Ranked-Choice Voting Ballot Measure  |  HB2004

HB2004 refers to the people for approval a November 2024 ballot measure that would adopt ranked-choice voting for all state and federal elections.

The Senate passed HB2004 on June 25, 2023, by a vote of 17 to 8. We have assigned pluses to the nays because all attempts to enact ranked-choice voting should be opposed. This complicated, multiple-round, and unconstitutional method weakens election integrity by allowing a candidate to potentially win without genuine support from a plurality of voters. The scheme’s ballot casting procedures cause voter disenfranchisement by undermining each citizen’s right to vote and could deny them from being able to select the one and only candidate of their choice. In addition, the elections process in Oregon should be prescribed by the Legislative Assembly, and not be subject to popular vote via statewide ballot measure. Referrals directly to the people rely on a simple majority of voters to make statutory changes, making them insufficient safeguards from the “dangers of democracy” or “tyranny of the majority.” Article IV, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution, expressly guarantees to “every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” which implies government limited to the ‘rule of law,’ as opposed to mere unchecked ‘majority rule.’

Ranked-Choice Voting Ballot Measure  |  HB2004

HB2004 refers to the people for approval a November 2024 ballot measure that would adopt ranked-choice voting for all state and federal elections.

The House passed HB2004 on June 25, 2023, by a vote of 34 to 17. We have assigned pluses to the nays because all attempts to enact ranked-choice voting should be opposed. This complicated, multiple-round, and unconstitutional method weakens election integrity by allowing a candidate to potentially win without genuine support from a plurality of voters. The scheme’s ballot casting procedures cause voter disenfranchisement by undermining each citizen’s right to vote and could deny them from being able to select the one and only candidate of their choice. In addition, the elections process in Oregon should be prescribed by the Legislative Assembly, and not be subject to popular vote via statewide ballot measure. Referrals directly to the people rely on a simple majority of voters to make statutory changes, making them insufficient safeguards from the “dangers of democracy” or “tyranny of the majority.” Article IV, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution, expressly guarantees to “every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” which implies government limited to the ‘rule of law,’ as opposed to mere unchecked ‘majority rule.’

Withdrawal of Article V Applications  |  HB3625

HB3625 withdraws all applications for “an amendment convention” under Article V of the U.S. Constitution that were previously made by the Legislative Assembly and declares them “null and void.

The Senate passed HB3635 on June 24, 2023, by a vote of 25 to 0. We have assigned pluses to the ayes because efforts to call an Article V convention should be resisted. Instead of failing to uphold their oath of office and risking a constitutional convention, legislators in Oregon and the rest of the several States should “support and defend the Constitution,” as required under Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3, by acting to immediately nullify all unconstitutional federal laws. Whenever the federal government assumes undelegated powers, in blatant violation of the 10^th Amendment, nullification of such acts is the proper remedy. Article V of the Constitution was designed to correct potential errors or defects in the Constitution, not to misconstrue or abuse its powers. The States can and must use Article VI to enforce the Constitution, rather than use Article V to change it.  

“Rights” to Abortion and Sex Mutilation  |  HB2002

HB2002 proclaims that “every individual has a fundamental right” to “pregnancy termination services,” “sterilization services,” and “contraception,” while mandating health benefit plans to cover “gender-affirming treatment.”

The House passed HB2022 on June 21, 2023, by a vote of 35 to 12. We have assigned pluses to the nays because the care of human life—not its destruction—is the greatest responsibility of government. Oregon ought to forbid all methods of abortion and prohibit the practice of sex mutilation. No person has the right to kill or dismember a child using the pretext of “reproductive health services” or LGBTQ+ ideology. Both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution affirm the fundamental, God-given, and unalienable right to life and limb of every person. Therefore, each of the several States has a duty to defend the basic humanity of all its citizens, especially the preborn and minors.

Redefining “Child Abuse” for Social-Emotional Learning  |  SB93

SB93 alters the definition of “child abuse” to mean “any mental injury to a child,” including “statements made,” that results in “severe harm” to the child’s “psychological, cognitive, emotional or social well-being and functioning.”

