader candidates based on race.
• HB 3200 seeks $10,000,000 from the state’s corporate activities tax for the scholarship program for culturally and linguistically diverse teacher candidates.
• HB 3030 would give money (scholarships) to future school leaders based on their race, where their family is from, or what language they first spoke.

These bills are very similar to a previous state program that was challenged in court. In Lynn v. Goff, a longtime Spanish teacher who worked in Oregon schools for over 20 years was denied the same financial help from a state program that was giving to other teachers, simply because he is white. The state settled the case and ended the program. Reintroducing the same kind of race-based policy now through HB 3006, HB 3030 and HB 3200 risks repeating that mistake at the expense of taxpayers.

The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed the unconstitutionality of using race when they addressed reverse discrimination in the Chevron decision. The U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause makes it clear: the government cannot treat people differently based on race.

The Chevron decision was an employment promotion case. SB 569 is also moving forward, which tells state agencies to grant money to groups that help a business to get certified as a minority owned business so it can have a better chance to get a public contract.

Representative Dwayne Yunker testified: “Now, HB 3030 is trying to do the same thing all over again. But courts have said many times: the government cannot treat people differently just because of their race. This breaks the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The state has no strong proof that this kind of race-based program is needed, and that means it likely won’t survive a legal challenge.”

Goal setting with benchmarks was pushed for state agencies under Governor Kitzhaber, and announced a goal to achieve a 100% high school graduation rate by 2025 during his inaugural speech in January 2011. Goals were established in 1991 in ORS 342. Along came DEI and in 2021, HB 4031 amended ORS 342.437 to include: The percentage of diverse employees employed by the Department of Education reflects the percentage of diverse students in the public schools of this state. This is stated as a ‘goal’ to meet a benchmark, but the statutes frown on failure and the Department of Education requires school districts to have a plan to meet the goal. This has become an issue in a few districts, now stuck with teachers that are violating other policies.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Yunker says, “While supporting future educators is important, these bills do so in a way that is not fair to everyone. Grant programs should be based on merit, need, or qualifications—not on identity. … Oregon should support all aspiring school leaders equally. Fairness means giving everyone the same chance, no matter who they are or where they come from.”

Oregon should be scrambling to come into compliance with federal changes. However, the legislature has not taken steps against losing education funds and instead of eliminating DEI from schools, the leadership has doubled down, even after Oregon universities lost federal grant funding. Portland school district is being investigated for letting males participate in female sports. Nothing is being done to change sanctuary state protections, but instead, they propose to extend sanctuary status to sex criminals.

If the legislature doesn't pass reforms, the taxpayers will be left with the debt.


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2025-04-03 16:40:28

Last Update: 2025-04-03 23:01:41