The Senate passed SB93 on June 15, 2023, by a vote of 21 to 1. We have assigned pluses to the nays because the legitimate powers of government extend only to acts of “child abuse” that are injurious (e.g., physical or sexual assault), which can be substantiated based on an objective standard using verifiable evidence. Not “any mental injury,” consisting of “statements made,” regardless of how “cruel or unconscionable” they may seem, is or can be considered criminal. It is not the duty of, nor would it be possible for, the government to right every “psychological, cognitive, emotional, or social” wrong. Nevertheless, many allegations of “child abuse” are either unfounded or false, and no parent or guardian should ever be reported, arrested, or lose custody of their child in the name of Social-Emotional Learning (SEL)—a misnomer for social engineering. This bill is just another example of the serious threat to families from SEL and those who advocate for “best interest of the child” legislation modeled after the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. If it is not opposed in Oregon and elsewhere, it will have severe far-reaching consequences for parental rights and “due process of law” in America. Parental rights are among our “unalienable Rights” protected by the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.

“Rights” to Abortion and Sex Mutilation  |  HB2002

HB2002 proclaims that “every individual has a fundamental right” to “pregnancy termination services,” “sterilization services,” and “contraception,” while mandating health benefit plans to cover “gender-affirming treatment.”

The Senate passed HB2022 on June 15, 2023, by a vote of 17 to 3. We have assigned pluses to the nays because the care of human life—not its destruction—is the greatest responsibility of government. Oregon ought to forbid all methods of abortion and prohibit the practice of sex mutilation. No person has the right to kill or dismember a child using the pretext of “reproductive health services” or LGBTQ+ ideology. Both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution affirm the fundamental, God-given, and unalienable right to life and limb of every person. Therefore, each of the several States has a duty to defend the basic humanity of all its citizens, especially the preborn and minors

Informing Congress of Withdrawn Article V Applications  |  HJM3

HJM3 informs Congress that all applications for an “amendment convention” under Article V of the U.S. Constitution that were previously made by the Legislative Assembly are withdrawn and “null and void.”

The House passed HJM3 on June 13, 2023, by a vote of 36 to 22. We have assigned pluses to the ayes because efforts to call an Article V convention should be resisted. Instead of failing to uphold their oath of office and risking a constitutional convention, legislators in Oregon and the rest of the several States should “support and defend the Constitution,” as required under Article VI, Clauses 2 and 3, by acting to immediately nullify all unconstitutional federal laws. Whenever the federal government assumes undelegated powers, in blatant violation of the 10^th Amendment, nullification of such acts is the proper remedy. Article V of the Constitution was designed to correct potential errors or defects in the Constitution, not to misconstrue or abuse its powers. The States can and must use Article VI to enforce the Constitution, rather than use Article V to change it.  

Redefining “Child Abuse” for Social-Emotional Learning  |  SB93

SB93 alters the definition of “child abuse” to mean “any mental injury to a child,” including “statements made,” that results in “severe harm” to the child’s “psychological, cognitive, emotional or social well-being and functioning.”

The House passed SB93 on May 31, 2023, by a vote of 39 to 17. We have assigned pluses to the nays because the legitimate powers of government extend only to acts of “child abuse” that are injurious (e.g., physical or sexual assault), which can be substantiated based on an objective standard using verifiable evidence. Not “any mental injury,” consisting of “statements made,” regardless of how “cruel or unconscionable” they may seem, is or can be considered criminal. It is not the duty of, nor would it be possible for, the government to right every “psychological, cognitive, emotional, or social” wrong. Nevertheless, many allegations of “child abuse” are either unfounded or false, and no parent or guardian should ever be reported, arrested, or lose custody of their child in the name of Social-Emotional Learning (SEL)—a misnomer for social engineering. This bill is just another example of the serious threat to families from SEL and those who advocate for “best interest of the child” legislation modeled after the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. If it is not opposed in Oregon and elsewhere, it will have severe far-reaching consequences for parental rights and “due process of law” in America. Parental rights are among our “unalienable Rights” protected by the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.

“Homelessness and Racial Disparities” Services  |  SB893

SB893 directs the Oregon Housing and Community Services Department (OHCS) to implement a “culturally responsive” policy framework “designed to provide support to specific populations” experiencing “homelessness or housing instability.” 

The House passed SB893 on May 9, 2023, by a vote of 45 to 13. We have assigned pluses to the nays because government is instituted to secure our individual rights, not to “prevent and end homelessness” in society or be “focused on reducing disparities” of property ownership between citizens on account of race or economic status. The U.S. Constitution, which was written to “promote the general Welfare” of all Americans, already protects each person’s “unalienable Rights” to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” affording everyone with the opportunity and dignity to feed, clothe, and house themselves and their family as expected—by meeting their own needs, through their own efforts, and using their own resources. Oregon has absolutely no business discriminatorily and unjustly providing “housing services” to any of its residents, particularly those who have little or no tax liability, at the expense of other hard-working people. It is not only immoral, but unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment make it clear that “No State” shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Police Bodycam Surveillance  |  SB614

SB614 would permit a law enforcement agency to collect and maintain information about any person’s “political, religious or social views, associations or activities” for “lawful purpose,” according to policy on officer-worn video cameras.

The Senate passed SB614 on April 18, 2023, by a vote of 18 to 10. We have assigned pluses to the nays because without reasonable suspicion or probable cause of criminal conduct, police bodycam surveillance serves no “lawful purpose.” The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly asserts the right of the people to be secure against “unreasonable searches.” There is not an exception for police bodycams, let alone facial recognition or other biometric technology. Blanket approval for their widespread use would be tantamount to a mass and warrantless form of ‘secret search’—dangerously and continually infringing on the personal privacy provisions of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.

“Homelessness and Racial Disparities” Services  |  SB893

SB893 directs the Oregon Housing and Community Services Department (OHCS) to implement a “culturally responsive” policy framework “designed to provide support to specific populations” experiencing “homelessness or housing instability.” 

The Senate passed SB893 on April 11, 2023, by a vote of 25 to 4. We have assigned pluses to the nays because government is instituted to secure our individual rights, not to “prevent and end homelessness” in society or be “focused on reducing disparities” of property ownership between citizens on account of race or economic status. The U.S. Constitution, which was written to “promote the general Welfare” of all Americans, already protects each person’s “unalienable Rights” to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” affording everyone with the opportunity and dignity to feed, clothe, and house themselves and their family as expected—by meeting their own needs, through their own efforts, and using their own resources. Oregon has absolutely no business discriminatorily and unjustly providing “housing services” to any of its residents, particularly those who have little or no tax liability, at the expense of other hard-working people. It is not only immoral, but unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment make it clear that “No State” shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Tax-Funded “Prenatal to Kindergarten” Program  |  HB3435

HB3435 renames the “Oregon Prekindergarten Program” to the “Oregon Prenatal to Kindergarten Program,” and provides that children are eligible to enroll in the program until they enter kindergarten, regardless of age.    

The Housed passed HB3435 on April 11, 2023, by a vote of 47 to 9. We have assigned pluses to the nays because education is not the role of government. A child’s education is the responsibility of—and a fundamental right of choice retained by—his or her parents. Moreover, this bill further expands the government’s monopoly on preK-12 education through a ‘cradle-to-grave’ type of taxpayer-funded program that seeks to displace traditional private preschooling in favor of state-sponsored universal preschooling. Its exchange of public subsidies for curriculum and other regulatory controls effectively turns all participating preschools into government preschools. Educational freedom cannot be obtained by forcing the citizens of Oregon to hand over more of their hard-earned tax dollars to support a compulsory, failing, and government-run school system, which violates their individual liberties under the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment.

Fees on Farmers  |  HB5201

HB5201 creates new or increases fees adopted by the State Department of Agriculture and the Oregon Health Authority.

The Oregon State House of Representatives passed HB5201 on March 4, 2022 by a vote of 34 to 23. We have assigned pluses to the nays because this negatively affects farmers. This is another way the government interferes in business and the free market. The Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” and government interference in entrepreneurship and private business is in violation of that belief.

Private Forest Protection  |  SB1501

SB1501 pushes to stop deforestation and climate change, regulating private land owners from logging and provides tax credits to land owners who grow their trees longer before logging.

The Oregon State House of Representatives passed SB1501 on March 3, 2022 by a vote of 43 to 15. We have assigned pluses to the nays because this bill will kill thousands of logging jobs due to government interference in the market. This bill also invades property rights of land owners and provides unconstitutional incentives to adhere to the progressive climate change agenda.

Red Light Cameras  |  HB4105

HB4105 authorizes traffic enforcement agents to review and issue citations based on photographs taken by photo red light cameras or photographs taken by photo radar cameras. 

The Oregon State House of Representatives passed HB4105 on March 2, 2022 by a vote of 36 to 23. We have assigned pluses to the nays because this legislation is a strong move by the government to interfere even more in our lives. This is an invasion of privacy and we must make sure we stop the government from going further.

Diversity Goals  |  HB4031

HB4031 establishes state goal that percentage of diverse employees employed by Department of Education reflects percentage of diverse students in public schools. 

The Oregon State House of Representatives passed HB4031 on February 16, 2022 by a vote of 36 to 21. We have assigned pluses to the nays because taxpayer funds should not be used to feed into the woke culture. Taxpayers should expect the best and most qualified people to fill positions that they are funding, not to reach diversity goals.

Woke Terminology  |  SB1560

SB1560 updates statutory references to individual who is not citizen or national of United States to replace “alien” with “noncitizen.” 

The Oregon State House of Representatives passed SB1560 on March 4, 2022 by a vote of 48 to 9. We have assigned pluses to the nays because this bill is conforming to the woke leftist culture that focuses on virtue signaling and being politically correct.

Free Speech  |  HB2323

HB2323 prohibits knowingly communicating false statements regarding elections, including by electronic or telephonic means, with intent to mislead electors about date of election, deadline for delivering ballot, voter registration deadline, method of registering to vote, locations at which elector may deposit ballot, qualifications of electors or voter registration status within 30 days of primary election or special election or within 60 days of general election. Violations of this legislation may lead to a fine of $10,000

The Oregon State House of Representatives passed HB2323 on May 10, 2021 by a vote of 54 to 3. We have assigned pluses to the nays because this legislation is another step towards regulating an individuals free speech. No one should be punished or fined for expressing their constitutional rights.

Fees on Farmers  |  HB5201

HB5201 creates new or increases fees adopted by the State Department of Agriculture and the Oregon Health Authority.

The Oregon State Senate passed HB5201 on March 4, 2022 by a vote of 18 to 7. We have assigned pluses to the nays because this negatively affects farmers. This is another way the government interferes in business and the free market. The Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” and government interference in entrepreneurship and private business is in violation of that belief.

Private Forest Protection  |  SB1501

SB1501 pushes to stop deforestation and climate change, regulating private land owners from logging and provides tax credits to land owners who grow their trees longer before logging.

The Oregon State Senate passed SB1501 on March 2, 2022 by a vote of 22 to 5. We have assigned pluses to the nays because this bill will kill thousands of logging jobs due to government interference in the market. This bill also invades property rights of land owners and provides unconstitutional incentives to adhere to the progressive climate change agenda.

Diversity Goals  |  HB4031

HB4031 establishes state goal that percentage of diverse employees employed by Department of Education reflects percentage of diverse students in public schools. 

The Oregon State Senate passed HB4031 on February 28, 2022 by a vote of 17 to 9. We have assigned pluses to the nays because taxpayer funds should not be used to feed into the woke culture. Taxpayers should expect the best and most qualified people to fill positions that they are funding, not to reach diversity goals.

Socialist Housing Program  |  HB4157

HB4157 directs the Department of Revenue to handle a program to provide one-time assistance payments to low-income households to address negative economic impacts of COVID-19 public health emergency. 

The Oregon State Senate passed HB4157 on March 2, 2022 by a vote of 23 to 2. We have assigned pluses to the nays because this is a blatant socialist program where taxpayer dollars and wealth are distributed to only benefit the poor.

Woke Terminology  |  SB1560

SB1560 updates statutory references to individual who is not citizen or national of United States to replace “alien” with “noncitizen.” 

The Oregon State Senate passed SB1560 on March 4, 2022 by a vote of 25 to 0. We have assigned pluses to the nays because this bill is conforming to the woke leftist culture that focuses on virtue signaling and being politically correct.

Free Speech  |  HB2323

HB2323 prohibits knowingly communicating false statements regarding elections, including by electronic or telephonic means, with intent to mislead electors about date of election, deadline for delivering ballot, voter registration deadline, method of registering to vote, locations at which elector may deposit ballot, qualifications of electors or voter registration status within 30 days of primary election or special election or within 60 days of general election. Violations of this legislation may lead to a fine of $10,000

The Oregon State Senate passed HB2323 on June 3, 2021 by a vote of 26 to 3. We have assigned pluses to the nays because this legislation is another step towards regulating an individuals free speech. No one should be punished or fined for expressing their constitutional rights.